KANSAS
West Virginia
Virginia
North Carolina…

Those are the ones that SEC looks like and covers whole south state to state connections…

Anyone else is diluting each state long term…

Not sure if SEC can get UNC over BIG but my guess is they will try .. and succeed ..

I think UL is more attractive than WVU to be honest. They will definitely overlap in a few states.

(03-03-2024 12:19 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  I think UL is more attractive than WVU to be honest. They will definitely overlap in a few states.

If Kansas goes to the Big10, you both could get your wish : )

Louisville
West Virginia
Virginia
North Carolina

(03-03-2024 12:19 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  I think UL is more attractive than WVU to be honest. They will definitely overlap in a few states.

The SEC was built on overlapping:

Alabama/Auburn
Georgia/Georgia Tech
LSU/Tulane
Ole Miss/Mississippi State
Tennessee/Vanderbilt

(03-03-2024 01:08 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  

(03-03-2024 12:19 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  I think UL is more attractive than WVU to be honest. They will definitely overlap in a few states.

The SEC was built on overlapping:

Alabama/Auburn
Georgia/Georgia Tech
LSU/Tulane
Ole Miss/Mississippi State
Tennessee/Vanderbilt

Hence why Clemson and Florida State are the prime candidates for further expansion.

SEC is finished with expansion after Texas and Oklahoma , in my opinion.
No other schools adds value equal or greater than those two. Further expansion would only dilute.

(03-03-2024 12:15 PM)pablowow Wrote:  KANSAS
West Virginia
Virginia
North Carolina…

Those are the ones that SEC looks like and covers whole south state to state connections…

Anyone else is diluting each state long term…

Not sure if SEC can get UNC over BIG but my guess is they will try .. and succeed ..

Kansas will never go to the SEC. They see the BIG as a superior conference academically, and they want nothing to do with Missouri. Missouri's feeling towards Kansas is mutual.

West Virginia, although a culutral fit, would be a bad look for the SEC academically, no offense to WVU fans.

As for North Carolina and Virginia, after Clemson and Florida, they are most logical teams to add next. However, I don't think the SEC will end up taking them. Splitting up the Tobacco Road schools would be difficult, and I don't think the SEC has the stomach to make the move.

Virginia also wouldn't be a strong add either in football, but they're on the same level as UNC academically, and they have a consistent tournament presence in basketball. Although, Virginia Tech would be the better fit culturally.

(03-03-2024 12:15 PM)pablowow Wrote:  KANSAS
West Virginia
Virginia
North Carolina…

Those are the ones that SEC looks like and covers whole south state to state connections…

Anyone else is diluting each state long term…

Not sure if SEC can get UNC over BIG but my guess is they will try .. and succeed ..

As a fan of an SEC school, I have a couple of questions that I need your help answering:

1. Why should we pay to subsidize 4 schools that, combined, are worth maybe 1.5 SEC shares? Where do the other 2.5 shares come from? OUR POCKETS, that's where. Pass.
2. Why should I care what States we're in? I care about athletic excellence and how that translates to overall Conference Power. You can make a case that UNC and KU bring that in basketball and that basketball will be worth far more in a few years, but the other 2 don't bring enough value for us to consider them at all.
3. Adding members dilutes voting power of current members. Why should A&M vote to go from 1/16 to 1/20 of the voting power in the SEC, then pay a bunch of money for the privilege of diluting said voting power?

I think I'm about to throw up.

(03-03-2024 01:46 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(03-03-2024 12:15 PM)pablowow Wrote:  KANSAS
West Virginia
Virginia
North Carolina…

Those are the ones that SEC looks like and covers whole south state to state connections…

Anyone else is diluting each state long term…

Not sure if SEC can get UNC over BIG but my guess is they will try .. and succeed ..

As a fan of an SEC school, I have a couple of questions that I need your help answering:

1. Why should we pay to subsidize 4 schools that, combined, are worth maybe 1.5 SEC shares? Where do the other 2.5 shares come from? OUR POCKETS, that's where. Pass.
2. Why should I care what States we're in? I care about athletic excellence and how that translates to overall Conference Power. You can make a case that UNC and KU bring that in basketball and that basketball will be worth far more in a few years, but the other 2 don't bring enough value for us to consider them at all.
3. Adding members dilutes voting power of current members. Why should A&M vote to go from 1/16 to 1/20 of the voting power in the SEC, then pay a bunch of money for the privilege of diluting said voting power?

I think I'm about to throw up.

Those are points that were used in past years as conferences were expanding…

The macro play for SEC is control…

Also A&M is not use to be 1/16th of power so I can see why 1/20 th scares you..

As you also look at athletics … not every school is going to have an oil well…

A&M is unique in that it is huge in wealth and value.. but you do realize you have Ole Miss, State, Vanderbilt etc that add value in other ways…

Having the state u in all states southern is not a stretch for SEC vision..

Thanks

I agree SEC doesn't need help
will FSU & Clemson bring viewers as also rans
NC & Va prefer the BIG, besides ACC BB is sliding down ward already

North Carolina and North Carolina State are a package deal. Nobody will convince me otherwise. The Congresspeople of North Carolina have made this abundantly clear.

Since the Big Ten won't take the Wolfpack, both of them are going to the SEC (my guess is after ESPN doesn't renew in 2027, but if not then, then at the end of the antiquated GOR that the ACC will play out).

Virginia? I don't see the value in adding CW Network teams, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Big Ten swoons for them given their connections to D.C. politicians and overall high academic standing in the world. So, for me, they go Big Ten.

Are Virginia and Virginia Tech tied at the hip? Nope. The SEC takes Virginia Tech because the Big Ten will want a school like Colorado or Miami instead of a double-dip in Virginia.

West Virginia? Man, I love the people and I love the state. The powers that be, however do not like either the people or the state. West Virginia has some scary crime statistics. Will the SEC take them? Man, I don't know. Louisville brings a lot of cache and does all of the things West Virginia does a little bit better than West Virginia does them (football, hoops, women's sports). I'd venture its also located closer to a major airport. It sucks, but I don't think West Virginia makes it to the Power 2/NFL-Lite setup.

Colorado? Easily Big Ten.

Kansas? That's a close call between Big Ten and SEC. I'll say SEC, but it's not a strong feeling one way or the other. There's pros and cons to each conference and this is dead even right in the middle of America right on the dividing line of the two conferences.

Arizona? If I were the SEC, I'd take them. But there's seems to be a desire among SEC fans to keep the SEC southern (and, yes, Kansas stretches that notion) and I think Arizona is too Yankee to pull this off. So, Wildcats go to the Big Ten... or Arizona State if you prefer. In that case, Arizona thrives in a very good Pac Ten/Mountain West/Big XII M2 conference.

Final answers?

(24) SEC + UNC, NC State, VT, Kansas, Florida State, Clemson, GT, Louisville

(24) B1G + Notre Dame (it eventually happens), Virginia, Colorado, Arizona, Connecticut (Big Ten will want to add 3-4 men's/women's hoops nattys every decade), Stanford (Dems win big on this pick... ugh, I get chills thinking about for far this place has fallen from grace to become the cesspool it is now).

(03-03-2024 03:32 PM)Sparty Baby 84 Wrote:  North Carolina and North Carolina State are a package deal. Nobody will convince me otherwise. The Congresspeople of North Carolina have made this abundantly clear.

Fluguar covered this on one of the recent live shows. Very telling.

Clemson is SEC or bust IMO. I don’t think the B1G is seriously considering them unless they can get them on the cheap. FSU will get full shares immediately. Miami probably partial.

With that, Clemson UNC NCSU to the SEC makes a lot of sense. If UVa can’t get away from VaTech, Duke could get the SEC as well. Too much synergy there. Tripling up in Carolina may seem crazy, but GaTech is not going to get it and neither is UVa if they are tied with VaTech. Otherwise, the Carolinamony will be gargantuan for the Tar Heels.

VaTech UVa GaTech UL Pitt then slip into the Big 12. That’s 21. USF is a possibility. 22. Do they take Cal/Furd, at least for football?

Olympic Divisions (Football scheduled unbalanced/protected rivals)

4C Cal Furd
BYU KU KSU ISU OkieSt TTech
Baylor TCU Houston UCF USF GaTech
Pitt UL UVa VaTech WVU UC

Money rivalries… and SMU gets screwed… again.

(03-03-2024 01:46 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(03-03-2024 12:15 PM)pablowow Wrote:  KANSAS
West Virginia
Virginia
North Carolina…

Those are the ones that SEC looks like and covers whole south state to state connections…

Anyone else is diluting each state long term…

Not sure if SEC can get UNC over BIG but my guess is they will try .. and succeed ..

As a fan of an SEC school, I have a couple of questions that I need your help answering:

1. Why should we pay to subsidize 4 schools that, combined, are worth maybe 1.5 SEC shares? Where do the other 2.5 shares come from? OUR POCKETS, that's where. Pass.
2. Why should I care what States we're in? I care about athletic excellence and how that translates to overall Conference Power. You can make a case that UNC and KU bring that in basketball and that basketball will be worth far more in a few years, but the other 2 don't bring enough value for us to consider them at all.
3. Adding members dilutes voting power of current members. Why should A&M vote to go from 1/16 to 1/20 of the voting power in the SEC, then pay a bunch of money for the privilege of diluting said voting power?

I think I'm about to throw up.

Explain to me carefully what part of "PRO RATA" is it that you don't comprehend? Aggie won't be losing money and neither will any other SEC school. In fact as soon as we move to an upper tier and have a closed playoff system we will all make more money!

Now as to the rest of this thread:
1. It is an erroneous assumption that the SEC will only add from outside of its current footprint. The SEC will add for brand power, total value, and intrinsic purposes. Brand power is Florida State, Clemson, North Carolina, Kansas, Duke and to a slightly lesser extent Miami and Virginia Tech. And that I say acknowledging freely that while the SEC is not pursuing Notre Dame if they should ever inquire there would be interest.

2. Ideally Acres we should be able to end at 16. But we aren't in ideal times and if networks want a consolidated upper tier the SEC will be compelled to go along to match inventory and revenue.

3. What are likely the new markets? Kansas, North Carolina and Virginia.

4. What are the intrinsic reasons for adding anyone? Solving scheduling demands for games in Florida would easily lead to adding a second, or even possibly a third Florida school.

5. To the OP I would modify your terms to my response to your original query. The new markets the SEC would seek are Kansas, North Carolina, Virginia. And part of Florida they don't already reach, Miami, and failing Miami they would add Florida State. Miami is a new market for the SEC.

(03-03-2024 04:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-03-2024 01:46 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(03-03-2024 12:15 PM)pablowow Wrote:  KANSAS
West Virginia
Virginia
North Carolina…

Those are the ones that SEC looks like and covers whole south state to state connections…

Anyone else is diluting each state long term…

Not sure if SEC can get UNC over BIG but my guess is they will try .. and succeed ..

As a fan of an SEC school, I have a couple of questions that I need your help answering:

1. Why should we pay to subsidize 4 schools that, combined, are worth maybe 1.5 SEC shares? Where do the other 2.5 shares come from? OUR POCKETS, that's where. Pass.
2. Why should I care what States we're in? I care about athletic excellence and how that translates to overall Conference Power. You can make a case that UNC and KU bring that in basketball and that basketball will be worth far more in a few years, but the other 2 don't bring enough value for us to consider them at all.
3. Adding members dilutes voting power of current members. Why should A&M vote to go from 1/16 to 1/20 of the voting power in the SEC, then pay a bunch of money for the privilege of diluting said voting power?

I think I'm about to throw up.

Explain to me carefully what part of "PRO RATA" is it that you don't comprehend? Aggie won't be losing money and neither will any other SEC school. In fact as soon as we move to an upper tier and have a closed playoff system we will all make more money!

Now as to the rest of this thread:
1. It is an erroneous assumption that the SEC will only add from outside of its current footprint. The SEC will add for brand power, total value, and intrinsic purposes. Brand power is Florida State, Clemson, North Carolina, Kansas, Duke and to a slightly lesser extent Miami and Virginia Tech. And that I say acknowledging freely that while the SEC is not pursuing Notre Dame if they should ever inquire there would be interest.

2. Ideally Acres we should be able to end at 16. But we aren't in ideal times and if networks want a consolidated upper tier the SEC will be compelled to go along to match inventory and revenue.

3. What are likely the new markets? Kansas, North Carolina and Virginia.

4. What are the intrinsic reasons for adding anyone? Solving scheduling demands for games in Florida would easily lead to adding a second, or even possibly a third Florida school.

5. To the OP I would modify your terms to my response to your original query. The new markets the SEC would seek are Kansas, North Carolina, Virginia. And part of Florida they don't already reach, Miami, and failing Miami they would add Florida State. Miami is a new market for the SEC.

Correct. However, I think the consolidation has already happened with recent BIG/SEC moves. SEC owns the Red River rivalry now, which was probably the most valuable property that wasn’t already owned by the conference. ESPN said they valued rivalries. What other rivalries are still out there that would add equal value to the SEC. Again, you have a better feel of the conference than I do, but I doubt they’d add to add. There has to be a need and right now , I don’t see any, outside Notre Dame.

(03-03-2024 09:13 PM)Acres Wrote:  

(03-03-2024 04:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-03-2024 01:46 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(03-03-2024 12:15 PM)pablowow Wrote:  KANSAS
West Virginia
Virginia
North Carolina…

Those are the ones that SEC looks like and covers whole south state to state connections…

Anyone else is diluting each state long term…

Not sure if SEC can get UNC over BIG but my guess is they will try .. and succeed ..

As a fan of an SEC school, I have a couple of questions that I need your help answering:

1. Why should we pay to subsidize 4 schools that, combined, are worth maybe 1.5 SEC shares? Where do the other 2.5 shares come from? OUR POCKETS, that's where. Pass.
2. Why should I care what States we're in? I care about athletic excellence and how that translates to overall Conference Power. You can make a case that UNC and KU bring that in basketball and that basketball will be worth far more in a few years, but the other 2 don't bring enough value for us to consider them at all.
3. Adding members dilutes voting power of current members. Why should A&M vote to go from 1/16 to 1/20 of the voting power in the SEC, then pay a bunch of money for the privilege of diluting said voting power?

I think I'm about to throw up.

Explain to me carefully what part of "PRO RATA" is it that you don't comprehend? Aggie won't be losing money and neither will any other SEC school. In fact as soon as we move to an upper tier and have a closed playoff system we will all make more money!

Now as to the rest of this thread:
1. It is an erroneous assumption that the SEC will only add from outside of its current footprint. The SEC will add for brand power, total value, and intrinsic purposes. Brand power is Florida State, Clemson, North Carolina, Kansas, Duke and to a slightly lesser extent Miami and Virginia Tech. And that I say acknowledging freely that while the SEC is not pursuing Notre Dame if they should ever inquire there would be interest.

2. Ideally Acres we should be able to end at 16. But we aren't in ideal times and if networks want a consolidated upper tier the SEC will be compelled to go along to match inventory and revenue.

3. What are likely the new markets? Kansas, North Carolina and Virginia.

4. What are the intrinsic reasons for adding anyone? Solving scheduling demands for games in Florida would easily lead to adding a second, or even possibly a third Florida school.

5. To the OP I would modify your terms to my response to your original query. The new markets the SEC would seek are Kansas, North Carolina, Virginia. And part of Florida they don't already reach, Miami, and failing Miami they would add Florida State. Miami is a new market for the SEC.

Correct. However, I think the consolidation has already happened with recent BIG/SEC moves. SEC owns the Red River rivalry now, which was probably the most valuable property that wasn’t already owned by the conference. ESPN said they valued rivalries. What other rivalries are still out there that would add equal value to the SEC. Again, you have a better feel of the conference than I do, but I doubt they’d add to add. There has to be a need and right now , I don’t see any, outside Notre Dame.

Clemson, Florida State, Miami, and a pair from North Carolina for the market. The thing is ESPN built in an uncapped pro rata for additions to the SEC in the SEC's new contract. That would be a mechanism for their convenience if they wanted to move the valuable brands to the SEC where they would be worth more to ESPN by the multiplied content leaders they would play and the combined higher viewership games, but wouldn't necessarily be worth more to the current SEC. At that point it's ESPN's call and as long as they put the money in to make it work and the schools fit by giving the SEC both sides of the annual revenue for games like FSU/ UF and UF / Miami and FSU/Miami then so be it. Clemson/South Carolina too. Most of those series are historically competitive.

In 1991 and 2011 UF pushed for FSU's inclusion and in 2011 USC pushed for Clemson's inclusion because those games were the key factor in both school's donation campaigns for tickets and both presidents feared that continued additions would render it very hard to play those games, and to pay them as the last game of the regular season. So, there's that impetus. And in Florida the issue is the Gators only have 4 or 5 games if we move to 9 in which they can schedule home SEC games and every school in the conference wants games in Florida to help with recruiting. Adding FSU increases that to an average of 9 games a year which means in an 18-member conference each school plays in Florida every 2 years. Toss in Miami and you have 14-15 such opportunities a year and it pleases everyone whether you grow to 20 or 24 schools. So, if ESPN will pay for that why not do it?

(03-03-2024 01:22 PM)andybible1995 Wrote:  Kansas will never go to the SEC. ... they want nothing to do with Missouri. Missouri's feeling towards Kansas is mutual.

Obviously you are not familiar with the rivalry, nor the linked cultures (from the Big 8 days) and economies.

KU is happy in the Big XII, but if either, or both the SEC and B1G want to talk, we'll listen carefully.