Started By
Message
0
Posted on 8/24/25 at 5:47 pm to semjase
quote:
Substitute OKLAHOMA STATE and TULANE for UNC/Duke/Va Tech. OKLAHOMA & LSU need an In-State Rival to end the season with; and let Arkansas & Missouri continue their season closer........
Alabama vs Auburn
Tennessee vs Vanderbilt
Texas vs Texas A&M
Ole Miss vs Miss State
LSU vs Tulane *
Florida vs FSU *
So Carolina vs Clemson *
Oklahoma vs Ok State *
UNC * vs NC State (OOC)
Arkansas vs Missouri ** (OOC)
Kentucky vs Louisville (OOC)
Georgia vs GT (OOC)
** Missouri goes back to the B12
Why? We aren’t saying no to UNC 
Posted on 8/24/25 at 7:33 pm to Uga Alum
quote:
And do they spend that money on athletics?
No but the athletic department does not make the decisions either. In case you missed it was the SEC Presidents that finalized the 9-game conference schedule.
B10 with new TV deal gets between 80-100 million each year per school. So around 1.6 billion. The last numbers I found for AAU funding showed the B10 schools received closed to 11 billion each year.
So yeah, maybe some of the programs operate in the black but the university is more concerned about that federal funding.
Posted on 8/24/25 at 7:50 pm to TideWarrior
Are you arguing that the current BIG schools that are part of the AAU would lose federal funding if the Big added a non-AAU school like Florida State? Or are you saying that the BIG would prefer another AAU school because it would increase the overall federal funding that they currently have?
Is it possible that the presidents of the BIG could look at the present federal funding generated for the research that their conference undertakes and say to themselves, “This is awesome research money. But we could also get more money for each members athletic department by adding members like Florida St. ?”
Is it possible that the presidents of the BIG could look at the present federal funding generated for the research that their conference undertakes and say to themselves, “This is awesome research money. But we could also get more money for each members athletic department by adding members like Florida St. ?”
Posted on 8/24/25 at 7:58 pm to BigBro
My opinion. Add UVA, UNC, Kansas, and Duke or Notre Dame (Notre Dame is not joining the SEC, bad cultural fits so take Duke)
We already have 8 national title contending teams in football and with the playoffs probably 2 more schools that could realistically win one. The Big 10 desperately needs more teams that compete for football championships, let them take FSU, Clemson, Miami. They can deal with the travel expenses and pain in the arse fan bases.
We should go ahead and get to 20, take schools that are respectable in football, have very sound athletic departments, but add another dimension to the conference. All of the schools listed above are national powers in basketball and are state flagship Universities (other than Duke) in addition to being AAU members. Regionalization for numbers do still matter about the eyeballs available. ESPN doesn’t just make deals with cable providers, they also get to make deals with YouTubeTV, Hulu, Fubu, DirecTV etc. Adding the NC, DMV markets are still large, and the KC market isn’t something to sneeze at. Those additional markets give more bargaining power as those are considered name brand programs for basketball outside of the regional addition in football. Adding value to secondary programming like basketball just increases a conferences value overall while not necessarily impacting football numbers.
Rising tides lifts all boats. SEC gets high academic institutions expanding its regionalized viewing segment and improves basketball. These teams would lessen the impact of a football 9 game schedule by diluting the product a little (won’t be quite as tough to go 9-3,10-2). Those teams also have the ability to allow regionalized pods for some permanent opponents with rivalries already existing (UNC, Duke, UVA) and I know Kansas has some existing rivalries with Missouri and Oklahoma.
We already have 8 national title contending teams in football and with the playoffs probably 2 more schools that could realistically win one. The Big 10 desperately needs more teams that compete for football championships, let them take FSU, Clemson, Miami. They can deal with the travel expenses and pain in the arse fan bases.
We should go ahead and get to 20, take schools that are respectable in football, have very sound athletic departments, but add another dimension to the conference. All of the schools listed above are national powers in basketball and are state flagship Universities (other than Duke) in addition to being AAU members. Regionalization for numbers do still matter about the eyeballs available. ESPN doesn’t just make deals with cable providers, they also get to make deals with YouTubeTV, Hulu, Fubu, DirecTV etc. Adding the NC, DMV markets are still large, and the KC market isn’t something to sneeze at. Those additional markets give more bargaining power as those are considered name brand programs for basketball outside of the regional addition in football. Adding value to secondary programming like basketball just increases a conferences value overall while not necessarily impacting football numbers.
Rising tides lifts all boats. SEC gets high academic institutions expanding its regionalized viewing segment and improves basketball. These teams would lessen the impact of a football 9 game schedule by diluting the product a little (won’t be quite as tough to go 9-3,10-2). Those teams also have the ability to allow regionalized pods for some permanent opponents with rivalries already existing (UNC, Duke, UVA) and I know Kansas has some existing rivalries with Missouri and Oklahoma.
This post was edited on 8/24/25 at 8:01 pm
Posted on 8/24/25 at 7:59 pm to Uga Alum
quote:
Is it possible that the presidents of the BIG could look at the present federal funding generated for the research that their conference undertakes and say to themselves, “This is awesome research money. But we could also get more money for each members athletic department by adding members like Florida St. ?”
They absolutely could, but I only see one scenario where they would, and even then, I’m not sure..
The scenario?
If Notre Dame says they are ready to sign, but _____ has to come with them.
If that happens, I dont think FSU or Clemson is that tag along team.. it’s likely Stanford if anyone.
Just my opinion.
Posted on 8/24/25 at 8:06 pm to Uga Alum
quote:
r are you saying that the BIG would prefer another AAU school because it would increase the overall federal funding that they currently have?
Yes, this is what they want.
quote:
Are you arguing that the current BIG schools that are part of the AAU would lose federal funding if the Big added a non-AAU school like Florida State?
No, I was replying to this.
quote:
I think the Big would still prefer AAU status if possible. But it doesn’t matter as much to them as it used to. It’s all about the money now.
AAU is is only getting bigger each year and it still matters more than what the football program generate.
Would FSU bring some more money maybe. It does expand their reach into a new market but TV markets are no longer regional but national.
Posted on 8/24/25 at 8:06 pm to Uga Alum
Arizona and Utah are both AAU and potentially B10 targets. Colorado will be as well if they get AAU status. Very outside shot that Arizona St could be considered by the SEC if this becomes a 2 conference sport. Phoenix and that massive alumni base will be tempting if they become a consistent top 25 team.
Posted on 8/24/25 at 8:51 pm to GruvenDawg
quote:
My opinion. Add UVA, UNC, Kansas, and Duke or Notre Dame (Notre Dame is not joining the SEC, bad cultural fits so take Duke)
Dude. UNC, Duke, UVA… those schools are all a bad cultural fit for the SEC if that matters. If that is what yall want it’s better to just take a nap on Saturday afternoons.
Posted on 8/24/25 at 9:50 pm to GruvenDawg
I’d prefer to not add anyone, but I think 20 is gonna happen.
B1G (18)
ND + Miami
SEC (16)
FSU + Clemson + UNC + UVA
B12 (16)
They may go to 24.
I double counted UCF but you get the point.. there are some others too.. more than 20 is too many imo, but B1G may try to add Stanford, GT, UNC, Duke, UVA
it’s kinda ridiculous..
B1G (18)
ND + Miami
SEC (16)
FSU + Clemson + UNC + UVA
B12 (16)
They may go to 24.
I double counted UCF but you get the point.. there are some others too.. more than 20 is too many imo, but B1G may try to add Stanford, GT, UNC, Duke, UVA
it’s kinda ridiculous..
This post was edited on 8/24/25 at 9:52 pm
Posted on 8/25/25 at 1:24 am to Timstrebor
ND is not even in the South or SouthWest though....
This post was edited on 8/25/25 at 1:25 am
Posted on 8/25/25 at 4:49 am to BigBro
Agreed..most college football fans do to. It sucks.
Posted on 8/25/25 at 5:48 am to Gatorbait2008
What is the criteria that ESPN and the SEC leadership are looking for when potentially adding schools to the SEC? New states/tv markets? Or premium matchups that draw national viewership? Culture fits? Academics/AAU?
It’s probably creating matchups that will draw the highest ratings period.
UNC, and UVA do not bring in good ratings for their football games, and they are historically both mediocre to bad at fb. Culturally they are wine and cheese/liberals types of fans, Also, people constantly tell me that tv markets don’t matter anymore, so what is it about these two?
It’s probably creating matchups that will draw the highest ratings period.
UNC, and UVA do not bring in good ratings for their football games, and they are historically both mediocre to bad at fb. Culturally they are wine and cheese/liberals types of fans, Also, people constantly tell me that tv markets don’t matter anymore, so what is it about these two?
Posted on 8/25/25 at 5:52 am to GTnerd
Long term viability of the conference. North Carolina and Virginia are two states that are growing.
Posted on 8/25/25 at 6:18 am to Uga Alum
GaTech is in. Stop letting bias dictate this to you.
GaTech, Virginia, UNC, Clemson, FSU at minimum are SEC adds.
GaTech, Virginia, UNC, Clemson, FSU at minimum are SEC adds.
Posted on 8/25/25 at 6:51 am to Uga Alum
quote:
Long term viability of the conference. North Carolina and Virginia are two states that are growing.
Why does this matter if TV markets are a future non-issue? Does the SEC need two more Vandy’s?
Posted on 8/25/25 at 7:09 am to GTnerd
quote:
that tv markets don’t matter anymore
For ESPN and other TV stations it is the only thing that matters and what seems to be driving expansion. The more market coverage the bigger the payout. Adding a team from NC and VA puts the SEC From Charlotte to the DMV area.
This is also why adding FSU, Miami, GT, Clemson or even Louisville bring little value outside of some possible great matchups annually with better quality games over what any addition from NC or VA would bring but they add very little to expanding the SEC blueprint.
Posted on 8/25/25 at 7:26 am to TrNabs
quote:
Lets remove aggy and bring in Clemson
Why, we already have Auburn. We don’t need a school that copied everything Auburn does. Clemson will claim more MNCs in a few years.
Posted on 8/25/25 at 7:30 am to GTnerd
The Midwest is largely dying. Enrollment in big ten schools will drop in the coming decades. People and businesses are moving to the South. The South is currently the most populated region in the country (including Texas) and it will only get bigger.
Posted on 8/25/25 at 7:32 am to TideWarrior
I DO agree with you that extra carriage fees (SEC, BIG, ACC network) for tv markets with an in-market team do still matter to the tune of millions per year, but I constantly see people posting that it doesn’t matter anymore because of streaming. Streaming services like youtubetv, hulu etc still have to pay carriage fees for the channels they carry, so it still matters, a lot.
Carriage fees are the only reason the BIg added Rutgers and Maryland.
Eventually if the espn app starts making a dent in cable, satellite, streaming subscriptions then the thing that is going to matter more and more is getting matchups that draw the most eyeballs, which equals more ad revenue. I feel like the SEC is building with most thought towards this model, they want games that will draw nationwide interest because they are fantastic matchups.
Carriage fees are the only reason the BIg added Rutgers and Maryland.
Eventually if the espn app starts making a dent in cable, satellite, streaming subscriptions then the thing that is going to matter more and more is getting matchups that draw the most eyeballs, which equals more ad revenue. I feel like the SEC is building with most thought towards this model, they want games that will draw nationwide interest because they are fantastic matchups.
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News