KrAzY, I am a big fan of yours and certainly respect your contribution on here, but with all due respect Notre Dame is the midwest's version of Texas. They would, IMO, be a horrible fit in the SEC. I do however agree with your opinion on Oklahoma and that the SEC should look to the ACC for its next members.
Well, if we agreed on everything there wouldn't be anything left to discuss would there? I enjoy discussing certain things, and I think there's a lot to be learned through discussion. I try to be impersonal when discussing something, and while my disagreement might be strong on some issues, it doesn't mean I think less of someone because of it.
Anyway, Notre Dame kind of goes against my basic premise that the SEC has all the football powers it needs. So, that alone is reason enough to question my support of adding Notre Dame. I just see Notre Dame as a special case, and a part of the SEC's battle with the Big 10 for supremacy. So far the SEC has gained ground, but that's what they did, they gained ground. The Big 10 has been richer and more powerful for a long time and the SEC is just now starting to pull even, a final round of expansion might determine who holds the top spot for years to come.
Notre Dame always gets a seat at the table, even in the playoffs they were afforded one. They hold more power than they should, they get more respect than they should, but if they are a (full) member of either the Big 10 or the SEC, they will bring a lot of influence with them. The SEC has looked inept politically, trying to get rules passed that they can't, almost getting completely railroaded in the playoff creation. For all their on field prowess, they're still not respected politically, and honestly to me adding Notre Dame would be a political move.
Having said that, it should only be as a full and equal member, and the chances of that are terribly low. I don't think it will happen, I don't think it should happen otherwise, but if the SEC gained Notre Dame, they'd be keeping them away from the Big 10 and would make major inroads into Big 10 territory as well. If nothing else, I think the SEC making it known that Notre Dame would be welcome might keep them from making a premature jump to the Big 10. Anyway, I get your hesitation though, it's an odd, unlikely potential pairing that could easily go wrong.
To re-frame the entire discussion some, here's the top licensing sales, I think this adds some context to one aspect of what we've been discussing (mind you, this includes about 200 universities, not all):
https://www.clc.com/News/Annual-Rankings-2013-14.aspx
The first thing you can take from this is how great the SEC did on their latest expansion. They brought in two strong brands (9/19) and with those two schools they gained over 30 million in population. The Big 10 added 3 schools (13,43,53), less TV sets and weaker brands. They have the strongest network though, so it shows how much raw value they place on TV sets alone with their last addition.
By looking at the list you can easily see the top targets and really the programs holding the weaker conferences together. Texas 1/Oklahoma 12, FSU 8/North Carolina 10, and Notre Dame at 4. Those are the major players. For instance, there was some talk of FSU and Clemson heading to the Big 12 when they get upset with the new TV deal. I don't know if that was all talk, or if the silly 10 team Big 12 nonsense was an obstacle, but had it happened the Big 12 would have become rock solid again, and the ACC would have been on life support.
Anyway, from the SEC's perspective Texas and FSU are redundant, the SEC is already in those states. That really just leaves Notre Dame, North Carolina, and Oklahoma as top brand targets. Indiana has 6.5 million, North Carolina has 9.9 million, Oklahoma has 3.8 million. You can see why, potential football issues aside, Oklahoma is far less attractive than those other two programs. The real question then becomes do you value a 30 Duke or a 44 Virginia over a 12 Oklahoma? I think if you look at what motivated the richest conference with the most network data, you'd have to say that TV sets are more important than the brand.
There's a bit more to be gathered from that though, and that's the potential downfall of some brands. I wish all were listed, but you see the SEC's worst, Vanderbilt at 56. They to me show what you don't want to do, you want want their level of football attendance, you don't want a brand that weak. You want something better than that. But, look at Georgia Tech, they're sitting at 50. They used to be one of the SEC's best, so it shows that a brand can become seriously eroded. Or look at Colorado, there was a time they were playing for titles. 49th is pretty sad. So, a brand isn't something that is guaranteed in the long run, they can rise and fall of course. So, the brand is a big plus, but I don't think it can be the main factor for any addition.