Report:The SEC Is Targeting Ohio State, Clemson, Michigan And Florida State For Expansion

If the SEC adds addtional teams, which are LIKELY choices? (Choose as many as you believe likely)

  • Michigan

    Votes: 4 8.5%
  • Ohio State

    Votes: 4 8.5%
  • Clemson

    Votes: 29 61.7%
  • Florida State

    Votes: 28 59.6%
  • Other Big 12 schools

    Votes: 1 2.1%
  • Other Big 10/11 schools

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other ACC schools

    Votes: 15 31.9%
  • Pac 12 schools

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • AAC schools

    Votes: 1 2.1%
  • CUSA schools

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Independents schools

    Votes: 1 2.1%
  • Mountain West schools

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Sun Belt schools

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No immediate (next 1-3 years) additions

    Votes: 14 29.8%

  • Total voters
    47

TideEngineer08

TideFans Legend
Jun 9, 2009
25,359
10,171
187
Beautiful Cullman, AL
I saw somewhere that Florida State/Clemson has an agreement with ACC that runs through 2036.
Grant of Rights.

Basically, the ACC owns the teams's media rights until 2036 whether they are in the ACC or not. Most think it will be a steep negotiation for any team to leave that arrangement any time soon.

The same is true for the Big 12, but as we know, that is up in 2025 and is most likely far more negotiable at the present time.
 
  • Thank You
Reactions: CrimsonTheory

KrAzY3

Hall of Fame
Jan 18, 2006
9,621
1,450
187
41
www.myspace.com
But the SEC's money will equal or surpass the B1G shortly.
The SEC is currently set to pull even with the Big 10 in 2025, yes may be even surpass them by then (my understanding is the new SEC deal goes live then but exact numbers have been been released). I was discussing that here months ago..

That's why I didn't really follow you when you said the SEC was clearly ahead of the Big 10.
You keep referring to geographic footprint but that is becoming an outdated metric. Yes, it still matters but not like it did 10 years or so ago. Streaming subscriptions, not cable boxes are becoming the measuring stick.
I keep referring to the geographical footprint because that's what defines who cheers for what team. Here's a map that it a bit outdated but illustrates what I'm talking about.


You'll note how the geographical boundaries mean a lot. If you're an in-state team your territory can grow within the state, but it goes down dramatically once you reach the state line. Geography means almost everything when it comes to who cheers for what team. The SEC dominates SEC states, they don't dominate non-SEC states.. If you're in North Carolina you watch North Carolina, in Ohio you watch Ohio State. If you're in Alabama you watch Alabama. And yes, if you're in Missouri you watch Missouri. You enter a state, you get those eyes yes on streaming services! It's just a different way to consume the same product. I don't understand the notion that streaming could make people cheer for different teams. Things are a bit different when we talk big game TV ratings, but we're talking general consumption.

As far as some of the other stuff, TCU is a poor addition to the Pac-12 (bad addition to the Big 12 as well and I said as much at the time, it added virtually no new territory and helped put them into their current death spiral). Texas Tech however is a great addition. As far as basketball, it is still and has been a large component of TV deals because people watch basketball games to, and to conference networks because basketball provides a lot of content. It is a revenue sport, that's why Kentucky and Louisville make more than Clemson.

I've been making a lot of the same points for ten years because all my research leads me to the same conclusions, and yes with a mind towards something that didn't even exist at the time, the SEC Network. I said well before it happened the SEC could and should add Missouri and Texas A&M (one reason I said add them was because I thought their footprint would grow and it has). They did and despite the changing landscape, it set the SEC up to pull even financially with the Big 10. I also back then said Virginia and North Carolina would be solid additions, and we now know the SEC was in fact discussing doing that as well. So, it isn't like I wasn't coming to my conclusions randomly.

Edit: Having said all that, there are many, many moving parts. I can't know what exactly the long-term plans are. I can't say who the SEC will add now anymore than I could back when I said they should try to lure Texas A&M away from the Big 12. I can just point out why for instance it would benefit the SEC more to add North Carolina than it would benefit them to add Clemson.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: dathbama

TideEngineer08

TideFans Legend
Jun 9, 2009
25,359
10,171
187
Beautiful Cullman, AL
I look at it like this: what is going to get a national audience to tune in? Alabama vs. Clemson or Alabama vs. North Carolina? In fairness, Alabama's inclusion is going to draw a large audience regardless. What about Georgia vs. Clemson or Georgia vs. North Carolina?

The population of the state of North Carolina is larger than that of South Carolina, however, the national audiences for the games above are going to be larger when Clemson is involved vs. North Carolina. In fact, more people from inside the state of NC will tune in for Clemson than they will UNC!

Streaming services matter more now than they did 10 years ago because they've become more ubiquitous. Fewer and fewer people are signing up for cable services that tack on channels. So it no longer matters that you've got a footprint in the state of Virginia and thus will get all of those cable tv subscriptions that have bundled in the SEC Network. Now that people are streaming these things, it matters that people are actually tuning into the SEC Network. So your targets must be for teams that people around the country are actually going to tune in to watch.

Would the Big Ten reach for Rutgers and Maryland today, now that cable cord-cutting has become the norm? Almost certainly not. Because Rutgers never did have people in NYC tuning in to watch them, and Maryland didn't have large DC numbers tuning in either.

And this is why Oklahoma matters. More and more people are going to purchase SEC Network subscriptions because they will want to see Oklahoma play. Same for Texas, obviously. I'm not saying North Carolina and Virginia don't matter anymore or that they wouldn't be fantastic additions. Of course they would. But adding new states to your lineup no longer matters as it once did.

Finally, does anyone seriously think the addition of Notre Dame matters because it brings in those lucrative Indiana markets? Surely not. It matters because people around the country will tune in to watch Notre Dame play. I'm not saying let's go out and get FSU and Clemson. Frankly, FSU doesn't register like it once did. I'm only saying getting those cable boxes in populous states no longer matters as much as it did 10 years ago, because those cable boxes have been steadily disappearing.
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
27,837
12,214
287
51
Wishing I was somewhere close to Duluth with a sli
And this is why Oklahoma matters. More and more people are going to purchase SEC Network subscriptions because they will want to see Oklahoma play.
Here's where I get lost.

Why?

Let's face it: the only games that are on the SEC Network, etc are games Oklahoma is playing that shouldn't be contests anyway. When Oklahoma plays Texas or Alabama, it's going to be the game of the week.

I don't disagree really with any of the basic substance of what you're saying, but this whole "people are gonna get subscriptions to the SEC Network because OU and Texas" sounds an awful lot to me like the uh logic that was used to sell the Longhorn Network and struck the fear of God (or Texas, pardon the redundancy if you live inside the state borders) into every other Big 12 program. LHN has been a top to bottom disaster like, well, the Texas football program.

I think in this day and age of "the game is uploaded to You Tube within 48 hours" that the "let's watch it again" is not necessary for the SECN, and if I have minimal interest I can go to the sports bar and see all the other good games and still tune in mine on the rare chance it happens to be a close contest.

I'm not so much disagreeing with you as I am wondering "why." Your other points - particularly about Rutgers, etc - are spot on.
 

TideEngineer08

TideFans Legend
Jun 9, 2009
25,359
10,171
187
Beautiful Cullman, AL
Here's where I get lost.

Why?

Let's face it: the only games that are on the SEC Network, etc are games Oklahoma is playing that shouldn't be contests anyway. When Oklahoma plays Texas or Alabama, it's going to be the game of the week.

I don't disagree really with any of the basic substance of what you're saying, but this whole "people are gonna get subscriptions to the SEC Network because OU and Texas" sounds an awful lot to me like the uh logic that was used to sell the Longhorn Network and struck the fear of God (or Texas, pardon the redundancy if you live inside the state borders) into every other Big 12 program. LHN has been a top to bottom disaster like, well, the Texas football program.

I think in this day and age of "the game is uploaded to You Tube within 48 hours" that the "let's watch it again" is not necessary for the SECN, and if I have minimal interest I can go to the sports bar and see all the other good games and still tune in mine on the rare chance it happens to be a close contest.

I'm not so much disagreeing with you as I am wondering "why." Your other points - particularly about Rutgers, etc - are spot on.
I really shouldn't have even mentioned the SECN. No matter which channel it's on, ESPN, SECN, ESPN2, etc... what I meant was which teams will have people actually tuning in to watch?

That's what matters today.
 

KrAzY3

Hall of Fame
Jan 18, 2006
9,621
1,450
187
41
www.myspace.com
I look at it like this: what is going to get a national audience to tune in? Alabama vs. Clemson or Alabama vs. North Carolina? In fairness, Alabama's inclusion is going to draw a large audience regardless. What about Georgia vs. Clemson or Georgia vs. North Carolina?
It's not about cable boxes, it's about eyeballs.

This is the thing here that I think some people are missing. When we had these conversations ten years ago, people weren't talking about Clemson, why is that? Because at the time Clemson was an also-ran in the ACC. People were talking FSU and Virginia Tech.

There is no permanence to Clemson as a football power! You can make a much more solid argument for Oklahoma in that regard and that's why my statements about Oklahoma have been different. Clemson is not Oklahoma. They're nothing like Oklahoma. They make 30 million a year less than Oklahoma.

So, the real question is who is going to watch Clemson play Alabama when they're a 6-4 team? That's the question you should be asking. Because their success could not continue within the SEC, so you have to look at them like they were before then. You know back when South Carolina was by far the most popular team in the state.

Once Clemson goes back to being Clemson (and I said the same thing about Virginia Tech years ago, and everyone stopped talking about them as this great football addition because they stopped winning games), then what? As far as North Carolina, how about North Carolina playing Kentucky in basketball? How many people watch that?

You just can't add FSU, Clemson, Oklahoma, Texas AND a 9th conference game and then view it as though those programs will maintain their current level of success. That's not possible, someone has to lose. So you have to strip them of the title of football power and consider what they bring to the table if they're a team with a .500 record. Then you can view them on the merits, not just based on what they've done lately. How would you view Clemson if they'd been performing like Tennessee has lately? How big a game would that be in 10 years after several years of mediocre play?

I see it as a simple logical conclusion. Clemson wasn't a big deal ten years ago and they wouldn't be a big deal ten years in as an SEC member. Then what do you have? Another small state with two programs... You add these teams are a permanent member. Adding Clemson because a lot of people would watch in 2022 is shortsighted. You add them because you are sure people would be watching in 2033 and I see no reason to believe Clemson's success would continue like that in the SEC.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: mrusso

KrAzY3

Hall of Fame
Jan 18, 2006
9,621
1,450
187
41
www.myspace.com
I'm not trying to make a case for Clemson. I don't want Clemson. But I do know that no one gives a crap about UNC football and basketball doesn't make nearly the money football does.

Frankly, I don't want anymore teams.
I've said a lot on this issue over the past decade or so and I've also read a lot that I haven't said. So, in one sense I've said too much and in another sense I haven't said enough.

To try to oversimplify this, in my opinion conference expansion is a bit like a game of risk or other turn based strategy games I've enjoyed. You are trying to gain control of territory but the key here is you are claiming territory, the territory you are claiming doesn't necessarily have to be have considerable military might. You can claim territory held by a weak army, but you're still laying claim to it.

That's key here, because the SEC's reach isn't necessarily dictated by football prowess. The SEC dominates the state of Missouri despite a fairly mediocre program residing there. You have the same thing with Arkansas and so on. You are gaining footholds, increasing your territory. Once a state becomes an SEC state, their TV sets tune-in to SEC games at a much higher rate, and yes that includes their smart TVs.

The most important part in all of this is that your conquering army is strong enough. It can be Alabama or Ohio State but the might is what helps you lay claim to the territory. You're keeping the conference relevant in the state because the conference is having success.

The flip side though is you have to consider what a lot of programs look like without any football success. The SEC added two more football bluebloods and will add a 9th conference game most likely. Even without FSU and Clemson teams are going to lose a lot more football games and in a few years some of those will be viewed as not being football powers.

So, you need to strip away the trappings of recent football success and analyze the programs. I understand why the SEC added Oklahoma and Texas. I dislike it for my own reasons but I can see in the data why they did that. Clemson's data doesn't look like that. Even FSU raises red flags, for instance their attendance in football is about the same as North Carolina's.

So why if their attendance is solid but not great would I suggest North Carolina? Well because they bring a new state, and a big basketball brand. Which admittedly isn't as valuable as football but still holds actual meaningful value in TV deals. That's why the ACC still has a TV deal that was competitive with 2 of the less power 5 programs. North Carolina is worth more when they suck at football than Clemson will be. Someone has to lose, so I say you look at programs that will be of value when they lose.

I said this a long time ago but my two dream additions would be North Carolina and Notre Dame. That's the one move the Big 10 can't counter. You're not adding them for the same reasons though right? But you have to parse all the data to create a complete picture and that's what I came up with. Having said that, if it isn't that type of "dream" addition I'd prefer they not add more teams as well.
 

bamadwain

1st Team
Oct 8, 2018
709
511
117
Jackson Tn
I've said a lot on this issue over the past decade or so and I've also read a lot that I haven't said. So, in one sense I've said too much and in another sense I haven't said enough.

To try to oversimplify this, in my opinion conference expansion is a bit like a game of risk or other turn based strategy games I've enjoyed. You are trying to gain control of territory but the key here is you are claiming territory, the territory you are claiming doesn't necessarily have to be have considerable military might. You can claim territory held by a weak army, but you're still laying claim to it.

That's key here, because the SEC's reach isn't necessarily dictated by football prowess. The SEC dominates the state of Missouri despite a fairly mediocre program residing there. You have the same thing with Arkansas and so on. You are gaining footholds, increasing your territory. Once a state becomes an SEC state, their TV sets tune-in to SEC games at a much higher rate, and yes that includes their smart TVs.

The most important part in all of this is that your conquering army is strong enough. It can be Alabama or Ohio State but the might is what helps you lay claim to the territory. You're keeping the conference relevant in the state because the conference is having success.

The flip side though is you have to consider what a lot of programs look like without any football success. The SEC added two more football bluebloods and will add a 9th conference game most likely. Even without FSU and Clemson teams are going to lose a lot more football games and in a few years some of those will be viewed as not being football powers.

So, you need to strip away the trappings of recent football success and analyze the programs. I understand why the SEC added Oklahoma and Texas. I dislike it for my own reasons but I can see in the data why they did that. Clemson's data doesn't look like that. Even FSU raises red flags, for instance their attendance in football is about the same as North Carolina's.

So why if their attendance is solid but not great would I suggest North Carolina? Well because they bring a new state, and a big basketball brand. Which admittedly isn't as valuable as football but still holds actual meaningful value in TV deals. That's why the ACC still has a TV deal that was competitive with 2 of the less power 5 programs. North Carolina is worth more when they suck at football than Clemson will be. Someone has to lose, so I say you look at programs that will be of value when they lose.

I said this a long time ago but my two dream additions would be North Carolina and Notre Dame. That's the one move the Big 10 can't counter. You're not adding them for the same reasons though right? But you have to parse all the data to create a complete picture and that's what I came up with. Having said that, if it isn't that type of "dream" addition I'd prefer they not add more teams as well.
I agree with alot you are saying, FSU overall has a good athletic brand even though football is down, and Carolina will bring alot of basketball followers. This day and time it's not only with cable but streaming networks as well, I believe they will add up to 4 more Clemson, Fla State, Miami and UNC,and i think this is already in the works
 

TideEngineer08

TideFans Legend
Jun 9, 2009
25,359
10,171
187
Beautiful Cullman, AL
I said this a long time ago but my two dream additions would be North Carolina and Notre Dame. That's the one move the Big 10 can't counter. You're not adding them for the same reasons though right? But you have to parse all the data to create a complete picture and that's what I came up with. Having said that, if it isn't that type of "dream" addition I'd prefer they not add more teams as well.
I think the Big 10 would love to do just that, but Notre Dame is a non-starter for any conference, IMO, except maybe the ACC. Dominos would have to fall for that, to be sure, but Notre Dame isn't joining a conference unless forced, and if forced I think they will work with the ACC.

I have seen it mentioned several places that the Big Ten is eyeing UNC, Virginia, and Georgia Tech. Maybe Duke as well. If that went down, does it force Notre Dame to reevaluate? But I think there is a very slim chance that goes down since the ACC is locked in until 2036.

In any event, I'd prefer the status quo with the exception of these other conferences going ahead and cleaning up the mess left behind in the Big 12. West Virginia should be in the ACC. Numbers be damned. That would reunite WVU and Pitt. Let the Pac 12 scoop up whatever combo they want of what's left, and then the rest can go to the AAC or MWC.
 
  • Like
Reactions: B1GTide and KrAzY3

KrAzY3

Hall of Fame
Jan 18, 2006
9,621
1,450
187
41
www.myspace.com
I think the Big 10 would love to do just that, but Notre Dame is a non-starter for any conference, IMO, except maybe the ACC. Dominos would have to fall for that, to be sure, but Notre Dame isn't joining a conference unless forced, and if forced I think they will work with the ACC.

I have seen it mentioned several places that the Big Ten is eyeing UNC, Virginia, and Georgia Tech. Maybe Duke as well. If that went down, does it force Notre Dame to reevaluate? But I think there is a very slim chance that goes down since the ACC is locked in until 2036.

In any event, I'd prefer the status quo with the exception of these other conferences going ahead and cleaning up the mess left behind in the Big 12. West Virginia should be in the ACC. Numbers be damned. That would reunite WVU and Pitt. Let the Pac 12 scoop up whatever combo they want of what's left, and then the rest can go to the AAC or MWC.
I think UNC and Virginia could prove to be very valuable long-term. It would take a lot to explain my position fully, but the oversimplification is expanding brand reach into state populations of 19 million. The Big 10 cynically seems to have realized that they can keep up their revenue without adding football powers as long as the state populations are large enough. Even if you disliked the Maryland/Rutgers move (I wasn't in love with it, it didn't really move the needle), it's easy to see that Virginia and North Carolina would be a better move than that.

If they overplayed that by adding Georgia Tech or Duke... that would blow up in their face most likely. Geographic expansion doesn't really work if the brand you are adding isn't big enough within the state. No one cares about Georgia Tech in football in the state of Georgia. It's sad really, Alabama is more popular there I believe. Same thing with Duke. NC actually has fans in football, Duke doesn't and in that regard they are a liability.

It would be kind of funny if the Big 10 had the right move to make and overshot it. We'll see but I do think in the long run Notre Dame is going to be the big prize. They can hold a conference together or give a ton of political influence to the conference of their choosing. After that it's probably North Carolina since they stand between the Big 10 and SEC in a state with the population of 10 million.
 
Last edited:

bamadwain

1st Team
Oct 8, 2018
709
511
117
Jackson Tn
Everything comes down to geographic territory, football pays the bills and everyone knows that but when you have your soccer, golf, baseball, softball, etc. teams bus to events instead of jumping on jets like football and basketball you'll have to be picky that's why i believe NOTRE DAME and teams further out west will not join the sec
 

B1GTide

TideFans Legend
Apr 13, 2012
38,969
26,999
187
There are several teams in the ACC which would work well in the SEC - Virginia and VaTech come to mind. Maybe get GaTech to come back just to annoy the GA fan base.
 

TideEngineer08

TideFans Legend
Jun 9, 2009
25,359
10,171
187
Beautiful Cullman, AL
There are several teams in the ACC which would work well in the SEC - Virginia and VaTech come to mind. Maybe get GaTech to come back just to annoy the GA fan base.
Georgia Tech belongs in the SEC. Apart from the Georgia rivalry, they have played Auburn nearly 100 times and that was a big game. They also had a long standing rivalry with us until they exited the conference in the 1960s. It got ugly during those last few contests.

But alas, they got upset, left the conference and now I'm certain that door will never be open again. I'd gladly trade them for Georgia, and not because Georgia has been the stronger program over the years.

Although... LOL... they have a more recent championship than the Dawgs.
 

DzynKingRTR

TideFans Legend
Dec 17, 2003
30,805
11,565
187
Vinings, ga., usa
Georgia Tech belongs in the SEC. Apart from the Georgia rivalry, they have played Auburn nearly 100 times and that was a big game. They also had a long standing rivalry with us until they exited the conference in the 1960s. It got ugly during those last few contests.

But alas, they got upset, left the conference and now I'm certain that door will never be open again. I'd gladly trade them for Georgia, and not because Georgia has been the stronger program over the years.

Although... LOL... they have a more recent championship than the Dawgs.
Tech fans are not nearly as annoying as uga fans. They are just odd/weird.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TideEngineer08

New Posts

Latest threads