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.