i have been arguing for days that a lot of these teams people mention (like VT for example) are not what conferences are looking for. I do believe skipper did allude to the fact that no one will just add teams to a conference if it makes each member's share go down. Like you mentioned not all of these schools are as attractive as people think, if oregon and washington would make the big 10 richer why are they waiting? then get ND after they add them. Why exactly are they waiting for notre dame if they can make more addadding other schools? maybe its because these other schools do not bring the value people think they do. I think it comes from the perception that this is about creating better competition by adding "good" teams. it is about adding times that the avergae fan, not affiliated with the confernce wants to see play, whetehe they are good or not. I only see ND and UNC as that type of national brand right now. Maybe duke. I do still see some value in adding states but only on one condition. I live in Virginia. I have the big 10 network and the SEC network. The only value I see to adding a state is if it is a state where my conference network doesn't already exist, that could cause cable companies to add that network to their service. while cable is declining, it is still a great deal for these networks. like I said, I have the big 10 network. i pay for it as part of my cable subscription whether i watch it or not. It may not be worth it 6-7 years from now, but right now these networks can make a lot of money by be inc included in cable services where they are currently absent. And there is an addition that would help the ACC, but chances are they don't join for football because right now they do not have to