In fact, very few conference expansion schools have been tag alongs. Assuming tag along means that the influence of one school causes another school to gain conference affiliation when they otherwise would not have. Assuming that, you seem to be confusing the method of conference expansion usually including two schools at a time with the thought that one of the expansion schools is a ‘tag along’. Texas A&M did not have a tag along. Missouri was not a tag along. (1 had neither to do with the other outside the necessity for the SEC to add two schools) Nebraska did not. Rutgers and Maryland were not tag alongs. They were added because of their markets, irrespective of each other’s political capital. Texas and Oklahoma were not tag alongs. They were the two biggest football brands in the Big 12, which had the soonest media contract expiration date. Oregon and Washington were not tag alongs. Arizona and Arizona State weren’t. Utah wasn’t. Colorado wasn’t. SMU wasnt a tag along. It’s probably easier to list the actual tag alongs. Virginia Tech was a tag along. And VT wasn’t even a tag along with a conference expansion target. Stanford and Cal were tag alongs purely for Notre Dame, which has an immense gravitational pull in the ACC. UCLA was a tag along. And the only reason UCLA was a tag along was because they’re in the largest TV market in the country. Oh and they’re one of the bluest of blue blood hoops programs of all time. And that’s about it. The SEC isn’t adding two North Carolina schools when neither have ever sniffed college football relevance at the highest level. They’ll add North Carolina because of their brand recognition in a massively important state to the SEC. And laugh in North Carolina’s face at the request to add NC State as a tag along. They’ll add Clemson as the premier football brand in the ACC that can generate 4-5M viewers on their own. Those are the two adds the SEC needs to make next. That’s it. ** Edited by hokieZ71 at 7/31/2025, 11:02:35 AM