I seem to remember reading an article last year that talked about a shift in the drivers for conference realignment, but I can't seem to find it again (my google-fu is not strong today). The driver for past major realignments was to acquire schools in large population states, where the numbers were greater for cable subscriptions to conference network channels. That was the purpose in the B1G bringing in Maryland (DC area) and Rutgers (NYC area); the ACC in bringing in Syracuse (NY), Boston College (MA/Boston area), and Pitt (PA); etc. But the article I'd read last year was talking about the diminishing importance of cable subscribers to the conference networks in the future, due to the trend of cord-cutting. The analysis focused on the strength of what they called "marquee" matchups, those that would bring more national attention due to factors such as big-name teams, playoff significance, and such. These marquee games were driving so much more ad revenue than regional games, that the authors concluded that the inventory of marquee games would be more important than the geographic footprint, and future realignment decisions would be made with that in mind. We're seeing this play out over the past year, with Texas and Oklahoma going to the SEC, and USC and UCLA going to the B1G. The SEC is going to add 8-10 marquee games to its inventory with this move, and the same goes for the B1G. That said, if this is true, wouldn't that make Clemson and Florida State (and maybe Miami) much more viable targets for B1G or SEC expansion than any of VT/UVA/UNC/NCSU? I don't see any of the latter four driving a game of national importance over the first three (though I have my hopes for VT down the road with Pry). Am I crazy thinking this way, or does this make sense? Did anybody else read anything to this effect over the past year?