1. They seem to be wanting to go into the South, but are ignoring for the most part the football schools. They expanded for Maryland and Rutgers and these two are buzz kills on the schedule. So they're going to double down on that with UVa or Duke? Even Miami, they had a great year last year. But when they are mid level in the standings, their stadium is half empty. I get the whole AAU snobbery, but to ignore FSU and Clemson (and even VT) is crazy to me. If you come down south and want to make an impact, you do it by taking SEC like schools, not necessarily old order ACC schools. 2. The B1G and SEC have had every opportunity to work together on a number of issues about college football and have failed to do so. THAT is why we are before Congress right now practically begging an institution with less knowledge of the sport than the casual fan to fix everything. IMO, ever since UMd left for the B1G, many of us have been secretly hoping that the B1G and SEC would get together to subdivide the conference. It seems like the ACC is just dead man walking. In turn, there are certain schools "stuck" together (like UVa and VT) who need the big boys (P2) to come in and subdivide the conference and offer lifeboats to such schools at the same time. Ditto for partitioning the entire "Mag 8" and beyond. But still, no action. The B1G-SEC combo has had plenty of chances to act as a de-facto commissioner on NIL, the CFP, transfer rules, etc. But again, nothing. But somehow, these two conferences are doing the most complaining about all of our sport's problems being laid at the feet of Congress.

The ACC wanted to become #1 in the Boston Market and thought they mainly needed to bring ACC teams into that market to get to that goal. It is my opinion that both the B10 and SEC see both the DMV and NC markets as more of something they just need to get their brand and teams into than to have someone who can bring the market. I still believe that if the SEC gets it right they will see that VT carrying the SEC banner into the DMV area is a much stronger product than UVA carrying either the B10 or SEC banner.

the primary driving force behind conference expansion. It is not 2003 anymore. It's not even 2013. At this point, in 2026, thinking of legacy linear cable market impact is an absolutely antiquated way of analyzing who would be a candidate to go here or there. By 2030, it will just be even more antiquated. You can thank Big Tech, for better or worse, for killing legacy linear cable and with it the business model that previously drove college sports conference expansion, but, for all intents and purposes, it's dead, just like legacy movie theaters are dead - Big Tech did the exact same thing to the film industry and its business model that was around for 100+ years. Folks on here have to get it out of their heads that the people sitting in the Disney and FOX board rooms making decisions about what numbers to put on P2 conference media rights checks are thinking about adding, for example, Virginia Tech, and also thinking about built in numbers from the Washington, DC metro cable market. Yes, there's going to be some correlation there, because plenty of VT alumni live in the DMV, and those folks usually want to watch VT football. But, the days of automatic built in money from forcing people to purchase a conference network as part of a legacy cable package are numbered, which means that model is dead. The future (actually, it's not even the future, it's the present) is streaming apps, which means people have to choose to pay for the product, which means you have to bring a product to the table that people WANT to watch. And, on streaming apps, the BTN, SECN, and ACCN are just other boxes you can click, like another Netflix or Hulu show. And, just like for Netflix and Hulu, whether the parent company wants to spend money on a particular product, and how much, will depend entirely on how many people click on the box, and then keep the content on, and for how long. It's that simple. It also bears pointing out that the SEC and, to a lesser extent, the Big 10 are already the primary college football products being consumed in every major metropolitan area in the country, right now, today. Whether you're in New York City, LA, Detroit, San Francisco, Indianapolis, Atlanta, Chicago, Houston, or Miami, the vast majority of anybody that is consuming college football broadcasts in every single one of those areas are consuming content that involves an SEC and/or Big 10 football program. Neither conference needs to add any additional college football programs to gain some imaginary foothold in a major metropolitan market. If you don't think that's the case, I welcome you to check the Nielson ratings for the previous decade.

Something I have noticed about Hulu Live is that it is forced to comply with the linear cable rules. For example, I live in NOVA so I get all the local DMV channels on my subscription via a Roku 2 device. Whenever I visit family in the Harrisonburg/Rockingham Co. area and I want to watch a Hulu channel on a different Roku 2 device, then I have to agree to change my location. By doing so I no longer have access to the local DMV stations, but gain access to the local stations only available to people living in that part of the Shen. Valley. I never agree to change my location, because I can only change it three times before it is permanently locked. If I want to watch any Hulu channel while in the Shen. Valley, then I have to access my Hulu subscription via my laptop and hook my laptop up to the TV. I suspect the other providers that provide a cable subscription are probably in the same boat. In terms of the linear vs. streaming debate, it would appear Hulu may exist in a hybrid world. If so, then I am not sure what that means as the industry looks to evolve to keep up with the times.

YouTube TV are subject to the same or similar contractual hang-ups that linear cable services are. But, I think those services are going to be marginalized out of existence now that Disney/FOX/Paramount/NBC are making their sporting events available via standalone, a la carte sports streaming apps like the ESPN or Fox Sports apps, or otherwise via their proprietary apps like Paramount Plus for CBS Sports and Peacock for NBC. I say this because, just like legacy cable, live sports are pretty much the only thing driving those "cable channels via streaming" services now. Everything else (scripted and reality shows, documentary offerings, etc.) that people watch is just available to stream on demand. We're ultimately going to get to a place, and we're going to get there very soon, where blackouts and regional sports restrictions are like carriage fees - relics of a legacy linear cable model that no longer exists. As far as I'm aware, the MLB is the only major pro sports league where regional blackouts are even still a thing if you pay for the proprietary service (e.g., NBA League Pass, NFL Sunday Ticket, etc.)

broadcasting rights to a Caps game, then the national broadcast and the NHL's on demand channel broadcasts are blacked out if you live in the Monumental footprint. You are correct that live sports drives the streaming cable subscriptions too. Once the live sports and/or on demand sports are exclusively offered via streaming apps/channels, it will be interesting to see what happens to the rest of the cable channels. Do they get pushed to various apps/streaming channels too? If so, then how much more money will consumers be forced to pay to watch their programs on ABC, Fox, NBC, CBS, Sci-Fi, History, ESPN, Nickelodeon, etc. that used to be bundled in a cable subscription? What does that mean for the future of the local channels? I believe FCC rules state that the local channels must be made available to the public so they can continue getting their local news live and any emergency broadcasts.

The idea of turning on a cable box, dialing up SpikeTV on channel 238, and watching a new episode of a show on a certain date/time live will become a relic (it more or less already is.) Everything is ultimately going to be, for better or worse, offered up like Netflix - content is made available beginning on this or that date/time, and people will just pick what they want to watch on demand. Instead of cable providers fighting with Disney over whether or not they make ESPN6 available and for how much, the new fights will be between Smart TV manufacturers and Media Conglomerates over how much kickback the manufacturer gets for allowing this or that streaming app to be available on this or that device. Imagine owning a 75'' Sony TV and, because Sony and Disney are in some sort of spat, you can't use any Disney/ESPN streaming apps on that TV without understanding how to jailbreak the device because Sony's proprietary firmware disallows it. That's the future.

legacy linear cable" just a process of getting a product into a market? A process to something greater. I agree it was the process in the old Boston Market discussions and I agree it will not be the process going forward. But, Big, SEC, ACC or B12 all want their products in the markets to grow fans and not just depend on fans having to hunt through streaming to get the game they want. So I point was making is that all want to expand markets, better time slots etc. It was not that the only way that could be done was with the old model.

cable channels that a customer cannot otherwise purchase a la carte to a captive market defined by a major metropolitan area's boundaries. That was my point. Going forward, the people in those big metro areas are actually going to have to care about and choose to watch those programs play football. The old business model that gave us conference networks and, by extension, conference realignment was based around selling x amount of channels for y amount of money to customers in a metro market that the customers had to purchase as a package, whether they watched each individual channel or not. So, it helped the Big 10 to have Rutgers and Maryland in the conference, because the NYC metro area and the Washington, DC-Baltimore metro area were both enormous cable markets, and if FOX could force the BTN into basic cable packages for those areas, each and every cable subscriber in those markets was going to pay ~$1 each month to the cable providers, meaning FOX and the Big 10 made ~$0.80 for each and every cable household in those areas, each and every month, whether people even know what the BTN was and watched it or not. Legacy cable, while not quite buried, is dead, rotting, and waiting to be buried, and, along with it, the previous college athletics media rights business model. The new business model will be based around streaming apps. Yes, you will still be "buying" access to ACC football content by purchasing a subscription to, say, the ESPN app, or whatever consolidated bundle app, or whatever they're marketing it as now. But, the primary difference will be in how Disney assigns value to ACC football content, and then how much it will pay for it. Just look up how Netflix chooses to spend its money on content for its service, and you'll have a great understanding of what I'm talking about. Disney is going to know exactly how many people are watching ACC football games, exactly what teams they're watching, exactly when they turn games on, and exactly how long they're watching games before switching to another option. They're going to use that data as leverage when negotiating future media rights contracts with the ACC. That's going to be the big difference. There will be no more "captive customers" to depend on that are paying for the ACCN even if they're not watching it. So, it won't matter any more from a financial standpoint that SMU is in Texas, or more specifically the Dallas-FW metro, because the people there will all be watching the 5-6 higher value college football programs from Texas that are playing in the same time slot as SMU, and Disney will have that granular data to throw in the ACC's face come contract time. And, lest you think I'm picking on the poor, innocent SMU program you're all so in love with, the same thing goes for Boston College in Boston, and Syracuse in New York, and Georgia Tech in Atlanta, and Pitt in Pittsburgh, and Cal and Stanford in San Francisco, and so on, and so on, and so on. The only real exception I can think of to this rule in the ACC is Miami, and it's really only an exception when Miami is good, and only because Miami is a major national college football brand with 5 championships. They're still not anything resembling a Nebraska. When Miami is a 7 win program, nobody in the Miami-Dade metro cares about or is watching Miami football games, national championships or no. We just happen to be experiencing the largest "The U is BACK" recency bias tour in history because they had an entirely unexpected run to the CFP championship game last year, so now everyone thinks Miami is the hottest brand on the planet and will be for life. Anyone that's been watching VT and ACC football longer than 5 years knows that isn't the case. The business model that ACC expansion (and, to be fair, the Big 10's Maryland/Rutgers expansion) was almost entirely planned around is D-E-D, dead. So, if your favorite college program is playing a lot of its conference games vs. Wake Forest, Boston College, Syracuse, Duke, Pitt, Cal, Stanford, etc. and are playing at the same time as mid-tier and top-tier SEC and Big 10 games, then I can just go ahead right now and tell you that you're going to have a real big problem when it comes time to renegotiate your media rights contract.

WE both agree that cable process is not going to be the process now nor in the future. But just so much has been written about the B10 desperately wanting/needing getting into the SE market, not to sell cable packages but something else. That was my point. Not that they were selling cable but they wanted market share. i The SEC wants into the DMv/NC market but it is not to sell cable subscriptions. Discussing linear cable with forced subscriptions,misses the point of the 2 above realities.

you're saying the SEC and Big 10 want to get into "markets," and, in using that term, you clearly mean defined geographic areas like states or major metros. I think that's an incorrect way to think about it if you want to understand how the people writing the media rights checks will be analyzing the books going forward. My position - when it comes to conference realignment, to the extent the SEC and Big 10 (and really, we mean Disney/FOX/CBS/Netflix/Apple/etc. here) want to get into this or that "market," the term "market" must now be thought of as "college football program that people will turn on and leave on for the entire game." That's what they'll be looking for now when determining media rights value. The idea of a major metro or statewide TV "market" having anything to do with conference realignment is a relic of a time where nationwide access to literally any FBS football program's game broadcasts was not a possibility. Example: because of the legacy linear cable business model and the myriad contractual issues that came with it, in 2003, it was impossible for me to watch a September Oregon State vs. San Jose State football game live on TV in Virginia, even if I was willing to pay a premium to do so. In 2026, I can easily pay to access every single Oregon State and San Jose State football broadcast all season long, in HD. The rub going forward when it comes to media rights valuations, and, by extension, conference realignment, will be, "how much will people pay to access this or that program's football content," and the media conglomerates are going to be able to utilize granular data to make that decision. I suppose we don't have to agree, but I hope that clears up my position. ** Edited by Baltimore_Hokie at 7/28/2026, 9:46:28 AM

But disagree with your 3rd. You and I do not agree on much but so what, there is room for 2 or more perspectives. Where I differ on paragraph 3 is that those markets DO still have something to do with realignment. To me that is the why behind especially the GT to the Big talk. The point as I see it is the answer to your question of "how much will people pay to access a specific football team," is strongly based on whether the team is a regional team. Seems to me if your point were predominately true then all the SEC/B10 would need to do is mount advertising campaigns in the specific markets to sell the content they now have rather than go through all the cost/trouble of adding teams. I guess my point is that the presence in a market gets more people willing to pay than a slick advertising of teams not in that market. Home team still matters. Not completely but it still matters enough. Good discussion.

cable and satellite subscribers who are charged for your network even if they don't watch your content. Yeah, it was a gravy train for a while and the B1G was the first to the trough, followed by the SEC. And of course the ACC was behind the curve, but eventually got on board. I think VT is still an interesting watch. More than most of the ACC and BigXII schools. But to your post, I don't think there are many schools out there beyond the P2 that add substantially to the per-school payout of the SEC or B1G except Notre Dame. So that begs the question, how much do the P2s want to nibble at the edges for a little more profit. All that being said, I can't believe the B1G is looking into Duke and UVa and blowing off Clemson and FSU. ** Edited by Maroon Baboon at 7/27/2026, 1:56:49 PM

I think, if I'm the P2, the even bigger question than, "who can we add that brings additional value at this point," is, "how can we get rid of current members like Mississippi State, Maryland, Vanderbilt, and Rutgers that don't really bring anything to the table financially?" I say this because FSU, or UNC, or Miami, or Clemson may not really move the money needle as things currently stand, but it would definitely benefit, for example, the SEC if they could replace a Mississippi State or Vanderbilt with an FSU or Clemson. If I were any of those P2 schools hanging out at the bottom of the valuation table, I wouldn't just be sitting around counting my money; I'd be extremely worried. College football is an unregulated money game, and, sooner or later, likely sooner, the Alabama's and Ohio State's of the world are going to start rattling sabers about why they're sharing money with those schools when they're creating none of the value. Notre Dame football is just an island unto itself, and any analysis of it has to be unique. Especially now that the CFP has expanded, and is almost certainly going to further expand, the ND football program will never join a conference, ever, full stop. They have no reason to. They're not as worried about scheduling as they let on, because they know, at the end of the day, every single broadcaster, whether they have direct contractual privity with ND or not, WANTS to feature ND football on their broadcasts. I anticipate that if scheduling continues to be an issue, we will see pressure from broadcasters exerted on their business partners to FIND a way to schedule football games with ND, so they can put them on TV.

ND is not going to join a conference. It sees no great net benefit to it, doesn't want to do it at all and thinks the juice is simply not worth the squeeze. ND has been a football independent for 138 of the last 139 years. It likes it and sees no reason at all to change. Why is that an issue? Just because other independents had to join collectives to survive?

and then the B1G got USC and UCLA. Those four (three) were such large fish that all the new additions are pro rata dilutive to the per team payout. It is hard to justify any expansion other than ND, UNC and now Miami. That's why... as I banged the drum back in 2011 (I think you and Techocrat were some of the few that grasped this), that the early movers got locked in and secured. Now that Texas, Oklahoma and SCAL are added, not many teams can match their marginal revenue contribution. So many people really screwed this up by not bailing in 2011. Once you get past NC, UNC and now Miami, the primary motive for expanding is to avoid poltical harassment from Congress. I think the B10 should add Miami and maybe the Arizona school becuase their fan bases are so large and travel so well, they can make a mint off of ticket sales and hotels. ** Edited by TDVick at 7/27/2026, 5:54:56 AM ** Edited by TDVick at 7/27/2026, 6:53:49 AM

Like you, it’s hard to take the guy serious with his outfit, but the theory he puts out there is plausible.