Like you just said, TV markets is the most important aspect of expansion currently. Not as much as an individual college's athletic rep. If you honestly believe that the SEC won't pick up a lesser North Carolina team other than Duke and UNC just to get a foothold in a top 10 populated state, then I really don't know if saying anything further has a point.<div>
</div><div>Besides... I really think it would hurt the SEC if we just went for nothing but powerhouses in football. Think if hypothetically we move up to 16 teams and each division has 4 teams that could be in the running for a BCS berth and about 2 - 3 lesser but competitive teams and the reaming team(s) will be the cellar dwellers. There's absolutely no way the SEC champion will NOT have a loss on their record. If going undefeated in the SEC was rare before it'll be damn near impossible if the SEC went for nothing but BCS caliber teams which will more than likely hurt us in the amount of teams we place in the BCS. Bringing in middle tier teams with upside is better. Let them take their bumps and bruises and adjust to the conference and allow them to have their years where they can compete when the bigger teams are down.</div>
</div><div>Besides... I really think it would hurt the SEC if we just went for nothing but powerhouses in football. Think if hypothetically we move up to 16 teams and each division has 4 teams that could be in the running for a BCS berth and about 2 - 3 lesser but competitive teams and the reaming team(s) will be the cellar dwellers. There's absolutely no way the SEC champion will NOT have a loss on their record. If going undefeated in the SEC was rare before it'll be damn near impossible if the SEC went for nothing but BCS caliber teams which will more than likely hurt us in the amount of teams we place in the BCS. Bringing in middle tier teams with upside is better. Let them take their bumps and bruises and adjust to the conference and allow them to have their years where they can compete when the bigger teams are down.</div>