Great discussion. If we are talking two massive conferences as an end game, are we assuming at least 32 schools in each conference to cover the existing P5? If so, that is approaching a quantity where a further split makes financial and logistical sense. Just spitballing based loosely on 2013 total athletic revenue numbers (at least 65 million), USNWR (at least top 150), endowment (at least 400 million), football attendance (at least 40,000), and Director's Cup (at least top 65). Just some basic filters that should be passed for top, top tier. Additionally, the little brother of a market was eliminated to maximize TV revenue if both schools were not obviously standalone powerhouses according to revenue (Bay Area, LA, Alabama, and Florida markets). Sorry, NC State's and Va Tech's of the world, and very deep apologies to Michigan State. These are the 32 schools I would show as being shoe-in's:

Top, top tier

West division - Washington, Oregon, Stanford, Cal, UCLA, USC, Arizona, Texas

South division - Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Arkansas, LSU, Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Florida State

Midwest division - Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio State

Atlantic division - Notre Dame, Kentucky, Penn State, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, South Carolina, Georgia


Those divisions are obviously imbalanced and undesirable in some ways, but it is an idea of who would absolutely make a cut for a league with at least 32 schools. Going to 36 or 40 schools would probably help with balance and be at least a break even when factoring revenue splits. Missouri, Kansas, Colorado, Maryland, and somebody near the NYC market (Syracuse, Rutgers, or UConn) come to mind.

This could happen; however, I think you would be more likely to see consolidation to like 48 schools or so, but not much under that. College sports is supported regionally, for the most part. I think most fans will just watch more pro sports, if too many schools are cut out. MSU fans won't start watching Michigan. KU and KSU fans won't start cheering for OU or Texas. They will watch the Lions, Chiefs, or other NFL games. At some point (Not sure where to be honest, just think it is well north of 32 schools), if you reduce the schools too much I think college sports will start losing it's audience. JMO

(08-11-2014 02:41 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  This could happen; however, I think you would be more likely to see consolidation to like 48 schools or so, but not much under that. College sports is supported regionally, for the most part. I think most fans will just watch more pro sports, if too many schools are cut out. MSU fans won't start watching Michigan. KU and KSU fans won't start cheering for OU or Texas. They will watch the Lions, Chiefs, or other NFL games. At some point (Not sure where to be honest, just think it is well north of 32 schools), if you reduce the schools too much I think college sports will start losing it's audience. JMO

I think the numbers need to be above 60, or the win / loss math gets too ugly for fan expectations which means to ugly to market effectively.


East South Coastal:
Clemson, Duke, Florida State, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia, Virginia Tech

East North Coastal:
Boston College, Connecticut, Maryland, Penn State, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Syracuse, West Virginia
******************************************************

South East:
Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt.

South West:
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Louisville, Miami, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Texas A&M
******************************************************

North Lakes:
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Notre Dame, Purdue, Ohio State, Wisconsin

North Plains:
Iowa, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
*******************************************************

West Coast: California, Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, U.C.L.A., U.S.C., Washington, Washington State

West Cactus: Arizona, Arizona State, Baylor, Brigham Young, Colorado, Texas, Texas Tech, Utah

(08-11-2014 03:17 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 02:41 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  This could happen; however, I think you would be more likely to see consolidation to like 48 schools or so, but not much under that. College sports is supported regionally, for the most part. I think most fans will just watch more pro sports, if too many schools are cut out. MSU fans won't start watching Michigan. KU and KSU fans won't start cheering for OU or Texas. They will watch the Lions, Chiefs, or other NFL games. At some point (Not sure where to be honest, just think it is well north of 32 schools), if you reduce the schools too much I think college sports will start losing it's audience. JMO

I think the numbers need to be above 60, or the win / loss math gets too ugly for fan expectations which means to ugly to market effectively.


East South Coastal:
Clemson, Duke, Florida State, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia, Virginia Tech

East North Coastal:
Boston College, Connecticut, Maryland, Penn State, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Syracuse, West Virginia
******************************************************

South East:
Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt.

South West:
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Louisville, Miami, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Texas A&M
******************************************************

North Lakes:
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Notre Dame, Purdue, Ohio State, Wisconsin

North Plains:
Iowa, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
*******************************************************

West Coast: California, Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, U.C.L.A., U.S.C., Washington, Washington State

West Cactus: Arizona, Arizona State, Baylor, Brigham Young, Colorado, Texas, Texas Tech, Utah

JR, you are finally making suggestions that make sense.
8 conferences with 8 teams would be perfect EXCEPT conference egos wouldn't let it happen. What you would need is only one conference with 8 divisions, but no SEC, no B1G, could the Presidents stand it........I don't think so.
But I really like the idea.

(08-11-2014 07:37 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 03:17 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 02:41 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  This could happen; however, I think you would be more likely to see consolidation to like 48 schools or so, but not much under that. College sports is supported regionally, for the most part. I think most fans will just watch more pro sports, if too many schools are cut out. MSU fans won't start watching Michigan. KU and KSU fans won't start cheering for OU or Texas. They will watch the Lions, Chiefs, or other NFL games. At some point (Not sure where to be honest, just think it is well north of 32 schools), if you reduce the schools too much I think college sports will start losing it's audience. JMO

I think the numbers need to be above 60, or the win / loss math gets too ugly for fan expectations which means to ugly to market effectively.


East South Coastal:
Clemson, Duke, Florida State, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia, Virginia Tech

East North Coastal:
Boston College, Connecticut, Maryland, Penn State, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Syracuse, West Virginia
******************************************************

South East:
Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt.

South West:
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Louisville, Miami, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Texas A&M
******************************************************

North Lakes:
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Notre Dame, Purdue, Ohio State, Wisconsin

North Plains:
Iowa, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
*******************************************************

West Coast: California, Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, U.C.L.A., U.S.C., Washington, Washington State

West Cactus: Arizona, Arizona State, Baylor, Brigham Young, Colorado, Texas, Texas Tech, Utah

JR, you are finally making suggestions that make sense.
8 conferences with 8 teams would be perfect EXCEPT conference egos wouldn't let it happen. What you would need is only one conference with 8 divisions, but no SEC, no B1G, could the Presidents stand it........I don't think so.
But I really like the idea.

Actually I dropped the conference names but went with 4 regions with two divisions each. The NET change is the same. You'll notice also who was culled.

(08-11-2014 07:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 07:37 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 03:17 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 02:41 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  This could happen; however, I think you would be more likely to see consolidation to like 48 schools or so, but not much under that. College sports is supported regionally, for the most part. I think most fans will just watch more pro sports, if too many schools are cut out. MSU fans won't start watching Michigan. KU and KSU fans won't start cheering for OU or Texas. They will watch the Lions, Chiefs, or other NFL games. At some point (Not sure where to be honest, just think it is well north of 32 schools), if you reduce the schools too much I think college sports will start losing it's audience. JMO

I think the numbers need to be above 60, or the win / loss math gets too ugly for fan expectations which means to ugly to market effectively.


East South Coastal:
Clemson, Duke, Florida State, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia, Virginia Tech

East North Coastal:
Boston College, Connecticut, Maryland, Penn State, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Syracuse, West Virginia
******************************************************

South East:
Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt.

South West:
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Louisville, Miami, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Texas A&M
******************************************************

North Lakes:
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Notre Dame, Purdue, Ohio State, Wisconsin

North Plains:
Iowa, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
*******************************************************

West Coast: California, Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, U.C.L.A., U.S.C., Washington, Washington State

West Cactus: Arizona, Arizona State, Baylor, Brigham Young, Colorado, Texas, Texas Tech, Utah

JR, you are finally making suggestions that make sense.
8 conferences with 8 teams would be perfect EXCEPT conference egos wouldn't let it happen. What you would need is only one conference with 8 divisions, but no SEC, no B1G, could the Presidents stand it........I don't think so.
But I really like the idea.

Actually I dropped the conference names but went with 4 regions with two divisions each. The NET change is the same. You'll notice also who was culled.

I noticed you dropped Wake Forest, Northwestern and TCU, but kept Vanderbilt.

(08-11-2014 08:32 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 07:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 07:37 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 03:17 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 02:41 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  This could happen; however, I think you would be more likely to see consolidation to like 48 schools or so, but not much under that. College sports is supported regionally, for the most part. I think most fans will just watch more pro sports, if too many schools are cut out. MSU fans won't start watching Michigan. KU and KSU fans won't start cheering for OU or Texas. They will watch the Lions, Chiefs, or other NFL games. At some point (Not sure where to be honest, just think it is well north of 32 schools), if you reduce the schools too much I think college sports will start losing it's audience. JMO

I think the numbers need to be above 60, or the win / loss math gets too ugly for fan expectations which means to ugly to market effectively.


East South Coastal:
Clemson, Duke, Florida State, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia, Virginia Tech

East North Coastal:
Boston College, Connecticut, Maryland, Penn State, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Syracuse, West Virginia
******************************************************

South East:
Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt.

South West:
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Louisville, Miami, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Texas A&M
******************************************************

North Lakes:
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Notre Dame, Purdue, Ohio State, Wisconsin

North Plains:
Iowa, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
*******************************************************

West Coast: California, Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, U.C.L.A., U.S.C., Washington, Washington State

West Cactus: Arizona, Arizona State, Baylor, Brigham Young, Colorado, Texas, Texas Tech, Utah

JR, you are finally making suggestions that make sense.
8 conferences with 8 teams would be perfect EXCEPT conference egos wouldn't let it happen. What you would need is only one conference with 8 divisions, but no SEC, no B1G, could the Presidents stand it........I don't think so.
But I really like the idea.

Actually I dropped the conference names but went with 4 regions with two divisions each. The NET change is the same. You'll notice also who was culled.

I noticed you dropped Wake Forest, Northwestern and TCU, but kept Vanderbilt.

Familiarity I suppose. They did just win the SEC another national championship in baseball.

This is only public schools, but the subsidies schools require for their ADs starting in the mid-40s, and especially after 50, are eye-popping. Many of these schools would be better off not trying to compete with the power conference schools. Not to mention as state funding to universities continues to get slashed many could be forced to severely cut the number of athletic programs they offer or cut sports all together.

The PAC is actually more heavily subsidized than the ACC it appears. The B1G, B12, and SEC are a step ahead of those 2, though for the B1G - UMD and RU are getting huge subsidies right now, they should decrease as the B1G revenues kick in.

Wish we could see how much the privates are covering expenses with non-athletic revenue.

Based on total AD revenue, WF is far behind the other privates. NW and TCU are ahead of Vandy by a bit actually. WF dropping out and ND joining the ACC (or another conference) in full would be a simple solution to get to 64.

BYU would be better in the P5, than Utah who has a low budget and high subsidy. Too bad the PAC had religious issues with them.

(08-15-2014 11:22 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  This is only public schools, but the subsidies schools require for their ADs starting in the mid-40s, and especially after 50, are eye-popping. Many of these schools would be better off not trying to compete with the power conference schools. Not to mention as state funding to universities continues to get slashed many could be forced to severely cut the number of athletic programs they offer or cut sports all together.

The PAC is actually more heavily subsidized than the ACC it appears. The B1G, B12, and SEC are a step ahead of those 2, though for the B1G - UMD and RU are getting huge subsidies right now, they should decrease as the B1G revenues kick in.

Wish we could see how much the privates are covering expenses with non-athletic revenue.

Based on total AD revenue, WF is far behind the other privates. NW and TCU are ahead of Vandy by a bit actually. WF dropping out and ND joining the ACC (or another conference) in full would be a simple solution to get to 64.

BYU would be better in the P5, than Utah who has a low budget and high subsidy. Too bad the PAC had religious issues with them.

You will notice the anomaly for the ACC's subsidy numbers are Clemson and Florida State (very similar to SEC percentages). In the SEC the subsidy comes in the form of fees collected from the students at the State schools. It's an antiquated practice that probably needs to go. Of the P5 conferences California schools, ACC schools north of South Carolina, and a few Big 10 schools (Wisconsin and now Maryland) stand out. The heavy subsidies for the Virginia and North Carolina schools belies the underlying weakness in the support of traditional college athletics among those fan bases and is a primary reason I would still rather have Clemson and Florida State as opposed to any Virginia or N.Carolina school simply to acquire markets.

The East Carolina folks should really take note of how a subsidy as large as theirs discourages looks from P5 conferences.

(08-19-2014 12:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-15-2014 11:22 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  This is only public schools, but the subsidies schools require for their ADs starting in the mid-40s, and especially after 50, are eye-popping. Many of these schools would be better off not trying to compete with the power conference schools. Not to mention as state funding to universities continues to get slashed many could be forced to severely cut the number of athletic programs they offer or cut sports all together.

The PAC is actually more heavily subsidized than the ACC it appears. The B1G, B12, and SEC are a step ahead of those 2, though for the B1G - UMD and RU are getting huge subsidies right now, they should decrease as the B1G revenues kick in.

Wish we could see how much the privates are covering expenses with non-athletic revenue.

Based on total AD revenue, WF is far behind the other privates. NW and TCU are ahead of Vandy by a bit actually. WF dropping out and ND joining the ACC (or another conference) in full would be a simple solution to get to 64.

BYU would be better in the P5, than Utah who has a low budget and high subsidy. Too bad the PAC had religious issues with them.

You will notice the anomaly for the ACC's subsidy numbers are Clemson and Florida State (very similar to SEC percentages). In the SEC the subsidy comes in the form of fees collected from the students at the State schools. It's an antiquated practice that probably needs to go. Of the P5 conferences California schools, ACC schools north of South Carolina, and a few Big 10 schools (Wisconsin and now Maryland) stand out. The heavy subsidies for the Virginia and North Carolina schools belies the underlying weakness in the support of traditional college athletics among those fan bases and is a primary reason I would still rather have Clemson and Florida State as opposed to any Virginia or N.Carolina school simply to acquire markets.

The East Carolina folks should really take note of how a subsidy as large as theirs discourages looks from P5 conferences.

Subsidy is just another name for accounting trick.
At Carolina the Educational Foundation (Rams Club) ramsclub.com which is the athletic booster org. pays the cost of all of the nearly 500 scholarship athletes on campus (including tuition and fees) as well as some construction projects that the University wants to keep out of the budget. This annual contribution by the Rams Club is what constitutes the subsidy, which this year will be around $10 Million.

(04-17-2014 05:27 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Here is where our conference stands on revenue in athletics and attendance which is one aspect that is reflective of market draw.
Revenue figures are rounded to the nearest thousand dollars. Attendance is as reported and averaged for all home games.

Alabama: Revenue $124,900,000; Attendance 101,505
Arkansas: Revenue $ 99,757,000; Attendance 61,596
Auburn: Revenue $105,951,000; Attendance 85,657
Florida: Revenue $120,772,000; Attendance 87,440
Georgia: Revenue $ 91,671,000; Attendance 92,746
Kentucky: Revenue $ 88,373,000; Attendance 59,472
Louisiana State: Revenue $114,788,000; Attendance 91,418
Mississippi: Revenue $ 51,859,000; Attendance 59,393
Miss State: Revenue $ 69,829,000; Attendance 55,695
Missouri: Revenue $ 50,720,000; Attendance 63,505
South Carolina: Revenue $ 87,608,000; Attendance 82,401
Tennessee: Revenue $102,884,000; Attendance 95,584
Texas A&M: Revenue $119,702,000; Attendance 87,125
Vanderbilt: Revenue $ 55,836,000; Attendance 35,675

The Mean Revenue Level for Athletics in the SEC is: $91,760,714 and the Mean Attendance is rounded down to 75,000 per school per home game.

So who could the SEC add that would enhance these numbers:
1. Texas: Revenue $163,295,000; Attendance 98,976; (Would strengthen existing numbers for the SEC)
2. Oklahoma: Revenue $106,457,000; Attendance 84,722; Population 3.814 Million
3. Florida State: Revenue $100,049,000; Attendance 75,421; (Would strengthen existing numbers for the SEC)
4. Notre Dame: Revenue $ 97,113,000; Attendance 80,795; Population 6.537 Million (for Indiana plus those of the Catholic faith that follow nationwide.)

Schools whose markets could enhance the payout of the SEC but who on their own merits do not enhance our numbers.

1. Virginia: Revenue $ 80,836,000; Attendance 46,279; Population 8.260 Million
2. North Carolina: Revenue $ 82,424,000; Attendance 51,500; Population 9.848 Million
3. Virginia Tech: Revenue $ 70,724,000; Attendance 63,999; Population 8.260 Million
4. North Carolina St.: Revenue $ 59,758,000; Attendance 53,178; Population 9.848 Million
5. Pittsburgh: Revenue $ 56,338,000; Attendance 49,741; Population 12.763 Million
6. West Virginia: Revenue $ 80,065,000; Attendance 52,910; Population 1.855 Million
7. Oklahoma State: Revenue $ 87,271,000; Attendance 59,126; Population 3.814 Million
8. Kansas: Revenue $ 70,229,000; Attendance 37,884; Population 2.888 Million
9. Kansas State: Revenue $63,272,000; Attendance 52,887; Population 2.888 Million

Another that could fit with a revenue increase:

1. Clemson: Revenue $ 70,002,000; Attendance 82,048; (Would strengthen existing numbers for the SEC.)

Duke is a possibility if North Carolina insisted upon it and because of their phenomenal academic ratings:

1. Duke: Revenue $ 78,605,000; Attendance 26,062 (Doesn't deliver North Carolina but would strengthen existing numbers and deliver a national audience.)

Now if you like you can discuss the merits or lack thereof of any of these schools but if the SEC is to expand again these are the prospects for a variety of different reasons. I can't see anyone outside of these being a prospect unless a conference merger was the reason.

My take here to 16 the most advantageous would be Virginia and North Carolina, followed by Virginia Tech and North Carolina, followed by Virginia Tech and N.C. State. The greatest strength would be with the additions of Texas and Oklahoma.

At 18 the markets would enhanced the most by North Carolina, Virginia, Pittsburgh, Oklahoma. The greatest strength would be in adding Texas, Oklahoma, Florida State and North Carolina.

At 20 the markets would be enhanced the most by North Carolina, Virginia, Pittsburgh, Oklahoma, Kansas, and West Virginia (I'm not counting Notre Dame at any position.) The greatest strength would be in North Carolina, Virginia Tech, Florida State, Texas, Oklahoma, and Clemson. But those are just my thoughts.

In light of some recent posts and claims I thought it might be nice if folks revisited the reality of the numbers.

(11-13-2014 03:55 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-17-2014 05:27 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Here is where our conference stands on revenue in athletics and attendance which is one aspect that is reflective of market draw.
Revenue figures are rounded to the nearest thousand dollars. Attendance is as reported and averaged for all home games.

Alabama: Revenue $124,900,000; Attendance 101,505
Arkansas: Revenue $ 99,757,000; Attendance 61,596
Auburn: Revenue $105,951,000; Attendance 85,657
Florida: Revenue $120,772,000; Attendance 87,440
Georgia: Revenue $ 91,671,000; Attendance 92,746
Kentucky: Revenue $ 88,373,000; Attendance 59,472
Louisiana State: Revenue $114,788,000; Attendance 91,418
Mississippi: Revenue $ 51,859,000; Attendance 59,393
Miss State: Revenue $ 69,829,000; Attendance 55,695
Missouri: Revenue $ 50,720,000; Attendance 63,505
South Carolina: Revenue $ 87,608,000; Attendance 82,401
Tennessee: Revenue $102,884,000; Attendance 95,584
Texas A&M: Revenue $119,702,000; Attendance 87,125
Vanderbilt: Revenue $ 55,836,000; Attendance 35,675

The Mean Revenue Level for Athletics in the SEC is: $91,760,714 and the Mean Attendance is rounded down to 75,000 per school per home game.

So who could the SEC add that would enhance these numbers:
1. Texas: Revenue $163,295,000; Attendance 98,976; (Would strengthen existing numbers for the SEC)
2. Oklahoma: Revenue $106,457,000; Attendance 84,722; Population 3.814 Million
3. Florida State: Revenue $100,049,000; Attendance 75,421; (Would strengthen existing numbers for the SEC)
4. Notre Dame: Revenue $ 97,113,000; Attendance 80,795; Population 6.537 Million (for Indiana plus those of the Catholic faith that follow nationwide.)

Schools whose markets could enhance the payout of the SEC but who on their own merits do not enhance our numbers.

1. Virginia: Revenue $ 80,836,000; Attendance 46,279; Population 8.260 Million
2. North Carolina: Revenue $ 82,424,000; Attendance 51,500; Population 9.848 Million
3. Virginia Tech: Revenue $ 70,724,000; Attendance 63,999; Population 8.260 Million
4. North Carolina St.: Revenue $ 59,758,000; Attendance 53,178; Population 9.848 Million
5. Pittsburgh: Revenue $ 56,338,000; Attendance 49,741; Population 12.763 Million
6. West Virginia: Revenue $ 80,065,000; Attendance 52,910; Population 1.855 Million
7. Oklahoma State: Revenue $ 87,271,000; Attendance 59,126; Population 3.814 Million
8. Kansas: Revenue $ 70,229,000; Attendance 37,884; Population 2.888 Million
9. Kansas State: Revenue $63,272,000; Attendance 52,887; Population 2.888 Million

Another that could fit with a revenue increase:

1. Clemson: Revenue $ 70,002,000; Attendance 82,048; (Would strengthen existing numbers for the SEC.)

Duke is a possibility if North Carolina insisted upon it and because of their phenomenal academic ratings:

1. Duke: Revenue $ 78,605,000; Attendance 26,062 (Doesn't deliver North Carolina but would strengthen existing numbers and deliver a national audience.)

Now if you like you can discuss the merits or lack thereof of any of these schools but if the SEC is to expand again these are the prospects for a variety of different reasons. I can't see anyone outside of these being a prospect unless a conference merger was the reason.

My take here to 16 the most advantageous would be Virginia and North Carolina, followed by Virginia Tech and North Carolina, followed by Virginia Tech and N.C. State. The greatest strength would be with the additions of Texas and Oklahoma.

At 18 the markets would enhanced the most by North Carolina, Virginia, Pittsburgh, Oklahoma. The greatest strength would be in adding Texas, Oklahoma, Florida State and North Carolina.

At 20 the markets would be enhanced the most by North Carolina, Virginia, Pittsburgh, Oklahoma, Kansas, and West Virginia (I'm not counting Notre Dame at any position.) The greatest strength would be in North Carolina, Virginia Tech, Florida State, Texas, Oklahoma, and Clemson. But those are just my thoughts.

In light of some recent posts and claims I thought it might be nice if folks revisited the reality of the numbers.

Thanks for reposting. I always thought it would be nice if the MrSEC Expounding on Expansion articles had included the NC schools for our discussions. What are the numbers for Wake Forest, since it is a quasi-permanent ACC rival for Vanderbilt?

(11-13-2014 12:54 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(11-13-2014 03:55 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-17-2014 05:27 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Here is where our conference stands on revenue in athletics and attendance which is one aspect that is reflective of market draw.
Revenue figures are rounded to the nearest thousand dollars. Attendance is as reported and averaged for all home games.

Alabama: Revenue $124,900,000; Attendance 101,505
Arkansas: Revenue $ 99,757,000; Attendance 61,596
Auburn: Revenue $105,951,000; Attendance 85,657
Florida: Revenue $120,772,000; Attendance 87,440
Georgia: Revenue $ 91,671,000; Attendance 92,746
Kentucky: Revenue $ 88,373,000; Attendance 59,472
Louisiana State: Revenue $114,788,000; Attendance 91,418
Mississippi: Revenue $ 51,859,000; Attendance 59,393
Miss State: Revenue $ 69,829,000; Attendance 55,695
Missouri: Revenue $ 50,720,000; Attendance 63,505
South Carolina: Revenue $ 87,608,000; Attendance 82,401
Tennessee: Revenue $102,884,000; Attendance 95,584
Texas A&M: Revenue $119,702,000; Attendance 87,125
Vanderbilt: Revenue $ 55,836,000; Attendance 35,675

The Mean Revenue Level for Athletics in the SEC is: $91,760,714 and the Mean Attendance is rounded down to 75,000 per school per home game.

So who could the SEC add that would enhance these numbers:
1. Texas: Revenue $163,295,000; Attendance 98,976; (Would strengthen existing numbers for the SEC)
2. Oklahoma: Revenue $106,457,000; Attendance 84,722; Population 3.814 Million
3. Florida State: Revenue $100,049,000; Attendance 75,421; (Would strengthen existing numbers for the SEC)
4. Notre Dame: Revenue $ 97,113,000; Attendance 80,795; Population 6.537 Million (for Indiana plus those of the Catholic faith that follow nationwide.)

Schools whose markets could enhance the payout of the SEC but who on their own merits do not enhance our numbers.

1. Virginia: Revenue $ 80,836,000; Attendance 46,279; Population 8.260 Million
2. North Carolina: Revenue $ 82,424,000; Attendance 51,500; Population 9.848 Million
3. Virginia Tech: Revenue $ 70,724,000; Attendance 63,999; Population 8.260 Million
4. North Carolina St.: Revenue $ 59,758,000; Attendance 53,178; Population 9.848 Million
5. Pittsburgh: Revenue $ 56,338,000; Attendance 49,741; Population 12.763 Million
6. West Virginia: Revenue $ 80,065,000; Attendance 52,910; Population 1.855 Million
7. Oklahoma State: Revenue $ 87,271,000; Attendance 59,126; Population 3.814 Million
8. Kansas: Revenue $ 70,229,000; Attendance 37,884; Population 2.888 Million
9. Kansas State: Revenue $63,272,000; Attendance 52,887; Population 2.888 Million

Another that could fit with a revenue increase:

1. Clemson: Revenue $ 70,002,000; Attendance 82,048; (Would strengthen existing numbers for the SEC.)

Duke is a possibility if North Carolina insisted upon it and because of their phenomenal academic ratings:

1. Duke: Revenue $ 78,605,000; Attendance 26,062 (Doesn't deliver North Carolina but would strengthen existing numbers and deliver a national audience.)

Now if you like you can discuss the merits or lack thereof of any of these schools but if the SEC is to expand again these are the prospects for a variety of different reasons. I can't see anyone outside of these being a prospect unless a conference merger was the reason.

My take here to 16 the most advantageous would be Virginia and North Carolina, followed by Virginia Tech and North Carolina, followed by Virginia Tech and N.C. State. The greatest strength would be with the additions of Texas and Oklahoma.

At 18 the markets would enhanced the most by North Carolina, Virginia, Pittsburgh, Oklahoma. The greatest strength would be in adding Texas, Oklahoma, Florida State and North Carolina.

At 20 the markets would be enhanced the most by North Carolina, Virginia, Pittsburgh, Oklahoma, Kansas, and West Virginia (I'm not counting Notre Dame at any position.) The greatest strength would be in North Carolina, Virginia Tech, Florida State, Texas, Oklahoma, and Clemson. But those are just my thoughts.

In light of some recent posts and claims I thought it might be nice if folks revisited the reality of the numbers.

Thanks for reposting. I always thought it would be nice if the MrSEC Expounding on Expansion articles had included the NC schools for our discussions. What are the numbers for Wake Forest, since it is a quasi-permanent ACC rival for Vanderbilt?

Since they are private I have no idea what their revenue is off the top of my head. I had to do some Google gymnastics to piece together some of the privates revenues. But Wake's attendance fluctuates between 24,000 to 26,000 per game.

Pardon me, I confused their numbers with those of Duke. Wake averages between 30 to 31,000 per game. They would clearly be the worst draw in the SEC if added.

(04-17-2014 05:27 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Here is where our conference stands on revenue in athletics and attendance which is one aspect that is reflective of market draw.
Revenue figures are rounded to the nearest thousand dollars. Attendance is as reported and averaged for all home games.

Alabama: Revenue $124,900,000; Attendance 101,505
Arkansas: Revenue $ 99,757,000; Attendance 61,596
Auburn: Revenue $105,951,000; Attendance 85,657
Florida: Revenue $120,772,000; Attendance 87,440
Georgia: Revenue $ 91,671,000; Attendance 92,746
Kentucky: Revenue $ 88,373,000; Attendance 59,472
Louisiana State: Revenue $114,788,000; Attendance 91,418
Mississippi: Revenue $ 51,859,000; Attendance 59,393
Miss State: Revenue $ 69,829,000; Attendance 55,695
Missouri: Revenue $ 50,720,000; Attendance 63,505
South Carolina: Revenue $ 87,608,000; Attendance 82,401
Tennessee: Revenue $102,884,000; Attendance 95,584
Texas A&M: Revenue $119,702,000; Attendance 87,125
Vanderbilt: Revenue $ 55,836,000; Attendance 35,675

The Mean Revenue Level for Athletics in the SEC is: $91,760,714 and the Mean Attendance is rounded down to 75,000 per school per home game.

So who could the SEC add that would enhance these numbers:
1. Texas: Revenue $163,295,000; Attendance 98,976; (Would strengthen existing numbers for the SEC)
2. Oklahoma: Revenue $106,457,000; Attendance 84,722; Population 3.814 Million
3. Florida State: Revenue $100,049,000; Attendance 75,421; (Would strengthen existing numbers for the SEC)
4. Notre Dame: Revenue $ 97,113,000; Attendance 80,795; Population 6.537 Million (for Indiana plus those of the Catholic faith that follow nationwide.)

Schools whose markets could enhance the payout of the SEC but who on their own merits do not enhance our numbers.

1. Virginia: Revenue $ 80,836,000; Attendance 46,279; Population 8.260 Million
2. North Carolina: Revenue $ 82,424,000; Attendance 51,500; Population 9.848 Million
3. Virginia Tech: Revenue $ 70,724,000; Attendance 63,999; Population 8.260 Million
4. North Carolina St.: Revenue $ 59,758,000; Attendance 53,178; Population 9.848 Million
5. Pittsburgh: Revenue $ 56,338,000; Attendance 49,741; Population 12.763 Million
6. West Virginia: Revenue $ 80,065,000; Attendance 52,910; Population 1.855 Million
7. Oklahoma State: Revenue $ 87,271,000; Attendance 59,126; Population 3.814 Million
8. Kansas: Revenue $ 70,229,000; Attendance 37,884; Population 2.888 Million
9. Kansas State: Revenue $63,272,000; Attendance 52,887; Population 2.888 Million

Another that could fit with a revenue increase:

1. Clemson: Revenue $ 70,002,000; Attendance 82,048; (Would strengthen existing numbers for the SEC.)

Duke is a possibility if North Carolina insisted upon it and because of their phenomenal academic ratings:

1. Duke: Revenue $ 78,605,000; Attendance 26,062 (Doesn't deliver North Carolina but would strengthen existing numbers and deliver a national audience.)

Now if you like you can discuss the merits or lack thereof of any of these schools but if the SEC is to expand again these are the prospects for a variety of different reasons. I can't see anyone outside of these being a prospect unless a conference merger was the reason.

My take here to 16 the most advantageous would be Virginia and North Carolina, followed by Virginia Tech and North Carolina, followed by Virginia Tech and N.C. State. The greatest strength would be with the additions of Texas and Oklahoma.

At 18 the markets would enhanced the most by North Carolina, Virginia, Pittsburgh, Oklahoma. The greatest strength would be in adding Texas, Oklahoma, Florida State and North Carolina.

At 20 the markets would be enhanced the most by North Carolina, Virginia, Pittsburgh, Oklahoma, Kansas, and West Virginia (I'm not counting Notre Dame at any position.) The greatest strength would be in North Carolina, Virginia Tech, Florida State, Texas, Oklahoma, and Clemson. But those are just my thoughts.

We know what we would like to have, but you need to look at what we could have:
Virginia Tech: Revenue 70.724 million; Attendance 63,999; Population 8.26 million
N.C. State: Revenue 59.758 million; Attendance 53,178; Population 9.848 million
Kansas State: Revenue 63.272 million; Attendance 52,887; Population 2.888 million
Oklahoma State: Revenue 87.271 million; Attendance 59,126; Population 3.814

That adds 4 new states and the addition of Oklahoma State helps lock down DFW along with A&M, it adds 4 schools with an average attendance of 57,297 (which would improve in the SEC), and it adds 24.81 million viewers the SECN, and all of them have revenues that fall within existing SEC limits.

10th would be happy with no additional Texas schools and no Oklahoma. I think we all would be happier without the attitudes of some of the other possible schools from those states, and the existing power system of the SEC would not be threatened, but we would with three of those 4 add to the middle of the strength of this conference. N.C. State would likely improve to that level as well as the only SEC school in their state.

Sometimes less is more.

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Kansas State, Missouri, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M

Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, N.C. State, South Carolina, Virginia Tech

That kind of move could have the following ramifications:
1. It frees Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas to either move together or helps them to form the nucleus of a new conference.

2. It permits Duke, North Carolina and Virginia to move together.

3. It would free up Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Louisville, Miami and Pittsburgh to make a move to the Big 12.

I would be willing to bet that Oklahoma State and Kansas State would surpass their in state rivals in sports on field performance within a decade with such a move (of course KState is already there in football). I would also be willing to bet that Virginia Tech would again become a contender with the East. Just some thoughts, not a recommendation.

It would be a very solid addition. However, KSU would go back to being KSU historically in short order in the SEC in that division (or maybe any SEC division). Snyder is in his last few years most likely (even rumors this could be his last year) and he is the only guy to have even a modicum of success there. If that happens, they will lose a lot of the attendance they are now enjoying. They would probably end up being a better basketball add than football add for the SEC.

Honestly, ISU is a better addition IMO. They suck in FB and still fill their FB stadium (whoever you take from KS or IA is going to be a bottom dweller most years, not a big deal every division as them) and they are a solid to good BB school most years. ISU also has the AAU bonus.

Should probably update the revenue numbers as most schools now have increased revenues due to the B12, PAC, and ACC changes in TV contracts. KU is up to almost a $100M ($97.7M) in the last reported numbers here (great site for the latest numbers). If KU currently had a decent FB program it would be well into the 100s by now.

(11-16-2014 08:19 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  It would be a very solid addition. However, KSU would go back to being KSU historically in short order in the SEC in that division (or maybe any SEC division). Snyder is in his last few years most likely (even rumors this could be his last year) and he is the only guy to have even a modicum of success there. If that happens, they will lose a lot of the attendance they are now enjoying. They would probably end up being a better basketball add than football add for the SEC.

Honestly, ISU is a better addition IMO. They suck in FB and still fill their FB stadium (whoever you take from KS or IA is going to be a bottom dweller most years, not a big deal every division as them) and they are a solid to good BB school most years. ISU also has the AAU bonus.

Should probably update the revenue numbers as most schools now have increased revenues due to the B12, PAC, and ACC changes in TV contracts. KU is up to almost a $100M ($97.7M) in the last reported numbers here (great site for the latest numbers). If KU currently had a decent FB program it would be well into the 100s by now.

I totally agree about ISU on many levels, academics, fan support, basketball perks (at least for the SEC), etc. The problem is selling the idea of the Cyclones in the SEC to Billy Bob and Bubba. Heck even my two grandmothers would have rejected the idea prima facie.

(11-16-2014 12:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-16-2014 08:19 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  It would be a very solid addition. However, KSU would go back to being KSU historically in short order in the SEC in that division (or maybe any SEC division). Snyder is in his last few years most likely (even rumors this could be his last year) and he is the only guy to have even a modicum of success there. If that happens, they will lose a lot of the attendance they are now enjoying. They would probably end up being a better basketball add than football add for the SEC.

Honestly, ISU is a better addition IMO. They suck in FB and still fill their FB stadium (whoever you take from KS or IA is going to be a bottom dweller most years, not a big deal every division as them) and they are a solid to good BB school most years. ISU also has the AAU bonus.

Should probably update the revenue numbers as most schools now have increased revenues due to the B12, PAC, and ACC changes in TV contracts. KU is up to almost a $100M ($97.7M) in the last reported numbers here (great site for the latest numbers). If KU currently had a decent FB program it would be well into the 100s by now.

I totally agree about ISU on many levels, academics, fan support, basketball perks (at least for the SEC), etc. The problem is selling the idea of the Cyclones in the SEC to Billy Bob and Bubba. Heck even my two grandmothers would have rejected the idea prima facie.

Haha. I understand that. The SEC, due to it's football strength, has a plethora of options it could go with in expansion, but the cultural issues of some people not wanting any "Yankee" schools could be the only real hurdle on selling certain schools as possible members.

Most of my thinking is based on the conference going east. Ideally I would love to see FSU, UNC, Duke and Virginia/Virginia Tech (as a TN fan I love the idea of Tech as a conference rival, but if we were in pods they would be in a different division anyway, so I don't know that it makes as big a difference).

However, it does sound like we can get "better schools" out west. Obviously I'd prefer OK to OK St, but it does sound like Kansas, Oklahoma, ISU, and Baylor could be a good solid get. Again, as a TN fan I'd love to have Baylor to play more often in women's basketball.

If we are thinking like university presidents, academics do matter and getting Kansas as an AAU could be nice, but I do think they are more likely to go to Big 10.

Adding VT, FSU and NC State to the east and ISU, Baylor and Oklahoma/St. to the west may be a "reasonable" expectation so we don't "lose" head-to-head choices for some schools between us and the Big 10. Those gets would add to our football, basketball and academic standing.

(11-19-2014 01:16 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  Most of my thinking is based on the conference going east. Ideally I would love to see FSU, UNC, Duke and Virginia/Virginia Tech (as a TN fan I love the idea of Tech as a conference rival, but if we were in pods they would be in a different division anyway, so I don't know that it makes as big a difference).

However, it does sound like we can get "better schools" out west. Obviously I'd prefer OK to OK St, but it does sound like Kansas, Oklahoma, ISU, and Baylor could be a good solid get. Again, as a TN fan I'd love to have Baylor to play more often in women's basketball.

If we are thinking like university presidents, academics do matter and getting Kansas as an AAU could be nice, but I do think they are more likely to go to Big 10.

Adding VT, FSU and NC State to the east and ISU, Baylor and Oklahoma/St. to the west may be a "reasonable" expectation so we don't "lose" head-to-head choices for some schools between us and the Big 10. Those gets would add to our football, basketball and academic standing.

Other than the perception of adding a decidedly northern school, there is a lot to like about I.S.U. They do add to hoops, their fan base shows phenomenal support of their teams in spite of performance, they are AAU, and in many ways the disciplines taught at I.S.U. suit those of most SEC schools. Iowa State actually adds to the existing Western boundary by extending the Missouri North boundary by another state. But unfortunately it alters the image of the SEC and that will probably remove them as a prospect. Kansas faces a similar problem in the SEC. It is perception and markets that make us look west to Texas and Oklahoma as states. The perception is that they are more Southern and the DFW market is one we would like to lock down. But I do agree with your thinking with regards to a move to 20.

Consider this. In a move to twenty in which we take 3 from the ACC and 3 from the Big 12 then by your logic Virginia Tech, N.C. State, and Miami actually give us more market share than Virginia Tech, N.C. State and F.S.U. since the Noles duplicate the basically the same areas of Florida that the Gators already give us. The Canes on the other hand add a fading national brand that could rejuvenate in the SEC and gives us a South Florida demographic that is needed. And currently the Canes are not the threat to the balance of power that some perceive F.S.U. could be. Then to the west we could take Baylor, Oklahoma State, and a Kansas school. Now you've added 19 million viewers in North Carolina and Virginia, have a solid presence in South Florida, cement your presence in the Gulf area of Texas while adding DFW with the combined support there of the Aggies, the Bears and the Cowboys, and pick up basketball cache as well. How would you feel about those?

(11-19-2014 04:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-19-2014 01:16 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  Most of my thinking is based on the conference going east. Ideally I would love to see FSU, UNC, Duke and Virginia/Virginia Tech (as a TN fan I love the idea of Tech as a conference rival, but if we were in pods they would be in a different division anyway, so I don't know that it makes as big a difference).

However, it does sound like we can get "better schools" out west. Obviously I'd prefer OK to OK St, but it does sound like Kansas, Oklahoma, ISU, and Baylor could be a good solid get. Again, as a TN fan I'd love to have Baylor to play more often in women's basketball.

If we are thinking like university presidents, academics do matter and getting Kansas as an AAU could be nice, but I do think they are more likely to go to Big 10.

Adding VT, FSU and NC State to the east and ISU, Baylor and Oklahoma/St. to the west may be a "reasonable" expectation so we don't "lose" head-to-head choices for some schools between us and the Big 10. Those gets would add to our football, basketball and academic standing.

Other than the perception of adding a decidedly northern school, there is a lot to like about I.S.U. They do add to hoops, their fan base shows phenomenal support of their teams in spite of performance, they are AAU, and in many ways the disciplines taught at I.S.U. suit those of most SEC schools. Iowa State actually adds to the existing Western boundary by extending the Missouri North boundary by another state. But unfortunately it alters the image of the SEC and that will probably remove them as a prospect. Kansas faces a similar problem in the SEC. It is perception and markets that make us look west to Texas and Oklahoma as states. The perception is that they are more Southern and the DFW market is one we would like to lock down. But I do agree with your thinking with regards to a move to 20.

Consider this. In a move to twenty in which we take 3 from the ACC and 3 from the Big 12 then by your logic Virginia Tech, N.C. State, and Miami actually give us more market share than Virginia Tech, N.C. State and F.S.U. since the Noles duplicate the basically the same areas of Florida that the Gators already give us. The Canes on the other hand add a fading national brand that could rejuvenate in the SEC and gives us a South Florida demographic that is needed. And currently the Canes are not the threat to the balance of power that some perceive F.S.U. could be. Then to the west we could take Baylor, Oklahoma State, and a Kansas school. Now you've added 19 million viewers in North Carolina and Virginia, have a solid presence in South Florida, cement your presence in the Gulf area of Texas while adding DFW with the combined support there of the Aggies, the Bears and the Cowboys, and pick up basketball cache as well. How would you feel about those?

That is an interesting take on Miami/FSU, and I'll buy in, however, I think that Miami is better suited for the Big 10 with its Big East background and northern ties. As to OK St, I view it similar to West Virginia - possibly a decent fit, but as a Tier 3 institution I am worried about perception. Perhaps if they could gain more academic reputation.

I'm confused about the Kansas school since at first you said it does have a perception problem. I admit I don't know much about Kansas St's academics compared to Kansas and the AAU status. I feel like Kansas adds more basketball perception but Kansas St. might fit better if a decent replacement for Snyder can be found.

I've heard the same thing about Virginia Tech and Beamer, that it will fade again after Beamer leaves. With that in mind I'm open if we can catch UVA, but I do think Virginia Tech is the better cultural fit, and with Buzz Williams there for basketball now, it may wind up helping more in that area too.

I also agree with a previous statement you made that "less is more" (or did I make that up) and that 18 maybe be a better number than 20. However, the SEC as had a reputation as the biggest and "baddest" conference, and only going to 18 may be perceived as a weakness if we don't get a few "wins" in terms of beating out the Big 10 for the brand names. For example if we got OK St, Kansas St and Baylor while the Big 10 managed to get OK, TX and Kansas, the perception will be the SEC "lost." If we are going to fight a perception problem anyway, this thread makes me think taking Iowa St would be a better "win"- though markets would also be an issue with them.

If I'm an SEC president, then my concerns are academics, basketball and keeping the status quo in football - so middle of the pack teams that are frequently 6-6/7-5/8-4 but not really upsetting the order. As a personal thing, I'd also be interested in teams that had soccer/hockey and think about starting an SEC league in those sports, but that would be way down the totem bowl.

The last expansion seemed to be in that vain - Texas A&M was a middle of the pack Big 12 team and while Mizzou had some recent success, historically it wasn't there (I apologize if I don't know my history as well as I should). Mizzou had a decent basketball team and both schools were AAU. I don't think AAU is a major concern of the SEC (as both NC State and Virginia Tech are good schools academically) but it certainly helps.