(11-20-2014 09:44 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(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.

A few points to address your perceptiveness in regards to my positions.

1. I only prefer Miami because they would be an academic addition that improves the SEC standing and they are in the South Florida market. That state is quite different from Tampa/Orlando South than above that line. I do believe the SEC should acknowledge that. I also believe eventually that the model for payment to the conferences will change from a footprint model to a saturation model, especially as delivery systems become more household specific.

2. I am not against adding as many AAU schools as possible. A move to 20 with Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Duke and Virginia would be spectacular. I just don't think it realistic. Could we land North Carolina and Duke as a pair? Possibly. Slive seemed to think so. Could we land Texas and Oklahoma as a pair? Possibly. But A&M truly wants to be in a different conference than Texas and we owe them that if that is truly their wish. Oklahoma would like to move with the horns but might move independent of them should we agree to take Oklahoma State too. I'm just not sure that is a good move. I really like Kansas and don't have anything against another Vet School and K State has a good one. KSU is not great academically, but they aren't bad either. But neither do they meet the mean of the SEC. I just seem ambivalent because I do think that they won't be perceived by the wide majority of SEC fans as fitting our brand and that is the essence of brand dilution.

3. I suppose our ideal to 18 at this point would be North Carolina, Duke, Virginia and Oklahoma. But the issue here is that the Big 10 and PAC will have ill will should such a power move be made by the most dominant conference. It would be a minor concern to me, but probably more of one to some of the networks, like ESPN, who wants to stay in as many good graces as is possible and profitable.

4. If it was just me, brand would be all I would be concerned about. There are 4 schools that could fit our brand and only 4. Texas, Oklahoma, Clemson, and Florida State. With work Virginia Tech could creep into that range. These schools are all top 20 in profitability, and all average 72,000 in attendance up to over 100,000. Three are national brands and Clemson a strong regional brand with long standing ties to SEC schools. (Georgia, Auburn, South Carolina)

5. I like 18 and don't see it as weak. 18 allows for three 6 team divisions with 3 divisional champs and the best remaining at large entering the conference semis. That one wild card team allows multiple fan bases to stay engaged much later into the season and will float our content value in doubling our CCG revenue which is all ours. It helps the top 1/3rd of the conference with late season attendance and it is profitable in that there are 2 less mouths to feed and it allows for a very desirable regional grouping.

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M
Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina
Alabama, Florida State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Now that's what an 18 school SEC should look like. To please Texas A&M simply replace the Longhorns with Baylor.

Now you have Baylor and Clemson that add to the academic standing of the conference and Oklahoma and Florida State who are near the mean.

While Duke and North Carolina and Virginia add dramatically to the academic side of things of those three only North Carolina, and only recently, has broken 50,000 in attendance at home football games, and they have just barely broken that number. Virginia's sports emphasis is antithetical to that of the SEC. Duke is simply a better Vanderbilt. What is lost in all of this is that our AAU schools already have associations with the AAU schools in other conferences. Academics are important, but our athletic associations should be made to maximize both competition and profit. Basketball is not really a large point of emphasis because it only generates 15% (and declining in all conferences) as a revenue producer. Baseball is in the single digits for the few conferences (of which the SEC is one) in revenue production.

Hockey is a club sport in the SEC already. Look it up. Soccer will grow in appeal but is a long long long way from becoming a revenue sport.

(11-20-2014 10:32 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-20-2014 09:44 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(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.

A few points to address your perceptiveness in regards to my positions.

1. I only prefer Miami because they would be an academic addition that improves the SEC standing and they are in the South Florida market. That state is quite different from Tampa/Orlando South than above that line. I do believe the SEC should acknowledge that. I also believe eventually that the model for payment to the conferences will change from a footprint model to a saturation model, especially as delivery systems become more household specific.

2. I am not against adding as many AAU schools as possible. A move to 20 with Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Duke and Virginia would be spectacular. I just don't think it realistic. Could we land North Carolina and Duke as a pair? Possibly. Slive seemed to think so. Could we land Texas and Oklahoma as a pair? Possibly. But A&M truly wants to be in a different conference than Texas and we owe them that if that is truly their wish. Oklahoma would like to move with the horns but might move independent of them should we agree to take Oklahoma State too. I'm just not sure that is a good move. I really like Kansas and don't have anything against another Vet School and K State has a good one. KSU is not great academically, but they aren't bad either. But neither do they meet the mean of the SEC. I just seem ambivalent because I do think that they won't be perceived by the wide majority of SEC fans as fitting our brand and that is the essence of brand dilution.

3. I suppose our ideal to 18 at this point would be North Carolina, Duke, Virginia and Oklahoma. But the issue here is that the Big 10 and PAC will have ill will should such a power move be made by the most dominant conference. It would be a minor concern to me, but probably more of one to some of the networks, like ESPN, who wants to stay in as many good graces as is possible and profitable.

4. If it was just me, brand would be all I would be concerned about. There are 4 schools that could fit our brand and only 4. Texas, Oklahoma, Clemson, and Florida State. With work Virginia Tech could creep into that range. These schools are all top 20 in profitability, and all average 72,000 in attendance up to over 100,000. Three are national brands and Clemson a strong regional brand with long standing ties to SEC schools. (Georgia, Auburn, South Carolina)

5. I like 18 and don't see it as weak. 18 allows for three 6 team divisions with 3 divisional champs and the best remaining at large entering the conference semis. That one wild card team allows multiple fan bases to stay engaged much later into the season and will float our content value in doubling our CCG revenue which is all ours. It helps the top 1/3rd of the conference with late season attendance and it is profitable in that there are 2 less mouths to feed and it allows for a very desirable regional grouping.

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M
Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina
Alabama, Florida State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Now that's what an 18 school SEC should look like. To please Texas A&M simply replace the Longhorns with Baylor.

Now you have Baylor and Clemson that add to the academic standing of the conference and Oklahoma and Florida State who are near the mean.

While Duke and North Carolina and Virginia add dramatically to the academic side of things of those three only North Carolina, and only recently, has broken 50,000 in attendance at home football games, and they have just barely broken that number. Virginia's sports emphasis is antithetical to that of the SEC. Duke is simply a better Vanderbilt. What is lost in all of this is that our AAU schools already have associations with the AAU schools in other conferences. Academics are important, but our athletic associations should be made to maximize both competition and profit. Basketball is not really a large point of emphasis because it only generates 15% (and declining in all conferences) as a revenue producer. Baseball is in the single digits for the few conferences (of which the SEC is one) in revenue production.

Hockey is a club sport in the SEC already. Look it up. Soccer will grow in appeal but is a long long long way from becoming a revenue sport.

First, my biggest blunder - sorry about not knowing about hockey.

1) I'm sold, but when it comes down to it, would Miami rather be in the Big 10 or SEC if they have a choice? Alot of rumors that came out suggested that the Big 10 would be interested in Miami as well. I think we lose that matchup, but otherwise I'm convinced.

2) Sounds like game theory would say we win if several other conferences win as well. I would be against accepting Texas at this point for exactly the reason you described, and if it is either Texas/Oklahoma or Oklahoma/OK St then you are probably right that it is a no-go for the conference. Ambivalent is probably a good word about KSU based on that info (and thanks for filling me in). I would be less enthusiastic about Kansas if Mizzou wasn't already in the conference. I think protecting our brand is important too.

3) Fair enough. More game theory - our conference wins if we let other conferences win too - one conference just can't win "big." As long as we don't get all "leftovers," etc. I am fine with whatever.

4) I think Clemson would be a great SEC school if markets become less of a factor and brand gets bigger. I love the rivalries with Georgia and Auburn and South Carolina. Clemson playing their ACC schedule, + in state South Carolina, plus Georgia/Auburn semi-regularly makes them have in my opinion one of the better schedules of the country and I admire them for that.

5) I'm probably biased on Duke because of Cutcliffe. I do think attendance numbers, etc. should be a factor, but I think the value of Duke/UNC "may" be worth it. When you say Virginia's sports emphasis is antithetical to the SEC what do you mean? (I have long thought they were a better Big 10 fit anyway, but they always do well in the Director's cup).

I may be overestimating basketball's significance but it seems to me like that has been a point of emphasis recently in the league, with the league having a schedule "czar" and whatnot. In addition, I think good baseball, however little revenue it generates, is certainly part of the SEC culture as well.

I do think that the way further expansion happens will influence who we "get." What I mean by that is if we jump to 18 we have 4 slots, if we jump to 20 we have 6 slots and have more room for pairs. But at 16, we have less room for pairs and so if it goes 14-16-18-20 then the league will look different than 14-18-20 or just 14-20.

At just 16 I think you look East in order to shift Mizzou over to the west, and based on what you are saying, maybe Miami and Virginia Tech are best "fits." Two good academic schools, two decent markets, and two schools that can work within the SEC brand.

In addition, I would think that a school like Baylor probably has a UConn problem. What I mean by that is any conference that wants UConn could get UConn at any point - most reasonably the ACC, but there are those UConn Big 10 and Big 12 rumors as well. They are a solid grab but not a "must have," and will probably be available when a conference decides to go for them. The same with Baylor - the PAC doesn't want them and neither does the Big 10, so if the SEC wants them they will still be there in a second go-round.

Playing "the game," I would wait to "draft" them, but then be certain to make them 17 instead of 18 or 19 instead of 20. That shows that we were not "stuck" with them, but we wanted them for a reason.

I do wonder what your thoughts are on the Big 10's plans as that has direct impact on us. Are they going East - UNC/Duke/Georgia Tech and even Miami/FSU or are they going west - Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas?

And what would the PAC's move be if it couldn't get all four of the Texas/TT/OK/OK St... would they "settle" for OK St separate of OK or pick up KSU - do they get into a fight with the Big 10 for Kansas? Do they hold their nose and get BYU or someone like that? Or do they go for Hawaii/New Mexico or something.

(11-20-2014 01:06 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(11-20-2014 10:32 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-20-2014 09:44 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(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.

A few points to address your perceptiveness in regards to my positions.

1. I only prefer Miami because they would be an academic addition that improves the SEC standing and they are in the South Florida market. That state is quite different from Tampa/Orlando South than above that line. I do believe the SEC should acknowledge that. I also believe eventually that the model for payment to the conferences will change from a footprint model to a saturation model, especially as delivery systems become more household specific.

2. I am not against adding as many AAU schools as possible. A move to 20 with Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Duke and Virginia would be spectacular. I just don't think it realistic. Could we land North Carolina and Duke as a pair? Possibly. Slive seemed to think so. Could we land Texas and Oklahoma as a pair? Possibly. But A&M truly wants to be in a different conference than Texas and we owe them that if that is truly their wish. Oklahoma would like to move with the horns but might move independent of them should we agree to take Oklahoma State too. I'm just not sure that is a good move. I really like Kansas and don't have anything against another Vet School and K State has a good one. KSU is not great academically, but they aren't bad either. But neither do they meet the mean of the SEC. I just seem ambivalent because I do think that they won't be perceived by the wide majority of SEC fans as fitting our brand and that is the essence of brand dilution.

3. I suppose our ideal to 18 at this point would be North Carolina, Duke, Virginia and Oklahoma. But the issue here is that the Big 10 and PAC will have ill will should such a power move be made by the most dominant conference. It would be a minor concern to me, but probably more of one to some of the networks, like ESPN, who wants to stay in as many good graces as is possible and profitable.

4. If it was just me, brand would be all I would be concerned about. There are 4 schools that could fit our brand and only 4. Texas, Oklahoma, Clemson, and Florida State. With work Virginia Tech could creep into that range. These schools are all top 20 in profitability, and all average 72,000 in attendance up to over 100,000. Three are national brands and Clemson a strong regional brand with long standing ties to SEC schools. (Georgia, Auburn, South Carolina)

5. I like 18 and don't see it as weak. 18 allows for three 6 team divisions with 3 divisional champs and the best remaining at large entering the conference semis. That one wild card team allows multiple fan bases to stay engaged much later into the season and will float our content value in doubling our CCG revenue which is all ours. It helps the top 1/3rd of the conference with late season attendance and it is profitable in that there are 2 less mouths to feed and it allows for a very desirable regional grouping.

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M
Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina
Alabama, Florida State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Now that's what an 18 school SEC should look like. To please Texas A&M simply replace the Longhorns with Baylor.

Now you have Baylor and Clemson that add to the academic standing of the conference and Oklahoma and Florida State who are near the mean.

While Duke and North Carolina and Virginia add dramatically to the academic side of things of those three only North Carolina, and only recently, has broken 50,000 in attendance at home football games, and they have just barely broken that number. Virginia's sports emphasis is antithetical to that of the SEC. Duke is simply a better Vanderbilt. What is lost in all of this is that our AAU schools already have associations with the AAU schools in other conferences. Academics are important, but our athletic associations should be made to maximize both competition and profit. Basketball is not really a large point of emphasis because it only generates 15% (and declining in all conferences) as a revenue producer. Baseball is in the single digits for the few conferences (of which the SEC is one) in revenue production.

Hockey is a club sport in the SEC already. Look it up. Soccer will grow in appeal but is a long long long way from becoming a revenue sport.

First, my biggest blunder - sorry about not knowing about hockey.

1) I'm sold, but when it comes down to it, would Miami rather be in the Big 10 or SEC if they have a choice? Alot of rumors that came out suggested that the Big 10 would be interested in Miami as well. I think we lose that matchup, but otherwise I'm convinced.

[/b]Miami is just an outlier any where they go, but some less in the SEC and they are not AAU. But you are right about their culture.

2) Sounds like game theory would say we win if several other conferences win as well. I would be against accepting Texas at this point for exactly the reason you described, and if it is either Texas/Oklahoma or Oklahoma/OK St then you are probably right that it is a no-go for the conference. Ambivalent is probably a good word about KSU based on that info (and thanks for filling me in). I would be less enthusiastic about Kansas if Mizzou wasn't already in the conference. I think protecting our brand is important too.

Yep, they are good candidates but just not optimum.

3) Fair enough. More game theory - our conference wins if we let other conferences win too - one conference just can't win "big." As long as we don't get all "leftovers," etc. I am fine with whatever.



4) I think Clemson would be a great SEC school if markets become less of a factor and brand gets bigger. I love the rivalries with Georgia and Auburn and South Carolina. Clemson playing their ACC schedule, + in state South Carolina, plus Georgia/Auburn semi-regularly makes them have in my opinion one of the better schedules of the country and I admire them for that.


5) I'm probably biased on Duke because of Cutcliffe. I do think attendance numbers, etc. should be a factor, but I think the value of Duke/UNC "may" be worth it. When you say Virginia's sports emphasis is antithetical to the SEC what do you mean? (I have long thought they were a better Big 10 fit anyway, but they always do well in the Director's cup).

What I mean is that there emphasis in more on Olympic sports and Hoops. Ours is on Football, Baseball, Olympic sports, and Hoops. Therefore almost reversed from their outlook.



I may be overestimating basketball's significance but it seems to me like that has been a point of emphasis recently in the league, with the league having a schedule "czar" and whatnot. In addition, I think good baseball, however little revenue it generates, is certainly part of the SEC culture as well.

It is the only area in which the SEC still has a lot of upside. We are really pretty darned good at everything else, including country club sports.

I do think that the way further expansion happens will influence who we "get." What I mean by that is if we jump to 18 we have 4 slots, if we jump to 20 we have 6 slots and have more room for pairs. But at 16, we have less room for pairs and so if it goes 14-16-18-20 then the league will look different than 14-18-20 or just 14-20.

This is absolutely true and one reason I would like to see the next move be to at least 18. At that point we are setting our conference not just adding to it. The sooner you move to your target the better acquisitions you get.

At just 16 I think you look East in order to shift Mizzou over to the west, and based on what you are saying, maybe Miami and Virginia Tech are best "fits." Two good academic schools, two decent markets, and two schools that can work within the SEC brand.

In addition, I would think that a school like Baylor probably has a UConn problem. What I mean by that is any conference that wants UConn could get UConn at any point - most reasonably the ACC, but there are those UConn Big 10 and Big 12 rumors as well. They are a solid grab but not a "must have," and will probably be available when a conference decides to go for them. The same with Baylor - the PAC doesn't want them and neither does the Big 10, so if the SEC wants them they will still be there in a second go-round.

I agree, but I do see them as the third best school in Texas.

Playing "the game," I would wait to "draft" them, but then be certain to make them 17 instead of 18 or 19 instead of 20. That shows that we were not "stuck" with them, but we wanted them for a reason.

I do wonder what your thoughts are on the Big 10's plans as that has direct impact on us. Are they going East - UNC/Duke/Georgia Tech and even Miami/FSU or are they going west - Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas?

I think Delany is interested in brand integrity as well. He sees the 19 million viewers in North Carolina and Virginia and might entertain Atlanta, but he also needs to consolidate New England and he knows Notre Dame is in the ACC for a reason, Olympic sports emphasis, lacrosse, and an easy path in football. He needs to add B.C., and Syracuse in order to lure N.D. Then if he adds North Carolina and Duke along with Virginia I think he has grown as much as he would want to grow. He only goes to Kansas and Oklahoma if the ACC stands firm. And in that case we might go with Oklahoma and West Virginia, Oklahoma school and Kansas school, or Oklahoma school and second Texas school, IMO.

And what would the PAC's move be if it couldn't get all four of the Texas/TT/OK/OK St... would they "settle" for OK St separate of OK or pick up KSU - do they get into a fight with the Big 10 for Kansas? Do they hold their nose and get BYU or someone like that? Or do they go for Hawaii/New Mexico or something.

The PAC gets 1 shot at this and one only. If they think that Delany and Slive want to divide the ACC I think they go for Iowa State, KSU, Kansas, OSU, OU, T.C.U., TTU, and Texas. If the move is to 16 instead of 20 then Texas, TCU, an Oklahoma school and a Kansas school give them the demographic. You might substitute I.S.U. for an Oklahoma school if they can't get OU.

(11-20-2014 01:06 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(11-20-2014 10:32 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-20-2014 09:44 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(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.

A few points to address your perceptiveness in regards to my positions.

1. I only prefer Miami because they would be an academic addition that improves the SEC standing and they are in the South Florida market. That state is quite different from Tampa/Orlando South than above that line. I do believe the SEC should acknowledge that. I also believe eventually that the model for payment to the conferences will change from a footprint model to a saturation model, especially as delivery systems become more household specific.

2. I am not against adding as many AAU schools as possible. A move to 20 with Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Duke and Virginia would be spectacular. I just don't think it realistic. Could we land North Carolina and Duke as a pair? Possibly. Slive seemed to think so. Could we land Texas and Oklahoma as a pair? Possibly. But A&M truly wants to be in a different conference than Texas and we owe them that if that is truly their wish. Oklahoma would like to move with the horns but might move independent of them should we agree to take Oklahoma State too. I'm just not sure that is a good move. I really like Kansas and don't have anything against another Vet School and K State has a good one. KSU is not great academically, but they aren't bad either. But neither do they meet the mean of the SEC. I just seem ambivalent because I do think that they won't be perceived by the wide majority of SEC fans as fitting our brand and that is the essence of brand dilution.

3. I suppose our ideal to 18 at this point would be North Carolina, Duke, Virginia and Oklahoma. But the issue here is that the Big 10 and PAC will have ill will should such a power move be made by the most dominant conference. It would be a minor concern to me, but probably more of one to some of the networks, like ESPN, who wants to stay in as many good graces as is possible and profitable.

4. If it was just me, brand would be all I would be concerned about. There are 4 schools that could fit our brand and only 4. Texas, Oklahoma, Clemson, and Florida State. With work Virginia Tech could creep into that range. These schools are all top 20 in profitability, and all average 72,000 in attendance up to over 100,000. Three are national brands and Clemson a strong regional brand with long standing ties to SEC schools. (Georgia, Auburn, South Carolina)

5. I like 18 and don't see it as weak. 18 allows for three 6 team divisions with 3 divisional champs and the best remaining at large entering the conference semis. That one wild card team allows multiple fan bases to stay engaged much later into the season and will float our content value in doubling our CCG revenue which is all ours. It helps the top 1/3rd of the conference with late season attendance and it is profitable in that there are 2 less mouths to feed and it allows for a very desirable regional grouping.

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M
Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina
Alabama, Florida State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Now that's what an 18 school SEC should look like. To please Texas A&M simply replace the Longhorns with Baylor.

Now you have Baylor and Clemson that add to the academic standing of the conference and Oklahoma and Florida State who are near the mean.

While Duke and North Carolina and Virginia add dramatically to the academic side of things of those three only North Carolina, and only recently, has broken 50,000 in attendance at home football games, and they have just barely broken that number. Virginia's sports emphasis is antithetical to that of the SEC. Duke is simply a better Vanderbilt. What is lost in all of this is that our AAU schools already have associations with the AAU schools in other conferences. Academics are important, but our athletic associations should be made to maximize both competition and profit. Basketball is not really a large point of emphasis because it only generates 15% (and declining in all conferences) as a revenue producer. Baseball is in the single digits for the few conferences (of which the SEC is one) in revenue production.

Hockey is a club sport in the SEC already. Look it up. Soccer will grow in appeal but is a long long long way from becoming a revenue sport.

.

5) I'm probably biased on Duke because of Cutcliffe. I do think attendance numbers, etc. should be a factor, but I think the value of Duke/UNC "may" be worth it. When you say Virginia's sports emphasis is antithetical to the SEC what do you mean? (I have long thought they were a better Big 10 fit anyway, but they always do well in the Director's cup).

Did you realize that Carolina has more top 10 Director's Cup finishes than the rest of the ACC combined, and is the only school other than Stanford to win the Cup?

(11-23-2014 05:45 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-20-2014 01:06 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(11-20-2014 10:32 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-20-2014 09:44 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(11-19-2014 04:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  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.

A few points to address your perceptiveness in regards to my positions.

1. I only prefer Miami because they would be an academic addition that improves the SEC standing and they are in the South Florida market. That state is quite different from Tampa/Orlando South than above that line. I do believe the SEC should acknowledge that. I also believe eventually that the model for payment to the conferences will change from a footprint model to a saturation model, especially as delivery systems become more household specific.

2. I am not against adding as many AAU schools as possible. A move to 20 with Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Duke and Virginia would be spectacular. I just don't think it realistic. Could we land North Carolina and Duke as a pair? Possibly. Slive seemed to think so. Could we land Texas and Oklahoma as a pair? Possibly. But A&M truly wants to be in a different conference than Texas and we owe them that if that is truly their wish. Oklahoma would like to move with the horns but might move independent of them should we agree to take Oklahoma State too. I'm just not sure that is a good move. I really like Kansas and don't have anything against another Vet School and K State has a good one. KSU is not great academically, but they aren't bad either. But neither do they meet the mean of the SEC. I just seem ambivalent because I do think that they won't be perceived by the wide majority of SEC fans as fitting our brand and that is the essence of brand dilution.

3. I suppose our ideal to 18 at this point would be North Carolina, Duke, Virginia and Oklahoma. But the issue here is that the Big 10 and PAC will have ill will should such a power move be made by the most dominant conference. It would be a minor concern to me, but probably more of one to some of the networks, like ESPN, who wants to stay in as many good graces as is possible and profitable.

4. If it was just me, brand would be all I would be concerned about. There are 4 schools that could fit our brand and only 4. Texas, Oklahoma, Clemson, and Florida State. With work Virginia Tech could creep into that range. These schools are all top 20 in profitability, and all average 72,000 in attendance up to over 100,000. Three are national brands and Clemson a strong regional brand with long standing ties to SEC schools. (Georgia, Auburn, South Carolina)

5. I like 18 and don't see it as weak. 18 allows for three 6 team divisions with 3 divisional champs and the best remaining at large entering the conference semis. That one wild card team allows multiple fan bases to stay engaged much later into the season and will float our content value in doubling our CCG revenue which is all ours. It helps the top 1/3rd of the conference with late season attendance and it is profitable in that there are 2 less mouths to feed and it allows for a very desirable regional grouping.

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M
Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina
Alabama, Florida State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Now that's what an 18 school SEC should look like. To please Texas A&M simply replace the Longhorns with Baylor.

Now you have Baylor and Clemson that add to the academic standing of the conference and Oklahoma and Florida State who are near the mean.

While Duke and North Carolina and Virginia add dramatically to the academic side of things of those three only North Carolina, and only recently, has broken 50,000 in attendance at home football games, and they have just barely broken that number. Virginia's sports emphasis is antithetical to that of the SEC. Duke is simply a better Vanderbilt. What is lost in all of this is that our AAU schools already have associations with the AAU schools in other conferences. Academics are important, but our athletic associations should be made to maximize both competition and profit. Basketball is not really a large point of emphasis because it only generates 15% (and declining in all conferences) as a revenue producer. Baseball is in the single digits for the few conferences (of which the SEC is one) in revenue production.

Hockey is a club sport in the SEC already. Look it up. Soccer will grow in appeal but is a long long long way from becoming a revenue sport.

.

5) I'm probably biased on Duke because of Cutcliffe. I do think attendance numbers, etc. should be a factor, but I think the value of Duke/UNC "may" be worth it. When you say Virginia's sports emphasis is antithetical to the SEC what do you mean? (I have long thought they were a better Big 10 fit anyway, but they always do well in the Director's cup).

Did you realize that Carolina has more top 10 Director's Cup finishes than the rest of the ACC combined, and is the only school other than Stanford to win the Cup?

That's really nice and should be lauded more, but it's not. The only thing fans care about are NCAA Tournament Championships and Crystal Footballs, or the Gilded Ice Cream Cone they will hand out now.

(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.

Add to the above facts that in the 2015 recruiting classes the only schools to keep pace with the top of the SEC classes were Florida State and Clemson, and Texas and Oklahoma would have placed in the top half of the SEC classes. For fit alone a year later the best 4 schools for SEC fit would be Florida State, Clemson, Texas, and Oklahoma.

Let's tack this onto this thread for posterity and for the conversation it is sure to generate:

blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2015/03/05/the-pac-12s-financial-future-comparing-tv-revenue-to-the-sec-and-big-ten/

(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.

********************************************************************************************************************************
Update on 2014 attendance figures:
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...wn-in-2014

(11-20-2014 10:32 AM)JRsec Wrote:  I do wonder what your thoughts are on the Big 10's plans as that has direct impact on us. Are they going East - UNC/Duke/Georgia Tech and even Miami/FSU or are they going west - Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas?

And what would the PAC's move be if it couldn't get all four of the Texas/TT/OK/OK St... would they "settle" for OK St separate of OK or pick up KSU - do they get into a fight with the Big 10 for Kansas? Do they hold their nose and get BYU or someone like that? Or do they go for Hawaii/New Mexico or something.

To me, the next wave starts with the B1G's next move. Assuming the ACC Network does not come about and that was the only thing holding the GOR in place, I'm sure they would ideally add UVA and UNC, but I think UVA and the Carolina schools would rather stick together than abandon the ACC before it died. So to shake the landscape up and maximize their next contract, I think the B1G would grab Georgia Tech and Virginia Tech. VT, though not AAU, is ranked 40th in research expenditures, ahead of UVA, and has a better football brand in that state.

This would leave the entire ACC exploring all possibilities. I would expect sales pitches from everywhere and I would expect the SEC to secure the group of UNC, UVA and Duke. The 18th slot would probably be up for negotiations. I would assume another new market/territory/brand would help. The KU-Texas to SEC rumor stated that CBS wanted Tier One additions. Duke/UNC would work great for BB, but does nothing football wise. This is where the sales pitch should go out to Oklahoma. If OU says no, go to the next most valuable addition.

(03-06-2015 08:06 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(11-20-2014 10:32 AM)JRsec Wrote:  I do wonder what your thoughts are on the Big 10's plans as that has direct impact on us. Are they going East - UNC/Duke/Georgia Tech and even Miami/FSU or are they going west - Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas?

And what would the PAC's move be if it couldn't get all four of the Texas/TT/OK/OK St... would they "settle" for OK St separate of OK or pick up KSU - do they get into a fight with the Big 10 for Kansas? Do they hold their nose and get BYU or someone like that? Or do they go for Hawaii/New Mexico or something.

To me, the next wave starts with the B1G's next move. Assuming the ACC Network does not come about and that was the only thing holding the GOR in place, I'm sure they would ideally add UVA and UNC, but I think UVA and the Carolina schools would rather stick together than abandon the ACC before it died. So to shake the landscape up and maximize their next contract, I think the B1G would grab Georgia Tech and Virginia Tech. VT, though not AAU, is ranked 40th in research expenditures, ahead of UVA, and has a better football brand in that state.

This would leave the entire ACC exploring all possibilities. I would expect sales pitches from everywhere and I would expect the SEC to secure the group of UNC, UVA and Duke. The 18th slot would probably be up for negotiations. I would assume another new market/territory/brand would help. The KU-Texas to SEC rumor stated that CBS wanted Tier One additions. Duke/UNC would work great for BB, but does nothing football wise. This is where the sales pitch should go out to Oklahoma. If OU says no, go to the next most valuable addition.

I agree on Duke, Virginia and North Carolina in a crisis and so does ESPN. They vetted the SEC on the idea just before Maryland defected. I guess someone knew something. I also agree on Oklahoma not only for content but for impact upon the DFW market. That precludes having to take another Texas school. But if they said no I would still like to see us land the Seminoles. Some other conference can have Miami if they want them, Georgia Tech doesn't give anyone Georgia, and what Virginia Tech does won't hurt if we have UVa, but F.S.U. in the wrong hands would be a threat, not to markets, but to recruiting. It's in the SEC's interest to take them for content and its in their interest to come for logistics.

A few random thoughts.

1) Please don't hear me going back on my favor of eastern based expansion. I do believe the eastern schools offer the most potential overall, however, the new western rumors have gotten me thinking. Division wise, the SEC would probably prefer western schools so that they could slide Alabama and Auburn east. This would make TN-Alabama and Georgia-Auburn divisional, and allow there to be no permanent cross division rivals (LSU will be happy). Scheduling will be much easier with a 7-2 (unless of course the schools go to pods or to a divisionless set up).

2) How does the financial ramifications of Sugar Bowl vs. Orange Bowl play into these scenarios? If the Big 12 does collapse and the Sugar Bowl loses half that tie in, do we go from $40 million for the conference to $20 million or do we just reshuffle the bowls and wind up with the ACC in the Sugar? Do we lose the Sugar entirely or does it becomes second to the Orange? In effect, does the SEC have any interest in keeping any conference together for the sake of the bowls or does the increase in payout for expansion outweigh the bowl?

3) How serious is the idea of the Big 10 taking Virginia Tech? I always thought they would take Virginia and we could get VTech but I have heard that the Big 10 is interested in Tech too. My guess is they wouldn't take both. I'm sure the SEC would be interested in UVA even if it wasn't quite a fit, but it might seem odd.

3B) If there is an eastern expansion for the Big 10/SEC are the conferences better served splitting the North Carolina and Virginia (as states, not the schools, could be any combo of UNC/Duke/NcState and VT/Virginia) or having defined borders: The Big 10 gets Virginia while the SEC gets North Carolina. Or should the SEC box out the Big 10 by taking UVA/VTech (if possible).

4) I have been disappointed in the lack of Pac-12 centric expansion ideas. I know this is an SEC forum but I figure we should consider everything from all sides. If the Pac-12 got what they wanted, what would it be? Let's say its the Texahoma 4 (I guess they could go 18 with Kansas/KSU too). That leaves 6 schools for three conferences. I figure Kansas/Iowa St to Big 10. I would prefer WVU/Baylor to SEC but that leaves KSU and TCU for ACC. Would the ACC be willing to take those? I would assume getting into Texas might be a good thing for them but they might want WVU/Baylor too. Again just trying to think in different perspectives.

(03-06-2015 09:23 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  A few random thoughts.

1) Please don't hear me going back on my favor of eastern based expansion. I do believe the eastern schools offer the most potential overall, however, the new western rumors have gotten me thinking. Division wise, the SEC would probably prefer western schools so that they could slide Alabama and Auburn east. This would make TN-Alabama and Georgia-Auburn divisional, and allow there to be no permanent cross division rivals (LSU will be happy). Scheduling will be much easier with a 7-2 (unless of course the schools go to pods or to a divisionless set up).

2) How does the financial ramifications of Sugar Bowl vs. Orange Bowl play into these scenarios? If the Big 12 does collapse and the Sugar Bowl loses half that tie in, do we go from $40 million for the conference to $20 million or do we just reshuffle the bowls and wind up with the ACC in the Sugar? Do we lose the Sugar entirely or does it becomes second to the Orange? In effect, does the SEC have any interest in keeping any conference together for the sake of the bowls or does the increase in payout for expansion outweigh the bowl?

3) How serious is the idea of the Big 10 taking Virginia Tech? I always thought they would take Virginia and we could get VTech but I have heard that the Big 10 is interested in Tech too. My guess is they wouldn't take both. I'm sure the SEC would be interested in UVA even if it wasn't quite a fit, but it might seem odd.

3B) If there is an eastern expansion for the Big 10/SEC are the conferences better served splitting the North Carolina and Virginia (as states, not the schools, could be any combo of UNC/Duke/NcState and VT/Virginia) or having defined borders: The Big 10 gets Virginia while the SEC gets North Carolina. Or should the SEC box out the Big 10 by taking UVA/VTech (if possible).

4) I have been disappointed in the lack of Pac-12 centric expansion ideas. I know this is an SEC forum but I figure we should consider everything from all sides. If the Pac-12 got what they wanted, what would it be? Let's say its the Texahoma 4 (I guess they could go 18 with Kansas/KSU too). That leaves 6 schools for three conferences. I figure Kansas/Iowa St to Big 10. I would prefer WVU/Baylor to SEC but that leaves KSU and TCU for ACC. Would the ACC be willing to take those? I would assume getting into Texas might be a good thing for them but they might want WVU/Baylor too. Again just trying to think in different perspectives.

There's a thread on the main board "The Trojan Horse" thread of Lurker's in which near the final pages I post a link to the PAC's having to face selling an interest in the PACN to get carriage and close the economic gap on the SEC and Big 10. If ESPN is the purchaser then things could wind up quite differently. Texas and OU might indeed go to the PAC with Iowa State and Kansas, or with their little brothers depending upon what the PAC/ESPN/Texas agree upon. It would even serve the PAC well just to take 8. Iowa State, Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Kansas State, along with T.C.U. would all be acceptable to the PAC. Baylor is more dogmatic, not much, but just enough to be in doubt.

Should that occur the only targets of value for the Big 10 and SEC would be in the ACC and ESPN would seek to protect its most valuable properties in an SEC where they can make the most off of them. Duke and North Carolina wouldn't threaten the SEC's football pecking order much but would give us some much needed national eyeballs on our basketball. Where they go Virginia goes. You get 3 really good baseball programs and oodles of hoops but not much else. And that's okay because we have plenty of football content. I think we add Clemson and Florida State at that point simply because of their content and they are the most SEC like programs left out there. Perhaps we take Georgia Tech as well to keep the Big 10 out of Georgia.

The Big 10 likes large state universities and Virginia Tech and N.C. State fit the bill better than the other three. Neither are AAU but both are strong academically and not that far away from consideration. Even if they never make it the 19 million viewers would be what the BTN was after the same as us. I think Delany would take Syracuse, Pitt, Boston College, and hope to finally land Notre Dame.

Of all of the conference the SEC would then be in the best position to be able to move to 24. West Virginia, Louisville, Baylor, and Miami could easily put us at 24.

Face it we have a tremendous advantage in recruiting. Landing Clemson and Florida State along with Georgia Tech would lock the Southeast down solely as our domain. It doesn't really matter if Miami joins us at that point or not.

Personally if we have to go the ACC route I would rather stop at 20. But, having a second school to use for a recruiting tool in Texas would be important. Having an actual presence in South Florida wouldn't hurt either. West Virginia gets a a slither of Pittsburgh, adds to Virginia's presence in D.C., and Louisville brings in part of the Ohio border along with strong all around sports programs and a profitable athletic department. So 24 wouldn't be bad either.

(03-06-2015 10:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-06-2015 09:23 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  A few random thoughts.

1) Please don't hear me going back on my favor of eastern based expansion. I do believe the eastern schools offer the most potential overall, however, the new western rumors have gotten me thinking. Division wise, the SEC would probably prefer western schools so that they could slide Alabama and Auburn east. This would make TN-Alabama and Georgia-Auburn divisional, and allow there to be no permanent cross division rivals (LSU will be happy). Scheduling will be much easier with a 7-2 (unless of course the schools go to pods or to a divisionless set up).

2) How does the financial ramifications of Sugar Bowl vs. Orange Bowl play into these scenarios? If the Big 12 does collapse and the Sugar Bowl loses half that tie in, do we go from $40 million for the conference to $20 million or do we just reshuffle the bowls and wind up with the ACC in the Sugar? Do we lose the Sugar entirely or does it becomes second to the Orange? In effect, does the SEC have any interest in keeping any conference together for the sake of the bowls or does the increase in payout for expansion outweigh the bowl?

3) How serious is the idea of the Big 10 taking Virginia Tech? I always thought they would take Virginia and we could get VTech but I have heard that the Big 10 is interested in Tech too. My guess is they wouldn't take both. I'm sure the SEC would be interested in UVA even if it wasn't quite a fit, but it might seem odd.

3B) If there is an eastern expansion for the Big 10/SEC are the conferences better served splitting the North Carolina and Virginia (as states, not the schools, could be any combo of UNC/Duke/NcState and VT/Virginia) or having defined borders: The Big 10 gets Virginia while the SEC gets North Carolina. Or should the SEC box out the Big 10 by taking UVA/VTech (if possible).

4) I have been disappointed in the lack of Pac-12 centric expansion ideas. I know this is an SEC forum but I figure we should consider everything from all sides. If the Pac-12 got what they wanted, what would it be? Let's say its the Texahoma 4 (I guess they could go 18 with Kansas/KSU too). That leaves 6 schools for three conferences. I figure Kansas/Iowa St to Big 10. I would prefer WVU/Baylor to SEC but that leaves KSU and TCU for ACC. Would the ACC be willing to take those? I would assume getting into Texas might be a good thing for them but they might want WVU/Baylor too. Again just trying to think in different perspectives.

There's a thread on the main board "The Trojan Horse" thread of Lurker's in which near the final pages I post a link to the PAC's having to face selling an interest in the PACN to get carriage and close the economic gap on the SEC and Big 10. If ESPN is the purchaser then things could wind up quite differently. Texas and OU might indeed go to the PAC with Iowa State and Kansas, or with their little brothers depending upon what the PAC/ESPN/Texas agree upon. It would even serve the PAC well just to take 8. Iowa State, Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Kansas State, along with T.C.U. would all be acceptable to the PAC. Baylor is more dogmatic, not much, but just enough to be in doubt.

Should that occur the only targets of value for the Big 10 and SEC would be in the ACC and ESPN would seek to protect its most valuable properties in an SEC where they can make the most off of them. Duke and North Carolina wouldn't threaten the SEC's football pecking order much but would give us some much needed national eyeballs on our basketball. Where they go Virginia goes. You get 3 really good baseball programs and oodles of hoops but not much else. And that's okay because we have plenty of football content. I think we add Clemson and Florida State at that point simply because of their content and they are the most SEC like programs left out there. Perhaps we take Georgia Tech as well to keep the Big 10 out of Georgia.

The Big 10 likes large state universities and Virginia Tech and N.C. State fit the bill better than the other three. Neither are AAU but both are strong academically and not that far away from consideration. Even if they never make it the 19 million viewers would be what the BTN was after the same as us. I think Delany would take Syracuse, Pitt, Boston College, and hope to finally land Notre Dame.

Of all of the conference the SEC would then be in the best position to be able to move to 24. West Virginia, Louisville, Baylor, and Miami could easily put us at 24.

Face it we have a tremendous advantage in recruiting. Landing Clemson and Florida State along with Georgia Tech would lock the Southeast down solely as our domain. It doesn't really matter if Miami joins us at that point or not.

Personally if we have to go the ACC route I would rather stop at 20. But, having a second school to use for a recruiting tool in Texas would be important. Having an actual presence in South Florida wouldn't hurt either. West Virginia gets a a slither of Pittsburgh, adds to Virginia's presence in D.C., and Louisville brings in part of the Ohio border along with strong all around sports programs and a profitable athletic department. So 24 wouldn't be bad either.

New Albany, Indiana lies across the river from Louisville, about 100 miles downstream from the closest corner of Ohio and the Cincinnati metro area. The only time Louisville sports moved any needles in Ohio is when they played the University of Cincinnati, and sadly, that long-standing rivalry has become a casualty of realignment. Lexington, Kentucky is closer to Ohio than Louisville, but UK athletics don't register in Ohio, either. If the SEC wants to extend its footprint into Ohio and appeal to Ohio's 11+ million residents, it's going to have to add an Ohio team.

(03-07-2015 01:14 AM)colohank Wrote:  

(03-06-2015 10:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-06-2015 09:23 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  A few random thoughts.

1) Please don't hear me going back on my favor of eastern based expansion. I do believe the eastern schools offer the most potential overall, however, the new western rumors have gotten me thinking. Division wise, the SEC would probably prefer western schools so that they could slide Alabama and Auburn east. This would make TN-Alabama and Georgia-Auburn divisional, and allow there to be no permanent cross division rivals (LSU will be happy). Scheduling will be much easier with a 7-2 (unless of course the schools go to pods or to a divisionless set up).

2) How does the financial ramifications of Sugar Bowl vs. Orange Bowl play into these scenarios? If the Big 12 does collapse and the Sugar Bowl loses half that tie in, do we go from $40 million for the conference to $20 million or do we just reshuffle the bowls and wind up with the ACC in the Sugar? Do we lose the Sugar entirely or does it becomes second to the Orange? In effect, does the SEC have any interest in keeping any conference together for the sake of the bowls or does the increase in payout for expansion outweigh the bowl?

3) How serious is the idea of the Big 10 taking Virginia Tech? I always thought they would take Virginia and we could get VTech but I have heard that the Big 10 is interested in Tech too. My guess is they wouldn't take both. I'm sure the SEC would be interested in UVA even if it wasn't quite a fit, but it might seem odd.

3B) If there is an eastern expansion for the Big 10/SEC are the conferences better served splitting the North Carolina and Virginia (as states, not the schools, could be any combo of UNC/Duke/NcState and VT/Virginia) or having defined borders: The Big 10 gets Virginia while the SEC gets North Carolina. Or should the SEC box out the Big 10 by taking UVA/VTech (if possible).

4) I have been disappointed in the lack of Pac-12 centric expansion ideas. I know this is an SEC forum but I figure we should consider everything from all sides. If the Pac-12 got what they wanted, what would it be? Let's say its the Texahoma 4 (I guess they could go 18 with Kansas/KSU too). That leaves 6 schools for three conferences. I figure Kansas/Iowa St to Big 10. I would prefer WVU/Baylor to SEC but that leaves KSU and TCU for ACC. Would the ACC be willing to take those? I would assume getting into Texas might be a good thing for them but they might want WVU/Baylor too. Again just trying to think in different perspectives.

There's a thread on the main board "The Trojan Horse" thread of Lurker's in which near the final pages I post a link to the PAC's having to face selling an interest in the PACN to get carriage and close the economic gap on the SEC and Big 10. If ESPN is the purchaser then things could wind up quite differently. Texas and OU might indeed go to the PAC with Iowa State and Kansas, or with their little brothers depending upon what the PAC/ESPN/Texas agree upon. It would even serve the PAC well just to take 8. Iowa State, Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Kansas State, along with T.C.U. would all be acceptable to the PAC. Baylor is more dogmatic, not much, but just enough to be in doubt.

Should that occur the only targets of value for the Big 10 and SEC would be in the ACC and ESPN would seek to protect its most valuable properties in an SEC where they can make the most off of them. Duke and North Carolina wouldn't threaten the SEC's football pecking order much but would give us some much needed national eyeballs on our basketball. Where they go Virginia goes. You get 3 really good baseball programs and oodles of hoops but not much else. And that's okay because we have plenty of football content. I think we add Clemson and Florida State at that point simply because of their content and they are the most SEC like programs left out there. Perhaps we take Georgia Tech as well to keep the Big 10 out of Georgia.

The Big 10 likes large state universities and Virginia Tech and N.C. State fit the bill better than the other three. Neither are AAU but both are strong academically and not that far away from consideration. Even if they never make it the 19 million viewers would be what the BTN was after the same as us. I think Delany would take Syracuse, Pitt, Boston College, and hope to finally land Notre Dame.

Of all of the conference the SEC would then be in the best position to be able to move to 24. West Virginia, Louisville, Baylor, and Miami could easily put us at 24.

Face it we have a tremendous advantage in recruiting. Landing Clemson and Florida State along with Georgia Tech would lock the Southeast down solely as our domain. It doesn't really matter if Miami joins us at that point or not.

Personally if we have to go the ACC route I would rather stop at 20. But, having a second school to use for a recruiting tool in Texas would be important. Having an actual presence in South Florida wouldn't hurt either. West Virginia gets a a slither of Pittsburgh, adds to Virginia's presence in D.C., and Louisville brings in part of the Ohio border along with strong all around sports programs and a profitable athletic department. So 24 wouldn't be bad either.

New Albany, Indiana lies across the river from Louisville, about 100 miles downstream from the closest corner of Ohio and the Cincinnati metro area. The only time Louisville sports moved any needles in Ohio is when they played the University of Cincinnati, and sadly, that long-standing rivalry has become a casualty of realignment. Lexington, Kentucky is closer to Ohio than Louisville, but UK athletics don't register in Ohio, either. If the SEC wants to extend its footprint into Ohio and appeal to Ohio's 11+ million residents, it's going to have to add an Ohio team.

The Louisville/Cincinnati rivalry did end, but that was what I was referring to. If realignment remains geographically more intact I doubt the SEC would look beyond Texas or Oklahoma, or North Carolina and Virginia for additions. WVU could be a possibility. The ACC on the other hand feels the pressure of the Big 10 and might well respond offensively to the loss of Maryland. Louisville is a bridge in many ways not only to Notre Dame but possibly to Ohio. We'll see.

(03-06-2015 10:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-06-2015 09:23 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  A few random thoughts.

1) Please don't hear me going back on my favor of eastern based expansion. I do believe the eastern schools offer the most potential overall, however, the new western rumors have gotten me thinking. Division wise, the SEC would probably prefer western schools so that they could slide Alabama and Auburn east. This would make TN-Alabama and Georgia-Auburn divisional, and allow there to be no permanent cross division rivals (LSU will be happy). Scheduling will be much easier with a 7-2 (unless of course the schools go to pods or to a divisionless set up).

2) How does the financial ramifications of Sugar Bowl vs. Orange Bowl play into these scenarios? If the Big 12 does collapse and the Sugar Bowl loses half that tie in, do we go from $40 million for the conference to $20 million or do we just reshuffle the bowls and wind up with the ACC in the Sugar? Do we lose the Sugar entirely or does it becomes second to the Orange? In effect, does the SEC have any interest in keeping any conference together for the sake of the bowls or does the increase in payout for expansion outweigh the bowl?

3) How serious is the idea of the Big 10 taking Virginia Tech? I always thought they would take Virginia and we could get VTech but I have heard that the Big 10 is interested in Tech too. My guess is they wouldn't take both. I'm sure the SEC would be interested in UVA even if it wasn't quite a fit, but it might seem odd.

3B) If there is an eastern expansion for the Big 10/SEC are the conferences better served splitting the North Carolina and Virginia (as states, not the schools, could be any combo of UNC/Duke/NcState and VT/Virginia) or having defined borders: The Big 10 gets Virginia while the SEC gets North Carolina. Or should the SEC box out the Big 10 by taking UVA/VTech (if possible).

4) I have been disappointed in the lack of Pac-12 centric expansion ideas. I know this is an SEC forum but I figure we should consider everything from all sides. If the Pac-12 got what they wanted, what would it be? Let's say its the Texahoma 4 (I guess they could go 18 with Kansas/KSU too). That leaves 6 schools for three conferences. I figure Kansas/Iowa St to Big 10. I would prefer WVU/Baylor to SEC but that leaves KSU and TCU for ACC. Would the ACC be willing to take those? I would assume getting into Texas might be a good thing for them but they might want WVU/Baylor too. Again just trying to think in different perspectives.

There's a thread on the main board "The Trojan Horse" thread of Lurker's in which near the final pages I post a link to the PAC's having to face selling an interest in the PACN to get carriage and close the economic gap on the SEC and Big 10. If ESPN is the purchaser then things could wind up quite differently. Texas and OU might indeed go to the PAC with Iowa State and Kansas, or with their little brothers depending upon what the PAC/ESPN/Texas agree upon. It would even serve the PAC well just to take 8. Iowa State, Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Kansas State, along with T.C.U. would all be acceptable to the PAC. Baylor is more dogmatic, not much, but just enough to be in doubt.

Should that occur the only targets of value for the Big 10 and SEC would be in the ACC and ESPN would seek to protect its most valuable properties in an SEC where they can make the most off of them. Duke and North Carolina wouldn't threaten the SEC's football pecking order much but would give us some much needed national eyeballs on our basketball. Where they go Virginia goes. You get 3 really good baseball programs and oodles of hoops but not much else. And that's okay because we have plenty of football content. I think we add Clemson and Florida State at that point simply because of their content and they are the most SEC like programs left out there. Perhaps we take Georgia Tech as well to keep the Big 10 out of Georgia.

The Big 10 likes large state universities and Virginia Tech and N.C. State fit the bill better than the other three. Neither are AAU but both are strong academically and not that far away from consideration. Even if they never make it the 19 million viewers would be what the BTN was after the same as us. I think Delany would take Syracuse, Pitt, Boston College, and hope to finally land Notre Dame.

Of all of the conference the SEC would then be in the best position to be able to move to 24. West Virginia, Louisville, Baylor, and Miami could easily put us at 24.

Face it we have a tremendous advantage in recruiting. Landing Clemson and Florida State along with Georgia Tech would lock the Southeast down solely as our domain. It doesn't really matter if Miami joins us at that point or not.

Personally if we have to go the ACC route I would rather stop at 20. But, having a second school to use for a recruiting tool in Texas would be important. Having an actual presence in South Florida wouldn't hurt either. West Virginia gets a a slither of Pittsburgh, adds to Virginia's presence in D.C., and Louisville brings in part of the Ohio border along with strong all around sports programs and a profitable athletic department. So 24 wouldn't be bad either.

JR, do you seriously believe that if those 8 went to the PAC and left Baylor and WVU by themselves that the SEC/ESPN wouldn't just scoop them up? Baylor over the last 4-5 years has been one of, if not THE best athletic program in the Big 12. With the PAC taking the majority of the Big 12, the SEC would definitely have a recruiting challenge on their hands in Texas and having a 2nd Texas school would only benefit them. On top of that WVU brings a new market to the conference and a large and rabid fan base that you even said would be a benefit to the SEC. While the SEC doesn't need the football help having those 2 programs would not look as bad as some of those ACC basketball schools. Plus these 2 schools would still bring the basketball help you are seeking from those ACC schools, without tearing apart another ESPN property.

(03-07-2015 11:02 AM)BaylorFerg Wrote:  

(03-06-2015 10:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-06-2015 09:23 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  A few random thoughts.

1) Please don't hear me going back on my favor of eastern based expansion. I do believe the eastern schools offer the most potential overall, however, the new western rumors have gotten me thinking. Division wise, the SEC would probably prefer western schools so that they could slide Alabama and Auburn east. This would make TN-Alabama and Georgia-Auburn divisional, and allow there to be no permanent cross division rivals (LSU will be happy). Scheduling will be much easier with a 7-2 (unless of course the schools go to pods or to a divisionless set up).

2) How does the financial ramifications of Sugar Bowl vs. Orange Bowl play into these scenarios? If the Big 12 does collapse and the Sugar Bowl loses half that tie in, do we go from $40 million for the conference to $20 million or do we just reshuffle the bowls and wind up with the ACC in the Sugar? Do we lose the Sugar entirely or does it becomes second to the Orange? In effect, does the SEC have any interest in keeping any conference together for the sake of the bowls or does the increase in payout for expansion outweigh the bowl?

3) How serious is the idea of the Big 10 taking Virginia Tech? I always thought they would take Virginia and we could get VTech but I have heard that the Big 10 is interested in Tech too. My guess is they wouldn't take both. I'm sure the SEC would be interested in UVA even if it wasn't quite a fit, but it might seem odd.

3B) If there is an eastern expansion for the Big 10/SEC are the conferences better served splitting the North Carolina and Virginia (as states, not the schools, could be any combo of UNC/Duke/NcState and VT/Virginia) or having defined borders: The Big 10 gets Virginia while the SEC gets North Carolina. Or should the SEC box out the Big 10 by taking UVA/VTech (if possible).

4) I have been disappointed in the lack of Pac-12 centric expansion ideas. I know this is an SEC forum but I figure we should consider everything from all sides. If the Pac-12 got what they wanted, what would it be? Let's say its the Texahoma 4 (I guess they could go 18 with Kansas/KSU too). That leaves 6 schools for three conferences. I figure Kansas/Iowa St to Big 10. I would prefer WVU/Baylor to SEC but that leaves KSU and TCU for ACC. Would the ACC be willing to take those? I would assume getting into Texas might be a good thing for them but they might want WVU/Baylor too. Again just trying to think in different perspectives.

There's a thread on the main board "The Trojan Horse" thread of Lurker's in which near the final pages I post a link to the PAC's having to face selling an interest in the PACN to get carriage and close the economic gap on the SEC and Big 10. If ESPN is the purchaser then things could wind up quite differently. Texas and OU might indeed go to the PAC with Iowa State and Kansas, or with their little brothers depending upon what the PAC/ESPN/Texas agree upon. It would even serve the PAC well just to take 8. Iowa State, Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Kansas State, along with T.C.U. would all be acceptable to the PAC. Baylor is more dogmatic, not much, but just enough to be in doubt.

Should that occur the only targets of value for the Big 10 and SEC would be in the ACC and ESPN would seek to protect its most valuable properties in an SEC where they can make the most off of them. Duke and North Carolina wouldn't threaten the SEC's football pecking order much but would give us some much needed national eyeballs on our basketball. Where they go Virginia goes. You get 3 really good baseball programs and oodles of hoops but not much else. And that's okay because we have plenty of football content. I think we add Clemson and Florida State at that point simply because of their content and they are the most SEC like programs left out there. Perhaps we take Georgia Tech as well to keep the Big 10 out of Georgia.

The Big 10 likes large state universities and Virginia Tech and N.C. State fit the bill better than the other three. Neither are AAU but both are strong academically and not that far away from consideration. Even if they never make it the 19 million viewers would be what the BTN was after the same as us. I think Delany would take Syracuse, Pitt, Boston College, and hope to finally land Notre Dame.

Of all of the conference the SEC would then be in the best position to be able to move to 24. West Virginia, Louisville, Baylor, and Miami could easily put us at 24.

Face it we have a tremendous advantage in recruiting. Landing Clemson and Florida State along with Georgia Tech would lock the Southeast down solely as our domain. It doesn't really matter if Miami joins us at that point or not.

Personally if we have to go the ACC route I would rather stop at 20. But, having a second school to use for a recruiting tool in Texas would be important. Having an actual presence in South Florida wouldn't hurt either. West Virginia gets a a slither of Pittsburgh, adds to Virginia's presence in D.C., and Louisville brings in part of the Ohio border along with strong all around sports programs and a profitable athletic department. So 24 wouldn't be bad either.

JR, do you seriously believe that if those 8 went to the PAC and left Baylor and WVU by themselves that the SEC/ESPN wouldn't just scoop them up? Baylor over the last 4-5 years has been one of, if not THE best athletic program in the Big 12. With the PAC taking the majority of the Big 12, the SEC would definitely have a recruiting challenge on their hands in Texas and having a 2nd Texas school would only benefit them. On top of that WVU brings a new market to the conference and a large and rabid fan base that you even said would be a benefit to the SEC. While the SEC doesn't need the football help having those 2 programs would not look as bad as some of those ACC basketball schools. Plus these 2 schools would still bring the basketball help you are seeking from those ACC schools, without tearing apart another ESPN property.

The issue would simply be how defensive does the SEC become in stopping further Big 10 encroachment, and whether or not the desire is there to go to 24. I think for rivalries sake we would. How would you justify taking F.S.U., Clemson, and Georgia Tech, but leaving Kentucky's chief rival out? And I totally agree about the need to have a second Texas school and as you should know by now I'm more than open to Baylor for a variety of reasons. West Virginia should add enough content to pay for themselves.

Now that said I think the most perilous position for Baylor is a PAC move to 18 or 20. Unlike other scenarios Baylor would have to have the pieces fall just right to make such a move as the one suggested above at 24 members to the SEC. I just don't see the PAC taking you unless Texas absolutely insists upon it.

For the record I'm fine with Texas and Baylor to 16, or Oklahoma and Baylor to 16, or Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Baylor to 18. But in each of those scenarios things have to break right for it to happen. I happen to think your venue, athletics, and Baptist roots would play well in the Southeast. Plus, and I jest here a bit, we don't have anyone named Bears or anyone who wears green.

(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.

********************************************************************************************************************************
Update on 2014 attendance figures:
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...wn-in-2014

(03-06-2015 08:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-06-2015 08:06 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(11-20-2014 10:32 AM)JRsec Wrote:  I do wonder what your thoughts are on the Big 10's plans as that has direct impact on us. Are they going East - UNC/Duke/Georgia Tech and even Miami/FSU or are they going west - Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas?

And what would the PAC's move be if it couldn't get all four of the Texas/TT/OK/OK St... would they "settle" for OK St separate of OK or pick up KSU - do they get into a fight with the Big 10 for Kansas? Do they hold their nose and get BYU or someone like that? Or do they go for Hawaii/New Mexico or something.

To me, the next wave starts with the B1G's next move. Assuming the ACC Network does not come about and that was the only thing holding the GOR in place, I'm sure they would ideally add UVA and UNC, but I think UVA and the Carolina schools would rather stick together than abandon the ACC before it died. So to shake the landscape up and maximize their next contract, I think the B1G would grab Georgia Tech and Virginia Tech. VT, though not AAU, is ranked 40th in research expenditures, ahead of UVA, and has a better football brand in that state.

This would leave the entire ACC exploring all possibilities. I would expect sales pitches from everywhere and I would expect the SEC to secure the group of UNC, UVA and Duke. The 18th slot would probably be up for negotiations. I would assume another new market/territory/brand would help. The KU-Texas to SEC rumor stated that CBS wanted Tier One additions. Duke/UNC would work great for BB, but does nothing football wise. This is where the sales pitch should go out to Oklahoma. If OU says no, go to the next most valuable addition.

I agree on Duke, Virginia and North Carolina in a crisis and so does ESPN. They vetted the SEC on the idea just before Maryland defected. I guess someone knew something. I also agree on Oklahoma not only for content but for impact upon the DFW market. That precludes having to take another Texas school. But if they said no I would still like to see us land the Seminoles. Some other conference can have Miami if they want them, Georgia Tech doesn't give anyone Georgia, and what Virginia Tech does won't hurt if we have UVa, but F.S.U. in the wrong hands would be a threat, not to markets, but to recruiting. It's in the SEC's interest to take them for content and its in their interest to come for logistics.

We agree JR. FSU is valuable, but I don't think they meet the B1G's academic standards and would never get the votes.

(03-10-2015 09:48 PM)murrdcu 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.

********************************************************************************************************************************
Update on 2014 attendance figures:
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...wn-in-2014

(03-06-2015 08:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-06-2015 08:06 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(11-20-2014 10:32 AM)JRsec Wrote:  I do wonder what your thoughts are on the Big 10's plans as that has direct impact on us. Are they going East - UNC/Duke/Georgia Tech and even Miami/FSU or are they going west - Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas?

And what would the PAC's move be if it couldn't get all four of the Texas/TT/OK/OK St... would they "settle" for OK St separate of OK or pick up KSU - do they get into a fight with the Big 10 for Kansas? Do they hold their nose and get BYU or someone like that? Or do they go for Hawaii/New Mexico or something.

To me, the next wave starts with the B1G's next move. Assuming the ACC Network does not come about and that was the only thing holding the GOR in place, I'm sure they would ideally add UVA and UNC, but I think UVA and the Carolina schools would rather stick together than abandon the ACC before it died. So to shake the landscape up and maximize their next contract, I think the B1G would grab Georgia Tech and Virginia Tech. VT, though not AAU, is ranked 40th in research expenditures, ahead of UVA, and has a better football brand in that state.

This would leave the entire ACC exploring all possibilities. I would expect sales pitches from everywhere and I would expect the SEC to secure the group of UNC, UVA and Duke. The 18th slot would probably be up for negotiations. I would assume another new market/territory/brand would help. The KU-Texas to SEC rumor stated that CBS wanted Tier One additions. Duke/UNC would work great for BB, but does nothing football wise. This is where the sales pitch should go out to Oklahoma. If OU says no, go to the next most valuable addition.

I agree on Duke, Virginia and North Carolina in a crisis and so does ESPN. They vetted the SEC on the idea just before Maryland defected. I guess someone knew something. I also agree on Oklahoma not only for content but for impact upon the DFW market. That precludes having to take another Texas school. But if they said no I would still like to see us land the Seminoles. Some other conference can have Miami if they want them, Georgia Tech doesn't give anyone Georgia, and what Virginia Tech does won't hurt if we have UVa, but F.S.U. in the wrong hands would be a threat, not to markets, but to recruiting. It's in the SEC's interest to take them for content and its in their interest to come for logistics.

We agree JR. FSU is valuable, but I don't think they meet the B1G's academic standards and would never get the votes.

Since this is the "Just By The Numbers" thread at some point you have take the numbers for what they are worth and what they indicate. Here's what they tell me when I apply Occam's Razor to them. Texas only has two conferences that upgrade their earning potential, the Big 10 and SEC. One is close by with lots of old rivals and the other offers whoever they bring with them (likely only 1) and Nebraska who Texas never cared for anyway. If something happens to the Big 12 Texas will wind up in the SEC. Fans, money, culture of football, and proximity necessitate it.
The question then becomes who travels with them. They are valuable enough to insist upon 1 more Texas school and likely get them in. Oklahoma would be the perfect traveling companion and the pair would net themselves and the conference the most revenue. But, Oklahoma has contractual entanglements and Oklahoma State. Kansas has no such entanglements other than a preference for K.S.U.. I'd say the probabilities break down like this: Texas and Oklahoma would be preferred. Texas and Kansas would be a good second. But if Baylor can't find a home anywhere else it might well be those two. And I wouldn't eliminate the possibility of the SEC moving to 18 out of the Big 12, but 16 with Texas and OU would be ideal.

(03-10-2015 09:48 PM)murrdcu 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.

********************************************************************************************************************************
Update on 2014 attendance figures:
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...wn-in-2014

(03-06-2015 08:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-06-2015 08:06 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(11-20-2014 10:32 AM)JRsec Wrote:  I do wonder what your thoughts are on the Big 10's plans as that has direct impact on us. Are they going East - UNC/Duke/Georgia Tech and even Miami/FSU or are they going west - Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas?

And what would the PAC's move be if it couldn't get all four of the Texas/TT/OK/OK St... would they "settle" for OK St separate of OK or pick up KSU - do they get into a fight with the Big 10 for Kansas? Do they hold their nose and get BYU or someone like that? Or do they go for Hawaii/New Mexico or something.

To me, the next wave starts with the B1G's next move. Assuming the ACC Network does not come about and that was the only thing holding the GOR in place, I'm sure they would ideally add UVA and UNC, but I think UVA and the Carolina schools would rather stick together than abandon the ACC before it died. So to shake the landscape up and maximize their next contract, I think the B1G would grab Georgia Tech and Virginia Tech. VT, though not AAU, is ranked 40th in research expenditures, ahead of UVA, and has a better football brand in that state.

This would leave the entire ACC exploring all possibilities. I would expect sales pitches from everywhere and I would expect the SEC to secure the group of UNC, UVA and Duke. The 18th slot would probably be up for negotiations. I would assume another new market/territory/brand would help. The KU-Texas to SEC rumor stated that CBS wanted Tier One additions. Duke/UNC would work great for BB, but does nothing football wise. This is where the sales pitch should go out to Oklahoma. If OU says no, go to the next most valuable addition.

I agree on Duke, Virginia and North Carolina in a crisis and so does ESPN. They vetted the SEC on the idea just before Maryland defected. I guess someone knew something. I also agree on Oklahoma not only for content but for impact upon the DFW market. That precludes having to take another Texas school. But if they said no I would still like to see us land the Seminoles. Some other conference can have Miami if they want them, Georgia Tech doesn't give anyone Georgia, and what Virginia Tech does won't hurt if we have UVa, but F.S.U. in the wrong hands would be a threat, not to markets, but to recruiting. It's in the SEC's interest to take them for content and its in their interest to come for logistics.

We agree JR. FSU is valuable, but I don't think they meet the B1G's academic standards and would never get the votes.

The last move by The Big Ten is going to surprise folks, such as yourself, that are not able to see the whole picture. The Nebraska move was the telling move. Schools like Oklahoma or Florida State, under the right circumstances, would be accepted into the conference despite not being AAU.

In regards to FSU, they have a highly regarded Electromagnetics laboratory there. It is so advanced that it beat out MIT.

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/08/18/us/flo...enter.html

Under the right circumstances, Florida State would get that invite.

(03-10-2015 11:12 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 09:48 PM)murrdcu 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.

********************************************************************************************************************************
Update on 2014 attendance figures:
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...wn-in-2014

(03-06-2015 08:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-06-2015 08:06 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(11-20-2014 10:32 AM)JRsec Wrote:  I do wonder what your thoughts are on the Big 10's plans as that has direct impact on us. Are they going East - UNC/Duke/Georgia Tech and even Miami/FSU or are they going west - Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas?

And what would the PAC's move be if it couldn't get all four of the Texas/TT/OK/OK St... would they "settle" for OK St separate of OK or pick up KSU - do they get into a fight with the Big 10 for Kansas? Do they hold their nose and get BYU or someone like that? Or do they go for Hawaii/New Mexico or something.

To me, the next wave starts with the B1G's next move. Assuming the ACC Network does not come about and that was the only thing holding the GOR in place, I'm sure they would ideally add UVA and UNC, but I think UVA and the Carolina schools would rather stick together than abandon the ACC before it died. So to shake the landscape up and maximize their next contract, I think the B1G would grab Georgia Tech and Virginia Tech. VT, though not AAU, is ranked 40th in research expenditures, ahead of UVA, and has a better football brand in that state.

This would leave the entire ACC exploring all possibilities. I would expect sales pitches from everywhere and I would expect the SEC to secure the group of UNC, UVA and Duke. The 18th slot would probably be up for negotiations. I would assume another new market/territory/brand would help. The KU-Texas to SEC rumor stated that CBS wanted Tier One additions. Duke/UNC would work great for BB, but does nothing football wise. This is where the sales pitch should go out to Oklahoma. If OU says no, go to the next most valuable addition.

I agree on Duke, Virginia and North Carolina in a crisis and so does ESPN. They vetted the SEC on the idea just before Maryland defected. I guess someone knew something. I also agree on Oklahoma not only for content but for impact upon the DFW market. That precludes having to take another Texas school. But if they said no I would still like to see us land the Seminoles. Some other conference can have Miami if they want them, Georgia Tech doesn't give anyone Georgia, and what Virginia Tech does won't hurt if we have UVa, but F.S.U. in the wrong hands would be a threat, not to markets, but to recruiting. It's in the SEC's interest to take them for content and its in their interest to come for logistics.

We agree JR. FSU is valuable, but I don't think they meet the B1G's academic standards and would never get the votes.

The last move by The Big Ten is going to surprise folks, such as yourself, that are not able to see the whole picture. The Nebraska move was the telling move. Schools like Oklahoma or Florida State, under the right circumstances, would be accepted into the conference despite not being AAU.

In regards to FSU, they have a highly regarded Electromagnetics laboratory there. It is so advanced that it beat out MIT.

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/08/18/us/flo...enter.html

Under the right circumstances, Florida State would get that invite.

I absolutely agree that F.S.U., Virginia Tech, and a few others could get a look, or an invite from the Big 10. But, the SEC/ESPN isn't going to let F.S.U. (a top brand and SEC fit) leave the region. Virginia Tech is an entirely different matter and a very realistic possibility for the Big 10. Georgia Tech might be more of a possibility than F.S.U., but not nearly as likely as Virginia Tech.

The Big 10 like the SEC will add content brands with the next round. Kansas, Oklahoma, Virginia Tech, possibly N.C. State could be schools on that short list. I do not rule out Syracuse and Boston College for a basketball brand and a market.

For the SEC it will be Texas, Oklahoma, a Virginia school, a North Carolina school, Florida State and possibly Kansas (maybe Clemson if the ACC gets raided).

That's why I've said that if the ACC won't add the top brands of the Big 12, they won't be around in 12 years. The Big 12 is weaker in positioning, but stronger in brands. If the two don't accommodate one another then both will lag the SEC and Big 10 significantly.

The Big 10 should consider adding Pittsburgh, West Virginia, N.C. State, Virginia Tech, Syracuse, and Notre Dame. That gives you help with 3 football first schools, two with brand. It puts you into 3 more states (all contiguous) and gives you a bigger piece of N.Y.C. with the Cuse and Irish.

ESPN is not the SEC. They are not one and the same and ESPN really does not care about "keeping The Big Ten from the South". That is just a concept you have created in your head out of necessity.

They aren't protecting the South. They were protecting the ACC. You are the one floating the idea that ESPN, at some point, will no longer do that. If that happens then there goes your supposed "protection for the South".

Seriously, ESPN does not have the same views as SEC. They own the SEC not the other way around.