I never said the population decreased. What I said is growth rates from official census numbers. The SEC footprint had an astounding growth rate of over 15% the Big10 footprint below 5%. Every state (SEC/Big10) grew population except Michigan who had negative growth rate. When you have a growth rate that large for so many states what it says is people are moving out of one region and into another. It's not rocket science.


I don't have the numbers in front of me because I'm at home but just joggling my memory I think the SEC footprint add over 11 million while the Big10 was somewhere between 4 and 5 million. These are not good trends especially if the next census show comparable growth rates...this is going to be a 30 year trend minimum and we are 20 into it at least.

2010 census congressional seats lost
NY -2
OH -2
ILL -1
Iowa -1
Michigan -1
New Jersey -1
Pennsylvania -1
Mass -1
Missouri -1
Louisiana -1 (Katrina)



2010 census congressional seats gained
Texas +4
Florida +2
South Carolina +1
Georgia +1
Utah +1
Nevada +1
Washington state +1
Arizona +1


The total number of congressional seats does not change but how they are apportioned does depending on populations trends.

(04-25-2013 07:24 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(04-25-2013 06:11 PM)Tiger8589 Wrote:  

(04-25-2013 04:15 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I've been a much bigger defender of the ACC than most (I never thought for a second that FSU had any interest in the Big 12 or that UNC wanted to go to the Big Ten or SEC), but notion that they one-upped the Big Ten on any level is ridiculous. If the ACC ever bothered to do the things that the supposedly "can't do anything right" Big Ten was smart enough to do 7 years ago, then the ACC could have been the aggressors with their brands and geographic footprint. Instead, literally everything in conference realignment over the past 3 years was in *reaction* to what the Big Ten wanted to do. The fact that the ACC and, for that matter, Big 12 were able to save themselves and survive recently is admirable, but hardly a point to brag about compared to what the Big Ten has been able accomplish power-wise over the past decade.

You have your opinions just as others have theirs. Doesn't make either side right or wrong...that's all they are is opinion. The writer of the piece has just as valid an opinion as you or anyone else.

First off any Big10 discussion should start and end with it compared to the SEC...anything else is meaningless.

Doesn't matter what anyone really thinks in the grand scheme of things. If it's true the Big10 really did want North Carolina, Virginia, or whoever else it doesn't look like they had the POWER to pull it off. The Big 10 is fine today and for the foreseeable future but they face REAL long term challenges.

All the Big10 chest thumping is fine when talking about the ACC or whoever else but it stands to reason the talk should be more centered around is the Big10 ever going to close the gap with the SEC.

For goodness sakes.....I could care less but to make the statement the ACC has just been setting on the hands and have not done anything over the last several years to aggressively improve their brands and geographic footprint is simply not true.

Now while all may not fall in the 7 year category, for whatever that means, the ACC has added.

Florida St 1991
Miami 2004
Virginia Tech 2004
Boston College 2005
Syracuse 2013
Pittsburgh 2013
Notre Dame 2013 all sports except FB but a scheduling deal with FB
Louisville 2014

The ACC has more or less done all it could do over the years and somehow managed to stave off a serious raid. I thought they would get raided by the Big10, the implications would not have been felt AT ALL by the SEC because guess what they would have done the same thing if that ever happened.


As far as EVERYTHING in realignment being dictated by the Big10 that may or may not be true, who cares, everybody has an OPINION. One could also say the addition of Nebraska backfired because of what happened next.....Texas A&M left the Big 12 for the SEC, a move far more important in the grand scheme of things. The Texas A&M move is going to have monumental long term implications in regards to the power structure of college football.



So what exactly has the Big10 been able to accomplish power-wise? If the goal all along has been to remain a distant second behind the SEC one could say they have certainly succeeded in that regard, in fact an easy argument could be made the gap has even gotten larger between the SEC/Big10 after the last three years of realignment.

The SEC footprint, population wise, is expanding at a STAGGERING rate while the Big10 footprint is not. These population trends are going to continue over the next twenty years.

The SEC recruiting footprint, in terms of blue chip players, is so far ahead of the Big10 it's laughable. This gap is going to continue to widen.

So one could make the argument if the Big10 looks at the SEC as the only peer conference to them it has not done anything to close the gap.

The Big10 has it's own TV network....the SEC is about to do the same. Whatever the dollars come to I have no idea and neither do you but what I do know for certain is those millions can be invested and buy A LOT more of whatever in the SEC footprint that the Big10 footprint. Lets just use an example of say Rutgers/Missouri....random number here, give each 20 million today to build a practice facility, I would bet anything Missouri can get a significant amount more square footage than Rutgers for the exact same amount of money.

The Big 10 in reality has no more power today than ten years ago if you measure by the true measurement of the SEC/Big10 being peer conferences. The Big10 did not even dictate the terms of the new playoff format.


On a positive note: Maryland and Rutgers backed by the Big10 powerhouse brand can now go head to head with the Redskins, Ravens, NY Giants, NY Jets, NY Yankees, NY Mets, Nationals, Baltimore O's, NY Knicks, Brooklyn Nets and all the other pro sports teams in those regions....GOOD LUCK WITH THAT.


Read this carefully, this is what the guy wrote in the article that was referenced and remember everything ultimately comes down to players and winning when comes to dominate sports brands:

For three hours on Thursday, on two national TV networks, the NFL will hold a coronation for the most talented players in college football. Roger Goodell will dish out hugs, and this year's class of first-round picks will don hats of their new teams, saying goodbye to their alma maters as college highlights roll under the voiceovers of Mel Kiper and Mike Mayock. It's an infomercial for the NFL; it's also an infomercial for college programs and their recruiting pitches.
And while the draft should be another showcase for the SEC, many would be surprised if the Big Ten even gets mentioned at all.

I'm sorry but the B1G just added 2 areas where the population dies not decrease. No one leaves the New York/DC area. New Jersey is the most densely populated state in the country.

I could be wrong, but I thought that distinction was Rhode Island's.

(04-25-2013 07:32 PM)Tiger8589 Wrote:  I never said the population decreased. What I said is growth rates from official census numbers. The SEC footprint had an astounding growth rate of over 15% the Big10 footprint below 5%. Every state grew population except Michigan who had negative growth rate. When you have a growth rate that large for so many states what it says is people are moving out of one region and into another while.

Well they just moved into two large population states that are not decreasing. You keep comparing them to the SEC but clearly the best players come from the south and the ACC still can't win big games while the B1G has at least been respectable in that regard. Not great but okay.

I'm in no way a B1G apologist, but they are set up for success going forward. Will they overtake the SEC? Not in the near future, but are they worse than second or this best conference? No. The ACC was behind the Big East most years, no matter what espn said.

(04-25-2013 07:45 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(04-25-2013 07:24 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(04-25-2013 06:11 PM)Tiger8589 Wrote:  

(04-25-2013 04:15 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I've been a much bigger defender of the ACC than most (I never thought for a second that FSU had any interest in the Big 12 or that UNC wanted to go to the Big Ten or SEC), but notion that they one-upped the Big Ten on any level is ridiculous. If the ACC ever bothered to do the things that the supposedly "can't do anything right" Big Ten was smart enough to do 7 years ago, then the ACC could have been the aggressors with their brands and geographic footprint. Instead, literally everything in conference realignment over the past 3 years was in *reaction* to what the Big Ten wanted to do. The fact that the ACC and, for that matter, Big 12 were able to save themselves and survive recently is admirable, but hardly a point to brag about compared to what the Big Ten has been able accomplish power-wise over the past decade.

You have your opinions just as others have theirs. Doesn't make either side right or wrong...that's all they are is opinion. The writer of the piece has just as valid an opinion as you or anyone else.

First off any Big10 discussion should start and end with it compared to the SEC...anything else is meaningless.

Doesn't matter what anyone really thinks in the grand scheme of things. If it's true the Big10 really did want North Carolina, Virginia, or whoever else it doesn't look like they had the POWER to pull it off. The Big 10 is fine today and for the foreseeable future but they face REAL long term challenges.

All the Big10 chest thumping is fine when talking about the ACC or whoever else but it stands to reason the talk should be more centered around is the Big10 ever going to close the gap with the SEC.

For goodness sakes.....I could care less but to make the statement the ACC has just been setting on the hands and have not done anything over the last several years to aggressively improve their brands and geographic footprint is simply not true.

Now while all may not fall in the 7 year category, for whatever that means, the ACC has added.

Florida St 1991
Miami 2004
Virginia Tech 2004
Boston College 2005
Syracuse 2013
Pittsburgh 2013
Notre Dame 2013 all sports except FB but a scheduling deal with FB
Louisville 2014

The ACC has more or less done all it could do over the years and somehow managed to stave off a serious raid. I thought they would get raided by the Big10, the implications would not have been felt AT ALL by the SEC because guess what they would have done the same thing if that ever happened.


As far as EVERYTHING in realignment being dictated by the Big10 that may or may not be true, who cares, everybody has an OPINION. One could also say the addition of Nebraska backfired because of what happened next.....Texas A&M left the Big 12 for the SEC, a move far more important in the grand scheme of things. The Texas A&M move is going to have monumental long term implications in regards to the power structure of college football.



So what exactly has the Big10 been able to accomplish power-wise? If the goal all along has been to remain a distant second behind the SEC one could say they have certainly succeeded in that regard, in fact an easy argument could be made the gap has even gotten larger between the SEC/Big10 after the last three years of realignment.

The SEC footprint, population wise, is expanding at a STAGGERING rate while the Big10 footprint is not. These population trends are going to continue over the next twenty years.

The SEC recruiting footprint, in terms of blue chip players, is so far ahead of the Big10 it's laughable. This gap is going to continue to widen.

So one could make the argument if the Big10 looks at the SEC as the only peer conference to them it has not done anything to close the gap.

The Big10 has it's own TV network....the SEC is about to do the same. Whatever the dollars come to I have no idea and neither do you but what I do know for certain is those millions can be invested and buy A LOT more of whatever in the SEC footprint that the Big10 footprint. Lets just use an example of say Rutgers/Missouri....random number here, give each 20 million today to build a practice facility, I would bet anything Missouri can get a significant amount more square footage than Rutgers for the exact same amount of money.

The Big 10 in reality has no more power today than ten years ago if you measure by the true measurement of the SEC/Big10 being peer conferences. The Big10 did not even dictate the terms of the new playoff format.


On a positive note: Maryland and Rutgers backed by the Big10 powerhouse brand can now go head to head with the Redskins, Ravens, NY Giants, NY Jets, NY Yankees, NY Mets, Nationals, Baltimore O's, NY Knicks, Brooklyn Nets and all the other pro sports teams in those regions....GOOD LUCK WITH THAT.


Read this carefully, this is what the guy wrote in the article that was referenced and remember everything ultimately comes down to players and winning when comes to dominate sports brands:

For three hours on Thursday, on two national TV networks, the NFL will hold a coronation for the most talented players in college football. Roger Goodell will dish out hugs, and this year's class of first-round picks will don hats of their new teams, saying goodbye to their alma maters as college highlights roll under the voiceovers of Mel Kiper and Mike Mayock. It's an infomercial for the NFL; it's also an infomercial for college programs and their recruiting pitches.
And while the draft should be another showcase for the SEC, many would be surprised if the Big Ten even gets mentioned at all.

I'm sorry but the B1G just added 2 areas where the population dies not decrease. No one leaves the New York/DC area. New Jersey is the most densely populated state in the country.

I could be wrong, but I thought that distinction was Rhode Island's.

Nope, more people live per square mile in nj than any other state.

Rutgers (NJ/NYC) does 50 to 55 thousand per game.....Miss St in STARKVILLE MS does 55,000 per game....enough said.

(04-25-2013 07:48 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(04-25-2013 07:32 PM)Tiger8589 Wrote:  I never said the population decreased. What I said is growth rates from official census numbers. The SEC footprint had an astounding growth rate of over 15% the Big10 footprint below 5%. Every state grew population except Michigan who had negative growth rate. When you have a growth rate that large for so many states what it says is people are moving out of one region and into another while.

Well they just moved into two large population states that are not decreasing. You keep comparing them to the SEC but clearly the best players come from the south and the ACC still can't win big games while the B1G has at least been respectable in that regard. Not great but okay.

I'm in no way a B1G apologist, but they are set up for success going forward. Will they overtake the SEC? Not in the near future, but are they worse than second or this best conference? No. The ACC was behind the Big East most years, no matter what espn said.

The Big 10 is never going to surpass the SEC because by a WIDE margin far more ELITE talent is in the South and Texas. It's all about winning and players.

BTW, did you see Alabama vs Michigan in Dallas to open the 2012 season? 41 to 14 Alabama 232 yards to 69 on the ground Alabama. Been a bunch of other games like this, the Big10 wins one here and there but rarely against the Elite SEC.

The Big 10 is a top conference but the product on the field is almost football when they square off against the Elite of the SEC.

BTW, i'm not a big SEC guy either. I just don't look at things with blinders on like most of fandom does.

(04-25-2013 07:24 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  I'm sorry but the B1G just added 2 areas where the population dies not decrease. No one leaves the New York/DC area. New Jersey is the most densely populated state in the country.

1. Yeah....dies of taxes!

2. No. That's California (obvious Hotel California reference)

Either way, ZING!

Jim Delany's big dream in 2010 was to land ND and Texas.

He then wanted to land Virginia and North Carolina, perhaps more ACC schools too.

He ended up with Nebraska, Rutgers and Maryland.

Not a bad result, but not the home run or grand slam he was looking/hoping/planning for.

(04-25-2013 07:59 PM)Tiger8589 Wrote:  Rutgers (NJ/NYC) does 50 to 55 thousand per game.....Miss St in STARKVILLE MS does 55,000 per game....enough said.

Rutgers stadium seating is 52,454, I wonder why they only have 50-55k a game...

Miss St stadium seating is 55,082. In a football hotbed without a pro team in sight I'd expect them to sell more seats, specially when you have more seats.

Let us not twist facts please. Rutgers compete against the Giants, Jets, Nets, Knicks, Rangers, Islanders, Mets, and Yankees for selling seats during the football season. Who does Miss St have in the near area? No one.

(04-26-2013 07:45 AM)DexterDevil Wrote:  

(04-25-2013 07:59 PM)Tiger8589 Wrote:  Rutgers (NJ/NYC) does 50 to 55 thousand per game.....Miss St in STARKVILLE MS does 55,000 per game....enough said.

Rutgers stadium seating is 52,454, I wonder why they only have 50-55k a game...

Miss St stadium seating is 55,082. In a football hotbed without a pro team in sight I'd expect them to sell more seats, specially when you have more seats.

Let us not twist facts please. Rutgers compete against the Giants, Jets, Nets, Knicks, Rangers, Islanders, Mets, and Yankees for selling seats during the football season. Who does Miss St have in the near area? No one.

If Rutgers could do 60,000 to 75,000 plus they would expand, simple as that.

Starkville MS is so far out in the middle of nowhere that if you blink you might pass it if driving through. BTW, MS St is expanding to over 60,000...I have no idea but does Rutgers have plans to expand 60/70/80 thousand. Keep in mind this is MS ST i'm talking about. not AL, GA, FL, UT, LSU, SC, AU..... I'm talking about MS ST here, see where i'm coming from? trust me MS ST is far from a power in the SEC.

Let me say it again clearly.....Rutgers equals NJ/NYC the largest metro area in the entire country...MISS st is in STARKVILLE MS....The difference in populations of NJ/NYC copmared to the entire state of MS is astronomical.

I'm not twisting facts but it appears you are trying to paint a the best picture you can think of.

Apparently you missed the part (somewhere in this thread) where I went stright to the point of Rutgers going to head to head with the pro sports teams. It's an uphill battle. So in fact I brought this up long before your post.....Duh! there in lies the problem of college football in the NE....the NE is dominated by pro sports. Is this relevant? ABSOLUTLEY IT IS AND THAT'S WHY I BROUGHT IT UP BEFORE YOU EVER SAD ANYTHING ABOUT IT. I have nothing against Rutgers, in fact I was pulling for Rutgers when they took Arkansas behind the woodshed and put the wood to them last year. When I look at stuff like this I take the fandom hat off...something A GREAT MAJORITY of the message boaard crowd simply cannot do.

(04-25-2013 09:51 PM)TerryD Wrote:  Jim Delany's big dream in 2010 was to land ND and Texas.

Same dream as in 1990, but if the Big Ten had not been willing to set the Notre Dame dream to one side, they wouldn't have made a public announcement in 2009 that they were looking to expand.

Quote: He then wanted to land Virginia and North Carolina, perhaps more ACC schools too.

He wasn't the only conference that wanted to land Virginia and North Carolina. So did the SEC. Untangling Tobacco Road, however, is a trickier task than simply cutting one financial straggler from the herd.

Quote: He ended up with Nebraska, Rutgers and Maryland.

As I recall, at the time of the 2009 announcement, it was thought that the Big Ten was primarily looking for one team. And it got Nebraska, which was a home run on the football front. Extending further into the slow growth Great Plains didn't do anything as far as the access to growing markets and improved position in good recruiting grounds in growing states.

Quote: Not a bad result, but not the home run or grand slam he was looking/hoping/planning for.

Well, yeah, and the Pac-12 ended up with Utah, and the SEC ended up with Missouri. People playing Conference Realignment Risk like to compare actual outcomes to outcomes that some online commentator somewhere dreamed up, but it would be silly to compared where the Big Ten, the Pac-12 or the SEC are at now with where they would have been under their best case scenarios, since under their best case scenarios Texas would be a member of all three conferences.

The big 10 definitely is at a disadvantage in terms of recruiting grounds (relative to the other major conferences). But that is about their only disadvantage, and they have and will continue overcome that with all of their advantages.

(04-25-2013 09:51 PM)TerryD Wrote:  Jim Delany's big dream in 2010 was to land ND and Texas.

He then wanted to land Virginia and North Carolina, perhaps more ACC schools too.

He ended up with Nebraska, Rutgers and Maryland.

Not a bad result, but not the home run or grand slam he was looking/hoping/planning for.

More like a very hard-hit, off the right-field wall for a single. Had he ended up with just Nebraska, I'd consider it a ground-rule double.

http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id...-divisions


they should move MSU to the west and purdue to the east.

(04-25-2013 03:49 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  how about Pioneer the conference network idea that the PAC tried to duplicate, that the SEC is now trying to duplicate and that the ACC wants to duplicate?...

He1nous -

I enjoy reading your posts; however, the bwunjee followed the Mtn West in developing its own conference network. Yours is fantastically successful, and ours was terminated recently. The record shows, tho, that the MWC was the first D1 conference to set up a broadcast channel for its sports.

Carry on...

(04-25-2013 03:49 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  As a Big Ten guy I agree fully with alot of what was said. The Big Ten has absolutely been a very complacent conference for quite some time. College Football has only very recently become a Nationalized Sport instead of the Regionalized Sport that it was for so many years.

I hate to say it but the Big Ten is a big lumbering giant. It is slow to change course and even slower to pick up speed but once it gets going in a direction it should have no problem staying the course. That is why I hope Urban Meyer treats his Alma Mater differently then his previous stops, I hope he stays there awhile. tOSU IS the Flagship of the Big Ten in football and they need to lead the way into playing college football the way it is played Today.


That being said, the title of this thread and the object of it's creation are still off the mark. The conference is in great shape. Can it do anything right? Oh I dont know....how about Pioneer the conference network idea that the PAC tried to duplicate, that the SEC is now trying to duplicate and that the ACC wants to duplicate? Right...the point was just to denigrate the Big Ten as usual around here.

How boring.

Great conference. I do get the impression they feel a little invincible. The fact that no other ACC schools jumped to the B1G should tell them no one is invincible. I like the new divisional setups. They have made some good moves, but in my opinion they have missed some great expansion opportunities. Nebraska was a no-brainer and I get that. They could have taken Kansas and Mizzou with Nebraska to get to 14 and then Maryland and Rutgers in the east to get to 16. They could have killed the Big XII and owned the mid west in addition to their prized east markets.

I was surprised they didn't add Missouri.

Assuming the numbers are accurate:

Big10 footprint 103,130,610 (bolstered the addition of Rutgers and the NYC/NJ area, a place college football isn’t exactly the top game in town and has TON of pro competition in all sports)
This footprint also gives them the entire state of NY even though Rutgers is in NJ.

SEC footprint 90,130,610 (bolstered by the addition of Texas A&M)

Now this is just my OPINION which means absolutely nothing…I think the Big10 REAL footprint is overstated because the Maryland/Rutgers addition is not exactly the most hard core rabid fan bases, the type that TRULY commands the undivided attention of an entire state during college FB season.


The Big10 does have The Big10 Network which is huge. But the payouts per team from the network, IN REALITY, is nothing like we see on message boards. People seem to forget FOX owns½ of the network. That doesn’t mean they aren’t getting serious money for members. A true figure is along the lines of around 8 million per school per year. I have a strong feeling the SEC Network is going to be a more lucrative venture long term that then Big 10 Network, but again that’s just my OPINION. At some point these two Networks are going to be competitiors in the states outside of their respectie footprints, there is where a seperation one way or the other could eventually materialize for one or the other....the SEC brand is far better the te Big10 in this respest. I can see pushback fom distributors at some point if asked to carry both whether its basic or premium. But I'm not a TV/Cable executive and don't claim to be (unlike some who act like they know more thaan they really do) so I don't know, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night. I just know people are getting fed up with the cost of cable.

One other advantage the SEC has and is going to be huge with the SECN is the marketing arm of ESPiN tied at the hip with them. This cannot be overstated.....there is a dollar figure/number and I would love to know what it is, as far as what ESPN does for a brand outside of the cotract figures. I don't know the built in equity figure just from being associated with ESPN but it's not small I'm sure, especially for a premium conferece brand.



SEC Footprint 2000/2010 growth rate 15.8% (population increase 11,337,550)

BIG 10 Footprint 2000/2010 growth rate 4.5% (population increase 3,563,662)

That’s a net positive of 7,773,888 in 10 years.



14 states in the entire country had growth rates below 5%, half of them are states in the Big10 footprint for a total of 7

Michigan is the ONLY state in the entire country that saw a loss in population, negative growth rate of 0.6% with a net loss of 54,804

20 states out of 50 saw double digit increases of 10% or more, none not a single one is in the Big10 Footprint, 5 of the 20 are in the SEC footprint

9 out of the 11 states in the SEC footprint saw growth rates of at least 7%
2 out of the 12 states in the Big10 footprint saw growth rates of at least 7% (Minnesota 7.8 and Maryland at 9.0) Maryland hasn’t even played a down and is the fastest growing state in the entire Big10 footprint, in large part due to the expansion of federal government, many of these people are transplants I think but I don’t know that for sure.

Let me tell you why the BIG10 wanted into North Carolina and Virginia:

North Carolina the 10th largest state in the country with a growth rate of 18.5% (2000/2010)
Virginia the 12th largest state in the country with a growth rate of 13.0% (2000/2010)

These rates are sustainable at least for the next 10 years and even when they level off in 15/20 or so they are still going to be above 7%




Some more growth rate numbers:

Texas 20.6%
Florida 17.6%
Georgia 18.3 %
Tennessee 11.5%
Alabama 7.5%
South Carolina 15.3%


New York 2.1%
New Jersey 4.5%
Pennsylvania 3.4%
Ohio 1.6%
Illinois 3.3%
Michigan -.6%




Also, If Florida increases its rate to close to 20% they will pass New York and become the 3rd largest state in the next census. Of course that assume NY stays at under 3%. With the GREAT migration from the NE/Rustbelt to the South it seems almost certain that at the worst Florida passes NY easily within 20 years.

Texas/Florida/Georgia, the anchors of the SEC and all three turn out elite players in staggering numbers. The state of Georgia alone (number three in size and pecking order in terms of recruiting) is a far more fertile recruiting ground than any state in the entire Big10.


It’s true the Big10 has some big state but all are bleeding. The key targeted demo is the ones fleeing in record numbers year after year. Like I said previously the Big10 is fine for now and I the near term but 15/20 plus year out they are facing real challenges.


Heck, you would not believe how many engineering graduates from the Big 10 footprint are moving south to either start or expand their careers. I’ve know a lot of them over the years. And guess what? They stay once they migrate south and they raise their kids. So you just lose another generation and then another and then another.

(04-25-2013 06:11 PM)Tiger8589 Wrote:  

(04-25-2013 04:15 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I've been a much bigger defender of the ACC than most (I never thought for a second that FSU had any interest in the Big 12 or that UNC wanted to go to the Big Ten or SEC), but notion that they one-upped the Big Ten on any level is ridiculous. If the ACC ever bothered to do the things that the supposedly "can't do anything right" Big Ten was smart enough to do 7 years ago, then the ACC could have been the aggressors with their brands and geographic footprint. Instead, literally everything in conference realignment over the past 3 years was in *reaction* to what the Big Ten wanted to do. The fact that the ACC and, for that matter, Big 12 were able to save themselves and survive recently is admirable, but hardly a point to brag about compared to what the Big Ten has been able accomplish power-wise over the past decade.

And while the draft should be another showcase for the SEC, many would be surprised if the Big Ten even gets mentioned at all.

The Draft has been a great endorsement of the MAC with the first overall pick being OT Eric Fisher of Central Michigan University.

Add that to the MAC's first BCS bowl game last January and the conference's future is bright.

[quote='Tiger8589' pid='9273089' dateline='
Some more growth rate numbers:

Texas 20.6%
Florida 17.6%
Georgia 18.3 %
Tennessee 11.5%
Alabama 7.5%
South Carolina 15.3%


New York 2.1%
New Jersey 4.5%
Pennsylvania 3.4%
Ohio 1.6%
Illinois 3.3%
Michigan -.6%

sunbelt states are no doubt growing, what your analysis is over looking is that

1) While A&M gets the SEC a foothold in Texas, that state has been and will continue to be dominated by the Big 12 as long as UT, TT, TCU & Baylor remain in that conference, if they move to the 12 PAC, the 12 PAC will own Texas. Large state but A&M gets the SEC only a slice of it. The state of Texas growth will benefit the Big 12 more than the SEC.

2) Florida, tremendous growth but FSU & Miami(ACC) have a huge portion of the CFB fanbase in Florida. 3rd largest state in the country but a large portion of the fanbase is ACC not SEC.

3) While University of Georgia dominates the state and it's growing significantly; GT has a significant slice of the fanbase. SEC dominated state but ACC gets a slice of those millions.Georgia's growth benefits both the SEC & ACC

4) Tennessee & Alabama both SEC dominated at least for football. Memphis has a huge hoops fanbase and the Tigers playing better hoops competition (UConn, Cincy, Temple) should grow that sport for them.

5) South Carolina: another state whose CFB fanbase is almost evenly split between the SEC & the ACC. USC & Clemson have almost identical attendance and I doubt that there's much overlap between the 2 programs. in that state. South Carolina's growth benefits both the ACC & SEC.


New Jersey(#10), Ohio(#7), Michigan(#8) & Illinois(#5) not growing nearly as rapidly but those 3 states only have AQ teams from the Big 10. Big 10 doesn't share the CFB fanbase of those states with any other AQ conferences.


While PSU dominates Pitt in PA; Pitt does get a good slice of the CFB fanbase but judging from the attendance difference between the 2 programs being more than 2/1 in PSU's favor. The nation's 6th largest state
much more Big 10 than ACC

NY state not a CFB hotbed but the addition of Rutgers to PSU gives the Big10 a sizeable slice of the #3 states fanbase with the ACC because of Syracuse having the majority.

There are 21 states that have 10 more more electoral votes for Presidential Election Purposes:

3 of those are in 12 PAC country: Cal 55, WA 11, AZ 10= 76
1 is Big 12 dominated: Texas 34=34(although A&M gives SEC sizeable foothold)
3 are ACC dominated: MA 12, VA13, NC 15= 40
1 is split between the ACC & SEC: FL= 27
3 are split between the ACC & Big 10: IN 11, PA 21 & NY 31=63
3 are SEC dominated MO 11, TN 11, Ga 15(eventhough GT has a sizeable fanbase here. = 37
7 are Big 10 Dominated: MD 10, NJ 15, OH 20, MI 17, WI 10, IL 21, MN 10
= 103

With the GOR giving the ACC stability it needed; if the new additions to the conference in IN, NY, PA can continue their upswing (ND & Syracuse) or find their way to stability and a better on the field product(Pitt), the ACC has a real shot at moving into the top tier of conferences (12 PAC, SEC, B10) in terms of TV ratings and attendance.

A stable and resurgent ACC should give the SEC reason for concern about their continued control of the southeast.