(12-31-2025 03:31 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-29-2025 05:14 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  2. It's not the end-all, be-all list but the Super 2 and conferences below them will carefully look at them to see how a specific school can fill whatever particular needs they might have at a particular time.

Why should research spending affect a decision to add a school to an athletic conference? Does being affiliated with a medical school or a hospital have any impact on a school's attractiveness to high school football or basketball players? Does it make alumni more likely to make large donations to athletic departments or to NIL collectives?

Institutional power and prestige. Without it there would be no reason to keep Vanderbilt in the SEC or Northwestern in the B1G.
Those schools elevate the perception of every team in their respective conferences.

It also provides spendable income for the University communities.
In North Carolina, for instance, research in the Triangle area (Raleigh, Durham and Chapel Hill) pumps around $4 Billion of outside money into the economy of the area annually. This means that there are educated people (more likely to support college sports) with lots of spendable income that will follow college sports, and support the local teams.

More and more, no successful athletic program will be able to sustain itself without access to $$$.

(12-30-2025 06:39 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(12-29-2025 11:13 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  Stanford and Cal just make a lot of sense as institutional fits in the B1G

Stanford drama and ego is a fit for a Broadway stage.

Haven't you noticed? Every single big/powerful school thinks it's the best thing since sliced bread and deserves special treatment. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. If your school doesn't think that it's special/awesome, then it's not a candidate for the P2. You know what schools think they're special/awesome?

Clemson
UNC
FSU
Miami
Stanford
Cal

Plus about half of the rest of the M2. WF isn't a P2 candidate, and there's a reason for that.

A whole lot of new-ish P2 schools and P2 candidates get lumped into this "they think they're special" category. Well, guess what? They are special! However, when you look at what happens when those schools actually make a move, every one (with the notable exception of USC) immediately toes the line upon joining the new Conference. PSU? OU? Texas? Oregon? Washington? Nebraska? EVERYBODY else just falls in line b/c they wouldn't have joined the Conference in the first place if they felt like they had a better option. But back in their old/stale/weaker conference, probably a conference that hasn't been serving their needs properly for decades? Yeah, they want to throw their weight around.

(12-30-2025 03:20 PM)nodak651 Wrote:  

(12-30-2025 12:48 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(12-29-2025 11:55 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(12-29-2025 11:41 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  Another example of how there’s not really a whole lot of difference between these conferences.

Future Pac:

#76 Colorado State $466 million
#80 Utah State $451 million
#86 Washington State $403 million
#94 Oregon State $372 million
#147 San Diego State $182 million
#154 Texas State $165 million
#226 Boise State $58 million
#336 Fresno State $14 million
#698 Gonzaga $1 million

Future MWC:

#36 UC Davis $1,006 million
#92 Hawaii $376 million
#97 New Mexico $355 million
#144 Nevada $194 million
#152 Wyoming $167 million
#157 UTEP $158 million
#172 UNLV $118 million
#187 San Jose State $88 million
#233 Air Force $53 million
#259 NIU $34 million
Not listed GCU

UC Davis is ofc an extreme outlier.

I’m impressed to see Hawaii so high on the list.

Yep, Davis is in another class, but it’s interesting to see most of the rest across both conferences in the 50-250 (out of 925) range.

Hawaii’s been hovering in the 75-105 range over the past decade. It’s been an R1 for a long time, in part due to sponsoring an accredited four-year medical school since 1973.

Here are a few others of interest to western realignment followers:

#123 Montana State $258 million
#140 North Dakota State $200 million
#161 Montana $144 million
#162 New Mexico State $143 million
#191 South Dakota State $82 million
#262 Sacramento State $34 million
#291 Tarleton State $25 million

If I’m an MWC president being asked to approve new conference additions, I’m going to view the Montanas and NDSU as peers. Sacramento State and Tarleton State, not so much.

I added UND, USD and Idaho

#123 Montana State $258 million
#140 North Dakota State $200 million
#143 North Dakota $197 million
#161 Montana $144 million
#162 New Mexico State $143 million
#163 Idaho $140 million
#191 South Dakota State $82 million
#262 Sacramento State $34 million
#280 South Dakota $28 million
#291 Tarleton State $25 million

Tarleton is pretty similar to Sac St, just with much better geography and a much better President. Well, and the A&M system can provide them with resources that the Cal St system won't provide to Sac St. But we're not seeing it at Tarleton right now, and I think that MWC Presidents would be wise to look in other directions if they do decide to add an FCS callup or 3.

(01-01-2026 10:24 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-31-2025 03:31 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-29-2025 05:14 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  2. It's not the end-all, be-all list but the Super 2 and conferences below them will carefully look at them to see how a specific school can fill whatever particular needs they might have at a particular time.

Why should research spending affect a decision to add a school to an athletic conference? Does being affiliated with a medical school or a hospital have any impact on a school's attractiveness to high school football or basketball players? Does it make alumni more likely to make large donations to athletic departments or to NIL collectives?

Institutional power and prestige. Without it there would be no reason to keep Vanderbilt in the SEC or Northwestern in the B1G.
Those schools elevate the perception of every team in their respective conferences.

It also provides spendable income for the University communities.
In North Carolina, for instance, research in the Triangle area (Raleigh, Durham and Chapel Hill) pumps around $4 Billion of outside money into the economy of the area annually. This means that there are educated people (more likely to support college sports) with lots of spendable income that will follow college sports, and support the local teams.

More and more, no successful athletic program will be able to sustain itself without access to $$$.

You want to know how much enthusiasm there was for kicking Vanderbilt out of the SEC from within SEC circles, 2, 5, 10, 14 years ago? ZERO. Ditto for Miss St. Not b/c of the prestige they do or don't bring, but rather b/c the Conference is doing very well and they've both been a part of it since the beginning. Full stop.

If we were picking schools/teams for a new division/conference? Ok, then there would be some hard conversations. But actually voting to kick somebody off the best island with the brightest future, when they helped build that island? Unlikely.

(01-01-2026 11:07 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(01-01-2026 10:24 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-31-2025 03:31 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-29-2025 05:14 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  2. It's not the end-all, be-all list but the Super 2 and conferences below them will carefully look at them to see how a specific school can fill whatever particular needs they might have at a particular time.

Why should research spending affect a decision to add a school to an athletic conference? Does being affiliated with a medical school or a hospital have any impact on a school's attractiveness to high school football or basketball players? Does it make alumni more likely to make large donations to athletic departments or to NIL collectives?

Institutional power and prestige. Without it there would be no reason to keep Vanderbilt in the SEC or Northwestern in the B1G.
Those schools elevate the perception of every team in their respective conferences.

It also provides spendable income for the University communities.
In North Carolina, for instance, research in the Triangle area (Raleigh, Durham and Chapel Hill) pumps around $4 Billion of outside money into the economy of the area annually. This means that there are educated people (more likely to support college sports) with lots of spendable income that will follow college sports, and support the local teams.

More and more, no successful athletic program will be able to sustain itself without access to $$$.

You want to know how much enthusiasm there was for kicking Vanderbilt out of the SEC from within SEC circles, 2, 5, 10, 14 years ago? ZERO. Ditto for Miss St. Not b/c of the prestige they do or don't bring, but rather b/c the Conference is doing very well and they've both been a part of it since the beginning. Full stop.

If we were picking schools/teams for a new division/conference? Ok, then there would be some hard conversations. But actually voting to kick somebody off the best island with the brightest future, when they helped build that island? Unlikely.

I beg to disagree.
MR SEC in his excellent series "Expansion by the numbers", a ten article series about expansion of the SEC, devoted an entire article as to why Vanderbilt no longer "fit" the SEC and called for their expulsion. Nothing about Vanderbilt (from the city in which they reside to alumni base) meshed with the rest of the SEC at the time and had proven to be a drag on the conference.
This was common sentiment around 2010 within the SEC community.
BTW, MR SEC first said that Texas was the #1 priority for the SEC, but modified his rankings and elevated A&M to the top spot of the SEC "must haves".

(12-29-2025 05:14 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/profiles/site?...ce&ds=herd

1. I don't expect the number for 2025 to be that drastic to 2024's, although there might be a slight decrease due to political happenings in Washington.

2. It's not the end-all, be-all list but the Super 2 and conferences below them will carefully look at them to see how a specific school can fill whatever particular needs they might have at a particular time.

3. Related, there's more ammunition for why schools like Virginia, UNC, Miami and even Georgia Tech would be looked at, whether any of them gets picked up by one of the Super 2 or not. Pitt should be under consideration, but they have a Penn State problem.

Interesting the jump for SUNY Albany, and that Nebraska and Nebraska Medical are no longer being listed separately. Are there any rumors about SUNY Albany wanting to move up to the FBS level?

The deep south doesnt get much

(12-31-2025 03:31 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-29-2025 05:14 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  2. It's not the end-all, be-all list but the Super 2 and conferences below them will carefully look at them to see how a specific school can fill whatever particular needs they might have at a particular time.

Why should research spending affect a decision to add a school to an athletic conference? Does being affiliated with a medical school or a hospital have any impact on a school's attractiveness to high school football or basketball players? Does it make alumni more likely to make large donations to athletic departments or to NIL collectives?

More like a gauge to see if alumni can make large donations to athletic departments and/or NIL collectives, IMO. Compare Texas' spending to UGA's (Georgia's). Texas does outspend UGA. Now whether that $$'s was spent wisely or not is another matter.

(12-29-2025 05:14 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/profiles/site?...ce&ds=herd

1. I don't expect the number for 2025 to be that drastic to 2024's, although there might be a slight decrease due to political happenings in Washington.

2. It's not the end-all, be-all list but the Super 2 and conferences below them will carefully look at them to see how a specific school can fill whatever particular needs they might have at a particular time.

3. Related, there's more ammunition for why schools like Virginia, UNC, Miami and even Georgia Tech would be looked at, whether any of them gets picked up by one of the Super 2 or not. Pitt should be under consideration, but they have a Penn State problem.

Interesting the jump for SUNY Albany, and that Nebraska and Nebraska Medical are no longer being listed separately. Are there any rumors about SUNY Albany wanting to move up to the FBS level?

I love this!! Transic_nyc, thank you!!

(12-29-2025 11:24 PM)billings Wrote:  

(12-29-2025 11:13 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  FBS universities with > $1 billion NSF R&D expenditures in FY2024

4 Michigan - B1G
5 Wisconsin - B1G
6 UCLA - B1G
8 Washington - B1G
9 Stanford - ACC
11 UNC - ACC
12 Ohio State - B1G
13 Duke - ACC
14 Maryland- B1G
15 Georgia Tech - ACC
17 Pitt - ACC
21 Minnesota - B1G
22 Texas A&M - SEC
24 Vanderbilt - SEC
25 Penn State - B1G
26 Florida - SEC
27 USC - B1G
31 Texas - SEC
32 Cal - ACC
35 Arizona - B12
37 ASU - B12


Stanford and Cal just make a lot of sense as institutional fits in the B1G

Med schools matter

GT with no med school makes it even more impressive how high they are imo

(01-01-2026 10:24 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-31-2025 03:31 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-29-2025 05:14 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  2. It's not the end-all, be-all list but the Super 2 and conferences below them will carefully look at them to see how a specific school can fill whatever particular needs they might have at a particular time.

Why should research spending affect a decision to add a school to an athletic conference? Does being affiliated with a medical school or a hospital have any impact on a school's attractiveness to high school football or basketball players? Does it make alumni more likely to make large donations to athletic departments or to NIL collectives?

Institutional power and prestige. Without it there would be no reason to keep Vanderbilt in the SEC or Northwestern in the B1G.
Those schools elevate the perception of every team in their respective conferences.

It also provides spendable income for the University communities.
In North Carolina, for instance, research in the Triangle area (Raleigh, Durham and Chapel Hill) pumps around $4 Billion of outside money into the economy of the area annually. This means that there are educated people (more likely to support college sports) with lots of spendable income that will follow college sports, and support the local teams.

More and more, no successful athletic program will be able to sustain itself without access to $$$.

Sadly true. We're still looking for our Santa or three.

America East #10.....probably would be higher if you backed out Bryant.

(01-01-2026 12:25 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-01-2026 11:07 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(01-01-2026 10:24 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-31-2025 03:31 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-29-2025 05:14 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  2. It's not the end-all, be-all list but the Super 2 and conferences below them will carefully look at them to see how a specific school can fill whatever particular needs they might have at a particular time.

Why should research spending affect a decision to add a school to an athletic conference? Does being affiliated with a medical school or a hospital have any impact on a school's attractiveness to high school football or basketball players? Does it make alumni more likely to make large donations to athletic departments or to NIL collectives?

Institutional power and prestige. Without it there would be no reason to keep Vanderbilt in the SEC or Northwestern in the B1G.
Those schools elevate the perception of every team in their respective conferences.

It also provides spendable income for the University communities.
In North Carolina, for instance, research in the Triangle area (Raleigh, Durham and Chapel Hill) pumps around $4 Billion of outside money into the economy of the area annually. This means that there are educated people (more likely to support college sports) with lots of spendable income that will follow college sports, and support the local teams.

More and more, no successful athletic program will be able to sustain itself without access to $$$.

You want to know how much enthusiasm there was for kicking Vanderbilt out of the SEC from within SEC circles, 2, 5, 10, 14 years ago? ZERO. Ditto for Miss St. Not b/c of the prestige they do or don't bring, but rather b/c the Conference is doing very well and they've both been a part of it since the beginning. Full stop.

If we were picking schools/teams for a new division/conference? Ok, then there would be some hard conversations. But actually voting to kick somebody off the best island with the brightest future, when they helped build that island? Unlikely.

I beg to disagree.
MR SEC in his excellent series "Expansion by the numbers", a ten article series about expansion of the SEC, devoted an entire article as to why Vanderbilt no longer "fit" the SEC and called for their expulsion. Nothing about Vanderbilt (from the city in which they reside to alumni base) meshed with the rest of the SEC at the time and had proven to be a drag on the conference.
This was common sentiment around 2010 within the SEC community.
BTW, MR SEC first said that Texas was the #1 priority for the SEC, but modified his rankings and elevated A&M to the top spot of the SEC "must haves".

I did cut it off at 14 years ago bc I didn’t follow the SEC until 2011. Perhaps there were some “kick out Vandy” vibes in 2011, but, if so, I didn’t see or hear them.

FWIW, no full FBS member has ever been kicked out of their Conference, as you are no doubt aware. Perhaps MRSEC was flying up a trial balloon, perhaps this was his pet project, perhaps certain SEC members were concerned about the future of the Conference in 2010, it’s hard to know that now. But with A&M and Missouri in the fold, the 14 team SEC was in a great place and had no need to ponder what-ifs of removing anybody.

(01-03-2026 02:14 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(01-01-2026 12:25 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-01-2026 11:07 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  You want to know how much enthusiasm there was for kicking Vanderbilt out of the SEC from within SEC circles, 2, 5, 10, 14 years ago? ZERO. Ditto for Miss St. Not b/c of the prestige they do or don't bring, but rather b/c the Conference is doing very well and they've both been a part of it since the beginning. Full stop.

If we were picking schools/teams for a new division/conference? Ok, then there would be some hard conversations. But actually voting to kick somebody off the best island with the brightest future, when they helped build that island? Unlikely.

I beg to disagree.
MR SEC in his excellent series "Expansion by the numbers", a ten article series about expansion of the SEC, devoted an entire article as to why Vanderbilt no longer "fit" the SEC and called for their expulsion. Nothing about Vanderbilt (from the city in which they reside to alumni base) meshed with the rest of the SEC at the time and had proven to be a drag on the conference.
This was common sentiment around 2010 within the SEC community.
BTW, MR SEC first said that Texas was the #1 priority for the SEC, but modified his rankings and elevated A&M to the top spot of the SEC "must haves".

I did cut it off at 14 years ago bc I didn’t follow the SEC until 2011. Perhaps there were some “kick out Vandy” vibes in 2011, but, if so, I didn’t see or hear them.

FWIW, no full FBS member has ever been kicked out of their Conference, as you are no doubt aware. Perhaps MRSEC was flying up a trial balloon, perhaps this was his pet project, perhaps certain SEC members were concerned about the future of the Conference in 2010, it’s hard to know that now. But with A&M and Missouri in the fold, the 14 team SEC was in a great place and had no need to ponder what-ifs of removing anybody.

Let the SEC add one more private school and Vanderbilt doesn’t look so odd anymore. Bring in Duke and both get a natural playmate. Miami could also perhaps fill that role.

(Or Wake Forest. Anyone? Anyone?... Bueller?)

(01-04-2026 11:09 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(01-03-2026 02:14 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(01-01-2026 12:25 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-01-2026 11:07 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  You want to know how much enthusiasm there was for kicking Vanderbilt out of the SEC from within SEC circles, 2, 5, 10, 14 years ago? ZERO. Ditto for Miss St. Not b/c of the prestige they do or don't bring, but rather b/c the Conference is doing very well and they've both been a part of it since the beginning. Full stop.

If we were picking schools/teams for a new division/conference? Ok, then there would be some hard conversations. But actually voting to kick somebody off the best island with the brightest future, when they helped build that island? Unlikely.

I beg to disagree.
MR SEC in his excellent series "Expansion by the numbers", a ten article series about expansion of the SEC, devoted an entire article as to why Vanderbilt no longer "fit" the SEC and called for their expulsion. Nothing about Vanderbilt (from the city in which they reside to alumni base) meshed with the rest of the SEC at the time and had proven to be a drag on the conference.
This was common sentiment around 2010 within the SEC community.
BTW, MR SEC first said that Texas was the #1 priority for the SEC, but modified his rankings and elevated A&M to the top spot of the SEC "must haves".

I did cut it off at 14 years ago bc I didn’t follow the SEC until 2011. Perhaps there were some “kick out Vandy” vibes in 2011, but, if so, I didn’t see or hear them.

FWIW, no full FBS member has ever been kicked out of their Conference, as you are no doubt aware. Perhaps MRSEC was flying up a trial balloon, perhaps this was his pet project, perhaps certain SEC members were concerned about the future of the Conference in 2010, it’s hard to know that now. But with A&M and Missouri in the fold, the 14 team SEC was in a great place and had no need to ponder what-ifs of removing anybody.

Let the SEC add one more private school and Vanderbilt doesn’t look so odd anymore. Bring in Duke and both get a natural playmate. Miami could also perhaps fill that role.

(Or Wake Forest. Anyone? Anyone?... Bueller?)

BTW, When Maryland was still an ACC member and the ACC and SEC had three season ending games (FSU/Fla, Clemson/South Carolina, Georgia Tech/Georgia), it was the SEC that approached the ACC/Wake Forest to add a ten year series with Vanderbilt as a season ending series in an effort to even up their conference schedule. Louisville replacing Maryland (Louisville/Kentucky) eliminated the necessity of the Wake/Vanderbilt game, but the Deacons did play Vandy 7 times between 2005 and 2013, plus another two game series in '22 and '23

(01-01-2026 11:07 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(01-01-2026 10:24 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-31-2025 03:31 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-29-2025 05:14 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  2. It's not the end-all, be-all list but the Super 2 and conferences below them will carefully look at them to see how a specific school can fill whatever particular needs they might have at a particular time.

Why should research spending affect a decision to add a school to an athletic conference? Does being affiliated with a medical school or a hospital have any impact on a school's attractiveness to high school football or basketball players? Does it make alumni more likely to make large donations to athletic departments or to NIL collectives?

Institutional power and prestige. Without it there would be no reason to keep Vanderbilt in the SEC or Northwestern in the B1G.
Those schools elevate the perception of every team in their respective conferences.

It also provides spendable income for the University communities.
In North Carolina, for instance, research in the Triangle area (Raleigh, Durham and Chapel Hill) pumps around $4 Billion of outside money into the economy of the area annually. This means that there are educated people (more likely to support college sports) with lots of spendable income that will follow college sports, and support the local teams.

More and more, no successful athletic program will be able to sustain itself without access to $$$.

You want to know how much enthusiasm there was for kicking Vanderbilt out of the SEC from within SEC circles, 2, 5, 10, 14 years ago? ZERO. Ditto for Miss St. Not b/c of the prestige they do or don't bring, but rather b/c the Conference is doing very well and they've both been a part of it since the beginning. Full stop.

If we were picking schools/teams for a new division/conference? Ok, then there would be some hard conversations. But actually voting to kick somebody off the best island with the brightest future, when they helped build that island? Unlikely.

This is cute, but I do agree. It's relative to the ACC and Wake Forest. The ACC is unquestionably the third strongest conference (financially and otherwise) in all of college athletics and people here caw about kicking out the Deacs. Not happening for the same reasons you cited regarding Vanderbilt.

(01-03-2026 03:37 AM)keflex Wrote:  

(12-29-2025 11:24 PM)billings Wrote:  

(12-29-2025 11:13 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  FBS universities with > $1 billion NSF R&D expenditures in FY2024

4 Michigan - B1G
5 Wisconsin - B1G
6 UCLA - B1G
8 Washington - B1G
9 Stanford - ACC
11 UNC - ACC
12 Ohio State - B1G
13 Duke - ACC
14 Maryland- B1G
15 Georgia Tech - ACC
17 Pitt - ACC
21 Minnesota - B1G
22 Texas A&M - SEC
24 Vanderbilt - SEC
25 Penn State - B1G
26 Florida - SEC
27 USC - B1G
31 Texas - SEC
32 Cal - ACC
35 Arizona - B12
37 ASU - B12


Stanford and Cal just make a lot of sense as institutional fits in the B1G

Med schools matter

GT with no med school makes it even more impressive how high they are imo

Benefits of no fluffy BS liberal arts majors. What's that Pentagon, you say you want some fancy new drones of death cooked up by a team of super engineers? Well now you're not going to Minnesota or Ole Miss to get that now are you?

(01-05-2026 09:10 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Benefits of no fluffy BS liberal arts majors. What's that Pentagon, you say you want some fancy new drones of death cooked up by a team of super engineers? Well now you're not going to Minnesota or Ole Miss to get that now are you?

The drones of death aren’t going to write William Faulkner novels or Maya Angelou poems, either.

(01-05-2026 01:06 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(01-05-2026 09:10 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Benefits of no fluffy BS liberal arts majors. What's that Pentagon, you say you want some fancy new drones of death cooked up by a team of super engineers? Well now you're not going to Minnesota or Ole Miss to get that now are you?

The drones of death aren’t going to write William Faulkner novels or Maya Angelou poems, either.

And that's all good and well. But nobody gives big dollar research grants to write a Pulitzer.

(01-05-2026 01:06 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(01-05-2026 09:10 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Benefits of no fluffy BS liberal arts majors. What's that Pentagon, you say you want some fancy new drones of death cooked up by a team of super engineers? Well now you're not going to Minnesota or Ole Miss to get that now are you?

The drones of death aren’t going to write William Faulkner novels or Maya Angelou poems, either.

Admittedly when the machines snuffed out all of humanity there will be no need for novels or poetry...

(01-03-2026 02:14 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(01-01-2026 12:25 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-01-2026 11:07 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(01-01-2026 10:24 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-31-2025 03:31 PM)ken d Wrote:  Why should research spending affect a decision to add a school to an athletic conference? Does being affiliated with a medical school or a hospital have any impact on a school's attractiveness to high school football or basketball players? Does it make alumni more likely to make large donations to athletic departments or to NIL collectives?

Institutional power and prestige. Without it there would be no reason to keep Vanderbilt in the SEC or Northwestern in the B1G.
Those schools elevate the perception of every team in their respective conferences.

It also provides spendable income for the University communities.
In North Carolina, for instance, research in the Triangle area (Raleigh, Durham and Chapel Hill) pumps around $4 Billion of outside money into the economy of the area annually. This means that there are educated people (more likely to support college sports) with lots of spendable income that will follow college sports, and support the local teams.

More and more, no successful athletic program will be able to sustain itself without access to $$$.

You want to know how much enthusiasm there was for kicking Vanderbilt out of the SEC from within SEC circles, 2, 5, 10, 14 years ago? ZERO. Ditto for Miss St. Not b/c of the prestige they do or don't bring, but rather b/c the Conference is doing very well and they've both been a part of it since the beginning. Full stop.

If we were picking schools/teams for a new division/conference? Ok, then there would be some hard conversations. But actually voting to kick somebody off the best island with the brightest future, when they helped build that island? Unlikely.

I beg to disagree.
MR SEC in his excellent series "Expansion by the numbers", a ten article series about expansion of the SEC, devoted an entire article as to why Vanderbilt no longer "fit" the SEC and called for their expulsion. Nothing about Vanderbilt (from the city in which they reside to alumni base) meshed with the rest of the SEC at the time and had proven to be a drag on the conference.
This was common sentiment around 2010 within the SEC community.
BTW, MR SEC first said that Texas was the #1 priority for the SEC, but modified his rankings and elevated A&M to the top spot of the SEC "must haves".

I did cut it off at 14 years ago bc I didn’t follow the SEC until 2011. Perhaps there were some “kick out Vandy” vibes in 2011, but, if so, I didn’t see or hear them.

FWIW, no full FBS member has ever been kicked out of their Conference, as you are no doubt aware. Perhaps MRSEC was flying up a trial balloon, perhaps this was his pet project, perhaps certain SEC members were concerned about the future of the Conference in 2010, it’s hard to know that now. But with A&M and Missouri in the fold, the 14 team SEC was in a great place and had no need to ponder what-ifs of removing anybody.

bryan, I thought Temple was kicked out of the Big East once. I guess they got back into the American.