If there is an upper tier breakaway in the next few months how would you like to see the basketball only schools treated? Would you like to see them form conferences of basketball only schools, or would you like to see them as basketball only members of the power conferences? Do you have, or foresee, other contingencies that would work better?

The Big East could come along and bring good revenue. St. John's and Georgetown gross around $30 million, and they don't have to concern themselves with football. I think there is room for 16 to 24 basketball only schools in the highest tier.

Clearly "mid-majors" have shown their ability over time to pull off big upsets in the NCAA Tournament , which I do truly think is a big part of the tournament's overall appeal. I think that the more hardcore fans do start taking over as the 2nd weekend usually weeds out most non-power-conference teams, but the first weekend has a very broad appeal. (Brackets, brackets, brackets!) While I understand the reluctance to share the pie among an ever-growing number of schools, part of the sport's biggest moneymaker's appeal is "Cinderella".

Having said that, I do think there are some limits. Stronger mid-major conferences like the Big East, A-10, and Missouri Valley have regularly been competitive. Some smaller conferences have few if any wins, but there would likely be a backlash if the conferences that were excluded were largely composed of HBCU's.

Sure, Phog, the HBCU's and other lower tier programs may have an issue, but what if the NIT was brought back as a legitimate tourney that hosted the non Tier 1 schools? Make MSG off limits for the Tier 1 tournament and let the NIT own it. If they schedule opposite of the Tier 1 tourney, they would still get great ratings. I know some people would get rubbed by the women having those slots covered, but it is likely they would combine the men's and women's Tier 1 tourneys, anyway, because the numbers of competing teams would be dramatically lower.

Assuming that D4 is a STRICTLY P5 split, then what do you do with basketball schools in the MW or AAC? Most of those schools have athletic programs that are comparable to the A10/Big East/MVC.

Ignoring the desires of my alma mater, may I propose this:

4a: PAC12, Big XII, B1G, ACC (+ND), SEC
4b: MW, AAC, Big East, A10, MVC, and any other comparable new conferences (C-USA, etc.)

4a schools are the football "upper branch". They'd have autonomy on football and a x2 voting strength.

4a + 4b schools would collectively vote on olympic sports issues.

That gives you 66 competitive football properties, and a decent-sized field of 140-200 Olympic sports properties. The cutline for 65 would be something like 17-14, BUT everyone's SOS would improve so it would be a record of higher relevance and quality.

Screw'em. If they don't play football at the highest level, they don't get into the top division. Them's the breaks Big East and A-10.

(01-11-2014 02:03 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  Screw'em. If they don't play football at the highest level, they don't get into the top division. Them's the breaks Big East and A-10.

I like the way you think!

I have been thinking a bit about this, and I wanted to point out something interesting...

Did you know the average attendance for SEC men's basketball is higher than the PAC, Big 12, ACC, and only 1,000 under the Big 10? Yes, Kentucky is the highest in the nation, but Tennessee, Vandy, Arkansas, and Alabama are in the top 20%, and Missouri and Florida are knocking on the door. TAMU, Georgia, Auburn, and Ole Miss are below 8,000 per game average, which really needs to be brought up for the league's sake. The SEC averages a tick over 11,000 per game, by the way.

In comparison, not a single school from the MAC, SunBelt, or CUSA even averages 8,000. The MWC and AAC are very top heavy. New Mexico, UNLV, San Diego State, Memphis, and Connecticut are excellent at 12,000 to 16,000 each. Utah State, Temple, and Cincinnati are strong at over 8,000. No one else in the G5 can even get 8,000 fans to an average basketball game. Houston may be may favorite example since they are fairly vocal about getting in with the P5's. How does a school with 23,000 undergrads in one of the most populated cities in the country draw 24,000 football fans and 3,788 basketball fans? Furthermore, you know these G5 schools offer tickets for next to nothing, if not actually nothing. It just does not inspire confidence. There is one school not in the P5 that averages at least 40,000 a game for football and 8,000 a game for basketball, which should be reasonable expectations. That school is BYU and they blow that number away (61,000 FB, 15,000 BB).

(01-22-2014 03:24 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  I have been thinking a bit about this, and I wanted to point out something interesting...

Did you know the average attendance for SEC men's basketball is higher than the PAC, Big 12, ACC, and only 1,000 under the Big 10? Yes, Kentucky is the highest in the nation, but Tennessee, Vandy, Arkansas, and Alabama are in the top 20%, and Missouri and Florida are knocking on the door. TAMU, Georgia, Auburn, and Ole Miss are below 8,000 per game average, which really needs to be brought up for the league's sake. The SEC averages a tick over 11,000 per game, by the way.

In comparison, not a single school from the MAC, SunBelt, or CUSA even averages 8,000. The MWC and AAC are very top heavy. New Mexico, UNLV, San Diego State, Memphis, and Connecticut are excellent at 12,000 to 16,000 each. Utah State, Temple, and Cincinnati are strong at over 8,000. No one else in the G5 can even get 8,000 fans to an average basketball game. Houston may be may favorite example since they are fairly vocal about getting in with the P5's. How does a school with 23,000 undergrads in one of the most populated cities in the country draw 24,000 football fans and 3,788 basketball fans? Furthermore, you know these G5 schools offer tickets for next to nothing, if not actually nothing. It just does not inspire confidence. There is one school not in the P5 that averages at least 40,000 a game for football and 8,000 a game for basketball, which should be reasonable expectations. That school is BYU and they blow that number away (61,000 FB, 15,000 BB).

First of all those are stats that nobody else has bothered to post. Thanks! My first reaction is that the SEC should emphasize those schools that are lagging in attendance (mine included) to spend more money building up their programs. Clearly our emphasis for realignment will not change from football, but the addition of a couple of more schools that also average well for basketball would round us out nicely in helping to close the gap on the Big 10 in hoops. That still points to North Carolina. But how do the other prospects fit into that BBB? What does Oklahoma, Texas, Virginia Tech, Virginia, N.C. State, Clemson and Florida State average in basketball attendance?

I also find it interesting that the school that would help the PAC the most is the very one they are so prejudiced against. It looks to me to be somewhat of a case of cutting one's nose off to spite one's face.

(01-22-2014 03:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 03:24 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  I have been thinking a bit about this, and I wanted to point out something interesting...

Did you know the average attendance for SEC men's basketball is higher than the PAC, Big 12, ACC, and only 1,000 under the Big 10? Yes, Kentucky is the highest in the nation, but Tennessee, Vandy, Arkansas, and Alabama are in the top 20%, and Missouri and Florida are knocking on the door. TAMU, Georgia, Auburn, and Ole Miss are below 8,000 per game average, which really needs to be brought up for the league's sake. The SEC averages a tick over 11,000 per game, by the way.

In comparison, not a single school from the MAC, SunBelt, or CUSA even averages 8,000. The MWC and AAC are very top heavy. New Mexico, UNLV, San Diego State, Memphis, and Connecticut are excellent at 12,000 to 16,000 each. Utah State, Temple, and Cincinnati are strong at over 8,000. No one else in the G5 can even get 8,000 fans to an average basketball game. Houston may be may favorite example since they are fairly vocal about getting in with the P5's. How does a school with 23,000 undergrads in one of the most populated cities in the country draw 24,000 football fans and 3,788 basketball fans? Furthermore, you know these G5 schools offer tickets for next to nothing, if not actually nothing. It just does not inspire confidence. There is one school not in the P5 that averages at least 40,000 a game for football and 8,000 a game for basketball, which should be reasonable expectations. That school is BYU and they blow that number away (61,000 FB, 15,000 BB).

First of all those are stats that nobody else has bothered to post. Thanks! My first reaction is that the SEC should emphasize those schools that are lagging in attendance (mine included) to spend more money building up their programs. Clearly our emphasis for realignment will not change from football, but the addition of a couple of more schools that also average well for basketball would round us out nicely in helping to close the gap on the Big 10 in hoops. That still points to North Carolina. But how do the other prospects fit into that BBB? What does Oklahoma, Texas, Virginia Tech, Virginia, N.C. State, Clemson and Florida State average in basketball attendance?

I also find it interesting that the school that would help the PAC the most is the very one they are so prejudiced against. It looks to me to be somewhat of a case of cutting one's nose off to spite one's face.

Exactly, JR. I don't live in that region, so I can't judge too much, but it makes little sense to me, especially in light of their solid academics. They are not big on research, but neither is Notre Dame. Stanford is the one I keep hearing that is adamant against BYU because of religious conflict. If that is the case, I wonder why they continue a yearly relationship with Notre Dame?

Here are some numbers on the ACC schools we like to drool over. Sorry for the formatting problems:

Institution Football Basketball
Duke 26,062 9,314
Virginia 46,279 10,522
Georgia Tech 49,077 4,929
North Carolina 51,500 20,159
NC State 53,178 13,560
Miami 53,837 3,936
Virginia Tech 63,999 8,395
Florida State 75,421 8,541
Clemson 80,525 7,828

First of all, only FSU and Clemson keeps our football attendance at the average of 75,000. North Carolina is the obvious add that would help tremendously in basketball. Add in their football, and we drop in that department to 74,114, which is still about 8,000 better than the Big 10. We can take a bit of a hit in football to help basketball. Adding UNC basketball takes the average to 11,616, which closes the gap to the Big 10 to around 500. However, if we could just get Ole Miss, Auburn, TAMU, and Georgia to average 8,000, we would overtake the Big 10. It takes an additional 921 people at Georgia and 617 at TAMU; very doable. Auburn needs 1,498, and Ole Miss needs a lot of help at 2,230. I would much rather have our problem in basketball than football, though. All we need in basketball, for the most part, is several hundred more from every school that does not already sell out. In football, most conferences are needing several thousand to even get in the conversation.

By the way, neither Oklahoma (8,525) or Texas (11,950) help in basketball. Kansas would help, but they kill the average in football. Our best add, interestingly enough, would be Iowa State. At 55,000 and 13,000, they would be comparable to NC State in terms of an add.

(01-22-2014 04:49 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 03:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 03:24 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  I have been thinking a bit about this, and I wanted to point out something interesting...

Did you know the average attendance for SEC men's basketball is higher than the PAC, Big 12, ACC, and only 1,000 under the Big 10? Yes, Kentucky is the highest in the nation, but Tennessee, Vandy, Arkansas, and Alabama are in the top 20%, and Missouri and Florida are knocking on the door. TAMU, Georgia, Auburn, and Ole Miss are below 8,000 per game average, which really needs to be brought up for the league's sake. The SEC averages a tick over 11,000 per game, by the way.

In comparison, not a single school from the MAC, SunBelt, or CUSA even averages 8,000. The MWC and AAC are very top heavy. New Mexico, UNLV, San Diego State, Memphis, and Connecticut are excellent at 12,000 to 16,000 each. Utah State, Temple, and Cincinnati are strong at over 8,000. No one else in the G5 can even get 8,000 fans to an average basketball game. Houston may be may favorite example since they are fairly vocal about getting in with the P5's. How does a school with 23,000 undergrads in one of the most populated cities in the country draw 24,000 football fans and 3,788 basketball fans? Furthermore, you know these G5 schools offer tickets for next to nothing, if not actually nothing. It just does not inspire confidence. There is one school not in the P5 that averages at least 40,000 a game for football and 8,000 a game for basketball, which should be reasonable expectations. That school is BYU and they blow that number away (61,000 FB, 15,000 BB).

First of all those are stats that nobody else has bothered to post. Thanks! My first reaction is that the SEC should emphasize those schools that are lagging in attendance (mine included) to spend more money building up their programs. Clearly our emphasis for realignment will not change from football, but the addition of a couple of more schools that also average well for basketball would round us out nicely in helping to close the gap on the Big 10 in hoops. That still points to North Carolina. But how do the other prospects fit into that BBB? What does Oklahoma, Texas, Virginia Tech, Virginia, N.C. State, Clemson and Florida State average in basketball attendance?

I also find it interesting that the school that would help the PAC the most is the very one they are so prejudiced against. It looks to me to be somewhat of a case of cutting one's nose off to spite one's face.

Exactly, JR. I don't live in that region, so I can't judge too much, but it makes little sense to me, especially in light of their solid academics. They are not big on research, but neither is Notre Dame. Stanford is the one I keep hearing that is adamant against BYU because of religious conflict. If that is the case, I wonder why they continue a yearly relationship with Notre Dame?

Here are some numbers on the ACC schools we like to drool over. Sorry for the formatting problems:

Institution Football Basketball
Duke 26,062 9,314
Virginia 46,279 10,522
Georgia Tech 49,077 4,929
North Carolina 51,500 20,159
NC State 53,178 13,560
Miami 53,837 3,936
Virginia Tech 63,999 8,395
Florida State 75,421 8,541
Clemson 80,525 7,828

First of all, only FSU and Clemson keeps our football attendance at the average of 75,000. North Carolina is the obvious add that would help tremendously in basketball. Add in their football, and we drop in that department to 74,114, which is still about 8,000 better than the Big 10. We can take a bit of a hit in football to help basketball. Adding UNC basketball takes the average to 11,616, which closes the gap to the Big 10 to around 500. However, if we could just get Ole Miss, Auburn, TAMU, and Georgia to average 8,000, we would overtake the Big 10. It takes an additional 921 people at Georgia and 617 at TAMU; very doable. Auburn needs 1,498, and Ole Miss needs a lot of help at 2,230. I would much rather have our problem in basketball than football, though. All we need in basketball, for the most part, is several hundred more from every school that does not already sell out. In football, most conferences are needing several thousand to even get in the conversation.

By the way, neither Oklahoma (8,525) or Texas (11,950) help in basketball. Kansas would help, but they kill the average in football. Our best add, interestingly enough, would be Iowa State. At 55,000 and 13,000, they would be comparable to NC State in terms of an add.

Iowa State would also bring in an additional 3 million viewers. Ditto for either Kansas school. It seems to me based on hoops that at 16 we should look to Iowa State and North Carolina, at 18 we should look to North Carolina, N.C. State, Iowa State and Virginia.

I know that Iowa State doesn't excite too many folks, but what I don't get is how is a school that faithfully averages 50,000 plus year after year for a losing football team, consistently performs well on the courts, and brings AAU status not getting looks? Is there a leprosy problem there? I don't think so. If we were going to expand our Northern border we could do worse than adding two Carolina schools, Virginia and Iowa State. Besides we don't need football strength totally. None of the above other than North Carolina have that much gridiron potential but they do cover our deficits.

Iowa State raises an interesting question... do we have the stomach in realignment to buy low for long term gains? What I mean is that Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas have immediate suitors outside the SEC. I know the PAC and ACC and believe the Big 10 would all take them if packaged as a group. If the SEC were to take Iowa State, Kansas State, and Oklahoma State to make it happen, would that be such a bad deal for us? Texas Tech could be packaged with Texas, and I doubt any conference would balk at it considering they get the golden geese.

The same approach could be taken for NC State and Virginia Tech. Take a look at what happens when I combine these 5 "little brother" schools compared to the SEC average:

Undergraduate students - SEC, 21,134 - Brother, 20,827
USNWR - SEC, 97 - Brother, 109
ARWU - SEC - 249 with 3 N/A - Brother, 218 with 1 N/A
CMUP - SEC - 85 - Brother, 79
Football - SEC, 75,729 - Brother, 56,911
Basketball - SEC, 11,006 - Brother, 11,398
Endowment - SEC, 1.396 billion - Brother, 0.657 billion (Endowment is almost equal if you take out Vandy and TAMU, which are extraordinarily high)
Revenue - SEC, 94 million - Brother, 70 million

Aside from revenue and football attendance, that is what I call peers. Football attendance would get a major bump from SEC affiliation, as would revenue.

We are not getting all of Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, UNC, and UVA. TV and some of the institutions themselves just won't or can't make it happen. Do we fight it out to get a few of those 5 as well as some less than desirable parting gifts, or do we step back and take all of their brothers instead and help build them into schools that look eye to eye with flagship brother or even exceed them in some areas? By the way, JR, such a setup is where I could see the addition of Colorado State making sense. Colorado has a blue collar streak despite the cosmopolitan nature of UC-Boulder. CSU specializes in Veterinary, Agriculture, Engineering, and has major research going on without a medical school. Colorado State, Kansas State, Iowa State, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M, and, actually, Mississippi State make an excellent peer group.

I think I could get behind that grouping to get to 20 in a situation where the SEC looks like the good guys and may actually be best for the conference: Colorado State, Kansas State, Iowa State, Oklahoma State, North Carolina State, Virginia Tech

What do you all think?

(01-22-2014 05:49 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  Iowa State raises an interesting question... do we have the stomach in realignment to buy low for long term gains? What I mean is that Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas have immediate suitors outside the SEC. I know the PAC and ACC and believe the Big 10 would all take them if packaged as a group. If the SEC were to take Iowa State, Kansas State, and Oklahoma State to make it happen, would that be such a bad deal for us? Texas Tech could be packaged with Texas, and I doubt any conference would balk at it considering they get the golden geese.

The same approach could be taken for NC State and Virginia Tech. Take a look at what happens when I combine these 5 "little brother" schools compared to the SEC average:

Undergraduate students - SEC, 21,134 - Brother, 20,827
USNWR - SEC, 97 - Brother, 109
ARWU - SEC - 249 with 3 N/A - Brother, 218 with 1 N/A
CMUP - SEC - 85 - Brother, 79
Football - SEC, 75,729 - Brother, 56,911
Basketball - SEC, 11,006 - Brother, 11,398
Endowment - SEC, 1.396 billion - Brother, 0.657 billion (Endowment is almost equal if you take out Vandy and TAMU, which are extraordinarily high)
Revenue - SEC, 94 million - Brother, 70 million

Aside from revenue and football attendance, that is what I call peers. Football attendance would get a major bump from SEC affiliation, as would revenue.

We are not getting all of Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, UNC, and UVA. TV and some of the institutions themselves just won't or can't make it happen. Do we fight it out to get a few of those 5 as well as some less than desirable parting gifts, or do we step back and take all of their brothers instead and help build them into schools that look eye to eye with flagship brother or even exceed them in some areas? By the way, JR, such a setup is where I could see the addition of Colorado State making sense. Colorado has a blue collar streak despite the cosmopolitan nature of UC-Boulder. CSU specializes in Veterinary, Agriculture, Engineering, and has major research going on without a medical school. Colorado State, Kansas State, Iowa State, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M, and, actually, Mississippi State make an excellent peer group.

I think I could get behind that grouping to get to 20 in a situation where the SEC looks like the good guys and may actually be best for the conference: Colorado State, Kansas State, Iowa State, Oklahoma State, North Carolina State, Virginia Tech

What do you all think?

I have no problem with being a conference that is rich in food production and in research in raising edible animals. I call that in a world with more mouths to feed a growth industry. What we don't need are more lawyers, accountants, and crooked investment bankers. In the world to come food production and water conservation will outpace petroleum, most technologies, and traditional white collar jobs, in terms of profits. And as crises arise in these area of food and water we shall see a larger portion of federal research money diverted to those areas.

If we added six states to our footprint with Kansas State, Iowa State, Oklahoma State, N.C. State, Virginia Tech, and Colorado State, I would still be in favor of going to 24 with Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech and either Louisville/West Virginia/or Miami.

Absolutely, JR, adding Clemson, FSU, and Georgia Tech would be outstanding along with those six other "brother" schools. I would personally like to see WVU as the choice among those last three. Those are 10 additions to the SEC which produce graduates that are blue collar experts (Ag, Vet, Engineering, Energy). Vandy, Florida, UK, Missouri, and USC already have great medical schools, not to mention the relationships our other schools have with the medical school in their system (e.g. UAB).

(01-22-2014 06:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 05:49 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  Iowa State raises an interesting question... do we have the stomach in realignment to buy low for long term gains? What I mean is that Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas have immediate suitors outside the SEC. I know the PAC and ACC and believe the Big 10 would all take them if packaged as a group. If the SEC were to take Iowa State, Kansas State, and Oklahoma State to make it happen, would that be such a bad deal for us? Texas Tech could be packaged with Texas, and I doubt any conference would balk at it considering they get the golden geese.

The same approach could be taken for NC State and Virginia Tech. Take a look at what happens when I combine these 5 "little brother" schools compared to the SEC average:

Undergraduate students - SEC, 21,134 - Brother, 20,827
USNWR - SEC, 97 - Brother, 109
ARWU - SEC - 249 with 3 N/A - Brother, 218 with 1 N/A
CMUP - SEC - 85 - Brother, 79
Football - SEC, 75,729 - Brother, 56,911
Basketball - SEC, 11,006 - Brother, 11,398
Endowment - SEC, 1.396 billion - Brother, 0.657 billion (Endowment is almost equal if you take out Vandy and TAMU, which are extraordinarily high)
Revenue - SEC, 94 million - Brother, 70 million

Aside from revenue and football attendance, that is what I call peers. Football attendance would get a major bump from SEC affiliation, as would revenue.

We are not getting all of Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, UNC, and UVA. TV and some of the institutions themselves just won't or can't make it happen. Do we fight it out to get a few of those 5 as well as some less than desirable parting gifts, or do we step back and take all of their brothers instead and help build them into schools that look eye to eye with flagship brother or even exceed them in some areas? By the way, JR, such a setup is where I could see the addition of Colorado State making sense. Colorado has a blue collar streak despite the cosmopolitan nature of UC-Boulder. CSU specializes in Veterinary, Agriculture, Engineering, and has major research going on without a medical school. Colorado State, Kansas State, Iowa State, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M, and, actually, Mississippi State make an excellent peer group.

I think I could get behind that grouping to get to 20 in a situation where the SEC looks like the good guys and may actually be best for the conference: Colorado State, Kansas State, Iowa State, Oklahoma State, North Carolina State, Virginia Tech

What do you all think?

I have no problem with being a conference that is rich in food production and in research in raising edible animals. I call that in a world with more mouths to feed a growth industry. What we don't need are more lawyers, accountants, and crooked investment bankers. In the world to come food production and water conservation will outpace petroleum, most technologies, and traditional white collar jobs, in terms of profits. And as crises arise in these area of food and water we shall see a larger portion of federal research money diverted to those areas.

If we added six states to our footprint with Kansas State, Iowa State, Oklahoma State, N.C. State, Virginia Tech, and Colorado State, I would still be in favor of going to 24 with Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech and either Louisville/West Virginia/or Miami.

Anyone laughing at, or writing off Iowas State, better take a hard look at the data involving the school. If you do, you will be impressed. I understand ISU is not a geographical fit for the SEC, but rural is rural. It could work.

The only thing I think of when I think our SEC hoops is, we suck.

Basketball could be close to as profitable as football if the conferences could wrestle it out of the NCAA's control. Sooner or later they will because there is so much revenue going to waste in the NCAA's hands and being siphoned off to the hundreds of NCAA schools leeching off the bigger schools. I had a post on another board about how much little money from the BB tourney the P5 actually get considering they make up the bulk of the value. If I can my usb with the financial info on it I will post it. If I remember correctly, only about 30% of the money comes back to the P5 in payouts and other forms of support.

I always figured if the P5 broke away they could do a double elimination tournament, if they wanted more content for the new association's BB tourney since they would have fewer teams involved. The best team would start winning more often because one slip up would not end your season. Plus, it would give a chance for more big match ups in the losers bracket. Even if the P5 tourney did not bring in the same dollars as the NCAA tourney, but only 2/3 to 3/4, it would still be a huge increase in revenue for the P5 since the NCAA would not be using it to finance itself and subsidize all the hundreds of smaller schools in the NCAA.

I would be fine with the Big East and another conference made up of the remaining worthy BB programs from smaller conferences (like Memphis, UConn, Cincinnati, etc) being in the P5 for basketball since BB has 3 times more programs than FB; however, the networks would not complain if they were left behind. You can see that by what they pay those conferences for their BB now. Only the Big East is paid like a P5 conference for it's basketball.

(01-22-2014 04:49 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 03:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 03:24 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  I have been thinking a bit about this, and I wanted to point out something interesting...

Did you know the average attendance for SEC men's basketball is higher than the PAC, Big 12, ACC, and only 1,000 under the Big 10? Yes, Kentucky is the highest in the nation, but Tennessee, Vandy, Arkansas, and Alabama are in the top 20%, and Missouri and Florida are knocking on the door. TAMU, Georgia, Auburn, and Ole Miss are below 8,000 per game average, which really needs to be brought up for the league's sake. The SEC averages a tick over 11,000 per game, by the way.

In comparison, not a single school from the MAC, SunBelt, or CUSA even averages 8,000. The MWC and AAC are very top heavy. New Mexico, UNLV, San Diego State, Memphis, and Connecticut are excellent at 12,000 to 16,000 each. Utah State, Temple, and Cincinnati are strong at over 8,000. No one else in the G5 can even get 8,000 fans to an average basketball game. Houston may be may favorite example since they are fairly vocal about getting in with the P5's. How does a school with 23,000 undergrads in one of the most populated cities in the country draw 24,000 football fans and 3,788 basketball fans? Furthermore, you know these G5 schools offer tickets for next to nothing, if not actually nothing. It just does not inspire confidence. There is one school not in the P5 that averages at least 40,000 a game for football and 8,000 a game for basketball, which should be reasonable expectations. That school is BYU and they blow that number away (61,000 FB, 15,000 BB).

First of all those are stats that nobody else has bothered to post. Thanks! My first reaction is that the SEC should emphasize those schools that are lagging in attendance (mine included) to spend more money building up their programs. Clearly our emphasis for realignment will not change from football, but the addition of a couple of more schools that also average well for basketball would round us out nicely in helping to close the gap on the Big 10 in hoops. That still points to North Carolina. But how do the other prospects fit into that BBB? What does Oklahoma, Texas, Virginia Tech, Virginia, N.C. State, Clemson and Florida State average in basketball attendance?

I also find it interesting that the school that would help the PAC the most is the very one they are so prejudiced against. It looks to me to be somewhat of a case of cutting one's nose off to spite one's face.

Exactly, JR. I don't live in that region, so I can't judge too much, but it makes little sense to me, especially in light of their solid academics. They are not big on research, but neither is Notre Dame. Stanford is the one I keep hearing that is adamant against BYU because of religious conflict. If that is the case, I wonder why they continue a yearly relationship with Notre Dame?

Here are some numbers on the ACC schools we like to drool over. Sorry for the formatting problems:

Institution Football Basketball
Duke 26,062 9,314
Virginia 46,279 10,522
Georgia Tech 49,077 4,929
North Carolina 51,500 20,159
NC State 53,178 13,560
Miami 53,837 3,936
Virginia Tech 63,999 8,395
Florida State 75,421 8,541
Clemson 80,525 7,828

First of all, only FSU and Clemson keeps our football attendance at the average of 75,000. North Carolina is the obvious add that would help tremendously in basketball. Add in their football, and we drop in that department to 74,114, which is still about 8,000 better than the Big 10. We can take a bit of a hit in football to help basketball. Adding UNC basketball takes the average to 11,616, which closes the gap to the Big 10 to around 500. However, if we could just get Ole Miss, Auburn, TAMU, and Georgia to average 8,000, we would overtake the Big 10. It takes an additional 921 people at Georgia and 617 at TAMU; very doable. Auburn needs 1,498, and Ole Miss needs a lot of help at 2,230. I would much rather have our problem in basketball than football, though. All we need in basketball, for the most part, is several hundred more from every school that does not already sell out. In football, most conferences are needing several thousand to even get in the conversation.

By the way, neither Oklahoma (8,525) or Texas (11,950) help in basketball. Kansas would help, but they kill the average in football. Our best add, interestingly enough, would be Iowa State. At 55,000 and 13,000, they would be comparable to NC State in terms of an add.

It's eyebrow raising how open fans of the SEC are to adding Kansas if they went past 16 or did not get the ACC targets they want at 15 and 16. I never really considered the SEC as a possible landing spot for KU if the B12 falls apart, but maybe it is a stronger possibility than I assumed. I read a lot of boards when realignment stuff pops up and lately been seeing KU and SEC popping up fairly often from SEC posters.

I am surprised KU has kept 40k in the stands as putrid as it has been the last 4-5 years. KU fans thought KU had turned the corner after that 12-1 Orange Bowl season, but ... . KU will be redoing their stadium in the next few years. They are building a world class track facility to host the Kansas Relays and it is stuck with the track and old stadium until that is done. Really, if KU could ever put some sustained success together, ala KSU under Snyder, KU could fill a 60k+ stadium with all the alumni living 45 minutes away in Kansas City.

ISU has some of the best fans around. They really support their programs. They are a world class AG school and AAU as well. They get talked about as being left out often if the B12 dissolves, but that would be a mistake. If the PAC could choose 13-16, I think they would take Texas, OU, KU and ISU. However, what Texas, and to lesser extent OU, wants will dictate the number 3 and 4 schools, if they ever go to the PAC. The only conference that I think should not consider ISU is the B1G, only because of already having Iowa and duplicating a smaller market within their B1G network footprint. But depending on how things fall out in realignment, I could see ISU in the B1G. It would be a travesty if they got left out.

(01-22-2014 06:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 05:49 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  Iowa State raises an interesting question... do we have the stomach in realignment to buy low for long term gains? What I mean is that Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas have immediate suitors outside the SEC. I know the PAC and ACC and believe the Big 10 would all take them if packaged as a group. If the SEC were to take Iowa State, Kansas State, and Oklahoma State to make it happen, would that be such a bad deal for us? Texas Tech could be packaged with Texas, and I doubt any conference would balk at it considering they get the golden geese.

The same approach could be taken for NC State and Virginia Tech. Take a look at what happens when I combine these 5 "little brother" schools compared to the SEC average:

Undergraduate students - SEC, 21,134 - Brother, 20,827
USNWR - SEC, 97 - Brother, 109
ARWU - SEC - 249 with 3 N/A - Brother, 218 with 1 N/A
CMUP - SEC - 85 - Brother, 79
Football - SEC, 75,729 - Brother, 56,911
Basketball - SEC, 11,006 - Brother, 11,398
Endowment - SEC, 1.396 billion - Brother, 0.657 billion (Endowment is almost equal if you take out Vandy and TAMU, which are extraordinarily high)
Revenue - SEC, 94 million - Brother, 70 million

Aside from revenue and football attendance, that is what I call peers. Football attendance would get a major bump from SEC affiliation, as would revenue.

We are not getting all of Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, UNC, and UVA. TV and some of the institutions themselves just won't or can't make it happen. Do we fight it out to get a few of those 5 as well as some less than desirable parting gifts, or do we step back and take all of their brothers instead and help build them into schools that look eye to eye with flagship brother or even exceed them in some areas? By the way, JR, such a setup is where I could see the addition of Colorado State making sense. Colorado has a blue collar streak despite the cosmopolitan nature of UC-Boulder. CSU specializes in Veterinary, Agriculture, Engineering, and has major research going on without a medical school. Colorado State, Kansas State, Iowa State, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M, and, actually, Mississippi State make an excellent peer group.

I think I could get behind that grouping to get to 20 in a situation where the SEC looks like the good guys and may actually be best for the conference: Colorado State, Kansas State, Iowa State, Oklahoma State, North Carolina State, Virginia Tech

What do you all think?

I have no problem with being a conference that is rich in food production and in research in raising edible animals. I call that in a world with more mouths to feed a growth industry. What we don't need are more lawyers, accountants, and crooked investment bankers. In the world to come food production and water conservation will outpace petroleum, most technologies, and traditional white collar jobs, in terms of profits. And as crises arise in these area of food and water we shall see a larger portion of federal research money diverted to those areas.

If we added six states to our footprint with Kansas State, Iowa State, Oklahoma State, N.C. State, Virginia Tech, and Colorado State, I would still be in favor of going to 24 with Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech and either Louisville/West Virginia/or Miami.

I think we'll see more little brother schools moving once the more valuable flagships schools have settled into their final destinations. Right now every conference wants the big fish, once those big fish are caught they will start trying to land the smaller ones. A few little brothers might move together with big brother as well such as Texas/TTU, OU/OSU, and UNC/Duke. Someone is going to have to take some little brothers if we want more conference consolidation because schools like Texas and UNC need some of those little brother schools to find a home if they want to avoid the politics and blow back of leaving them behind.

Good thoughts and insight, jhawkmvp. I have learned a lot from JR about where the Big 12 schools will likely go. Texas is very tight with ESPN, which makes a move to the PAC or Big 10 difficult. Fox has the rights to Oklahoma, and Kansas recently signed many of their rights over to ESPN. The worth of Oklahoma and Kansas is really in the eye of the beholder since each brings different areas of strength, so they could be interchangeable depending on what a conference/network needs.

The typical SEC fan wants two things from a member school: 1) Own their state, and 2) Want to be there more than anywhere else. Maybe it is too much cultural pride, but we feel that we can take a "little brother" that is in the same ballpark as the flagship and help raise them to owning their state. That is how we felt about Texas A&M, and they are doing a tremendous job. I suppose that is why you'll see that, in the right combination, most SEC folks are open to either flagship or state school from North Carolina, Virginia, Oklahoma, and Kansas as well as possibly open Iowa State.

I have no doubt that Kansas would raise the boat for basketball in the SEC, and we would help lift the football. In my opinion all the way down here in Tennessee, though, it seems like Kansas fits the Big 10 like a glove. Perhaps I am wrong, though. Maybe Kansas has a good bit of Missouri in it where they could go either way and are a fit for a couple of different cultures.