Yes, they do. When we start thinking about adding conference members, I'm only concerned about the health of their football and basketball programs. I'm underwhelmed by all these possibilities...
The health of VT's basketball program is not very good, and you really think VT would continue football success in the SEC? Their "health" is a recent occurrence contingent on success. There is 0 proof it would continue without success, which is the likely (and hopeful for other SEC schools) outcome. The rest I wrote isn't a direct response to you of course...
This is a complicated subject and something in much greater depth could be written. For starters, I have to make it clear why total athletic revenue is so important.
This is investment in the athletic department. We are talking about a product, and when a school is investing more into the product this means a great deal.
30 million dollars is a huge gap, especially considering the football success Virginia Tech has had. I listed athletic revenue when talking about A&M as well, it demonstrated they were willing to financially support their football team. It doesn't matter if it is rich alumni, the state, money coming in is money coming in.
We can not ignore other sports either. Basketball programming can be worth in the range of 1-10 million per year, tier three (which would be the bulk of network programming) can range from 1-10 million per year. One school could be worth 2 or 3 million per year in that regard, and another like North Carolina could be worth around 20 million. The additional investment is huge when talking about SEC Network programming, because it means better products all around. Football will not make up a bulk of the programming, so all those things North Carolina and Virginia are spending (and making) money on, will add value. It is entirely realistic to phrase it as saying Virginia and North Carolina could be worth 30 million more per year. That's a ton of money, but in terms of value for SEC programming, that is not a completely unrealistic number.
The other is analysis of Virginia Tech football, which as I said before is their only trick. Their revenue is behind Virginia, even with huge earnings in football. This means the rest of their athletic department is starved and poorly supported, both by fans and the school itself. The value of everything else is almost non-existent. Even if they continue their football success, they are likely worth less than Virginia. Without it? They are more Vanderbilt and Mississippi State than anything else. Showing their football revenue is not a pro, it's a con because it shows how reliant they are on football success.
Virginia Tech would be competing with Florida, Georgia, Tennessee,and South Carolina. They are demonstrably better supported. South Carolina doesn't have much of a history of football either, but let's be clear here. With Texas A&M, they unseated Arkansas and Auburn. They have a stadium of nearly 90K seating, in a state of over 25 million. This was good for the SEC. If Virginia Tech does it, they are unseating a traditional power. We're talking about a school with over ten thousand less attendance than South Carolina, unseating a Florida (89K), Georgia (92K), or Tennessee (94K). This could cost millions alone, because it would be a borderline football power brand hurting an established football power brand. And, furthermore Virginia Tech's athletic department simply doesn't have the money to expand seating at a fast rate. Once again, they're not a rich program.
The notion that Virginia Tech is another Florida State is a bit misleading (by the way, they've had financial troubles after Bowden left). Florida St. has far more attendance and is far more accomplished. More importantly, Florida cares much more about college sports. Many people have said it in different ways, but the truth is Virginia just isn't a college football state. And, their allegiances are all over the map. Sure, they'll cheer for VT if they are winning, but that simply is unlikely. This is the SEC! I'm not in love with Virginia either, but I know they won't harm football brands and will contribute without relying on football success.
I looked up attendance numbers for 1998, which is the farthest back the NCAA site has them. Virginia was steady at 43K. North Carolina was steady at 55K (close to current numbers). Virginia Tech, in the heart of a run of great seasons, of big bowls, was at 49K. This is Virginia Tech when they are winning! They were behind where North Carolina is when they are losing. Think about that. We're told that VT fans will follow them everywhere. Really? Then how come they didn't follow them then? How come a basketball school had better football attendance?
The truth is that if VT joins the SEC, even with success they will be underfunded.
They could represent a net loss by harming a more powerful SEC brand. The likelihood though is that they start losing, attendance drops, and the state of Virginia forgets about Virginia Tech football. There simply is no history of fan support to lean on, no history of financial support. Virginia Tech is fool's gold. I used these same factors to explain why Texas A&M was a good addition, and they say Virginia Tech is a bad addition. It's all in the numbers.
There is a reason that the Big 10 is going after North Carolina and not Virginia Tech. There is a reason the ACC didn't want Virginia Tech. A lot of SEC fans can't see past football, but as I've said before, the SEC can't win two BCS Championship games in one year. They can't pile success on top of success. There has to be losers to, so the idea of adding a school
reliant on football success to even be mediocre in the conference is ridiculous in my mind.
I'm going over it in my head and I'm not seeing how the likelyhood of a VT with a mid 50K football attendance, with middle of the road athletic revenue, and a low tier bowl game most years seems like a great addition. I'm just not getting the allure.