I wonder what this would look like if you divided the populations of each state by the number of BCS programs per state.  I mean, if you take states like Michigan or Illinois, you can easily characterize them as "Big Ten states" because all of the BCS-level programs in those states are from the B1G.  You can similarly call Alabama or Arkansas "SEC states" by the same logic.  But you can't really do that with states like Pennsylvania or Georgia.  

If we just take Florida and Texas, for instance, you have eight BCS-level programs between those two states, only two of which are in the SEC.  So if we give the SEC just 25% of the populations of Florida and Texas, now we are talking about 11 million people instead of 45 million.    

I will say that with Florida, a not-insignificant portion of that growth is due to reitrees.  The number of births are on the rise, but pure population numbers can be misleading from vacation and retirement-centric locales like Florida.

That said, interesting stuff.  The addition of Texas definitely adds to the SEC footprint, but Texas is so open to competition that you really can't consider it a core part of any conference.  Most of the Big 12 recruits from there, as does the Pac-12, Big 10, and ACC.  Like California, it produces enough talent to outfit a number of programs, and the SEC definitely won't ever hold a monopoly like they do in places like LA and MS.

and from FL I can think of Miami, Fl.  Fl. State, USF, FCU so I'd say your math is a bit off. True, not all are in the SEC, with only one school in ea state being a member of that conference. And you're also trying to dismiss non-football playing residents for those two states, but you are not doing same for states like MI, OH, PA, NJ, our largest four.  I think it's safe to say the number of kids enrolled in the D1 programs of both of these states, outnumber the entire population of certain states in both conferences.  The importance of playing in front os so many "potential" D1 players can't be exaggerated and these two states alone allow for a high percentage of recruits to participate in bowl games in front of famililiar faces they've known since childhood.  Nabbing a TCU or USF would have made a hell of a lot more sense in regard to an upgrade in both number of t.v.. sets plus football talent.  

We should probably also take a look at the African-American populations in these states, since most elite recruits are black.  Mississippi and Louisiana don't stand out when you look at the table above, but they produce D1 players at a huge rate.  Not coincidentally, they have two highest percentages of black residents in the country (37% and 32%, respectively).

There are many caveats associated with the info presented by the OP which the board has already started to point out. The split of Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina with the SEC and ACC. The split of Texas with the SEC and Big 12. That said, the B1G has a few caveats as well, Pennsylvania split with the ACC (when Pitt moves) and Iowa split with the Big 12, NY's history of being a pro sports market vs a college sports market (except in basketball).

Since those things are not quantifiable with the data provided, I thought I would take the data provided and point out a few trends which are undeniable and support why the B1G made the moves they have. There is nothing new here as Delany has flat out stated the demographic and TV reasons for the additions of Rutgers & Maryland and why they are looking at Virgina, Carolina, and Georgia.

Without further disclaimers. I suggest the data is best viewied looking at three things. 1) the shift in population from 1990 - 2010 to see what the major trend has been over the past 20 years. 2) the short term shift from 2010 - 2012 to validate if the long term trend is still current. 3) comparing the weighted averages of the change since that more accurately addresses the true size of shift.

Here's the B1G from 1990 - 2010:

Here's the SEC from 1990 - 2010:

Here's the B1G from 2010 - 2012:

Here's the SEC from 2010 - 2012:

That difference between the B1G and SEC in weighted average from 1990 - 2010 is not pretty. Of course, we all know this as Delany has repeatedly mentioned the huge shift over the past 20 - 30 years. Looking at the shorter term outlook is not pretty either. A 2.3% shift vs.  .7% over two years on that big of a base is a BIG (note: not B1G) difference. 

For those who want to push the "but they are all old retired people who don't care" argument.  That argument held water in the 80's. It doesn't today. The most recent census data indicated the population in the south was a younger population than in the north. In association with the large growth expectations and the avg age of that growth, the economic base has also shifted. It's not just the eyes (on TV's) and butts (in seats) that has moved south, the money (to buy merchandise) is moving there as well.

Since the B1G can't just up and move the schools to where the population trends have been and are heading, they were in a bit of a desperate situation. I'm still not overly enthused with Rutgers and Maryland, but you can start to see the B1G did not have as many options as we as fans may have liked. It also explains why Delaney is sitll dreaming up ways to solidify new market opportunities which still match B1G values and some sense of proximity.

How the business is run... Florida has always been sunny, demographics are more of a meltiing pot than they ever were due to mobility of families these days, internet provider for superior research, and more money being thrown into the college football arena. What most of us don't want to admit is that the B1G has been remiss in its planning, and turned into a relic of sorts. The SEC at one point in time was just trying to keep up, and then...they passed us flying by. If you don't believe this, just take a look at the name of the conference, it hasn't been ten members in over twenty years! Change the conference name! Look at how long it took the B1G to develop a conference playoff system (or even come up with the idea...that we actually stole from the SEC). Michigan is the prime example of sitting on ones lower posterior and thinking that NAME and PRESTIGE alone will keep things going. The largest stadium in the country had horribly antiquated press boxes up until just a couple years ago, scoreboards were nostalgic (rolling eyes). Most of us who grew up in Ann Arbor have an appreciation for these things, because we lived them, don't expect some kid from FL or TX to appreciate them. I've been to several college stadiums growing up just because of the travels my parents put me through and it aMAIZED me just how long my beloved UM was able to hang on. The Swamp is incredible, and small, but they had facilities that trumped UM decades ago as far as technology was concerened. Even the Terps in MD., seemed to be stepping up the pace and that was back in the 90's. The business of UM football, and B1G football has been mismanaged and now we're playing catchup. The best thing that happened to our prgram within the past 10yrs was the "Under The Lights" game in 2011. It put Ann Arbor back on the map, as a destination to play again. It wasn't just because of the lights either, it was the marketing that Brandon did to make it eye catching, and unique.

Is interesting to read expansion speculation. It's sad how clear it is that market dollars drive these decisions. I look at UNC and Virginia (because Virginia Tech, while being more competitive athletically, doesn't fit the B1G profile as a highly rated research university, while Virginia is among the best) and I don't get all giddy. Yes, UNC is a historic powerhouse and they would step into some very natural rivalries with Maryland, MSU, UM, Indiana and OSU, but the football team, while makingh efforts to be relevant hasn't done a ton to impress me. Virginia is far worse, having made it to the Big Dance and a bowl game one once each in the past five years. Much of the same as Rutgers and Maryland. But B1G lacrosse would be amazing.