There were a couple of separate articles today regarding Pac-12 television rights that point to some implications for other conferences. First, Jon Wilner from the San Jose Mercury-News had a fairly in-depth article today regarding the status Pac-12 television contract negotiations. Second, Percy Allen from the Seattle Times had an interview with Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott that focused on the conference’s basketball TV rights. Here are the main points from those articles:
(1) Fox is the most likely long-term TV partner for the Pac-12 with a possibility of some over-the-air football games on the mothership network, while Comcast/NBC is the second option;
(2) ESPN is not willing to pay as much for the Pac-12 as it did for the ACC for a variety of reasons (including lack of time slots and the value of the ACC’s syndicated basketball package);
(3) Larry Scott wants the Pac-12 Network to happen, but Time Warner Cable will be a large obstacle in the Los Angeles market; and
(4) Going forward, all media rights for all Pac-12 members will be controlled by the conference (as opposed to a portion being controlled by the individual schools as it is today).
Let’s examine each of these points from the perspective of the Pac-12 and how they apply to the college sports world at large.
Point #1 about Fox’s involvement isn’t a surprise considering the current relationship that it has with the Pac-12 and the media giant’s increasing focus on obtaining college sports rights over the past several months (including paying $140 million over the next six years solely for the Big Ten Championship Game). The overarching questions going forward are (a) how serious is Fox about expanding its overall college sports presence and (b) are they willing to use Fox over-the-air for games? Fox bid on the ACC package last year with an offer that was heavily reliant on FX as the main national platform. Indeed, David Hill, Chairman of Fox Sports Group, sees an increase in sports programming on FX as a key in making that network competitive with the likes of TNT. While Fox didn’t win that deal, they did procure a smaller agreement with C-USA plus rights to the Big Ten and Pac-12 championship games. A hungry Fox can certainly bid up the price of rights for other conferences… as long as ESPN is willing to play, too. (More on that in a moment.)
As for Comcast/NBC, call me skeptical of them ever becoming a truly major player in college sports. Comcast-owned Versus certainly is looking for more sports programming, but that’s a fairly unattractive national cable partner compared to ESPN or FX on its face and you’re more likely to see sports move away from NBC as opposed to any events being added. Sports programs in general are loss leaders for over-the-air networks and the last thing that NBC needs is more losses. In fact, NBC Universal CEO Steve Burke told Wall Street analysts covering Comcast specifically yesterday that NBC’s current “sports properties lose hundreds of millions of dollars per year.” NBC lost $220 million on the 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympics and even its gold-plated NFL Sunday Night Football package loses around $100 million per year. So, it doesn’t exactly sound like the new Comcast ownership is going to be spending very much money on more sports on NBC. If anything, those quotes from the head of NBCU indicate that they’re preparing to cut back heavily. Therefore, any conference hoping for Comcast/NBC to come through with some great offer is going to be severely disappointed.
From the Big Ten’s perspective, I see Fox only as a viable option in the conference’s next TV deal if there is essentially a replication of the SEC’s agreement with CBS: the top game of the week gets coast-to-coast over-the-air coverage. I can’t realistically see the Big Ten considering a deal with Comcast at all. While much has been made of the Big Ten’s partnership with Fox regarding the Big Ten Network, it must be emphasized that the conference still receives substantially more money from ESPN compared to the BTN. There are also more Big Ten events on ESPN today than there were prior to the BTN being formed. From the very beginning, the BTN has always been intended to be a supplement to ESPN coverage as opposed to a replacement. The Big Ten is smart enough to know that the time slots that it has secured with ABC and ESPN provide incredible exposure and the conference doesn’t want to kill the proverbial long-term golden goose for short-term financial gains. Any new deal going forward has to provide even more exposure than today’s deal. Thus, I could see the Big Ten pushing to a movement of the games that are regionalized on ABC right now to national over-the-air Fox coverage. However, I highly doubt that the Big Ten would ever seriously consider moving ESPN games to FX (and definitely not to the patchwork quilt of Fox Sports Net affiliates). It’s interesting to note, by the way, that the two conferences that make the most money outside of ESPN (Big Ten with the BTN and SEC with CBS) also make the most money from ESPN. Money certainly talks, but the Big Ten seems to be a property that ESPN will pay up to get them to stay (and the desire to stay on ESPN will be reciprocated by the conference).
That leads to Point #2, where apparently the Pac-12 is a conference that ESPN is not willing to pay up for. More specifically, ESPN appears to believe that the Pac-12 TV package is worth less than comparable ACC rights. This doesn’t surprise me at all. I’ve been fairly consistent on this blog that the ACC is in much better shape than what a lot of sports fans (that have concentrated on the conference’s relative weakness on the football field over the past few years) believe.
National marquee brand names are extremely important for determining college sports rights and the ACC has 2 big ones for football (Miami and Florida State) and arguably the 2 very biggest ones for basketball (Duke and North Carolina). The ACC basketball package is also unique in that it draws football-level ratings in several of its markets, which is something that none of the other BCS conferences can claim (even those that might be better on the court in a given year, such as the Big East). If and when Miami and Florida State get back on track, you’ll see a dramatic turnaround in the football perception (and TV ratings) of the ACC. In contrast, the Pac-12 is largely reliant on the strength of USC for football and UCLA for basketball in terms of drawing national interest. Beyond the LA schools and Oregon’s wacky uniforms, the Pac-12 continues to struggle with getting much notoriety in the Eastern 2/3rds of the country.
The Pac-12’s inability to get much of a large bid out of ESPN should be a small warning sign to the Big 12 and a large red flag to the Big East, who are both hoping to receive large TV rights increases from the Worldwide Leader. Several conferences last summer were under the impression that ESPN paying such a large amount to the ACC meant that the network’s greenback gushers were wide open and they could switch the style up, but if they hate let ’em hate and watch the money pile up. Instead, it looks like ESPN is going to keep all its money in a big brown bag inside a zoo. Dan Beebe and the Big 12 members may sweat it out a bit as there were some financial assurances from ABC/ESPN this past summer that aided in keeping the conference from splitting apart. Personally, I’m a believer that ESPN understands the big picture and seeing that they presently want to avoid the formation of superconferences, they’ll pay enough to the Big 12 so that the conference makes good on its promises to Texas, Oklahoma and Texas A&M. With ESPN’s investment in the UT network, the Big 12 needs to stay alive and a few extra bucks on the conference contract would be money well-spent.
The Big East is a different matter. That conference has already bore the brunt of having football games moved by ESPN to Thursday nights initially, and then when the SEC, ACC and Pac-12 saw that Thursday was a great night for exposure, the Big East has been kicked around to several Friday nights and even some Wednesday evenings. Much of the hope of a Big East TV contract increase rested on leveraging its valuable and massive basketball package into better football exposure. However, if ESPN isn’t willing to pay the Pac-12 TV rights in line with the ACC, then it stands to reason that they’re going to value the Big East even less. Unless Fox or Comcast swoop in with competing bids for the Big East, the conference’s schools are going to have a difficult time coaxing the increases that they’re hoping for from ESPN. I’m sure that you’ll see the Big East get what amounts to an inflationary increase (maybe 150% of what they receive now), but not enough to get on the same tier as the other BCS conferences.
Under Point #3, Larry Scott seems extremely determined to start a Pac-12 network. However, Jon Wilner pointed out a large potential obstacle: Time Warner Cable. He noted that TWC is the largest cable provided in the Los Angeles market and they’ve had a habit of getting into carriage fights regarding regional sports networks. What Wilner neglected to mention (and I find to be even more important) is that TWC just sent a Valentine’s Day present to Jerry Buss of what’s rumored to be around $150 million per year to create two new regional sports networks in the LA market (one English language and the other Spanish language) built around the Lakers. With 3 Fox Sports networks in that market already, that means that the LA market will be supporting 5 RSNs and making it even more crowded than the New York City market. This crowded environment in the Pac-12’s most important market has huge implications on whether a conference network can realistically be formed. The Big Ten Network only had to compete with 1 RSN in each of the markets within its footprint (even in its largest market of Chicago, which only has Comcast SportsNet Chicago). Thus, it was a more palatable for the cable providers to give in when the BTN was RSN #2 on their systems… and even then, it took over a year of carriage fights for them to get to that point. It’s a much different value proposition for the Pac-12 attempting to enter into market that already has 5 other RSNs – TWC has a whole lot more leverage to demand lower subscriber rates or refuse basic carriage entirely. Note that a potential Big East Network would face the same issues in the NYC market with so many RSNs already clogging up cable bills. This was a factor in the Big Ten ultimately deciding to not go after schools like Rutgers or Syracuse in this last round of expansion, as the BTN absolutely had to get basic carriage in the NYC market in order to financially justify those additions, and they didn’t see that happening anytime soon.
Finally, with respect to Point #4, Larry Scott confirmed that all media rights for all Pac-12 members would be controlled by the conference. This is important for one massive reason: the University of Texas. With the Pac-12 taking that position, it has effectively wiped out any reasonable possibility of Texas joining the conference in the future, as the new Longhorn Network would be unable to exist under those conditions (and I don’t see UT giving up in excess of $10 million per year for any reason). For the fear mongerers (who are all wrong, by the way) that continue to believe that UT’s ultimate goal is to end up independent or in the Pac-12, at the very least, that Pac-12 option is gone. (I’ve listed a multitude of reasons of why UT wants to stay in the Big 12 in perpetuity and, in fact, needs that league to live, but many people seem to believe what they want to believe on that front.)
Fans of all conferences should keep a close eye on the West Coast since how the Pac-12 proceeds will be a significant indicator of how TV networks will pay for college sports in this next round of contracts.
(Follow Frank the Tank’s Slant on Twitter @frankthetank111 and Facebook)
1,303 thoughts on “West Coast Represent: Pac-12 TV Talks and What it Means for Other Conferences”
Good piece, Frank. One quick question: why do you think that, on its face, FX, a network which presently (I think) doesn’t broadcast college sports, or any sports at all for that matter, is a more attractive network than Versus
@Hopkins Horn – The distribution difference is significant. FX is in 96 million homes (on par with ESPN and TNT) while VS is in about 75 million homes.
Wow. I had no idea about that distribution differential.
I think FX is more desirable (aside from the carriage difference) because of the name recognition: FX has worked hard to build it’s stable of original programming to become a household name (see: The Shield, Nip/Tuck, Damages, Rescue Me, Sons of Anarchy and Justified, as well as the comedies It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia and Louie). so, even though it doesn’t have any sports yet, people recognize the channel and will take a sports venture seriously, kind of like when TBS and TNT rebranded their networks, pushed original programming, and picked up the NBA and MLB. I think Versus still has this clout of being a second-rate wanna-be sports network which gets all the left over scraps of ESPNU and the Fox Sports Networks RSNs
Couple of quick thinkgs..
ACC gets 30M a year from Raycom for its part in the ESPN deal. The real split is 125 from ESPN and 30M from Raycom in a sub-licensing fee.
What kills ESPN doing a Pac-12 offer is that there is no viable equivalent to Raycom in the Pac-12 footprint. It is yet to be seen what that really means for the Big 12.
FX is about to be re branded as NBC Sports Network in the coming months. There have been discussions about a Full USA rolling coverage of the BE/B12/MWC deal that could be used to provide a game of the week format that could be broadcasted on NBC before or after the ND game.
Lax, do you mean FX or Versus is going to be rebranded?
VS.. sorry, good catch.
I don’t think you necessarily need a Raycom like regional entity to set up a subliscense agreement though. I think we will all agree the Big 12 isn’t exactly the go to example conference for how to negotiate tv contract. With that said, FSN controls the rights to every game not on ABC. FSN games are subliscensed to ESPN and Versus.
The other college football aspect to keep an eye with the Comcast/NBC merger is ND’s television situation. There’s been some talk around some ND fans that the new company might try to move an ND game to Versus once a year as a way to grow that network. I’m not sure ND would be happy about that, but I don’t know what other network would guarantee that every home game is on nationally. NBC has played hardball with ND before in forcing one night game a year (the “neutral site” game). I wonder if they will again.
I’d like to see the Big 10 replicate the SEC’s deal with CBS. Give FOX the first choice in Saturday games…ABC/ESPN can have 2nd/3rd choices…the rest go to the BTN.
Even if FOX does increase its college sports coverage, I doubt it’d go crazy all at once. A simple “Saturday night feature game” (as ABC has found these to be wildly popular) with a big Big 10 game would be a nice “kid brother” to its NFL lineup on Sundays. They already have HUGE buy in to the Big 10 (via BTN and Big 10 champ game), so promoting that particular league would be financially beneficial for them. Additionally, the “connection” of the Big 10 with the NFL would be a great thing for the league’s national perception. (e.g. “Fox does the NFL and the Big 10…Fox does great football.)
I’ve yet to see any evidence that ABC will go after “seconds.” Every other contract we’ve ever seen has always negotiated the OTA channel getting to pick the first game, and said channel being the only OTA channel carrying that conference. I have no doubt Delany and Co. would demand high standards on Fox, but from what i’ve seen of the BCS coverage and the FSN coverage of the Big XII, I’d do everything within reason to maintain the status quo with ABC/ESPN.
Pingback: Tweets that mention West Coast Represent: Pac-12 TV Talks and What it Means for Other Conferences « FRANK THE TANK’S SLANT -- Topsy.com
One channel that is not generating much speculation is CBS College Sports. One of the big reasons ESPN did their deal with the SEC was that ESPN was having trouble getting cable outlets to carry ESPNU. The SEC inventory got several cable providers to carry the U. CBS is the #1 network and has cash. CBS-CS doesn’t have much carriage or much inventory (the service academies, C-USA, & MWC, I think).
Does CBS-CS become a player for Big XII, 12-Pac, and Big East rights in order to boost their carriage?
And I can’t find it at the moment, but CBSCS is being rebranded as CBS Sports Network. Guess the Tiffany Network has bigger plans for that channel.
I always hear about how the SEC deal was done to help ESPNU. It may be available in 73 million households, but is it available on expanded basic anywhere? It may be available in 73 million households, but the subscriber base is more like 41 million. I’m not sure the SEC deal had any impact on availability, although I’m sure it increased the subscribers in the southeast.
What are your thoughts on Larry Scott trying to get into the Asian markets? Seem like there won’t be much relief there, but Scott’s plans won’t be limited to American markets.
I believe that Scott had said that he might want to have some basketball/football games played in China.
Might as well use what most people perceive as a weakness and try to do things with that.
he should also consider playing some baseball games in japan and korea. I know that college baseball isn’t the most popular sport in this country, but those 2 countries love the game, so, might as well try it out
tt – I know the popularity of college baseball in my little part of the country is not reflective of the whole, but I have to brag on my fellow Tiger fans. For the weekend series against Wake Forest this past weekend, attendance almost hit 34,000. Unfortunately, I was only able to make the opener on Friday night.
Yesterday, the basketball team played Florida at the same time as the baseball game. Baseball attendance was 10,753 and basketball attendance was 7,711. Granted, the roundball Tigers are wrapping up a dismal season and it was baseball’s opening weekend, but baseball can be financially successful with a commitment to facilities and recruiting.
Prior to Skip Bertman coming to LSU in 1984, the only real SEC baseball tradition and success was in
Starkville. Skip showed the rest of the SEC that money could be made in baseball, and now you have a collection of very nice minor league quality ballparks all across the South, with several thousand fans showing up to watch baseball in “football” country every weekend.
College Baseball could be huge, especially if the start was moved later in the season to benefit the large northern schools.
I think if MLB were smart, they would invest/promote college baseball. Getting those passionate fan bases following baseball could help fix the demographic problems MLB is facing.
Mike – The season has been moved back a week last year, and I think it was moved back a week several years ago in an attempt to assist the Northern schools. I know its still cold up there, but baseball extends to the end of June as it currently stands. I doubt the season could be moved back any more.
Cold weather hasn’t stopped UConn, Louisville, St. John’s, Pitt, and Wichita St. from being ranked in the Collegiate Baseball pre-season top 30.
Do any of the B1G baseball teams utilize their football indoor practice facilities in January & February?
I can’t speak for all of the Big Ten, but Nebraska uses its indoor football facilities for baseball only when it absolutely has to. It is a football field and isn’t really conductive for baseball. I imagine that it’s a pattern that is repeated across most northern schools. Nebraska, however, is building an indoor practice facility for Baseball that should be completed this year, IIRC.
Weather doesn’t keep you from having good teams, but the cold weather does hamper recruiting. Where it really hurts is in the fan’s ability to support. Cold weather teams tend to play games during the day until April which is fine on weekends, but hurt attendance for mid week and Friday games (if they don’t and play a nite game and its cold, attendance will suffer as well). That means less money available to run a program on.
The difference between College and Minor league baseball is, to me, very striking. Minor League baseball anymore seems to promote the experience, family fun, food, everything but baseball. College baseball is just about the game. To be at a game where everyone is actually into the game, not the distractions, is a refreshing.
I heard they changed how live the bats were for this year. Do the new bats sound different? Are you noticing the difference in offense?
Brian – its more of of thud than a ping or a crack. Our cleanup hitter Mikie Mahtook hit 4 dingers in the three games this weekend, so it certainly wasn’t bothering him.
To answer your question, OSU baseball also practices in the football facility. Field hockey, softball, soccer and lacrosse use it, too.
It’s definitely been talked about before. I’m a skeptic that anything meaningful will ever happen with it, but I could be wrong.
There may be interest in basketball and some Olympic sports. Maybe it would have influence on some Asian-American recruits that have family back in Asia.
CBS College Sports is rebranding as CBS Sports. They want to raise their profile, so they may be more of a player than NBC/Universal. CUSA is not high profile-and now Fox has those games that used to be on CBS CS.
I’ve wondered whether the Big 12-2 would work out a deal in 2015 to find everybody a home (“Hey Pac, SEC, B1G-find a home for all 10 and you get 1 less AQ conference”), but I don’t think the schools (or the SEC) would work that closely together. However, maybe the BE would as none of those schools has significantly more value than the others and combined they are a very distant #6. Clearly the Cal AD is thinking about ways to get rid of an AQ conference.
12 seems to be the ideal number from a short and medium term revenue standpoint. Could that elimination of an AQ conference provide enough value in the long run for conferences to go to 14 (for example, TCU+1 to Pac, SU+UConn to ACC, UL+UC+Pitt+WVU to Big 12, RU+maybe ND to B1G, USF+1 to SEC)? If it was initiated by the BE members it wouldn’t be the anti-trust issue as if it were initiated by the other conferences.
“The Big Ten Network only had to compete with 1 RSN in each of the markets within its footprint”
Not necessarily true in the Ohio markets as there exists FSN Ohio and Sportstime Ohio (STO). If I remember right STO basically was in bed with Time Warner from the start to guarantee carriage but struggled with other operators, and basically went right down to Opening Day for the Indians that first year before striking deals. BTN didn’t have initial carriage of the HD & subchannels at first either.
@Brad – Good to point that out. I believe STO is geared toward the Cleveland area (as it basically has the Indians and not much else), while FS Ohio covers the entire state.
UMass still not saying anything about moving up from FBS, except that something will be announced in early March. They’re unusually close-mouthed about the whole thing. Every indication is that they intend to move up but nothing is final. There’s some speculation (not in this article) that the BE expansion plans and CUSA replacements may be part of the delay, but I haven’t seen anything other than internet chatter supporting that. UMass is the only flagship in a state larger than New Hampshire not in FBS (unless you count the 2 non-scholarship SUNY schools or California’s #3 Cal-Davis who has only been in Division 1 for 8 years).
Interesting read as always. A couple thoughts:
1) Still not sold on the “all rights in” being a permanent thing given the current membership, much less if Texas were actually on the table otherwise. It would be incredibly stupid for the league to blow off Texas just because they didn’t want to change the TV rights structure. If Texas is ever actually interested, I can’t see why the league wouldn’t step back from all rights in.
2) Fighting with Time Warner could be an issue, but it’s largely a question of how much the league wants to get in terms of revenue, as opposed to how much the league wants to increase exposure and make sure that ALL of their football content, almost all of the basketball content, and a good chunk of everything else is at least on the air.
I would agree that it’s impossible for the league to get BTN-level revenue from their network right off the bat, but I’m sure that there’s some price point where Time Warner and other regional cable companies wouldn’t bother fighting over. Whether it’s high enough for the members to be happy, I don’t know, but it’s at least plausible that they can make a deal.
3) IMO the apparent fact that ESPN is NOT willing to pay a lot for the league’s TV rights is a pretty big deal. I had been under the impression that the network was interested in essentially cornering the CFB market, but it looks like that’s not what they’re after. Instead they’re getting top-shelf games from B10 and SEC, some top-shelf from B12, and basically everything good from ACC to pad the content level.
I can’t argue with that strategy, but it’s not what I expected. It’ll be interesting to see what an apparently more open marketplace leads to.
4) Still not sold on league stability. Wilner is citing around a $170M benchmark as the target. That comes out to $14-$15M per team (UCLA/USC maybe more like $16M given the promise of $2M extra). Meanwhile Texas just got $10M or so annually for their 3rd-tier rights.
If those numbers hold up, I don’t see how USC sticks around, and UCLA would probably want to follow them out the door (which they should be able to do IF they can ensure Cal/Stanford are “taken care of”, which is at least easier than finding a good home for Baylor). And a few others (most obviously Washington and Oregon) might be exploring their options as well.
$170M or so (all TV revenues combined) might have been a good deal a couple years ago, but it’s nothing close to it now. If ESPN is truly interested in keeping the lid on super-conferences, they may have a big problem on their hands. $15M or so per school isn’t going to fly in a few of the Pac-12 athletic departments, which means we could potentially see drastic changes.
And as I’ve noted before, league bylaws basically say that there’s no meaningful penalty for leaving (basically just that you need to give 2 years notice). I think this offseason just got even more interesting.
What do you thinkt he major west coast market/programs go?
If the the difference in revenue is only going to be 5-7 million, not sure that those long standing relationships with the pac-10 conference would be given up, unless there is some crazy money on the table.
The League’s geography is its biggest strength and weakness.
USC has talked independence enough over the years (including just last year) to think they might give it a shot. And if even 3 or 4 follow them out the door, they could have a scheduling alliance among themselves and at least try to make it work.
I’ve also speculated that they could do a MWC-like deal where around half the league breaks off to form a smaller group, or that they could try to revive the Texas deal, but with fewer West Coast members than before.
I’m not sure if any of those are good or even feasible options, but if the Pac-12 $$$ is bad enough, I’m sure that a few schools are going to be seriously considering their options.
I think the only comfort I can take is being a Fan of Washington. Seattle market and Washington program won’t be left in the cold
Washington is potentially vulnerable in the same way Oregon or Kansas is potentially vulnerable. If the state legislature is powerful enough to force the two state programs to stay together come hell or high water, that could be a problem for U-Dub.
Washington is clearly valuable enough that they should find an AQ home no matter what happens if they can move independently. I’m not sure, however, whether they’re valuable enough to get an AQ to invite both them and Wazzu in the event of a league collapse.
I don’t believe the Pac is as unstable as you seem to think it is. It is not the WAC, the MWC, or even the BIG 12ish. Please look at the time line of membership. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific-10_Conference Note that 8 members have been together snce the great depression (save a short period late 50’s early 60’s). SC briefly talked last year, SC & UCLA got the financial guarantee, got Colorado and Utah in the south division, and got every year FB games with their north division Cal brothers. Their talk achieved its goal.
BYU, Utah, New Mexico, Wyoming, CSU, & UTEP had been together in the WAC for 30+ years before that conference split. Now, strength of ties do matter, which is why I think the Cali schools will always stick together, but ultimately, money trumps history.
So you equate the the time that the (former) newbies Az and ASU have been in the Pac as the point where time and loyalty have maxed? Until FB starts this fall they are still the newcomers to the Pac-8.
Plus, the talks last offseason pretty much highlighted the LA schools’ position on rest of the league. Basically, they don’t really value the games with the PNW, since every proposal substantially cut the number, and in fact the final proposal was the one which cut it the most, 50% less than before. They also don’t really care about Colorado/Utah, since their favored proposal was the one to put those two in the North Division as well.
They obviously value the Bay Area schools, and it’s implied that they value AZ ones too based on the positions they took.
As far as “getting what they wanted”, what they wanted was:
1) Continue the CA round-robin
2) As much money as possible for themselves (i.e. unequal revenue distribution)
3) The “Cali-zona” divisional setup
They got one of the three, they lost one of the three, and for $$$, they barely got an unequal distribution (the Big 12 one is MUCH more unequal as a comparison), AND they didn’t retain any of their 3rd-tier rights. Essentially, the result was a league-wide compromise. The LA schools certainly didn’t “win” the negotiations.
They still (accurately) feel like they’re subsidizing the rest of the league, they still have to deal with a 9-game schedule (good for many league members, not good for them), and they still probably feel like they should have a lot more pull than they currently do. That’s not a stable situation IMO.
Perhaps I’m not understanding you. Are you advocating for the demise of the Pac based on purely a selfish bid by a school or two to gain s small (compared to the total schools budget) increase in athletic dept revenue? Or are you simply stating that you feel that the Big 12ish’s model is the one that is superior and all big schools (tOSU, Mich, PSU, Fla, Mia, LSU, Ala, etc) should strive for? Only UT is in that position now and I wouldn’t think those who want to be in a conference (as opposed to BE the conference) would follow that path.
I’m NOT advocating for the demise of the league. I am, however, saying that it is a potential outcome. The TV $$$ currently being discussed are low enough that it’s very conceivable that some schools could decide they’re better off elsewhere.
Moreover, the league is anything but one big happy family. It’s far less dysfunctional than the Big 12, but there are still underlying tensions. In the Big 12, it’s the medium members that are unhappy (the small ones are happy just to be AQ). In teh Pac-12, it’s the biggest ones. Neither is a stable situation.
IMO the “best” setups are the Big Ten / SEC models, where the relatively equal revenue splits come naturally from the fact that there aren’t huge differences between the haves and have-nots of the league, and the fact that the biggest haves get less than they could have is papered over by the fact that the league brands themselves are extremely valuable, and there’s more than enough cash to make everyone happy.
The Pac-12 doesn’t have that, because there ARE big differences between the haves and have-nots, and there is NOT enough money going around to make everyone happy. If the league is to survive, then realistically I think it needs to generate at least $200M in TV revenue (if it wasn’t all rights in, and schools could monetize 3rd tier independently, they could get away with less). If the TV deal comes out, and it’s more like $170M, that’s just not going to cut it.
As far as a “small” increase, if you just look at athletic revenues ( http://www2.indystar.com/NCAA_financial_reports/ ), $5M or $10M is a HUGE bump. $5M for ASU, or $10M for an LA school, is over a 10% revenue bump. That’s money a program can use to: improve coaching staffs; buy respectable OOC home games (Boise costs ~ $1M for instance); increase the number of non-revenue sports; reduce the subsidies the school and/or student body gives the department; or any number of other things. Especially in tough economic times, that’s a LOT of money for an athletic department to sneeze at.
Let’s say USC withdraws from the Pac-12 and goes independent in football. They’re still going to need to be in a conference for all non-football sports. I’ll call it the USC League.
The USC League would need to include UCLA, Stanford, and Cal. It would also need to be regionally-friendly. Remember, we’re talking ALL sports, not just basketball, meaning USC is not going to want to send its non-revenue teams on more long trips than short trips. Thus, the USC League would have to have at least as many schools near it as it far away.
Of course, the first far away school the USC League is going to go after is Texas. Texas would require, at minimum, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State. Already, USC has more opponents two time zones away than it does nearby, so at least one other western school would have to be added. But first, there’s a big problem: OU, OSU, and Tech were palatable to Stanford and Cal only as members of a rarely-played, eastern division of the Pac-16, not as regular, twice-a-year opponents. And there’s no way Texas joins the USC League without someone else from Texas or Oklahoma, either. This problem, alone, would make the USC League unviable. USC can’t have a league without the three California schools, and the league would not be financially productive without the unattainable Texas.
Big Ten, ACC, and SEC teams would be unattainable for the USC League. So would BYU. That leaves the remainder of the Big 12 and the Big East. But really, how attractive are Kansas and Missouri as compared with closer schools like, say, those in the Pac-12?
So, taking into account the reality that USC can’t get Texas without schools that Stanford wouldn’t approve, USC is probably in the best situation it could be in.
It comes down to distance. By costs, flights to B10 country isn’t much more than flights to the B12 south. Realistically, I think those are the only 2 leagues that may have an interest in adding the 4 Cali schools. The key question is, is the differential in payout between the B10 (and maybe the B12) going to become so vast that the Cali schools become willing to ditch the P12 (which, BTW, they mostly have to fly to anyway outside of the Cali schools, though they can knock off 2 opponents in one roadtrip in the P12)? If they get $14M/school (putting them a little under $10M behind the B10), I don’t think the difference is big enough. If the financial difference ever gets cloase to $20M, though, being part of a 16 (or 20!) school Big Ten may start sounding attractive.
Even as little as $5M might be enough to at least make them really consider making a move of some sort. If it’s $10M+, it’s hard to see why they’d want to stay. $10M+ pays for a LOT of stuff, especially in times of budget trouble (especially for Cal; just an extra $5M should be more than enough to replace the two sports that they had to cut recently).
That said, logistically the Big Ten would be a tough sell, because virtually all road games would be really far away (big deal in cost AND inconvenience). In that case, the sheer hassle factor might require a bigger boost in revenue to make it happen.
Culturally it might be the best fit, though, given the B10’s strong academic reputation. Of course, the cold doesn’t help.
Well, yes, you do have to take in to account the extra travel costs (which would run in to the millions and wipe out a puny $5M difference), which is why I think the differential would need to get to $20M before the Cali schools move.
Plus, if $10M was enough to motivate them to move, they’d be in the B10 already (unless the BigTen didn’t want them), because the difference is already that big.
That was why I was saying “a move of some sort,” as opposed to specifically the Big Ten. I just don’t think that the Big Ten makes much sense for the CA four, and to be honest I’m not sure it even makes sense for the Big Ten, who’d get access to LA and Bay Area and would up the academic avg, but would also have to deal with travel logistics that are much less pleasant than the league’s current ones, and would have to deal with organizing a 16-team league, which has NEVER worked out well in CFB.
It would also completely change the league’s identity, and given that the league’s brand name is a strong one worth a lot, I don’t see it as a win to screw with it to that extent.
I would also suggest that last summer’s Pac-16 proposal was a “move of some sort,” that certainly would have raised their revenue level. It didn’t pan out, but that was clearly an attempt to change the status quo.
And since then the revenue bar has only been raised with Texas’s huge deal and the ACC’s surprisingly high deal. I just don’t see the LA’s being content to sit back and watch as they fall further and further behind the power programs, and end up making about the same TV money as the lower end of the ACC. While I’d disagree about the viability of the Big Ten option, I definitely think that there’s a realistic chance that they’re going to try to do something drastic to bump up their revenue.
1. There’s no “lower end” in the ACC. Everyone in the ACC gets the same payout. Evidently, it’s good enough for FSU, UNC, etc.
2. There are precious few options for the LA schools. Texas isn’t really closer than the B10 (it is distance-wise, but travel costs would be similar since once you’re in the air, an extra 500 miles or so just isn’t a big deal). The B12 also doesn’t have any way to leverage the strong academics of the Cali schools (other than “reputation by association”). Plus, keep in mind that if they were in the B12, the LA schools would clearly be below the top tier of Texas, OU, & even TAMU, even if they would be above everyone else.
1) I wonder how happy everyone is with that setup. Given the lack of elite football programs in the ACC, maybe it’s just more a case where there’s not one or two programs who’d make a LOT more in a less equal setup. It’s definitely odd, though, especially with all rights in. One more reason to suspect that FSU, Clemson, and VA Tech would be inclined to listen if the SEC ever came calling (not saying they’d necessarily go, just that they’d take the invite VERY seriously).
2) Hard to imagine both the LA schools being below A&M, though I’d agree that they’d likely be below Texas/Oklahoma. Of course, in the Big Ten you have four elite programs (Ohio St, Michigan, Penn St AND Nebraska) instead of two to deal with, and Iowa/Wisconsin are probably long-term around the A&M level (someone correct me if I’m wrong there).
I would agree that the B12 wouldn’t have any real way to leverage the CA schools’ academics, but would the B10? I know CIC is a fairly big deal, but again that would be a weird setup to add four CA schools to a midwestern-focused research organization.
Also, like I said earlier, it’s not so much that the distance to Texas is less than Big Ten (though it is; shorter plane flights are still shorter plane flights); rather, it’s that even if you take all 6 B12South programs (doubtful BU makes the cut), and add the 4 CA’s, you’re at 10. That means at least 2 spots to add, which would mean schools in the Western region, which then means that there are fewer grueling road trips to deal with on a regular basis (though there still are some).
Equal revenue sharing makes sense for the ACC in part because there aren’t any top-10-level football programs in that conference (though note that USC isn’t either, and UCLA certainly isn’t), but also because ACC basketball has football-level value (it use to bring in more money to the league than football). Thus you don’t have a big disparity between the top and middle (or even middle and bottom). Plus, the population base isn’t concentrated within 1-2 schools’ footprint.
I don’t think the 4 Cali schools joining the Big Ten together is as bad travel as everyone suggests.
In basketball, even if you had an 18 game schedule, that is 9 home games, 3 road games to the other Cali schools and then either two 3-game road trips (to minimize travel costs) or three 2-game road trips (to minimize missed classes). Most sports would be similar.
If baseball went to a 9 series schedule (27 games), there would be 3 series against the other Cali schools (I’m assuming Cal would keep baseball with the Big Ten money), 3 other home series, and only 3 road series against the rest of the Big Ten.
The big travel hurt would come with tournaments and the football championship game, as it would be much more difficult for fans to travel to ‘neutral’ sites.
In addition, adding 4 Pacific time zone schools would be perfect for the Big Ten network. West Coast volleyball, basketball, and baseball would be on all the time in what is prime time for California, but late night for the East Coast. They would get more desirable local time slots than they would in the Pac 12 (where they have to share those slots with the Northwest and Arizona schools).
Now, if it was going to happen, I think it probably would have already occurred. Still, I don’t think there is a great downside for such a merger.
USC is #10 in all-time wins and #7 in win% through 2009. Restrict it to 1936 and later, and USC becomes # 8 / 10. They’re also clearly top five in national titles based on that link (though I don’t really understand their table setup). Hard to argue that USC isn’t a top 10 program.
@ m (Ag):
Travel isn’t an absolute deal-breaker, but it’s enough of a negative that I think it’d have to be WAY better than all other alternatives for it to make sense. And I don’t really see it as one. The Big Ten means academically elite associations, national athletic program prestige, and big TV money, but it also means nasty travel logistics, crappy weather, and having to figure out how to make a 16-team league actually work (which I’m still skeptical about).
The wins are all very nice, but Tennessee has more total wins & Boise has a higher winning percentage than USC, yet nobody would confuse Tennessee or Boise with Texas, Alabama, or tOSU when it comes to brand or attractiveness to a conference.
As for travel, sure, the LA schools would prefer to be in a conference with more western schools and still get Texas/B10/SEC-level money, but I can’t think of an arrangement where that could happen. If there’s equal revenue sharing, those extra Western schools would lower the amount going to the LA schools. Even if there’s unequal revenue sharing, they’d still not be able to pull in what Texas or OU do (and probably not even what TAMU would).
IMO the relevant point from the link is that every table they have reinforces the idea that USC is a top 10 program. Tennessee, Penn St and Michigan are top 10 wins but not national titles. Miami, LSU and Florida are top 10 national titles but not wins. And nobody really should take Boise’s win % particularly seriously since the sample size is so small (and needless to say they aren’t in the other tables). In all those examples, it’s fairly clear that a lot of those “next-tier” programs (Tenn, LSU, etc.) are missing something (though I’d still consider Michigan an all-time elite despite the lower natl title count).
It clearly means SOMETHING that USC is in all of those tables (especially since A&M, who you seem to think is a better program than USC, is in none of them).
As far as money goes, there’s clearly a trade-off between travel logistics and revenue. But the choices aren’t between standing pat and going to the Big Ten. USC could also potentially:
renegotiate revenue-sharing (which would add $$$ without changing logistics)
try independence (which would add $$$, though logistics would be iffy, especially for non-revenue sports)
join the Big 12 (which would put them closer to Texas’s revenue level, whatever it ended up being, though travel would be less pleasant)
do a MWC-like move of blowing up the Pac-12 and forming something like an 8-team league from the remnants (more $$$, possibly better travel logistics)
try to create some variation of the “new SWC” idea (much more $$$, worse travel logistics)
I’m not sure any of them would put USC at the top of the $$$ list, but considering they’re the #1 program in the #2 TV market, I would have to think that there are a number of ways they could at least come reasonably close.
Well, in the tables that matter when it comes to worth to a conference or viability as an independent (that is, MONEY, measured by value-of-program, revenues, and attendance), USC is clearly not top 10 (TAMU isn’t either, but they best USC in both attendance and revenues; in general, Texans just care about college football more than SoCal folks). And USC is the best of the bunch. UCLA isn’t even close to top 10 (and neither are the Bay Area schools).
As for their possible options, I’m not sure why you think the LA schools would do better this time around if they negotiate with the P12 than a few months ago. Nothing’s changed. Their ability to get any better deal would come down to their next best option. In the case of TAMU, there’s a very good alternative to staying in the B12. In the case of of the LA schools, all of the alternatives have drawbacks.
USC has prestige and draws TV eyeballs nationally. They are clearly a top 10 program.
ESPN Prestige Rankings (since 1936):
1. Oklahoma: 1,986
2. USC: 1,897
3. Ohio State: 1,655
4. Notre Dame: 1,579
5. Nebraska: 1,553
6. Alabama: 1,534
7. Texas: 1,494
8. Michigan: 1,332
9. Florida State: 1,110
10. Miami: 1,109
11. Penn State: 1,088
12. Tennessee: 1,072
13. LSU: 926
14. Georgia: 888
15. Florida: 834
16. UCLA: 738
17. Washington: 634
18. Georgia Tech: 610
19. Arkansas: 604
20. Texas A&M: 584
In the last 50 years, the top programs by success are:
Tier 1a (500+ W, > 0.725)
OSU, PSU, NE, OU
Tier 1b (480+ W, > 0.700)
Tier 1c (460+ W, > 0.670)
AL, MI, TN, FL, AU, ND
Nobody else has 450 W or 0.660.
Tier 2 (430+ W, > 0.630)
UGA, LSU, Ark, FSU, Miami, ASU
UCLA outperformed TAMU:
UCLA 405 W (#24), 0.608 (#21)
TAMU 377 W (#32), 0.565 (#37)
@ Richard: As far as re-negotiating, there are a couple of things potentially in their favor:
1) Appeal process over. Any threats they may want to make about going independent are WAY more credible now that they don’t need to worry about pissing people off and looking bad in public. Whatever decision is made by NCAA, it’s not like USC can start up another round of appeals. One way or another, that’s over and done with.
2) The divisions / scheduling are fixed and MUCH harder to change than revenue distributions. The league has established an identity going forward, which is hard to change. Revenue distributions aren’t a fundamental part of the league’s identity and can potentially be changed.
3) The LSN and ACC TV deals. If the Pac-12 TV deal is poor enough, USC/UCLA can go to the league and basically say, “we’re the ones driving the revenue train for the whole league, but thanks to revenue-sharing, our revenue numbers are way behind other league leaders, and the gap is unacceptable.” Who knows if anyone else in the league will care, but UCLA/USC could potentially have a reasonable gripe about the way things are shaking out.
Ultimately, I have no idea if the LA’s can renegotiate revenue-sharing. And if the TV deal is good enough, it may be a moot point. But it’s a plausible outcome.
For some reason it didn’t allow me to respond to your post about the Oregon/Kansas situation.
Just my opinion, but there is no love lost between both schools, as there was a hard push by boosters of Wazzu to shut down getting some state funds to help with the Husky Stadium remodel (Which is a state facility). So honestly..I’d say FK wazzu. Most in the pac-12 acknowledge that wazzu is in effect a MWC team at best.
The question isn’t whether the programs like (or even tolerate) each other so much as it is whether the legislature can force the stronger program to stay with the lesser one (just like it appears to be with Texas and Tech/Baylor [I’m skeptical Baylor can force anything, but it seems likely Tech can] ).
If Wazzu is a “MWC team at best” that makes it a big problem for Washington IF the legislature can tie them together. No power league is likely to want one very good but not great (“great” being a USC, Ohio St, Alabama etc. level program) and one MWC-level program, especially when they’re geographically isolated and together they have one meaningful (Seattle) market.
If they’re not a package deal, then Washington is very attractive to any power league west of the Mississippi (since then you still get Seattle, but only need to take one program). If they are a package deal, then it’s a tougher sell.
PS Once posts get far enough to the right, you need to reply to the one above it. The site limits how many levels of reply you can do.
Although WSU (Pullman) is isolated, their alumnae are highly concentrated in the Seattle area. Obviously not quite in the numbers as UW but enough that they have moved some “home” games to Seahawk stadium. They also now have the AD (Bill Moos)that brought Oregon from depths to the place it now resides (but had a falling out with Phil Knight a few years back)
Wazoo has a bit more pull than you’d expect for a college in rolling wheat fields.
Oregon has phil knight and IMG behind them, I would be highly surprised if they were left out of any PAC future (especially if you have to displace Oregon to add Texas Tech!).
Now THAT’s a Southwest Conference. Solves a few problems for the Texas crowd and USC. Population footprint of 73 million, including six of the top 15 media markets in the country. Alternate the title game between LA and Jerry World. Not too shabby. Maybe ditch Stanford and/or Cal for Oregon and Washington, if possible.
The Wash/Ore. schools can join the MWC or something. Maybe merge with the remaining Big 12 North schools.
Baylor would never get into a league with Cal and Stanford. Substitute with Missouri, Colorado, or Utah.
But I say there’s no way Cal and Stanford agree to be in a league with Tech, OU, or OSU unless it’s a Pac-16 type of situation where they’re part of an eastern division, with minimal association. I especially find it hard to believe they’d voluntarily choose the likes of Tech, OU, or OSU while leaving behind the valuable brand and academics of Washington.
Consider their options. USC and UCLA are leaving to join up with the Texas schools (and taking the Arizona schools, maybe Colorado, with them). Cal and Stanford can either go along or get replaced with Oregon and Washington. Their choice.
Baylor would be a very iffy add. MAYBE they could sneak in, but it would be a tough sell. I’d agree that Colorado would be more likely to sub in for Baylor.
You could also throw in Kansas, Utah, or Missouri as a sub for A&M if they ended up in SEC.
As far as filling out the rest, there are enough quality “left behind” programs that 14 would make more sense than 12. Something like Washington, Colorado and Oregon in the West, UA/ASU in the East, and then it’s a 7/7 split. If you do a 8-game schedule, then you’re talking about just one game per in the East division (which 2/7 of the time would be an AZ school), hardly much of a travel burden. Even if you do 9-game league schedule instead, it’s just 1.5 inter-division road games a year, and it’d be pretty reasonable to arrange it so that only one year out of 14 would a team have two road games without one being in Arizona.
I do agree with your point that it’d be hard to leave behind Washington (and I think Oregon too; that’s a program that’s become increasingly valuable), which is a big part of why I think it’d be 14 rather than 12 if that sort of idea went forward, though I’d agree that the main idea itself is a plausible outcome – see http://cfn.scout.com/2/1040447.html.
The league would have to be a minimum of 14 so Stanford and Cal could be buffered from Tech, OU, and OSU.
it would be something like this:
Az or Az State
But this is too unrealistic. It would have to assume the Washington, Oregon, Arizona, and Kansas schools could all split up; that Baylor could be left behind; that that Texas could be fine with A&M going to the SEC; and that ESPN or another entity wouldn’t have the power to stop any of it.
If you tried to ease the political problems by cutting out Missouri and replace with K-State, cutting out the Arizona school and replace with Utah… it’s still a pipe dream.
I’d actually guess that Mizzou would have a reasonable shot of going B10, and A&M to SEC, if there’s a movement towards 14 teams. Plus Kansas / Kansas St had the Big East invite last time, so it’s reasonable to think they could land there in such a scenario (as well as Mizzou if B10 didnt’ want them).
I really don’t think AZ’s would split up, but I don’t think they’d likely have to. I am skeptical that Washington and Oregon could ditch their local neighbors, and am much more skeptical that somehow the disparate interests present in two different leagues would somehow be able to juggle everything and make this sort of deal actually work.
FWIW, I wouldn’t go quite so far as to call it a pipe dream, but it’s definitely a major reach. There are a hell of a lot of ways things could shake out, and this is just one of a great many.
Again, in this new conference, Cal and Stanford wouldn’t have the same sway that they enjoy in the Pac-10. It’s USC and UT’s world, and they just have to live in it or find a new home.
One of my goals in drawing up that conference was not to split up in-state public school rivals. I don’t see UA-ASU, UO-OSU, or UW-WSU splitting up any more readily than OU-Okie State. I’m usually the first one to dream big and unrealistically, but in this case I was trying to retain at least a quantum of practicality. What I came up with is, I think, both workable and extremely lucrative.
However you split it, with SoCal and Texas united, you end up with a power conference to rival (or even surpass) the Big Ten and SEC.
And yeah, if Baylor can be ditched, I’m sure the powers-that-be would do so post-haste. Just depends on how much pull they have in the Texas legislature when it all goes down.
@cfn_ms – nice, he even calls it the New SWC. I’ve often wondered what would have happened if the old SWC had invited the Arizona schools back in the late ’60s or early ’70s before the Pac-8 got them. Would USC have followed through on their threat to leave the conference and joined up with the Texas schools? Who knows.
For comparison, the 12-team Big Ten will have a pop. footprint of 70 million, with three of the top 15 media markets.
Also, ditch Baylor if possible. Replace them with, I don’t know, Colorado. That increases the footprint by 5 million to 78 million with only 12 schools.
lol no, Washington in terms of Football tradition Washington is #2 behind USC in the pac-10. Couple that with Fan loyalty, and how UW has captured the Seattle Market, that will never happen.
UW is the big dog in the puget sound metroplex, and it sits in the metro area of the 13th biggest DMA in the country.
Not trying to sound like UW is a elite program, but with combination of Fan Loyalty/Tradition/Prestige and couple that with being right dab in the middle of the 13th biggest market in the country? No way does UW get left out
Also add in a pretty good run of success in the #2 sport, mens basketball, and it is a slam dunk
Not trying to stir the pot…but technically Colorado is now #2 in the PAC, at least by all time wins, also have a Heisman winner, with both of us having a NC. I think you guys may have us in win percentage at the moment due to the recent Dodo era.
According to the ESPN ‘prestige’ list linked previously it looks more like (national ranking)…
(56) Oregon St.
This would, of course, be a brand-new conference, separate from the Pac-12 and Big 12, and of, for, and by UT and USC.
And a correction: it’s at least five of the biggest markets for the New SWC, not six. LA, DFW, SFBA, Houston, and Phoenix. With the possibility of adding a Seattle or Denver.
I understand that Baylor and the Bay Area schools may not be the top picks, but remember the political factor. Leaving out Cal is probably a non-starter for the California legislature, and as we’ve seen, ditching Baylor can be problematic. Maybe Stanford can get left behind in favor of UWash. Also, not sure how possible it is to take only one Arizona school – maybe dump the both of them for Oregon and Washington?
Of course, those schools both have in-state brethren to be dealt with, which is another problem. What I originally suggested would be the easiest arrangement to pull off, not necessarily the most ideal (although it would be quite lucrative in spite of that).
The extra money to UCLA and USC is only IF the league doesn’t hit $170 million. If it hits that everything is split evenly.
There is a spread now in philospohies with Pac and ACC everything in, B1G primary to tertiary rights in with licensing separate, SEC primary and secondary rights in with rest separate and Big 12 with primary and secondary 50% equal and 50% on appearances, remainder separate.
Pretty certain licensing is separate in all conferences. Do you have a link that says the ACC shares licensing rights?
At least some of the licensing rights are pooled. Its been a while so I don’t have the link. ACC commissioner was pointing out that ACC was even more egalitarian than the B1G.
Might have been internet rights. It was something the B1G did not share.
I intentionally went high w/ my estimates to illustrate that even at that point, it’s probably not going to be acceptable.
There is definitely a big spread in philosophies at work. IMO the philosophy of all or most rights in, revenue equally spread can work if:
1) There’s not a big stratification between the biggest and smallest names (B12 being biggest example of the stratification)
2) The league itself has a valuable brand name (like SEC / Big Ten)
3) There are meaningful rivalries and connections throughout the league, rather than just local geographic clusters (B10, with Illibuck, Little Brown Jug, etc. is a great example of this)
4) The smaller schools don’t abuse the equal TV revenue by constantly selling bodybag games in football (Wazzu and Oregon St have each sold 3+ this past decade, Wazzu just signed up for another at Auburn, and Colorado is bodybagging it at Ohio St)
Unfortunately for the Pac-12, zero of these things are the case. That’s why I don’t consider the current arrangement to be sustainable. Either the league sees a LOT more $$$ than currently discussed, or the revenue splits get radically changed, or there are a bunch of schools who could jump if/when they come up with a better option.
If the Big 12 is a maximum security prison (FTT’s analogy), the Pac-12 is a minimum security one. The CA schools are beholden to no one except each other (and even there USC at least has options since they’re private), ditto for the AZ schools, Colorado could care less about the non-LA schools, etc.
Plus, $170M is flat-out AWFUL TV money to be talking about. $15M per Pac-12 school for all rights in compared to $15M per Big 12 school retaining tertiary rights? Especially when Texas gets $10M+ for those? (and I think Florida and some others got $ in the ballpark at least) No way does that fly.
Quite honestly, the TV $$$ figure being discussed is so bad that if Beebe’s numbers actually come true I could see the Big 12 making a Godfather offer to AZ / ASU (more money, including a guaranteed floor, the OK schools go to North Division to create more balance, maybe some other sweetener that I can’t think of), and while I suspect they’d turn it down, they’d probably at least seriously consider it.
1. $14M isnt’s awful. That’s roughly what the ACC schools get.
2. Only the top schools in the B12 get more. Everyone in the B12 who isn’t Texas/TAMU/OU isn’t going to get more than $15M (and likely will get less).
3. Even if Beebe’s number come true, few P12 schools can better their situation from leaving. In the case of the Arizona schools, for instance, is the B12 going to offer them more money than what TTech, OSU, and Mizzou will get (which, BTW, I expect to be less than $15M)? Extremely doubtful.
4. This ties to the above, which is that there really aren’t too many markets & brands in the P12 worth raiding. Essentially, there are only 2 schools/markets that are worth anything to anybody: USC, UCLA, and the SoCal market. Other conferences may be willing to take Cal & Stanford as well to get the SoCal schools (especially for the B10, those schools would boost the academic component), but any other school(s) really wouldn’t add more value to any of the other major conferences.
That said, geography’s probably the main thing keeping the P12 together.
1) It’s awful for UCLA / USC, who compare themselves not to the ACC, but the big national names (Alabama, Texas, Ohio St, etc.). If the LA schools get $15M each, that compares very poorly to what Texas is getting (probably around $25M when all is said and done), that compares poorly to the SEC ($17M per member from league deal, plus 3rd tier rights, which is apparently north of $5M per school).
2) see above. If Utah gets the same as OK St, then Utah might be fine, but they’re not the program whose unhappiness is going to really matter.
3) I’d expect the #’s to be below $15M for Tech etc. But I could be wrong. That’s why I put in the big “if” for Beebe’s numbers. If they’re NOT just make-believe, then he can offer UA/ASU the same or more money as the Pac-12 deal PLUS whatever they can get for their 3rd tier rights (obviously not Texas money, but $5M might be a decent guess).
Again, I’m dubious that Beebe’s numbers are real, but IF they are, he can offer a net gain of around $5M / year to the AZ’s. Is that worth blowing up their relationships w/ the Pac schools (especially LA)? I don’t know, especially since the B12 is still unstable. But I don’t think they’d laugh him off either. $5M / year is a lot of money for an AD.
And the same deal could apply to USC/UCLA, except then they’d get more than the B12 avg given the distribution model, and they’d still have 3rd tier rights. They’d end up w/ less than Texas… but I’d be surprised to see them more than $5M behind the Longhorns in such an arrangement, which means about $10M per school per year extra (again, assuming Beebe’s #’s aren’t BS). That’s a lot of cash to turn down.
4) There aren’t any programs / markets like LA in the P12 to raid. That said, Colorado (Denver), Washington (Seattle), Cal/Stanford (Bay Area), and ASU (Phoenix) are all pretty valuable TV properties.
It’s more an issue that no AQ is really looking to add a bunch of programs to their league. Other than the LA’s, no one really is so strong that they’d really bring up the avg, but there are a bunch strong enough to not bring it down either.
Sure, but that’s the point; no other power conference (AQ besides BE) would bother to add any P12 school without the SoCal pair because at best revenue stays the same while travel costs sky rocket.
As for USC/UCLA comparing themselves to Alabama, Texas, and tOSU, sure, they may want to do so, but their brands are actually remarkably weak given the market that they’re in. For instance, Forbes lists USC as the 15th most valuable football team (behind Texas, ND, PSU, UNL, ‘Bama, Florida, LSU, tOSU, Georgia, OU, Michigan, SCarolina, Tennessee, and Auburn).
The college football net revenue numbers tell the same story: USC is 26th (about the same as BC) while UCLA is 42nd (about the same as Northwestern). (http://ncaafootball.fanhouse.com/2010/06/30/for-longhorns-money-grows-on-football-program-instead-of-trees/)
Attendance tells a similiar tale. USC is 15th; UCLA is 28th. tOSU, ‘Bama, & Texas are 2nd, 4th, and 5th, respectively (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/d47a560045aad7aab88ffc9080650d5b/2010_Attendance.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=d47a560045aad7aab88ffc9080650d5b).
Adding the 4 Cali schools may still make sense for the BigTen because of the research component & recruiting grounds, but let’s not overrate the quality of the SoCal brands. There’s a reason why the P12 is struggling to get even as much money as the ACC.
Sure, but that’s the point; no other power conference (AQ besides BE) would bother to add any P12 school without the SoCal pair because at best revenue stays the same while travel costs sky rocket.
As for USC/UCLA comparing themselves to Alabama, Texas, and tOSU, sure, they may want to do so, but their brands are actually remarkably weak given the market that they’re in. For instance, Forbes lists USC as the 15th most valuable football team (behind Texas, ND, PSU, UNL, ‘Bama, Florida, LSU, tOSU, Georgia, OU, Michigan, SCarolina, Tennessee, and Auburn).
The college football net revenue numbers tell the same story: USC is 26th (about the same as BC) while UCLA is 42nd (about the same as Northwestern).
Attendance tells a similiar tale. USC is 15th; UCLA is 28th. tOSU, ‘Bama, & Texas are 2nd, 4th, and 5th, respectively.
Adding the 4 Cali schools may still make sense for the BigTen because of the research component & recruiting grounds, but let’s not overrate the quality of the SoCal brands. There’s a reason why the P12 is struggling to get even as much money as the ACC.
“4) The smaller schools don’t abuse the equal TV revenue by constantly selling bodybag games in football (Wazzu and Oregon St have each sold 3+ this past decade, Wazzu just signed up for another at Auburn, and Colorado is bodybagging it at Ohio St)”
How would “bodybag” games which benefit a financially straped school (partially because of the unequal revenue sharing plan that is currently in effect) abuse? Are the powerful schools prohibited from scheduling big name opponents? or are they the ones that offer those weaker schools a payday in order to pad a record, a benifit to both.
The TV revenue for non-conference home games in the Pac-12 are shared by the Pac-12 per league bylaws. So when Wazzu, Or. St., etc. schedule road games without return home games, they’re essentially costing the whole league TV revenue that would have been shared. Those teams get the payouts from the opposing team while the rest of the league gets nothing. Meanwhile, when USC hosts Ohio State, Wazzu, Or. St., etc. get the TV revenue from that game.
That’s how it’s perceived as abuse.
When you sell a home game, the league loses the TV revenue that you could have gotten for the game if you did a home and home type arrangement, but you get to keep the whole bodybag check. That’s pretty obviously abuse of the equal revenue system.
Look at it another way: if teams had to share with the league the bodybag checks they got to cash (a more than reasonable requirement given the loss of league TV revenue and the hit to league prestige that comes from any members selling home games) would they be so eager to do them?
I see what you are saying. However I don’t ever see the “little sisters” of the Pac beng able to, in the foreseeable future, get home and home’s with tOSU, Georgia, Tx, etc. It’s more likely that they would be depriving the conf. of (perhaps nonexistant) TV revenue for the highly anticipated Wash. St. vs Portland St. or Or St vs Sacramento St. You know those who would do a home and home, those deemed inferior and unworthy by those who presume to be.
At $170M, it’s equal shares for all. The SoCal schools get the extra $2M only if the league can’t get to $170M.
I think all 4 Cali schools are a package if they go anywhere.
That would be my guess as well. It’s possible that they wouldn’t be, but it would surprise me to see them in separate leagues (though USC might conceivably try independence for a while), given:
1) USC and UCLA wouldn’t want to split, since it’d break up the LA market, reducing TV value and giving a lot more schools access to that area’s recruiting; plus the Big Ten still has 1 of the 2 Rose Bowl slots, which means it’d get dicey which of the LA school’s league would get those rights
2) UCLA probably couldn’t break up with NorCal given state politics (Cal is the state flagship even if UCLA is the better athletically; plus Stanford presumably has enormous state influence)
3) Neither Cal nor Stanford is an undesirable; both have historic attendance issues (especially Stanford), but they together control the Bay Area market, they’re both academically elite, and (a smaller point) they’ve had decent success in other sports (especially Stanford).
I doubt politicians in California would strap Cal to UCLA in the same way Texas has chained TTU to UT especially given the mess the state’s budget is in. That said, I can’t imagine UCLA would actually being willing to abandon Cal for the simple reason that they are not only both from the same state, but are part of the same school system (University of California).
I think the budget crisis makes it MORE likely that Cal is linked to UCLA – they can’t afford for their flagship school to take a hit in revenue. We’ve got a discussion about this scenario going on a bit further up the thread, if you’re interested.
If the budget improvement for UCLA was WAY bigger than the budget hit for Cal, then maybe it’d be politically feasible. But even then, I’d be surprised if Cal (Cal+Stanford really, since they’re both affected) wasn’t politically connected enough to have veto power over UCLA’s moves, or at least enough power to make it a fight that UCLA REALLY wouldn’t want to get into.
In Texas, it’s obvious that at least Tech (and maybe Baylor) have enough influence in Texas that their needs have to be taken into account to some degree. And if that’s true, then it’s hard to see how Cal/Stanford’s political power in CA would be somehow LESS than Baylor/Tech in TX.
frug’s basic point is the most important one. In the case of Cal and UCLA, we don’t even need to get into politics. They have the SAME Board of Regents that would have to approve any conference move by either school. Thus, Cal indeed has direct veto power over what UCLA can do – they’re both controlled by the exact same group of people. Those 2 schools are locked together no matter how much more money UCLA could make elsewhere.
The reason it would be harder for California’s politicians to chain UCLA to UC-Berkeley is because Texas’ constitution makes it easier for a handful of state legislators to hold a school hostage than California’s does. That said, it would probably never come to that since as members of the same school system it would be hard to separate them anyways.
Last year I really thought the big12 south and the Cali-Zona Pac10 were going to merge into a conference. It was my worry about what would happen to UNL. I still think that will be the next big shakeup. They’ll have a Big12 like contract where schools can negotiate their own deals, yet there is a conference contract that supports all. This will maximize the revenue for these programs and shed themselves of some of the TV deadweight, fair or not.
Obscure Beatles reference.
Good eye, Mark!
‘Baby, You’re a Rich Man’ did make an appearance in The Social Network (a rare instance of an actual Beatles song making it into a major movie as opposed to a cover version).
Although McCartney separately has done it at least a couple of times (Live and Let Die and The Lakehouse).
I guess all of this means the end of Saturday afternoon MLB on FOX. Sucks for MLB, good for college football. I honestly never watched those games anyway – I only have time for the Rangers and maybe a bit of ESPN’s primetime games. One more channel showing college football on Saturday afternoon will just be that much sweeter. Means without even getting the sports tier, I can watch games on ABC, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, Versus, Big Ten Network (plus alternates!), CBS, NBC, FOX and FSN. Plus maybe FX. I can live with that.
Not sure why this would be the end of Saturday afternoon baseball on Fox. Those games typically start at 3:55 Eastern, which leaves potential 3.5 hour windows for college football both before and after baseball.
Isn’t 3:30 sort of the main timeslot for college football? I guess they could do the college game at 12:00 and then go to baseball, but why? Join the party, FOX.
Primetime is these days. In any case, I’m not sure why you want Fox to put on more college football in a crowded time slot. At 3:30, you have ABC, CBS, ESPN & sometimes CBS showing games. At noon, it’s only the various ESPNs while at primetime, it’s only the ABC/ESPN family right now (not counting the various Fox sports channels, CBSC, or Mtn, since few neutrals watch those games anyway).
I don’t know what Comcast/NBC is thinking, but I wouldn’t dismiss the possibility of going big for either the Pac 12 or the Big Ten.
Sports may be loss leaders for an over the air network, but they’re quite profitable for cable, and a complete deal with a major conference could be used to draw viewers to its vast number of networks, all with the ‘Versus’ brand (just like the ESPN brand is on ABC). Place a major game or 2 every week on NBC, with another game of the week on USA. You could have a woman’s game of the week on Oxygen. Throw some games on Universal HD, while Versus airs the biggest selection of games. Telemundo can air a separate Spanish language telecast for some games. All of these networks would be advertising their own programming, while pointing towards the other networks for more major college action.
And, of course, Comcast itself could be the partner forming a Pac 12 network instead of Fox.
Uh, Spanish channels? Sorry, they like Mexican soccer and if they watch any American football, it would be the NFL. Consider that the NFL only started producing Spanish-language games (to celebrate Hispanic Heritage Month) in 2010. For folks who prefer to watch their TV in Spanish, college football would be behind the NFL, NBA, and Central American soccer (and far behind Mexican league soccer, SA soccer, European soccer, and MLB).
Good reading folks.
I stand even more convinced that cali 4 to b10 is possible at some point. USC is, I think, thanatos card. Not advocating it, but it is not a crazy theory. Not advocating anything cuz I like where we are now, but Cali 4 would be great, as would tenn & kentucky.
As a fan, adding the Cali 4 would be terrific. Not sure it makes sense to any of the presidents (in either the Midwest or California), though.
TN & KY would be plenty of fun too, though I’d prefer adding the heart of the ACC (which, granted, is much less likely).
Some eastern team (Miami?)
West & South never play each other.
More problematically, East & North never play each other.
UofI & NU would have to be OOC half the time.
B16’s much easier:
Teams would still play all schools outside their division half the time.
You’d probably have to trade out at least one of the East teams for a Central because otherwise the divisions are going to be completely unbalanced competitively.
Don’t worry about that, the Big Ten has consistently shown that they value geographically sensible division far more than any competitive balance concerns.
A couple of points spring to mind.
1. ESPN has to run out of slots for games at some point. With their current commitments, how much value does the P12 add for them? They don’t seem interested in the 10:15 PM time slot which is about all they have left to fill with AQ games. Perhaps this is why ESPN won’t pay as much as they did for the ACC.
2. Versus doesn’t have full carriage, but NBComcast has plenty of other channels to choose from. They can match FX with USA or another cable channel. Getting better programming may help them get broader distribution for Versus, too. NBC may cut back on sports but the cable side might grow.
3. I think TW Cable will fight more about the cost of the channel and where to carry it rather than whether to carry it. With digital cable, they have room for it. The P12 will probably have to suck it up and take a lower price than they’d like, but maybe a surprising number of subscribers will pay to get the network.
4. How much of a factor is satellite in this? That provided leverage for the BTN. I realize there were ownership links for the BTN, but satellite is still some sort of threat to TWC.
1. ESPN run out of slots? There’s always the Ocho …
2. From now on, all Boise State home games will be shown on the Syfy Channel.
3. But where to carry it and how much to charge, particularly in SoCal, will determine whether or not it’s viable. The Pac-12 can probably lose a bit of money on the channel initially, but they’re going to need to get on a basic tier if they want to make any serious coin off of this venture.
Hey, you can’t just boot off that dodgeball coverage to air more CFB.
If Syfy can show WWE, it can show CFB. CNBC doesn’t have any business to cover on the weekends either.
I think the presidents want the network regardless of the income it makes. They want to cover their Olympic sports and have an outlet so all FB and BB games are on TV.
Pepper needs new shorts!
@Brian – My responses:
1. I definitely think that ESPN is running out of spots assuming that they keep the same relationships. Now, if the Big Ten ends up moving its primary game of the week from ABC to Fox, then that could open up some more time, but we won’t know if that will happen for a few more years.
2. Comcast definitely has some other options on paper, but they have seemed to be focused on Versus as opposed to getting some type of sports component on USA. That might change in the future, but they simply haven’t indicated anything of the sort (unlike Fox’s statements saying that really want more sports on FX).
3. TWC would certainly fight about the cost of a Pac-12 network, but what’s a bit different here is that TWC is launching what it would consider to be a direct competitor RSN at about the same time. That changes the dynamic from TWC simply being a cable company that wants to avoid paying a lot of money to an RSN to a cable network owner that wants to protect the value of its own RSN in the LA market.
4. Satellite is a factor, but only to the extent that there are enough Pac-12 fans that are willing to drop TWC entirely in order to switch to DirecTV or another competitor. That’s what ultimately got the BTN basic carriage – Comcast and other cable companies were losing enough business to satellite that it made financial sense to give in at the end. The thing is that Big Ten fans are generally more rabid and loyal than their Pac-12 counterparts, so a Pac-12 network might not generate the same type of response.
I’d be interested to see how high the satellite penetration is in the LA market. Since LA doesn’t have an NFL team, I’ve been under the impression that there are more Sunday Ticket subscribers (and in turn, more DirecTV customers) there since virtually every NFL fan there is following an out-of-town team. That’s just a guess, though – I haven’t been able to find accurate statistical data.
I’m sure there are some, but I’ve yet to meet anyone with satellite who isn’t glad to not have to deal with TW or Comcast. Unfortunately, I can’t get satellite where I live. Cable has the habit advantage, not an overal product (including customer service or lack thereof) advantage.
No satellites overhead? Are you at McMurdo station?
@bullet – I’ve had DirecTV for about 6 years after being a Comcast customer before and there’s absolutely no way that I’d ever willingly switch back to cable.
Really interesting discussion so far on whether Pac-12 schools would ever move. Here are my thoughts:
(1) As I’ve stated earlier, Cal and UCLA will ALWAYS be together. There’s not even a need to bring up politicians or the California legislature – they have EXACT SAME Board of Regents that ultimately approve or veto any conference decision by either school. That Board that directly controls both schools simply isn’t going to vote to allow UCLA to effectively screw over the actual flagship of the state. It’s not happening. Cal and UCLA essentially have the exact same leadership when it comes to conference realignment, so everyone has to look at them as one unit.
(2) Someone earlier stated that the Pac-12’s geographic location is both its greatest strength and greatest weakness and I completely agree. The West Coast location is always going to be a drag on national TV rights since 80% of the US population lives in either the Eastern or Central Time Zones.
However, it has one huge advantage that no other BCS conference has – an AQ monopoly over its entire footprint. The Pac-12 completely controls the LA, Bay Area, Seattle, Portland, Phoenix and Denver markets, all of which are fast growing metro areas. BYU is really the only legit competitor in a Pac-12 market (Salt Lake City), but they don’t have AQ status.
Therefore, no one should be so quick to think that it’s ultimately beneficial to cut off the perceived weak links within the conference, such as Washington State. The “#2 schools” in each market may not be as valuable as the flagships by themselves, but when they’re coupled with those flagships, it means that there isn’t any direct AQ competition in those markets. If you let another conference like the Mountain West or some newly-formed league pick up schools like Wazzu, Oregon State and Arizona State, though, then you’re opening up to some large and fast growing markets like Seattle, Portland and Seattle to competition from other leagues. I certainly wouldn’t make that choice if I were running things as that’s really the main advantage of the Pac-12’s “remote” West Coast location.
(3) I look at USC as sort of a higher rent version of Miami: perfect recruiting location with an extremely high national TV profile but a significantly more fickle and fair weather fan base compared to the other college football “Kings”. The Trojans are an extremely valuable school (and certainly #1 within the Pac-12), but that doesn’t mean that they should be making decisions similar to Texas.
UT is basically the only school in the country that could procure the deal that it just received from ESPN: it is the most dominant school in its conference by far that delivers a massive state all by itself and has an extremely loyal and widespread fan base. Florida might be able to do it, but it’s counterbalanced by some other strong old-line programs in the SEC such as Alabama and other SEC states are very bountiful recruiting locales (Louisiana, Georgia, etc.) where the Gator competitors aren’t reliant on coming into the Sunshine State. Florida State and Miami are also in a competing conference and are more high profile nationally than UT’s in-state competitors.
USC is ultimately more valuable for its national profile (like Miami) than its local fan base, which dwindles when they have downturns. This isn’t the type of school that’s going to be able to get a basic cable channel in the LA market all by itself in the way that UT can in the Texas market. Thus, I don’t see giving USC third tier TV rights as very much of an incentive to them to move into a Big 12-type revenue sharing scenario at all – they can’t monetize them in a way that UT or the SEC schools can.
(4) Further to that, the Pac-12’s fan bases are a higher rent version of the Big East’s fan bases. Ultimately, the Pac-12 is going to have a harder time getting TV revenue along the lines of the Big Ten, SEC and ACC because West Coast fans simply aren’t as rabid. (We can apply that principle to West Coast pro sports teams outside of the Lakers, too.) Cable carriers in the Midwest got hurt when they didn’t carry the Big Ten Network since there were enough fans that were willing to completely switch to DirecTV just for that channel, which is ultimately why the BTN got the basic carriage that it was seeking. If a cable company in the South didn’t carry SEC football games, then it might as just declare bankruptcy immediately. The Pac-12 fan bases simply aren’t like that.
As a result, the Pac-12 has the opposite issue of the Big 12: they have extremely attractive West Coast markets, yet the fan intensity is low compared to the other AQ conferences. In contrast, the Big 12 has pretty good to great fan bases across the board, yet Texas and Missouri are really the only markets that any TV executive would care about.
Regardless, I consider the Pac-12 to be completely safe and a couple of million more TV dollars really won’t get any school switch conferences. As far as tight-knit conferences go, I’d put the Pac-12 right alongside the Big Ten and SEC – they have a strong regional bond, historic and natural rivalries and similar approaches to academics. Culture also plays a big part in conference memberships – when you’re talking about top shelf academic institutions like USC, UCLA, Cal and Stanford, I think they’re going to be very hard-pressed to actually ditch their other West Coast brethren to join a Big 12-type league. I certainly don’t believe that USC and UCLA, even though they’d probably enjoy the dollars from being associated with UT, would want to be in a league that’s actually controlled by UT and where they could be beholden to moves from the Texas legislature. It’s a very different scenario than when UT was the one possibly joining the Pac-16 and the California schools would’ve maintained the control.
I think the biggest issue in the PAC is fragmented viewing. Sure the numbers look good, but with good weather (more outdoor sports), multiple pro teams, and multiple media contenders it is just a fragmented market (similar to NYC / Philly / Boston / Baltimore / DC corridor). So to say they will go head to head with the B1G or SEC I am skeptical. I agree with you in that they have a unique niche in terms of non PAC competition in their footprint. In terms of dollars and media values they will probably always run third in the race with the B1G and SEC.
Thank you for pointing out the Cal / UCLA for us to keep in the background. I must confess not to know, but does USC have attendence numbers closer to Miami than say Notre Dame? I was always under the impression they sold seats fairly well year after year.
PS I do like the Ducks going with a signature basketball floor similar to BSU having the Smurf Turf.
UCLA’s original mascot was a bear cub. They were the LA sattlite campus of The University of California Bears. It was later when they had grown (come of age) it was decided that being the little sibling or offspring was demeaning (and perhaps no longer accurate) that they became the Bruins.
Frank: thanks for the rundown. Any thoughts on what effect having NFL and/or NBA teams in nearly every Pac 12 market has of fan “rabbidness”?
@ccrider55 – I don’t think the pro sports presence can really explain it since (1) the other conferences all have large pro sports contingents, especially the major Big Ten markets and (2) the West Coast doesn’t have very good pro sports fan bases compared to their Eastern and Midwestern counterparts, either. It’s probably explained by a combination of tons of transplants plus the good weather more than anything. The Lakers and maybe the Dodgers are really the only West Coast pro teams that would be considered to be “marquee” franchises within their respective sports.
Just this year I read that the Dodgers have some of the best and most consistent baseball attendance, when tracked through many years and accounting for good and bad seasons. So I definitely feel they qualify as a ‘marquee’ franchise.
One problem they (and most Pac 10 schools) have is that the schools are mostly in pro cities. My impression is the most passionate fans (if not the most numerous) are probably in Oregon and Utah.
How far will USC and UCLA slip when the NFL gets back to LA? They’ll still be a big name nationally, but they could lose some local buzz when the local reporters start covering the NFL team.
@m (Ag) – I think that you’re correct that Oregon fans are probably the best of the Pac-10 fan bases (with Utah coming in as the passionate newbies).
The pro sports competition argument is a popular excuse for schools that don’t have great fan bases, but I’ve simply always found that to be weak when you look at the country as a whole. The Dallas Cowboys are the most popular team in the NFL with media coverage way out of proportion to their competitiveness, yet that hasn’t dampened any enthusiasm for college football in the state of Texas. All of the Big Ten schools except for Iowa have their main fan bases located in legitimately hardcore pro sports cities that crush the pro fan bases of any of the West Coast markets in terms of intensity and loyalty (Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Milwaukee/Green Bay, Minneapolis, Indianapolis), yet those schools still have great fan bases across the board. The SEC and ACC markets have all seen plenty of pro sports franchises in their territories, yet those conferences are all still fine.
Frankly, the fan bases for the Pac-12 schools are comparatively better than their pro counterparts. The problem is that isn’t saying much – West Coast fans generally have a more laid-back attitude toward spectator sports than the rest of the country.
Granted, few of the B10 or SEC or B12 south teams are actually physically located in a metropolitan area with pro football teams (only Minnesota, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, and Michigan, if you count it as a suburb of Detroit; though Florida, Georgia, LSU, Kentucky, & TAMU are about 90 minutes away from an NFL city, and Madison is also 90 minutes away from Milwaukee).
Still, you’re probably right. Michigan manages to pack in 100K+ every game despite a pro team in all 4 major sports being located less than an hour away. Meanwhile, USC & UCLA can’t even sell out their annual rivalry game despite being in a gigantic metropolis with no NFL team.
I don’t think being in the same region as a pro team hurts; I think being in the same metro area as a pro team hurts.
If you are in a small or mid size college town the students and community will make the local college sports a focus of the community. Alumni will have stronger memories of the sporting events and be more likely to follow the team; this produces more donations and more people willing to drive hours to see their team play. This in turn creates much more buzz and excitement around the team, which helps get more casual fans attention in the state the school is located.
The Universities of Wisconsin and Minnesota seem to be good examples. They both have pro teams in their state, but seem to have very different followings for the college athletics.
I’m not an expert in California geography, but if the major universities would have been place in, say, Fresno and Sacramento (instead of the LA and San Francisco areas), I think you’d probably see more excitement over the schools athletics.
Well, again, Ann Arbor is a suburb of Detroit, and many SEC teams (as well as TAMU) are 90 mintes from an NFL city.
I think a lot of California’s problem is cultural. Watching sports just isn’t as important to them compared to other places. They are more likely to go participate in something. CO is the same way.
Where pros really hurt college sports is in the northeast, and that seems cultural too. The pros just dominate all interest.
I would agree with the general sentiment here. Spectator sports really aren’t that big of a deal in the West Coast (not just CA).
Not entirely sure why. Some of it is the weather, some of it is the fact that a lot of the West Coast population is transplants from the East Coast and Midwest (who already have fixed loyalties to teams back home). But I’m sure there’s another big piece to it that I’m missing. Really not sure what it is, though.
Part of the issue also is the fact that the PAC-8-10-12 has always marketed itself as a sort of “country club” conference designed where spectator sports are designed to serve as a relaxing distraction. Obviously there’s a chicken and egg issue, but the conference hasn’t done much to try and change its image (though grabbing the Texas and Oklahoma schools would have helped given their crazy passionate fans).
West Coast sports fans’ reputation for apathy was never more apparent than at Stanford Stadium this past season. How could they not sell out during an 11-1 season?
That said, I think that Huskies fans at least deserve credit alongside Oregon and Utah for passion and loyalty. Their smallest home crowd during their 2008 0-12 campaign was 57,013. In 2004, a 1-10 season, home crowds bottomed out at 63,000. That’s pretty darn good if you ask me. When they’re winning semi-consistently, UW can count on a sold-out Husky Stadium every game…. Honestly, as bad as they were for not just a couple of years (like Michigan), but for six or seven years in a row, I think we’d be hard-pressed to find fanbases ANYWHERE who would still sell tickets as well as UW did if their team went through similar struggles.
You’re wrong about the pro sports presence in Texas. SMU played in the 66k Cotton Bowl and Rice in the 70k Rice Stadium for good reasons. The Cowboys and Oilers crushed those programs along with TCU and UH. Texas normally draws only 50-60k in Houston for its Rice games. Its a pro sports town where people have lots of other things to do. Why UT and A&M have huge fan bases is that Austin is 160 miles from Houston and 270 from Dallas and has 50k students. A&M is also comfortably outside the metro areas and has 45k students. And also, Texans love football, so there are enough to go around. Michigan and UW are the only programs I can think of that are actually in pro sports markets that draw as well as comparable programs. MN, Rutgers, MD, GT, Miami, the California schools all underperform.
USC’s attendance definitely suffered during the down years of the 90’s. I don’t have numbers for it, though. I’m thinking they’re somewhere between Miami and ND; REALLY high when they’re good, but not so hot when they aren’t.
As far as going head to head with B10 and SEC, that’s the goal. They feel like they should be getting in that ballpark. They may well be wrong to think that’s realistic, but if they do (and I think they do), then there’s a chance that they’re going to chase that money wherever it leads.
USC draws much better than Miami. They are similar in their variability, but at a higher level. Last 15 years, USC has varied from 57k to 91k, Miami from 28k to 69k.
thanks for the info
30K per game is a big difference!
even if USC is just drawing roughly 60K that is still enough to put it in the top 25 – top 50 every year. If there are 120 D 1 FBS that means even in their worst years they would be in the top 1/3 which is no small feat.
True, but there’s a difference between top third and top 10. It’s hard to think that USC football is as valuable as tOSU, Michigan, or PSU football when they’re drawing as many fans as Wisconsin or MSU. Plus, mind you, this is the school with the highest attendance in the P12.
agreed about your point, as my comment was aimed more at a school like Miami (FL) or oSu. Top 10 are not really going to move year after year. I put B1G and SEC schools in another group altogether just based on the difference of fan level.
I agree with you to the extent that I would say that the Pac-12 is PROBABLY safe. It would be a surprising outcome to see the league blow up. I just don’t think it would be a stunning outcome on the order of the Big Ten / SEC blowing up. Other than those two, IMO everything is in play to some degree, ESPECIALLY if there really is a widespread interest in cutting the # of AQ leagues (as per Cal AD interview – http://www.californiagoldenblogs.com/2011/2/9/1985708/sandy-barbour-kenwick-thompson-q-a-cal-will-play-colorado-in-2011 – question 4). A couple other responses:
1) I can’t see a realistic chance of Cal / UCLA splitting up either. I don’t think that politically it would fly for UCLA to try independence either, for the same reasons. The frequency of LA comments (from USC AD Pat Haden as well as both fanbases) saying that they really liked their Bay Area games (esp. the “weekender” in football), makes me also think that even if they somehow could, that they wouldn’t even want to. I would guess that this applies to Stanford as well; even if Cal/UCLA could actually break up with Stanford (and I’m guessing politically that would be a very unpleasant fight), I doubt they’d want to.
2) I’d also agree that geography is the league’s greatest strength and weakness.
The ultimate question is whether the league can monetize their AQ monopoly over the West Coast (+ Denver + Phoenix + SLC). They have NEVER been able to do this. While it’s easy to blame Tom Hansen for doing a crappy job on this front, that by no means guarantees that under more competant leadership the league can then monetize its advantages. It’s obvious that there’s a plan in place (which is why they did all rights in in the first place); now the plan needs to succeed.
IF they can’t create revenues that are at least reasonably competitive with the Big Ten / SEC and above everyone else (and I’m getting the sense that you don’t think they can), then they’re going to have a problem. If the stronger league members come to the conclusion that the inherent disadvantages of the league (including geographic isolation) outweigh the advantages, then it’s reasonable to believe that they’ll strongly consider trying to affect major change.
One interesting note is that the league CAN’T just cut off any of its teams. The league’s own bylaws specify that there needs to be cause, and specifies what the acceptable causes are. Being a weaker member of the league is, unsurprisingly, not on the list.
On the flip side, though, there are no meaningful exit penalties, only the need to deliver notice by around April 1st two years before departure AND to promise to play 9 football games against other league members for each of the two seasons after delivering the notice. This also means that if a member wants to leave immediately and void the scheduling arrangements, they’d only owe damages for missing two years of membership and voiding the scheduling. It’s hard to believe that would end up being much more than what Colorado and Nebraska ended up paying (which wasn’t a whole lot of cash).
This creates an interesting dymanic where it’s actually much easier for any subgroup in the league to cut off multiple other league members (by leaving en masse) than it is to cut off just one or two (by voting them out). This makes it really easy to pull a Mountain West like move, IF the members in that group actually want to do it.
3) I’d agree that USC shouldn’t be making decisions similar to Texas, and it’s clear that their brand isn’t worth as much as Texas. However, they have one key advantage that Texas doesn’t; completely political freedom. If Texas wants to make any kind of move, they need to keep in mind A&M’s interests, probably Tech’s interests, possibly OK and OK St’s interests, and MAYBE Baylor’s interests. USC only needs to keep in mind their own interests (and even if they choose to care about UCLA/Cal/Stanford, that’s still WAY better than carrying along Tech, OK St and Baylor)
That makes them one of the biggest wildcards out there (Notre Dame would be the biggest IF it wasn’t already obvious that they are completely happy with their current situation and would only move if forced; Texas IS still the biggest because no one knows what they actually want or exactly how much political freedom they really have).
Moreover, USC is currently in a politically volatile situation due to their recent sanctions and the appeal process. Until the appeal result they’ll avoid rocking the boat, but once it’s over they’re going to be free to pursue whatever they feel is in their own best interest. Moreover, they’re going to be free to basically give the rest of the league the finger IF it turns out that the league really didn’t do anything to help them out during the process (certainly the league did nothing publicly). I strongly suspect there are going to be factions inside their administration who’d like to do exactly that, as long as it’s not going to really hurt them financially (as opposed to the much tougher standard of “only if it would really help them financially”). And since they’re a private school, under no meaningful obligations to the rest of the state (much less other states in the league), it’s plausible that they could end up deciding to do exactly that.
If that sounds strange and kind of obnoxious, remember that their original public response to the investigation was to essentially say “screw you” and “you’re all just jealous”. It was only AFTER the hammer came down that they chose to change their tune, and that was mainly to try to undo some of their penalties in appeal. It’s obvious that USC hasn’t always been enormously concerned with their public perception, and they’re certainly capable of doing what they feel like, regardless of the consequences to the league. IF they decide that they want out, then there’s really nothing stopping them.
And, of course, if that were to happen then your second point would really start to unravel. The league would continue to be geographically isolated, but would no longer have anything close to monopoly power in their biggest market (LA), and would take a hit in the Bay Area too (since there are a decent chunk of USC grads and fans there as well). It would NOT be a death blow by any means, but it would seriously damage the league’s position. It would kill the league title game (which they’re getting a good chunk money for), it would take a lot out of the league’s media deal (since USC is the league’s most valuable media property), and it would completely end the dreams of becoming the 3rd most powerful league behind the Big Ten / SEC.
As far as 3rd tier rights go, USC probably can’t monetize them in the way that UT or SEC schools can, but keep in mind that even Kansas is getting $6M / year for 3rd tier rights (and KSU gets around $3.5M / year). Just because USC can’t get a long term deal for $10M now and major escalation over time doesn’t mean they can’t take home somewhere in the ballpark of $6 to $8M. That’s still a major chunk of change; as shown in the indystar link in an above post, UCLA gets around $46M in revenue, and that would give over a 10% bump. Assuming USC is in the ballpark of UCLA, they’d also get around or over a 10% bump.
4) I would actually say that the Pac-12 doesn’t really have a tight regional bond. The biggest problem is that a lot of the bonds are one-sided. For instance, everyone feels like they have a bond with LA, but UCLA/USC have very strong bonds with each other, solid bonds with Cal/Stanford, and are pretty meh about the rest. You get similar patterns in the NW, where Wazzu’s biggest bond is with U-Dub, Oregon St’s is with Oregon, but U-Dub and Oregon have a big rivalry between each other, and each feel strongly about the LA schools.
This is part of why the more have-not schools really wanted nine league games (http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2010/06/16/pac-10-expansion-splitting-the-divisions/), while the haves were less enthusiastic. Eight league games would have been a win for the members who could afford to sign another bodybag and/or have an elite OOC home and home, and a loss for those who couldn’t.
I should also point out that all of the two-sided bonds are regional in nature. The league nicely splits up into three pods of four: NW, CA, AZ+Mountain, but there aren’t really meaningful connection between the pods. Washington has been good for long enough that there’s a decent connection between them and UCLA/USC, but even that isn’t a really strong connection, and that’s the biggest I can think of. There’s little really connecting ASU to Oregon, Cal to Washington, USC to Arizona, etc. And, of course, there really aren’t any strong connections to the newcomers (the AZ schools used to play Utah a lot, but that was a LONG time ago).
IMO the ultimate situation wrt the Pac-12 is that they expanded in order to majorly enhance revenue not just beyond the awful old deal, but beyond what they could have gotten as just a 10-team league. If they succeed, and stay reasonably competitive with the rest of the country, it’s going to work out. But if they can’t get enough money to be reasonably competitive with everyone else, and it’s clear that they’re continuing to lag the pack in revenue, then there’s a good chance that people will bail. CFB is an increasingly mercenary environment, and league alignments are part of it.
5) You also made a point about the CA schools not wanting to join a Texas-centric league. This is a reasonable point, though it’s worth pointing out that when the SWC remnants joined the Big 8 (which was anything but Texas-centric), it became Texas-centric. Were the CA’s to collectively join up with Texas, regardless of which side started out in the politically stronger position, over time it would probably move more towards equality of influence (especially if it was the CA four plus other Pac-x members moving). Plus, Texas and the CA schools share a lot of interests when it comes to operating a league:
fairly tight academic standards for players is something that all would be interested in;
restrictions on unethical recruting practices is something that all would be interested in;
unequal rather than equal revenue sharing is something the LA schools would join hands with Texas on [and Bay Area’s wouldn’t likely be strongly opposed to];
all have large athletic departments with a lot of sports and a lot of revenue;
It’s not like they have radically different philosophies when it comes to how they operate and the values they embrace; there would certainly be differences, but it strikes me that they have more in common than they have different, other than geography of course. A&M might be more like an SEC school that happens to be in Texas, but Austin really isn’t, which was why they were never interested in the SEC and why they’ve flirted with both the Big Ten and Pac-x over the years.
I’ve seen this mentioned before, but what exactly was the Pac-10 supposed to do to help USC with the NCAA? They can’t interfere with the investigation and they have no sway over the decision or appeal processes.
There are a few things the league could have / should have been doing:
1) Politicking behind the scenes. The NCAA is a fundamentally political organization, and is clearly susceptible to pressure, if it’s applied in the right places and to the right people (especially given that the incoming NCAA president is a former U-Dub guy). For the record, I still think the league HAS being doing this, for the simple reason that it would have been monumentally stupid for them not to have.
2) Public support. The only people publicly supporting USC’s case were from USC itself, and maybe some journalists here and there. No major statements from the league office, no statements from fellow league members.
By choosing not to do this, the league allowed the USC fanbase to believe they were essentially abandoned. Not to mention occassionally develop wacky conspiracy theories like “Nike and Oregon lobbied against us b/c they wanted to fill the power vacuum” or “the league lobbied against us b/c they want more balance”.
Obviously those shouldn’t be taken seriously, except as a sign that the fanbase as a whole is NOT happy. And if the fanbase is not happy, there’s no telling what the power brokers are thinking. And that’s dangerous.
I don’t believe the behind the scenes stuff actually helps against the NCAA. They are the wrong sort of people and face no public pressure. The more people are upset, the more they think they are doing their job properly.
I also think a conference would be doing a disservice to support a member accused of cheating. The other 9 schools don’t want to compete against a cheater. The value of the league is hurt if it is seen as supporting cheating like the SEC. In addition, the league members may be genuinely embarrassed to have such blatant cheating going on.
They don’t face public pressure, but I think most would agree that they can and probably do face internal political pressure. Either that or they’re just wildly inconsistent and simply randomly appear to favor the more powerful programs (thus the “the NCAA was so angry at Alabama’s violations they dropped the hammer on Cleveland St” saying [I probably butchered the expression] ). Occam’s razor favors the first explanation, though it’s possible that it’s wrong.
I would agree that they wouldn’t/shouldn’t want to support cheating. But they could certainly have agreed with the argument USC raised, which was essentially:
1) The penalties were too severe given what actually happened
2) There were serious due process concerns
The league could have supported either of those arguments without having condoned what USC actually did. Should they have? I don’t know. But they could have, and the fact that they didn’t choose to is certainly didn’t endear them to USC, which probably wasn’t wise given that USC is a program that has the direct ability to severely damage the league if they walk out.
I don’t buy the internal pressure at all. As with any legal-type hearing, the rich have better lawyers. The big schools also have a lot more bureaucracy to create a gray area over violations. The changing membership of the committee means that they will be inconsistent. The NCAA also changes the stress on certain violations over time, as they should. Violators also try to draw false similarities to other cases in the hopes of getting lesser penalties.
I think both of USC’s arguments are crap, and the other schools may have told the conference HQ that as well. If multiple schools asked the HQ to stay out of it, that’s what they should do. USC could have been hit harder for having violations in multiple sports. The due process arguments require proving the committee screwed up the NCAA procedures. Of course USC claims the committee did, but USC also said they did nothing wrong.
Yes, if the 4 Cali schools joined with the Texas schools to form a 12 team league, I have a hard time seeing large points of disagreement between the Longhorns and the California schools.
If you left out a few of the hangers-on (Baylor, OSU, Tech) in exchange for schools like Colorado, Missouri, or Utah, it would even be hard to object to at least an SEC-level revenue sharing.
@m (Ag) – yeah, but that’s what Frank’s last post was all about – you CAN’T leave those schools behind. Maybe Baylor, but even that could be tough. OSU and Tech aren’t getting left behind. Even if you’re stuck with all of them, a 12-school conference that brings together California and Texas (plus Arizona and Oklahoma) would be printing money.
And the absence of equal revenue sharing would be the driving force behind this whole conference – it’s the one thing USC and UT can always agree on.
One of the big open questions is how much freedom does Texas actually have. FTT is convinced they can’t leave Baylor behind… but that’s speculation based on limited evidence (a couple prior expansion examples + Larry Scott said so). If they CAN leave Baylor behind, they have more options.
And, of course, Texas has no enforceable obligation to the remaining Big 12 North programs, which is part of why they’d been looking around for Plan B(ig East) in the first place.
As far as printing money goes, I really don’t know. It would certainly be worth more than either the Pac-12 or the current Big 12… but is it worth a LOT more? It’s unclear. The main financial advantage for the schools involved would be to get rid of the programs that aren’t worth much revenue (ISU, WSU, etc.), which means that (even if they do go w/ a basically equal revenue system, which I doubt they’d do) they get to end up with a number closer to what their program is actually worth. I don’t, however, think that there would be any meaningful synergy advantages (as opposed to the Big Ten or SEC, where it’s more like 6+6 = 13, and the total is greater than the sum of the parts).
I’d also think that there’s enough value in the remaining programs (Washington, Oregon, Colorado, Missouri, Kansas), that it’d be tough to stick to a 12-team total. IMO 14 would be more likely, though it’s a guess on my end. And again, I should emphasize this is very much a wild speculation here. There are a LOT of other ways things could happen, including probably the likeliest, which is no meaningful changes at all.
If Texas managed to slowly dominate over the old Big 8 schools, I don’t see how that is evidence that being in a league with Cali schools would pull the degree of influence towards Cali. There’s simply more money and passion for college football in Texas than California, even if California has more people. I don’t get how that would translate in to more influence for the Cali schools.
My point wasn’t that CA schools would dominate politically, my point was that you would expect political balance between the CA and the TX side. The example of Texas dominating the Big 12 was to highlight that it didn’t matter what the original political status was, since that can drastically change over time.
Right, theoretically, the balance of power could change in any direction. You could have posited in 1996 that the center of the B12 will reside in Colorado, for instance.
Realistically, it’s hard to imagine that Texas would give up what they have now (a conference which they dominate & control) for a conference where they’d shared power, have a tougher road to the NC, and where they’d get maybe a little more money.
@Richard – I think that’s a good observation. Honestly, UT doesn’t really gain that much more by adding USC and UCLA to its conference. UT would make some more money, but at the expense of giving up control and ease of scheduling along with making a national power (USC) that would now be a conference competitor much more financially stable. The main beneficiaries of that type of league would really be the Texas Techs and Baylors of the world that are much more dependent upon conference revenue as opposed to UT. The actions of UT this past year have shown that control is every bit as important to the school as money.
Also, I have to reiterate that I really don’t think second and third tier TV rights mean that much to USC in the way that they do to UT. The Trojans (and all other Pac-10 schools) have those rights now yet haven’t been able to do much with them. So, the argument that they could make UT-type money in a different conference simply because of an unequal revenue sharing and TV rights structure isn’t persuasive to me. USC would’ve exploited those advantages already if they could have, but they haven’t because they can’t. They don’t have that type of leverage in the LA market (much less the entire state of California).
@ Richard: I think we’re talking past each other to some degree. My point wasn’t that political power can move in wildly unexpected directions (ala your Colorado example), my point was that whatever the “old” power structure isn’t likely to be dominant just because it used to be in power; once Texas and the other ex-SWC’s joined, it was (in retrospect) obvious that political power would swing that way to a material degree. Just because (I think) Nebraska/Oklahoma used to be the big power players didn’t mean that was destined to continue, and in fact it didn’t take long for that to change.
@ FTT: I tend to agree with you that UCLA/USC joining the Big 12 wouldn’t be a huge financial benefit to Texas… but that wasn’t the example I had been talking about. It’s hard to see the CA’s joining a league with ISU, KSU or Baylor, much less all three.
I’m also not sure why you think that the events of the last year show control to be as important as money. I do think that Texas has made a point of keeping their options open, so in that sense I’d agree with you, but I don’t think that wielding outsize influence in a league was high on their priority list (if so, I haven’t seen evidence of it). IMO money has been the biggest thing they’ve been chasing. There’s little question they’re in better shape financially than if they had joined the Pac-16, Big Ten OR the SEC.
As far as 3rd tier rights go, it’s tough to say. Texas just provided a clear example of how to monetize 3rd tier rights through making a school-specific network. I’d agree that it could be harder for USC to monetize it than, say, Oklahoma, but I would also think that they’d be tempted to try. I still don’t see how going forward they couldn’t at least do about as well as Kansas has with those rights.
Not to beat a dead horse, cfn, but if USC could monetize third tier rights so easily, why haven’t they done so up to now (and why did they give them up to the Pac12 so easily)?
As a counter example, look at Texas, which has been exploring setting up their own channel for several years now and blocked the B12 from controlling third tier rights repeatedly in the past few years.
As for money, like Frank, I’m skeptical that even a Texas-Cali only league with unequal revenue sharing would net Texas that much more (enough to be worth something after factoring increased travel costs). Yes, you do drop lesser members of the B12 north and P12 north, but keep in mind that the B12 will get the money Beebe promised it only because ESPN is paying them a premium to keep superconferences from forming. If a superconference does form, it’d get market price. As you mentioned, with it’s current situation, Texas gets more than (or at least as much as) what it would get as a member of the B10 or SEC. Are you saying that a Texas-Cali conference would be worth so much more than the B10 or SEC (or that revenue sharing would be so much more unequal than the current B12 or P12 models) that Texas would get measurably greater TV revenue than they do now? I’m skeptical.
It’s definitely a good question why USC hasn’t been able to monetize them to any meaningful extent (I can’t find documentation as to whether they’ve previously monetized them to ANY extent, much less how much, so I’m certainly speaking from ignorance here). Of course, it’s plausible that they could use the same business model as Texas, Oklahoma and probably more to come are following and see what happens. It’s certainly plausible that they could believe that they could cash in on it and at least be in the ballpark of Oklahoma money, EVEN IF THEY’RE WRONG IN THAT CONCLUSION. What’s most relevant to their decision-making is what they think they can do, not whether they’re correct in their analysis.
One good question to think about is how much Texas itself is worth, ignoring conference affiliation, revenue-sharing etc. If they went independent (as an example), what would they take in? I don’t have the data to say one way or another, but I’d strongly suspect that it’d be north of $35M (and might be north of $40M). Approaching that number, whatever it actually is, while inside a league appears to be one of their driving motivations.
As far as a Big 12 “premium”, it’s extremely unclear what the Big 12 will actually get in TV negotiations; there’s no tangible reason to think that just b/c Beebe promised the cash it would necessarily appear. It MAY do so, but there’s no guarantee.
Moreover, it’s amazing how networks keep “overpaying” leagues even as the numbers keep going up. Maybe it’s b/c CFB is actually worth a lot MORE than we thought? (it’s also quite possible we’re seeing a bubble).
So what’s “market price” for a superconference? It certainly depends on its overall prestige and membership. Would the aggregate per team price be comparable to SEC / B10 numbers? I have no idea. It certainly might be, it certainly might not be (and, of course, the SEC / B10 revenue splits are MUCH more equal than the B12 model, so comparing leaguewide numbers isn’t apples to apples). It’s also worth noting that the B10 numbers are still materially growing, and it’s far from clear how high they’ll end up going, or where the stable equilibrium of BTN viewership would be; so comparing to the current B10 take isn’t exactly right.
One thing I can fairly confidently suggest, though, is that if the revenue model stayed the same as the Big 12’s, Texas’s take would almost certainly go up, because the LSN contract would stay the same, and the value of the league would be greater than the value of the old league plus the “please don’t kill the status quo” premium, unless you think that ESPN and/or Fox are going to be paying completely ridiculous premiums just to preserve the status quo. And, of course, if you think they’re going to pay completely ridiculous premiums just to preserve the status quo, it would seem likely that they’d grossly overpay the Pac-12 for the very same reason, in which case everyone would be happy and there wouldn’t be any issues to worry about.
Side note: if you want to track Texas’s revenue growth, you need to compare revenues NOT to the SEC/B10, but to the B12 deal. Texas doesn’t need to be in a league that gets total dollars at the SEC/B10 deal to bump their revenue. They need to either have a revenue-sharing system more unequal than the current B12 model OR get league contracts much greater than the B12 deal, OR both.
Of course that still doesn’t answer the important questions, such as what Texas actually wants to do, what USC and the other CA schools want to do, what political freedoms everyone has, whether any of them (much less all of them) would actually want a setup anything like this one, etc. As stated before, I really don’t know. This was just thrown out there are one possible example of what might happen. It’s certainly not the favorite, again, for a whole lot of reasons.
Actually, no, if ESPN wants to prevent superconferences, they just need to overpay the B12, not the P12, because if the B12 schools are happy (enough) to stay where they are, no superconference can form (unless something really out of the blue happens like TN+KY to the B10, the B10 & SEC carving up the ACC, or the Cali schools joining the B10).
You’ll probably never find USC data since they’re private. Arizona was making $6.7 million per year as of last summer for local media rights. By comparison, AZ gets $1.13 million for their apparel deal. UCLA gets $4.6 million for apparel and is about to renegotiate and expects to approach MI’s $7.5 million (the value is probably inflated since they’re the only adidas school in the P12). One would think UCLA’s local media rights are at least similarly valued to their apparel deal (like MI) and more valuable than AZ, and USC should probably be more valuable than UCLA.
In other words, USC probably has been making good money off of their 3rd tier rights, and could do so again if they got those rights back. Interesting.
Don’t forget, a lot of that money is for radio and other non-TV things so they may not be giving up much.
What exactly would they argue about? The only thing that Nebraska and UT actually disagreed on was where to place the championship game, and I think the Longhorns would agree to rotate that between Arizona and Dallas.
Just last year we knew UT was interested in joining the Big 10, but had a ‘Tech problem’. They’re not afraid to work with others, but they need better partners than Kansas State and Iowa State before they agree to share. We believe they want 4 things:
2) good academic partners
3) games against OU and A&M
4) security for Texas Tech (so it can become a better option for Texas high school graduates)
This hypothetical conference boosts academic prestige, allows them to play OU and A&M, and would be a huge home run for Texas Tech. I also believe that the conference would definitely produce more conference money for Texas. In addition, their football schedule gets much more interesting immediately. Hosting Arizona and Cal is much better than KSU and Iowa State.
If the California schools called, I think this conference would form quickly. Alas, I don’t think they’ll leave the Pac 12.
It’d be tough to split up the Pac, but not impossible. If UT and the Big 12 South gang proposed forming a new conference, I think USC would be amenable, and that would likely be enough to get the ball rolling. If they got UCLA and the Arizona schools on board, Cal and Stanford would have little choice but to go along.
This is also how I think you get Notre Dame into a conference. You pitch a national conference, starring Texas, OU, USC, Cal, Stanford, UCLA, and others, where everyone can keep their third tier rights. You probably give Notre Dame a couple other incentives (they can show most home games on their own network, they NEVER have to travel to Ames or Lubbock or whatever undesirable locales end up in this conference, they can keep all non-football sports in the Big East).
Mark Cuban forms company to start college football playoff.
I tend to take a “you never know” perspective to a lot of stuff, but the idea that Mark Cuban is going to force a playoff on the NCAA is ridiculous. He’s negotiating with the hostages if he thinks that the NCAA brass is the group he needs to convince.
@M – “Negotiating with the hostages” is a good way of putting it. The flaw in Cuban’s plan is that he seems to be depending on individual schools making the choice to forgo bowl bids in favor of his playoffs. The problem is that individual schools can’t just say, “We’re ignoring our conference tie-in with the BCS this year and choosing to go with the Cuban Championship instead.” That’s a quick way to get kicked out of a conference or at least lose a ton of conference revenue. Instead, Cuban has to convince the BCS conferences as entities that his playoff system should replace the BCS bowls, which is a whole lot different (and WAY tougher). I’ve always believed that saying the bowl system could “survive” with anything more than a 4-team playoff system is a completely false argument – you don’t slap the Rose Bowl label on the current Capital One Bowl matchup and say that it “survived”.
By the way, this is the article where Cuban implies that he would be going to the various schools directly:
Do we know how this would interact with the bowl contracts conferences have? Could several B10 schools say no to the Capitol One, or are they obliged to accept? I imagine schools can choose to not go to a bowl, but would the contracts allow them to play elsewhere?
Long term, I assume Cuban’s plan is to pay the schools enough to compensate for the reduced bowl payouts that would result in the future. I still think it will be hard to convince the conference officials.
While we’re all thinking out of the box and throwing out realignment ideas that will never happen, here’s mine – a 14 member all private school conference.
BYU – if the rest don’t want BYU, my Tulane Green Wave gets in over Rice & Tulsa because New Orleans is a better road trip.
The ACC picks up UConn, Pitt, West Virginia, and Louisville to make up for its private school losses and Cincy & USF after the SEC raid get back to 12. How’s that for a basketball conference?
The B1G picks up Rutgers and the NY/NJ market to counter its loss of Northwestern. It also takes Iowa St & Mizzou to get to 14. The carriage of the BTN in NY/NY, St. Louis and KC allow the B1G to do the right thing and take Iowa State. You also get good academic research schools as well.
The SEC swaps Vandy for A&M. It also takes Florida State and VA Tech to get to 14. Great football/baseball combo.
Texas, T-Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas & Kansas State go west to make a Pac-16. I thought geography outweighed conference symmetry so KU & K-State go west as the PAC’s #15 & #16, rather than to the basketball heavy ACC for #13 & #14.
That’s five AQ conferences and 70 AQ teams. Good geography for all the public school conferences. Notre Dame gets to play a truly national schedule. Everybody plays a 9 game conference schedule and has a CCG. After the CCGs, the four highest ranked teams play national semi-finals utilizing my hard-seed plus 1 discussed a couple months ago. All is right in the CFB universe and it will never happen.
I’ve thought about that, but the idea of Stanford, BYU, Notre Dame and Baylor all putting up with each other stretches even the limits of message board speculation. I’d be down with it, though.
@Alan – That’s a league that only a Domer could love!
Frank, that is a great conference. Where do I sign up? For me, the only annoyance would be that Fredo (BC) freeloads again.
My only question about this entire thread, is that it attempts to project the value of cable rights in 2018 by assuming that the world wants more and more games on more and more days of the week. Why is everyone so utterly confident that viewership increases at a steady pace no matter how many games are carried — and that cable companies will pay to carry games based on this assumption, for the next decade?
@rich2 – I think you have a good point in that demand for televised college football games (and college sports generally) isn’t infinite. That’s why I believe fan base intensity is important because that indicates how much demand there is for a particular conference or team (either nationally or regionally). The SEC, Big Ten and Notre Dame have separated themselves on a national level. ACC basketball and the University of Texas have used their strong regional fan bases to cash in and get leverage over TV partners. Can anyone else really do that? It might be very hard at the national level. Whether the Pac-12 can do it at the regional level with its own network remains to be seen.
Ricky Williams (UT Heisman winner) once made the comment that one of the reasons he can to Texas was the intensity of the fan interest, even at the HS level. He said people just didn’t care much in Southern California (he was from San Diego).
I’ll give you credit for admitting it will never happen.
Now, the obvious questions:
1. What are the incentives for the private schools to form this league? Sure, Syracuse, Baylor, TCU, SMU and BYU probably stand to make a lot more money although the travel costs would hurt. What are the benefits for the ACC, P12, B10 and SEC schools? Why would ND agree?
2. Why would the B10 pick up Rutgers, MO and ISU? There is no financial gain to going past 12 without a major program. Adding one school to get back to 12 makes sense, but three is wasteful. The BTN won’t make much by adding RU because nobody cares about them, so I think they’d be left with the BE remnants. The best financial choice of the options you left available would be MO. Why would they voluntarily lose money to “do the right thing” and add ISU?
3. The ACC would be fine, and the Pac-16 gets what they seem to want. I’m not convinced the SEC would want to expand, though. They are better off taking TAMU and stopping at 12. They don’t need FSU and VT to be competitive, since the Pac would still not be their equal (UT, OU and 14 others) and the B10 wouldn’t improve either. I’d expect them to stay at 12 until they sense they will lose status.
If we’re doing crazy realignments, then we need to think big. That means trimming dead weight. It also could mean separate conferences for FB, MBB and everything else.
Football Level 1:
NE, IA, WI, ND, Purdue, OSU, MI, MSU, Pitt, PSU, Syracuse, BC
FL, FSU, Miami, UGA, GT, Clemson, SC, NC, NCSU, VT, MD, WV,
TX, TAMU, TT, OK, MO, Ark, LSU, Miss, AL, AU, TN, Louisville
AZ, ASU, USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford, OR, UW, BSU, BYU, Utah, CO
Level 2: the remaining AQs and the non-AQs
That’s essentially the top 48 AQs by performance over the last 60 years grouped by region. Every ten years each conference will consider relegation of their bottom teams for other regional teams.
Everybody gets to schedule 2 Level 2 teams at home, 2 Level 1 OOC games in conference comparison series (N vs E and W, etc, with the pairs of conferences rotating) split home and away, and 8 conference games. Division winners are determined by division record, with head to head, total conference record, overall record and ranking as the tiebreakers in order. The ranking for this purpose will be a formula based equally on the AP rankings (to allow for intangible factors) and a compilation of computer polls that use different methods (all data is allowed to be used including scores).
The bowl season will match the teams that aren’t division champs in December. The conference championship games will be played in early to mid-December, allowing time to recover from the season with out getting rusty. The semis are played 1/1 (conferences that didn’t play OOC are paired) and the championship 2 weeks later. The sites rotate and include the BCS sites as well as northern domes. The CCG losers play in the BCS bowls that aren’t hosting playoff games, with the same pairings as the semis.
I leave it as an exercise for the reader to produce similar regional conferences for hoops. I’d go with 12 16-team conferences. Each team plays their division twice and the other division once for 22 total conference games. Each team gets 4 OOC games against lesser competition, 1 tournament and 4 OOC games against other main conferences in conference comparison series (like ACC/B10 Challenge). Get rid of conference tourneys, and change the NCAA to a double elimination tourney for 32 teams (all conference champs plus the next 20). The rest of D-I organizes the same way but plays in the single-elimination NIT instead of the NCAA. Relegation every 10 years applies to hoops, too.
Now that is ridiculous message board speculation at its best.
I would put some money constraints in there as well so a school like UL, who has a stadium much smaller than UK (and has a hard time filling it) does not jump over in state rival UK who has been in the top 25 in attendence the past few years even with a poor team.
I would say IU as well, but they have a smaller stadium. Not sure I would put Texas Tech on the list as well.
I debated not including any of the new AQs, but there aren’t many quality programs I left out. I wanted to stick with teams above 0.500.
UK was nowhere near making the list because they lose so much. The next in would have been Rutgers (also fairly new AQ) or OkSU. UK was also behind Cal, UVA, MN, Baylor, KU and IL, not to mention Cinci and TCU.
UK has been at .500 or better in the regular season for 5 seasons in a row while playing in the toughest conference in the country. Maybe you should put them in over Michigan or MSU or Purdue!
They don’t have as many high points as the schools on your list, but they’ve probably got a better record over the last 5 years than a 3rd of those schools.
Five whole years? I don’t consider that enough time to establish a success level, but OK. I did post the adjustments if the list was based on 25 years, which is a reasonable period.
UK would make the list if it was just the last 5 years. They had the 52nd best winning percentage over the last 5 years.
Teams they trailed (5 closest):
MI, TN, SC, MSU, Clemson
Teams they led (14/48):
Louisville, Miami, TAMU, AZ, ND, MD, FSU, ASU, NC, Stanford, Miss, Purdue, NCSU, UCLA
That kind of points out the “brands” issue. If you’re on ESPN and get into the top 10 a couple of years in a row, you are perceived as much better, even if the record doesn’t indicate it. UL vs. UK is a good example.
Obviously UK isn’t Miami, ND, FSU or even A&M. But since they haven’t won the SEC since the 70s and haven’t been in the top 10 since then, except the year they knocked off #1 LSU (who went on to win the national title), they don’t get much credit for what they do achieve–Which translates into TV value or lack thereof. Teams that aren’t regularly ranked (and preferably top 15), don’t generate much value.
The programs near the cutoff were not very impressive. Like I said, it basically cutoff at 0.500 over the time period. I could easily have left UL off the list, but then I had to take an under 0.500 team. I actually think the 25 year list is the best, since it is long enough to average out anomalous years while not including the irrelevant past. UK did much worse in that list, and about the same as IU.
Over the past 5 years, UK and UL
were basically the same in record (36-29 vs 34-28) although UK presumably played better opposition. I ignored SOS for my lists outside of not including the non-AQs in general.
If UK could ever beat TN it might help their perception. They haven’t won 9 games since 1984 and 10 since 1977. Outside of those years, since 1950 they won 8 in ’51, ’76, ’06 and ’07. Even 7 wins only came in ’53, ’54, ’98, ’02, ’08 and ’09. That’s 12 7+ win seasons in 60 years. For comparison, OkSU had 20 7+ win seasons in those years and didn’t make the list. How much esteem should UK be held in for being consistently mediocre at best?
For more recent success (last 25 years), only 5 teams would change. Add KSU to the North to replace Purdue. Add UVA to the East to replace MD. Add OK St and TCU to the South to replace MO. Transfer TT and add Fresno State to the West to replace Stanford and Cal.
Based on the last 10 years, relegation would lead to these 4 changes:
Cincinnati replaces Syracuse
MO, Louisville and TN transfer from South
BC, Pitt and PSU transfer to East
MD replaces NC
BC, Pitt and PSU transfer from North
FSU, FL and Miami transfer to South
MO replaces Miss
FSU, FL and Miami transfer from East
MO, Louisville and TN transfer to North
Hawaii replaces UW
The problem is always the lack of teams in the west.
Wow, your South division is murderous with Texas, OU, Bama, and LSU. The West looks like a cakewalk for USC, and OSU would rule the North the same way they currently rule the B1G.
Geography’s a bitch sometimes. The west has fewer schools, so it will tend to be weaker. The long time frame also includes some schools that might not deserve it. The problem is the North combines the B12 N, B10 and BE while the West is P12 and MWC. The East is BE and ACC and SEC. The South is the B12 S and SEC W, currently 2 of the toughest divisions around. Power shifts all the time, though. A few coaching changes and things could be very different.
If UCLA and UW return to glory while USC and UO stay at their peak that would be pretty stout. BSU and Utah will also add power. Similarly, a strong ND, NE, MI, PSU and OSU would be very tough.
actually how far fetched is it? I am old enough to remember the Magnolia Conference which was based on a similar theory of conference relignment (it was just the southern privates tho).
a) It is Sunday morning
b) Frank has put up this blog for P12 discussion
c) Most on here seem to enjoy reading
So who stood to gain?
If the president of a University poisioned their primary benefactor that is just wild. The theory was that Mrs. Stanford had intentions of firing him, but she had plans for a vacation in Hawaii where she was given the fatal dose!
Then again, who knows. It probably was easier to get away with in those days of less-than-instant communication and spotty (maybe even pliant) media. She should have fired him before taking the trip.
agreed, especially as they made the first attempt (which was unsuccessful) before she left CA!
Tho we have discussed this possibility earlier, here is the lightbulb now going off in the media (they are always slower).
I brought up the possibility that losing a CCG, 1 good, and 1 decent team was not going to bode well in the future. I will say it again that if trend continues, the Longhorn Conference will loose at least one or two bowl tie ins.
That wouldn’t surprise me at all. It’s also worth noting that every quality team in the Big 12 is now getting a full third of their schedule filled by home and home games against Kansas, Kansas St, Iowa St and Baylor. None of those four would likely get better than a 1:2 deal against Texas, Oklahoma, or A&M in an open market.
At some point, the loss of home game revenue (since there are now nine league games, which means fewer home games), combined with fewer interesting games on each team’s slate (and to fix it w/ good OOC’s means doing home and homes, which means even fewer home games) is going to start to sting.
I’d agree with you about the bowl tie-in’s getting hit at the next negotiation round, but I’m thinking that this was already a foregone conclusion. A league with only Texas, Oklahoma and A&M as big names is going to have a very hard time holding on to the Fiesta AND the Cotton AND the Alamo AND the Gator/Sun AND the Holiday, not to mention all of the more minor ones (though those might be OK since a lot of them are TX-based anyway).
I think the writer was very generous in his counts of good games. He counts 18 marquee games, but I only count 3 OOC and 3 in conference that are of national interest before the season. The rest are only marquee in the B12 footprint. They’ll get national coverage for a few more, especially in conference when teams climb the rankings and provide some interest.
By comparison, I count 3 OOC (MI/ND, PSU/AL, OSU/Miami) and 7-9 in conference (CCG, NE/MI, NE/PSU, NE/OSU, OSU/PSU, OSU/MI, NE/IA, NE/WI – 1st B10 game for NE, OSU/MSU – suspensions) for the B10. Normally that would be 3 and 7 without the added storylines. We need a few more marquee OOC games in the future, but I’ll cut NE some slack for their first 2 conference schedules. WI has VT and UW coming up in 2016+, but is weak until then. IA is always pretty weak.
That’s a good point. Mizzou and OK St aren’t good enough that they’d draw ratings when they play each other. Texas, Oklahoma and A&M will draw major ratings when they play each other, and Mizzou, OK St and maybe Tech are good enough to draw decent ratings when they play the main powers. So that means inside league play: 3 marquee games, plus 9 fairly decent rating games (though if Tech struggles again, it’s hard to see people watching them). If it turns out that national ratings just don’t come for much of anything outside of the 3 marquee league games, it’s going to be a lot harder for Beebe’s promised money to materialize.
The OSU/A&M game will happen in the first 4 weeks of the season (tentatively scheduled for Sept. 24). Unless one of the teams gets a surprise early loss (Arizona has a shot vs. OSU), both will be at least in the top 15, possibly top 10.
So, this year I expect it to be one of the highlight games that week. They can also hype it up with highlights from last years ridiculous game.
I’m guessing the Big 12 and ESPN will move it to Thursday night again to get more national attention to the league.
Of course, most years both teams won’t be that highly ranked at the same time. There aren’t enough names in the conference that will still have national attention when they go ‘only’ 8-4.
Actually, ESPN may cut down on the number of B12 Thursday night games (replacing them with SEC, ACC, or P12) in order to have have at least one decent B12 game for their Saturday afternoon time slot.
Has the Big 12 been playing TH night games? SEC has avoided them like the plague. They kill home attendance. I used to love the TH night games, but then the name programs all started avoiding them.
Bullet – You’re right about the SEC on Thursday nights. Mississippi State and South Carolina are the only teams that I can think of that appear to be willing to move a home game just to get on TV.
BTW, LSU will play Moo U in StarkVegas on a Thursday night this season, but LSU would never move one of its home games. Heck, we whine about 2:30pm kick-offs on CBS. If it were up to LSU fans, we’d kick-off at 8pm and be on ESPN for every home game.
Here it is for 2010:
I count 3 SEC games (2 of those were OOC) & 3 B12 games (including Texas-TAMU).
ACC is in 4 (including 2 BE-ACC matchups). BE is in 4 (including 2 BE-ACC matchups). P10 is in 4 (1 OOC).
Alabama moved their game against Georgia St. to Thursday in 2010.
Anyway, here’s the Thursday lineup for 2009:
2 games with SEC teams (1 OOC). 4 games with B12 teams (1 OOC). 5 ACC games (1 OOC).
Evidently, Vandy was willing to move an SEC home game to Thursday in 2008:
I count 2 SEC teams willing to move a home game to Thursday that year and 2 B12 teams moving a home game to Thursday (1 was the Texas-TAMU game).
BTW, the Thursday night ESPN schedule looks to be very ACC & P12 heavy so far:
So far, 1 SEC home game, the Texas-TAMU game, 1 BE home game, 4 ACC home games and 3 P12 home games on Thursday night with a few more slots to fill out.
Texas-Texas A&M is Thanksgiving. That doesn’t really count. Its effectively a weekend game. And its a long tradition that the networks moved from TH to F for a number of years.
For the Big 12 in 09 and 10, not counting Thanksgiving, it was 2 Ok. St., 1 KSU and 1 Missouri. They did have some of the “kings” and “barons”, but only on the road.
Richard – I forgot about Bama last year, but I doubt that will ever happen again. The GA State game took place the week before the Iron Bowl and Auburn had an open week. Bama used their open week immediately prior to the LSU game. Moving the GA State game gave Bama a few extra days to rest and get ready for Auburn. Bamatab, correct me if I’m wrong but I think Bama took some heat for moving that game.
“They did have some of the “kings” and “barons”, but only on the road.”
Well, except for Miami (which has well-known attendance/popularity issues), that’s true of the ACC & Pac10 as well (unless you count Oregon, Washington, UNC, & VTech as “barons”, and most people wouldn’t as they’re generally not in the top 25 of any prestige/money ranking).
FSU, UCLA, & USC never hosted Thursday night games in the years I looked (’08-’11).
Washington was #17 in ESPN’s prestige rankings. With their recent lack of success, however, I think it’s fair to temporarily not consider them as the baron that they are.
Alan, you right in the reasoning for Bama to move the Ga St game to Thursday night. Saban wanted that to happen in order to give us some extra time to prepare for the auburn game.
I very seriously doubt that we would do it again unless a similar situation arose. Bama doesn’t like playing Thursday night games because people from all over (in state & out of state) go to the games. And being on a Thursday traveling issues and causes in state people to have to take off work in order to make the games and not everyone can do that.
I’d count PSU/WI, PSU/IA, & tOSU/WI as well (they’re at least as interesting as Mizzou/OSU, TAMU/OSU, and Mizzou/TAMU).
In fairness, for the ABC afternoon slot, the games only have to be appealing to a B12 audience. Still, I’d expect ESPN to start pressing OU & TAMU to play 2 marquee OOC opponents a year (Texas’s OOC schedule is already set for as far as the eye can see, though they play 2 interesting opponents most years), especially if TAMU wants the $20M payout. Unfortunately, neither of those schools have away games to give (unless they’re willing to go with a 5-6-1 schedule some years). The only solution is those schools scheduling Boise (or maybe Oregon St.) as guarantee games for a big payout (or maybe BYU….maaaybe Miami in a 2-for-1) several times.
I wouldn’t be surprised if ESPN asks OU & TAMU to step up if they want to get their $20M.
Oh right, maybe Utah (or TCU) as well. Probably as a “neutral site” game somewhere in Texas. I wouldn’t be surprised if TAMU & OU have to have a 5-5-2 schedule some years (though 6-4-2 other years) in order to get their $20M.
Come to think of it, if they’re neutral site games, ESPN may even be able to get more enticing opponents (LSU, WVU, Auburn, etc.)
….Iowa & maybe some other B10 or P12 teams….
I tried to do an apples to apples comparison, and I wasn’t convinced your three games count for national interest. Maybe OSU/WI for the revenge factor, but I didn’t want to flavor it with OSU bias.
I only counted OU/UT, UT/TAMU and OU/OkSU (plus OU/FSU, TAMU/Ark and UT/BYU) as games that get national attention regardless of records.
OU traditionally has one of the most competitive non-conference schedules in the country. This year they played FSU, Air Force, and Cincinnati. Their only weak game was against Utah State, who is at least an FBS school.
A&M has the annual game versus Arkansas. I’ve heard we signed a contract to play a series each against USC and Oregon in the middle of the decade, but I think the USC games got canceled almost immediately for some reason.
I had tickets to that game, but could not go. OU went to Cincy for that game so it was not a sure fire win that a home only game would indicate (it wound up being a FG difference in the score).
Interesting as UC’s NC schedule this year included Oklahoma, NC State, and Fresno State.
is the U$C game still off the schedule, as it is showing up on TAMU’s long term schedule? Was the cancellation due to U$C having the cloud of probation on some minds down in College Station?
I thought I read an article during football season mentioning the games were already canceled, though I’m not sure where. I’d sure like to be wrong.
I haven’t found future opponents (other than next year) listed on A&M’s website.
I can’t vouch for their accuracy, but:
still has the games. I can’t find any articles saying they’ve been canceled.
The deal was announced in 2009 as far as I can tell.
Re: In Fairness to the Big XII.. I agree with your point that the games have to be appealing only to the Big XII region. That being said, this is exactly the problem with the Big XII. It also explains why they will always lag in tv negotiations. Every Big Ten game is a national game, virtually every SEC game is a national game. The Big XII’s potentially game of the week is a regional game.
You are flat out wrong about Iowa’s non-conf schedule being “always pretty weak”. Iowa has played ISU every year since 1977, and while they are near the bottom of BCS-conference teams, its a BCS-conference team. Lots of Hawkeye fans hate playing them every year as we get their best game of the year, yet get zero credit for beating them. Its a no-win situation, and I’m sure plenty are reading this post and thinking ISU is a MAC-equivalent.
Beyond ISU, Iowa plays a second BCS-conf game nearly every single season. Since 1998, Iowa has had three seasons without a second BCS conference team. From 1998 to 2011, a total of 14 seasons, Iowa has 25 BCS conference teams on the schedule, or 1.79 per year.
A few months ago I went through some other B10 schedules, such as Minny and Wisky, and over the past decade they can’t even manage to average one BCS-conference game per year.
Iowa hasn’t schedule marquee matchups, but they generally schedule solid programs (Ariz, Pitt, Syracuse, AzSU, Neb).
I would imagine that Iowa is easily in the top 25% of the BCS teams in scheduling other BCS teams.
Two bcs games: 2011 (Pitt), 2010 (Ariz), 2009 (Ariz), 2008 (Pitt), 2007 (Syracuse), 2006 (Syracuse), 2004 (AzSU), 2003 (AzSU and beat 12-1 Ben Rothlisberger-led Miami(OH)), 2000 (Nebraska), 1999 (Nebraska), 1998 (Ariz)
one bcs game: 2005, 2002 (road win at Ben Rothlisberger-led Miami(OH)), 2001
Iowa gets no credit for playing ISU every year because they’re perennially terrible. It boosts the number of AQ teams Iowa plays while being a MAC-level opponent. Over the past 25 years, ISU was outperformed by 8 MAC members (yes, I know they play MAC schedules). ISU was also outperformed by AQ powers like Baylor, Rutgers, Indiana and Wake. Do you give anyone respect for scheduling those teams OOC?
The real problem is the lack of marquee opponents, which is what we were discussing. Iowa plays other AQ teams, but usual they are mid-level teams.
AQs Iowa has played 2 times in the past 25 years during the regular season:
ISU (25), AZ (5), KSU (3), ASU, NE, OR, CO, SU, Miami
That’s 5 marquee OOC games (Miami 90, 92; NE 99, 00; CO 92) in 25 years, and that’s weak for a team that many fans wanted the B10 to consider as equal to the top 4 schools. I called out WI, too, and they are worse than Iowa with scheduling, but both need to step up their marquee OOC scheduling.
For comparison, here’s WI’s info.
AQs WI has played 2 times in the past 25 years during the regular season:
CO, Stanford, Miami, OR, AZ, Cal, WV, NC, ISU
That’s 6 for WI (Miami 88, 89; OR 00, 01; CO 94, 95).
Brian, you put excellent politician spin on anything you disagree with.
As I said, Iowa gets zero scheduling respect even though ISU plays their best game of the year against Iowa, and you just fulfill the stereotype. Even ignoring ISU, Iowa plays a BCS team every year, but you ignore that to measure “marquee games” where you are the sole judge of “marquee”.
The only way Iowa can gain any respect by your sliding scale is to schedule 3 AQs a year.
Whatever. Continue to shovel your bullshit.
I’m sorry you have such a problem with the rest of the world knowing that ISU stinks. It is not spin to point out that ISU is a MAC level team based on performance. Against non-AQ FBS teams, ISU is 19-15 (0.559) in the past 25 years. By comparison, Toledo is 133-76 (0.636). This is with the money and recruiting advantages of being in an AQ conference, too.
Of course ISU plays at their best for a rivalry game, but that still doesn’t mean much. IA has a better record against ISU than any AQ team they’ve played more than twice in the past 25 years. That means ISU’s best is not as good as IN playing normal. Perhaps the fact that IA also plays better cancels out ISU’s level of play, too.
I would give WI the same lack of credit for playing MN if that was OOC, or Purdue for playing IN. Pretending that all AQ teams are equal is silly and beneath you. If that’s all that matters to you, then you’d love an OOC schedule like Duke, Washington State and ISU since you get 3 AQs. Everyone else would chuckle.
So who else on that list counts as marquee, AZ, ASU, KSU, Syracuse or OR/CO before they got good? Marquee games draw eyeballs from neutral fans. If they aren’t a name program, then they have to be highly rated the year before and in pre-season because there’s no buzz for an OOC game against a team that isn’t expected to be good.
If Iowa wants respect for their OOC schedule, they should schedule some name programs. Some suggestions would be TX, OU, USC, OR now, BSU, TCU, AL, FL, LSU, AU, GA, TN, FSU, Miami, and VT. Other AQ programs that are up, like OkSU and TAMU, would count too.
Instead, IA has scheduled TN Tech, ULM, N Ill, N IA, CMU, MO St, WMU, Ball St, N TX and Pitt (4 times) for upcoming years. How many of those teams are realistically capable of beating Iowa? How many will draw eyeballs from neutral fans? I can understand not always having a marquee game, but there’s no excuse not to do better than that.
Even with a “terrible” ISU game on the schedule every year, Iowa’s non-conf is in the upper half of BCS teams. Even if you want to believe ISU is MAC level, they are home and homes. Give the grief to teams like OSU (or the entire SEC) that schedule 3 or 4 home MAC-level games most years. Iowa plays a home and home with ISU and a home and home with a mid-level BCS team. Then two cupcakes. When most of the country is playing 3 or more cupcakes, I find it hard to ding Iowa’s schedule.
You were talking marquee games, but you are the one who termed Iowa’s schedule “always pretty weak.” Go ahead and say they don’t really schedule marquee games, but that is a different argument than “always pretty weak.”
Upper half of AQ is an exaggeration, but I could maybe buy the argument that it’s around avg. The entire Pac-10 regularly scheduled much harder than IA, as have at least half of the ACC (4 teams play annual SEC games, plus a lot play other AQ’s), one or two SEC programs (UGA plays GT every year and frequently plays someone else decent), and a few others like Oklahoma (always a tough OOC).
That said, IA has almost certainly been above avg OOC for a B10 program. And I would definitely agree with you that there are a number of MUCH more obvious targets out there. Can’t really comment on the future OOC, though, his list looks pretty weak.
Yes, Greg, when talking about marquee opponents OOC Iowa’s schedule is always weak. Their past and future schedules show that. Their overall OOC SOS is probably around average for the AQs at best. They play a bottom feeder AQ, a MAC team and an FCS team every year. The fourth team varies from MAC/Sunbelt to mid-level AQ.
It’s certainly worse than most P10 teams. Several SEC and ACC teams have tougher rivalry games (Ark/TAMU, GA/GT, FL/FSU, SC/Clemson) too. Other teams that always schedule a marquee game include OSU, MI, AL, TN, Miami and OU. NE, WI, TX and VT have marquee games coming up. IA has no bragging rights over most quality AQ programs when it comes to scheduling (LSU and PSU, maybe some others I’m forgetting).
If Iowa wants to be seen as a big boy, then they will need to step up their scheduling. If they are content to be seen as an average B10 team, then they are fine as they are.
“The fourth team varies from MAC/Sunbelt to mid-level AQ”
11 of 14 years its been a mid-level AQ, but that equates to “varies from MAC/Sunbelt to mid-level AQ” (note the ordering of your statement)
Nice intellectual honesty.
Be careful using words like “always”.
“The fourth team varies from MAC/Sunbelt to mid-level AQ”
“11 of 14 years its been a mid-level AQ, but that equates to “varies from MAC/Sunbelt to mid-level AQ” (note the ordering of your statement)”
So you agree that my statement is true, but object because of the order of the words? Varying from A to B and B to A are the same thing. I wasn’t intending any insult or hidden meaning, but Iowa fans online seem to be very insecure.
Over the next 4 years, Iowa plays 1 FCS, 1 MAC and 2 AQs twice (ISU and Pitt in 2011 and 2014). In 2012 and 2013 they have 1 FCS, 2 MACs and ISU.
2015 and 2016 should also have 2 AQs (ISU and Pitt), but the OOC schedules are incomplete as are all future years. These schedules are subject to change, especially if the B10 goes to 9 conference games.
In addition to ISU:
2010 – 1 FCS, 1 MAC, AZ
2009 – 1 FCS, 1 MAC, 1 Sunbelt
2008 – 1 FCS, 1 Sunbelt, Pitt
2007 – 2 MAC, Syracuse
That’s 5 out of 8 (possibly 7 out of 10 but could also be 7 out of 12 for all we know) years with 2 AQs. That’s not a dominant trend to me.
I give Iowa much more credit for 2007 than the other years since they skipped the FCS team, even though Syracuse and ISU were both weak. An FCS team really hurts the schedule.
Stop scheduling FCS teams and play a name program OOC occasionally. Then people will quit making comments. For example, it’s a shame that Iowa has only played NE 30 times and only 6 times since 1946 (’79-’82 and ’99-’00). That’s a marquee school in a bordering state, so presumably they would be willing to consider a home and home. I realize many marquee schools may not see value in playing at Iowa, but how about a neutral site game in a year with ISU at home? Maybe AL wants another Jerryworld game.
Your data is incorrect in 2009. Iowa played Arizona, not a MAC team. So that makes 6 of 8 (for 2007-2014). In 2012/2013, Iowa does only play ISU as a AQ, which is related to playing NIU at Soldier Field in 2012 as a 2-for-1.
Those two years (2012/2013) are the outliers. As far as I can tell, 2014/2015 are Pitt, which makes it 8 of 10. That is the trend. Your 7 of 12 figure is inaccurate speculation.
Supposedly Iowa has long wanted to play Nebraska, but Nebraska doesn’t want to play Iowa as they need to schedule nationally for recruiting, just as Iowa likes to play inter-regional for recruiting reasons. Iowa fans hate that the two years we got to play them in 1999/2000 were the nadir at the start of the Ferentz regime.
Iowa is a school from a small state that has long been a self-sustaining athletic program that carries a lot of sports. Football has to pay the bills. The football schedules aren’t the strongest, but they aren’t anything to be embarrassed about. We need three home games while also playing ISU every year.
Actually, the problem is probably that marquee programs don’t see much value in playing a home-and-home with Iowa because they wouldn’t be such a draw for the attendance of the other team.
For instance, OU probably would rather schedule a home-and-home with Miami than with Iowa because having Miami visit Norman would boost season ticket sales. On the other hand, Minnesota managed to schedule home-and-home series with USC & Texas (though the Texas game was later cancelled).
Yep. The 2009 info was a screw up on my part. I meant to replace the MAC with Sunbelt and replaced the AQ instead. That makes it 6 of 8 years, which is more of a trend. Having 2 of the next 4 as outliers is a bit odd. It really isn’t clear (to outsiders, at least) if they are outliers or the start of a new scheduling philosophy. They are different from most of the past, though, I freely admit.
I don’t really count any of the years after 2014 since schedules change. Pitt may want out or Iowa may want to drop them if the B10 goes to 9 conference games. Since the future schedules are basically empty, there is no way to note a trend after 2014. I mentioned the 7/10 and 7/12 (now 8/10 and 8/12) to limit your speculation. You inevitably were going to complain that I intentionally left out 2015 and 2016 when Pitt is also scheduled to “spin” the numbers, so I wanted to point out that by that logic then 2017 and 2018 also had no second AQ team (just ISU and N TX). Thus, no data after 2014 was useful.
As for playing inter-regionally, I get that. Maybe try to play USC or OR instead of AZ and ASU. There aren’t really any strong BE teams. TX and TN play out of region series. Neutral site games, which pay well, could certainly be another workable approach. The appearance is that Iowa is ducking losses by not playing top teams while the fans clamor to be treated like an elite program. You can’t have it both ways.
Well, I’ve never been one to claim Iowa is an elite program. We’re second tier, and I take that as a compliment. We’ll never be Bama/OSU/USC.
I just want things like their schedule to be accurately described, and it is not “always pretty weak”.
Yes, I noted in a previous post that marquee programs may not see value in a series that requires playing at Iowa. But, as you point out, MN managed to schedule marquee programs for home and homes. It just requires a desire to do it. They certainly could be playing neutral site games if they tried.
The IA-ISU series may go away if the B10 goes to 9 game schedule according to the IA AD, so it’s not like they have to play every year. With the B12 playing 9 games, IA and ISU couldn’t have 4 home games in the same year and still make their 7 home games (ADs don’t like alternating 6 and 8 home games).
For home-and-homes to make sense financially, usually schools can only do them with schools with similar stadium sizes or appeal. So I looked at the SEC teams that were most similar to Iowa in the SEC in both appeal and stadium size (SCarolina & Arkansas). Turns out that, other than their fixed OOC game (though you have to credit Arkansas for setting up their long term series with TAMU), they don’t challenge themselves any more either. Arkansas is playing TCU twice & SC is playing UNC once. Arkansas did play USC and Texas a total of 3 times in the past 6 years (though before they started their series with TAMU, however). SCarolina played UNC & NCSU 3 times in the past 6 years.
I looked at Auburn as well (slightly bigger stadium and slightly better appeal). They tend to play only 1 AQ conference team a year, which recently has been respectable (Clemson & WVU) but was atrocious for a few years under Tuberville (no AQ OOC teams in 2004, GTech in 2005, WSU! in 2006, and KSU in 2007).
Richard – it should be noted that South Carolina does play Clemson every year.
Nice to see some realism in Hawkeyeland. Care to export some to the rest of the internet?
But in a discussion on marquee OOC opponents, Iowa’s schedule is always pretty weak. They rarely, if ever, intentionally schedule a top team. That’s what I said and the context I said it in. It wasn’t a discussion of their whole schedule.
I happen to think their OOC schedules in total are average, which is to say pretty sad. Unfortunately but understandably, everybody has chosen money over quality games.
Iowa schedules 2 AQs a lot, but only technically. If ISU becomes decent, I’ll change my opinion, but they have consistently been one of the worst AQs historically. They are no more challenging than a solid non-AQ.
Iowa doesn’t have to play ISU, but they choose to do it. It may stop if the B10 goes to 9 games, too, since they both want 7 home games.
Home and homes don’t require like teams, though. P10 schools regularly seek out series. If USC would play UVA and MN, they’d play IA. Instead, IA chooses AZ and ASU. OU, TN and VT have played a lot of programs, too, so they would be decent prospects. And as I’ve said, neutral site games open up even more opponents.
I never said the other schools challenge themselves beyond that 1 marquee team. The difference is that a marquee opponent provides a very real chance of losing in addition to the profile boost. ISU doesn’t provide that, but ISU is being used as an excuse not to schedule someone better. Which schedule is harder – AZ and ISU or OU and Idaho? Which one will garner more respect?
Many name programs play a 1 game OOC schedule, but at least they play the 1 game. I don’t see where the rest of Iowa’s OOC schedule is really any stronger than those teams, but they play a mid-level AQ instead.
I think it was understood that SCarolina play Clemson every year (just like Iowa plays ISU every year).
Theoretically it’s possible that Iowa could drop ISU. Considering that they’re public universities in the same state, though, well, tell me again how easy it was for Texas to go anywhere without TTech? Could Georgia ever drop GTech if the Jackets start stinking it up?
This whole argument is silly. Iowa’s non-conference schedule is respectable but nothing jaw-dropping. They play a doormat, sometimes two, sometimes even three. It happens. Lots of teams do it. Who cares?
It is debatable whether or not Iowa could drop ISU. The state legislature forced the series renewal in 1977 after not playing for nearly 40 years, so a lot of people think that means they’d stick their nose in it again. But who knows. Just because the Iowa AD said they may drop them doesn’t mean it would happen.
I doubt Iowa would have much of a shot at dropping Iowa State. I know almost nothing about Iowa politics, but the legislature seems serious about that one. Heck, Iowa State and Iowa have to take turns just about every other year to play NORTHERN Iowa.
If the choice was between getting enough home games and playing a rival OOC, many big brothers would drop the rivalry down to every other year.
If the B10 goes to 9 games, there’s a 50/50 chance IA and ISU will have 4 home games in the same season. They will both want 3 OOC home games that year, so they probably would switch to playing every other year when they both have 5 home games and can afford to play on the road.
UGA and GT have had fights over where to play. MI and ND have also argued over where they play when. Rivalry games aren’t more important than balancing the books to the AD unless they are to the fans. Many/most IA fans seem fine with playing ISU less.
I think the only audience that matters in this case is the Iowa Board of Regents.
If both schools have the same complaint about playing every year, the BOR will listen to them. Playing every other year isn’t that bad.
I would guess that ISU wants to keep Iowa on the schedule. They only really sell out for Iowa and Nebraska, and now they’re losing the Nebraska game.
and considering that the ISU faction was able to force Iowa to make the hollow gesture of voting against any future B10 expansion that didn’t include ISU, it’s highly plausible they could force the series to continue indefinitely as well.
“and considering that the ISU faction was able to force Iowa to make the hollow gesture of voting against any future B10 expansion that didn’t include ISU”
What? This is news to me.
Dropping to 6 home games may not be acceptable, though. Going to 7 and 7.5 may be better financially than 6 and 8, even with getting IA only half the time. It’s an extra 0.5 home game every 2 years.
The other choice is for the schools to agree to some sort of financial agreement to even out the cash flows.
ISU will have 2 home games and 1 away OOC going forward, meaning they will alternate between 6 & 7 home games every year (http://www.fbschedules.com/ncaa/big-12/iowa-state-cyclones.php).
Obviously, that type of scheduling wouldn’t be acceptable to Iowa, but as ISU has trouble selling out their 55K stadium, they obviously don’t need to play 7 home games a year, which means an Iowa-ISU series most definitely can continue.
In any case,
1. I don’t see the B10 going to 9 conference games.
2. I seriously doubt Iowa has a choice about playing ISU given that the B10 has 8 conference games.
BTW, ISU has scheduled home-and-homes with Tulsa, Toledo, SJSU, Navy, and UNLV (they dropped Utah & Air Force).
@ greg: didn’t the IA governor order the IA head to vote down any future expansion if it didn’t include ISU? I recall reading that, but maybe I misremember, or it was just a rumor?
Obviously all of this would depend on the B10 going to 9 games to force IA to want a change. If ISU doesn’t care about switching years with IA for hosting, then a 9 game B10 schedule shouldn’t change anything unless IA really doesn’t want a 10th AQ game.
ISU may not enjoy having 10 AQs once they get a taste of it. Right now they have 5 AQ home games every year with 1 or 2 non-AQs. But if IA wants to switch years to maintain 7 home games, ISU would alternate between 4 and 6 AQ home games unless they can convince the B12 to shift their schedule. How would ticket sales be for 4 AQs (not Iowa) and 2 non-AQs?
The PTB at IA want to play this series, but circumstances could force their hand.
A couple state legislators made statements that the governor should do something, some newspaper editorials were written, and nothing happened. This link is the only thing I could find remotely related, where Governor Culver just states support for both schools. Culver happened to play D-Tackle at Virginia Tech, who was part of the dance the last time a state forced a conference’s hand.
The problem with ISU becoming the 10th AQ team on Iowa’s schedule is that means no AQ team would become #11. It’d be ISU, MAC, FCS for the rest of time. THEN you can make fun of Iowa’s schedule.
I don’t think it’s worth worrying about considering that you’d need a 9 game B10 conference slate first and Iowa having 5 home conference games the same year as ISU (instead of the B10 schedule makers being smart).
In other words, that bridge will be crossed when we get there, and frankly, I don’t see us ever getting there, so all this speculation is moot.
On the bright side, Iowa’s overall schedule would get more difficult on average (adding 1 of OSU/PSU/WI/IL/IN while dropping an AZ/ASU/CO type team).
On the dark side, that would make for a very tedious and boring OOC schedule for IA fans. Many schools may weaken their OOC schedules if they go to 9 games, though.
Just because you say it won’t happen doesn’t make it so. Enough of the ADs have talked about it as a serious possibility that I consider it a real possibility. I think they are more in the know on this subject than you are, no disrespect intended.
And why do you assume the B10 will adjust their schedule to suit ISU? Why not make the B12 adjust instead? Do you really think Delany is above playing a power game with Beebe? Maybe at that point the IA folks would hint they want the B10 to cause the conflict and give them a possible way out of the annual series.
Of course this is all pointless speculation. Isn’t that what the internet is for? It’s not like we’re claiming this is going to happen for sure.
I prefer speculation that’s not pointless. Also, the B10 doesn’t have to “adjust” as it would be changing from 8 conference games to 9. Forcing a showdown with the B12/pissing off ISU/pissing off Iowa politicos also seems pretty pointlessly idiotic. Especially since, even if you think Iowa should drop ISU or some Iowa fans might, I seriously doubt anyone with any power in Iowa (at either school) is keen about that idea. I do have to say that I’m glad Delany heads the B10 instead of someone like you.
Anyway, if a 9-game B10 conference slate comes about, I hope Iowa starts playing neutral site games (if a 6-5-1 schedule is good enough for Texas, it should be good enough for Iowa).
You’re on a blog famous for discussing conference but don’t like pointless speculation like what may happen to IA’s schedule if the B10 goes to 9 games? That make sense, because we have so much more basis for all the expansion talk.
You conveniently assume the B10 couldn’t have a valid reason for preferring IA to play 4 home games in one year versus another. There are other schools with scheduling concerns, so they might not be able to satisfy everyone. You also assume IA might not have reasons to ask for a schedule that conflicts with ISU, forcing ISU to change. I said last time that IA wants to keep the series, but they aren’t in a 9 game schedule now. They may chafe at the thought of losing regional play for home and homes.
I think Iowa should be playing some neutral site games already. Without knowing why they aren’t, it’s hard to project if their reasoning would change. The current plan seems to be to play home and homes where they recruit (Pitt, Syracuse maybe) or where their alumni retire (AZ, ASU). You’d think some neutral site games cold also fit that philosophy.
There was supposed to be an “expansion” in that first sentence.
It should say “… conference expansion …”
RE: “Big 12 doesn’t have enough quality football games” article
@Duffman and cfn_ms: I think the Big 12’s top three bowl tie-ins are secure. B12 championship teams will still have great records and their fans will still flock to Glendale. The Cotton’s history with the Texas schools make that tie-in secure. The Alamo tie-in is pretty safe, too. That bowl simply lacks better options than Big 12 #3: The Big Ten’s top five teams already go to higher-paying bowl games; same for the SEC’s top six.
The Insight (B12 #4 vs. B10 #4 or #5) seems bound for a change. The Big 12 team is probably going to be teams around 7-5, and they’re more likely, mathematically, to be 6-6 than 8-4. The Insight also is going to see more teams like K-State or Texas Tech than OU or Texas. Come next round of bowl negotiations, I expect the B10 tie-in to stay and for the B12 to be dropped in favor of the P12.
If the tie-in to the Insight (B12 #5 vs. P12 #3) is dropped, then the Holiday tie-in would probably stay. All of the SEC and Big Ten tie-ins, except at the very bottom, pay better than the Holiday. The ACC and Big East would have too far to travel and probably wouldn’t bring better TV ratings.
The B12 probably will be able to land two more bowl tie-ins, but they will be on the low end of the pay scale.
(By the way, the Big 12’s Gator/Sun tie-in, which was shared with the Big East, now belongs to others. Gator is now Big Ten vs. SEC, and Sun Bowl is ACC vs. Pac-12.)
Bowl tie-ins are the least of the Big XII’s worries. Berry’s article about the television inventory or lack thereof and the potential implications of that on future tv negotiations are of much higher concern.
Go week by week and look at the Big XII schedule this year against the Big Ten schedule for the same weekend (I fully realize the Big XII schedule may change significantly as they are trying to fit games in still). The Big XII’s biggest regular season game The Red River Rivarly is going to be overshadowed by Ohio State at Nebraska for the first Big Ten game in Lincoln. For a solid 8 or 9 weeks out of 13 the Big Ten has better match-ups and greater depth.
I was just looking at the B10 schedule and how strong it was most weeks except #1 and 4. It’s great to see at least 5 conference games every week in Oct and Nov and only 1 OOC game each month. There’s plenty of content for all the networks to share.
The bonus for the B12 is that the RRR is an afternoon game and OSU/NE will presumably be at night, so the B12 will share the spotlight.
9/3 – MN/USC, NW/BC
9/10 – PSU/AL, MI/ND (first Big House night game), WI/OrSU, IA/ISU, IN/UVA
9/17 – OSU/Miami, NE/UW, MSU/ND, IL/ASU, IA/Pitt
9/24 – OSU/CO, MI/SDSU (Hoke Trophy)
10/1 – NE/WI, OSU/MSU, PU/ND, MI/MN
10/8 – OSU/NE, PSU/IA
10/15 – MI/MSU, OSU/IL, IA/NW
10/22 – WI/MSU, NE/MN
10/29 – OSU/WI, NE/MSU, IA/MN
11/5 – MI/IA
11/12 – NE/PSU, WI/MN, IA/MSU
11/19 – OSU/PSU, NE/MI
11/26 – OSU/MI, NE/IA, PSU/WI, IN/PU
I’m not ready to put B12 expansion completely out of the realm of possibility just yet.
Now, the league shouldn’t expand just for expansion’s sake or for the possibility of making only marginally more money. It certainly shouldn’t add teams that neither command much market penetration nor draw strong ratings nationally. In effect USF, UCF, New Mexico, Colorado State, Louisville, and Memphis are the kinds of programs that aren’t much worth considering. Teams that the Big 12 can’t get, like Arkansas and Notre Dame, aren’t worth considering, either.
Something that is worth doing is monitoring the television ratings for now-independent BYU. BYU has great market penetration in a decent-sized city, but everyone already knows that. Playing against “big boy” level competition on the same “big boy” channel (ESPN) as Texas, OU, etc., BYU be able to prove just how much of a national brand it really is.
In all likelihood, BYU’s TV ratings will be solid but not so strong that it could spike the income for 10 schools. But what if BYU TV ratings exceed all expectations? Would Texas, A&M, OU and friends not add them? Of course they would. The more important question is: How strong would the TV ratings have to be for the Big 12 to invite them?
For TCU to get invited, the ratings would have to be even stronger than BYU’s. That school, too, will start appearing on ESPN against watchable competition, but it offers zero new market penetration. Plus, if BYU was invited first and increased the Big 12’s per-team TV income average significantly, TCU would have to raise it all the more.
I think those two schools are the only ones with a realistic chance of getting invited to the Big 12 eventually. Without a reasonable TV platform and comparable competition, it’s been an unknown whether or not they could improve value. Every other candidate (Big East schools especially) have already had that platform and evidently aren’t deemed capable of improving the Big 12.
I think you also have to track the B12’s TV ratings. The reduced number of marquee games may hurt them. If the ratings drop enough, the TV offers will drop in value too.
In your scenario of BYU adding value, the real question is if the B12 wants a CCG back. If not, it’s hard to imagine BYU adding enough to be worth the hassles that come with 11 teams. If they do want the CCG back, TCU can add value that way in addition to providing more marquee games. If they stay elite for a few years in the BE, at some point they become a name program that will be desirable for the B12.
Unless the Big XII gets into a situation where the lack of inventory with 10 teams has devalued the contract greatly I still don’t think it makes financial sense for the conference to expand. This is and always has been a league held together by money. Any addition has to increase the value for the entire league. There are teams out there that could that for the Big XII, but none of them are realistic targets.
Side note on B1G basketball.
OSU vs PU men’s was a snoozer, but OSU vs PU women’s has been a barn burner!
will not spoil the winner (but the winning shot was at the 7/10ths of a second left on the clock!).
In all this realignment talk, is the possible lockout at the pro level a way to skew numbers? Is a “storm” brewing in a finite vs infinite world?
I am an old guy who used to follow pro football more, but as I get older I find myself following college sports more. Be it cost, ease of travel, length of gmae, or live fan experience. The cost and advertising interruption has affected my viewing and spending habits. Lets say I am not alone, and that this is a growing trend among the baby boomer generation?
a) the baby boomers have a definite economic impact
b) the baby boomers have a limited lifespan
I guess my basic issue are we about to have a money buildup followed by a spectacular crash as the folks who drive the wave die off? When I go to games I see fewer young people who will be tomorrows live fans and big donors.
Duffman, I think you are touching on something that I’ve been thinking about. The backfill for the Baby Boomer generation will mostly be immigrants from places other than the United States. Montgomery Co. Maryland in suburban DC has trended from being over 80% Anglo twenty years ago to a 50/50 split in this last census. This will have a lasting effect on the ways discretionary income is spent in the future.
I find it interesting that that the places with the least rabid fanbases in college sports are also the places that are being impacted the most by outside immigration- California, Miami, the Notheast….In contrast, the places least impacted by outside immigration, the Southeast, Midwest, Middle America are the most rabid…
I don’t want the discussion to stray into the politics of immigration, but i am sometimes left thinking if maybe the culture behind sports is changing in this country and we are at a “peak” period at this time….
I think you guys are overestimating the total impact of the baby boomers. Although the baby boom was the biggest population increase by percentage of total population, the population is always increasing meaning the younger generations have more total population. The largest segments of the population are aged 35-45 followed by 5-15. Actually the 5-20 age group is larger than the baby boomers. I’ll try to link a graph:
The one statitstic that does not show up on Wik about the boomers….
They are the last american generation in the entire history of america to be better off than their parents. My guess is the death tax will not go away, and that is how the govt will pay off some of the crushing debt, but it will be too little – too late. While I will probably be dead and buried when it happens, I do not feel well for the kids and grandkids of today that their america will have the opportuniy we had. Much less the same ammount of “real” wealth (a single man could work a single job and make enough to support a wife, 4 kids, pets, school, house, ect.). Ponder that happening anywhere in the future of the USA.
That’s nonsense (if you’re speaking of an absolute level), unless you expect productivity & economic growth to start going negative or the US following the national suicide path Japan chose (low birthrate, no immigration, protected jobs & benefits for the elderly, & no/little permanent employment opportunities for the young…oh, and what is really a crushing debt with national debt at 200% of GDP).
BTW, as much as I like to tax rich dead people, even raising the estate tax to 100% (and somehow keeping capital from fleeing this country) wouldn’t garner that much for the government.
However, the national debt is far from onerous at 59% of GDP. That’s nothing that any of 3-4% productivity/economic growth (which means young people, which means either immigration or higher birthrates or both), inflation, or reining in healthcare costs (yes, your generation may not like “death panels”, but cutting Medicare to bare bones is a very easy way to rein in our runaway non-discretionary spending–well easy that is, unless the elderly vote to preserve their entitlements at the expense of the young, which is what the Japanese elderly are doing).
peaks, like peak oil, are never noticed as peaks at the time, except by the few who venture the long term opinion. see also Hubbert Peak Theory. Just secondhand I am seeing a fundamental switch in loyalty and donor dollar choices between my generation, and the one below me.
@dchorn – I think this theory has some validity, although I’d expand it beyond immigrants and look at the number of intra-US transplants, too. When looking at Northeast and Midwestern markets, you have a very strong outflow of people to other areas of the country, especially the Sun Belt. Thus, the people that stay in the North form a core support base of their Northern-based teams (both college and pro) while the Sun Belt cities get a large influx of people whose sports loyalties lie elsewhere, making them less “passionate” sports markets overall at least with respect to their local teams. You’ll find tons of Badgers and Packers fans in Arizona, but virtually no Pac-10 and Suns fans in Wisconsin.
While I think all of that holds true in a lot of instances, why doesn’t it really apply to Texas? That state has had the largest influx of both American transplants and immigrants over the past 2 decades, yet that hasn’t diluted any support for UT, A&M or the Cowboys. Places like Atlanta and Charlotte also have tons of transplants and immigrants and while they have weak pro sports support compared to the North, they are also the centers of the SEC and ACC fan bases, respectively.
It would be interesting to compare certain boomtowns like Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Charlotte, Orlando and Phoenix. Why hasn’t enthusiasm for sports teams in Texas really been diluted with all of the new residents? On the flip side, why does seemingly everyone living in Phoenix cling hard to the Midwestern towns that they’re from? Why are Northern transplants blamed for weak support for pro teams in Atlanta, Charlotte and the Florida cities, yet they’re able to maintain great college sports support?
I have my own theories, but I’d love to see what others think.
Because Texas kicks @$$, that’s why.
History & tradition, I would guess. College basketball in NC and football at all levels in Texas have a a lot of tradition/passion in those places and long have been considered amongst the best in the nation in those sports. On the other hand, no sports team in Phoenix has any tradition. I think that’s key for 1.5/2nd generation transplants. If a kids’ parents move to Texas, NC, or Canada, they will most likely adopt a local football, college basketball, or hockey team (respectively) in those places, giving up their dad’s allegiances. On the other hand, when a Red Sox or Cornhusker family moves to California, the kids may very well stay Red Sox or Cornhusker fans, because the passion their family have for the old team surpasses the passion their peers have for the local team.
Richard – case in point. My parents were from Maryland. For better or worse (or much worse in the case of the last 13 years) I’m an Oriole fan. My son and daughter are Oriole fans too. Its easy since Louisiana doesn’t have a MLB team of its own. If we lived in Dallas, Houston, or Atlanta, I’d still be an Oriole fan, but I don’t know if my kids would be so loyal. I see it with kids living in Baton Rouge whose parents went to a college other than LSU. Parents love the (insert mascot name), but the kids get caught up in the local flavor and are Tiger fans.
Those parents need to ingrain love of their alma mater to their kids!
I grew up in Greenville, SC, 45 minutes from Clemson and 100 miles from S. Carolina. But there way nooooo way I ever would have been a Tigers or Gamecocks fan! My mom, dad, aunt, and two cousins went to Florida State. I didn’t even go there, but I’ll be making sure my kids are FSU fans.
Kids really split into two camps. One group buys into the family line and roots for the same teams as Dad no matter what. The other wants to be unique and hops on a convenient bandwagon.
Successful teams usually do better at keeping fans, but other than that I’m not sure what the factors are. It may be genetic for all I know. Rooting for a bad team when a winning team is local is hard to pass down, but some fans do.
I think the children of immigrants generally become fans of the sports and teams their community has. Not all, of course, but at roughly the same rate as the rest of us. I’m guessing the more a local community supports a team, the more likely the kids who grow up there will adopt the allegiance.
From what I understand, the Dallas Cowboys are one of the top 2-3 NFL teams in Mexico (Steelers being another…they NFL first got attention there in the 70s), so the Cowboys have an advantage with some immigrants!
Georgia is slow to change, so they still love college sports. Also, the Falcons and Hawks have not been consistently good. The Falcons actually are rarely good. Thrashers have had ownership troubles on top of being out of hockey country. Also the ties run deep for the college programs in the SEC, like the Cubs, White Sox and Reds. Those allegiances don’t fade as quickly as others.
In Texas, UT has a huge alumni base. Its been at 50,000 students since the early 80s. Austin has grown dramatically (1.2 million in 2000 and around 1.7 million now) and UT is much more Austin’s “pro” team than they used to be. With the growth of the high tech industry, a lot more well paid Longhorns stay in Austin (not just those who work for the state). And of course, they’ve been winning.
A&M just has very strong ties to their alumni. Its weakening as it grows and changes, but it used to be almost a cult. And they have a huge alumni base with 45,000 students.
The Cowboys are America’s team, so of course they have great support! Dallas gets a lot of transplants from rural Texas who are already Cowboy fans in addition to the out-of-staters. Despite the growth of Texas, nearly half the counties lost population from 2000-2010.
Houston has more of the issues you described, but they love football. The people who didn’t go to college are less mobile and really embraced the Oilers and now the Texans. The people who went to college but later or to a non-football school also tend to really embrace the Houston pro football teams. And there are a lot of Longhorns and Aggies who come back to the Houston area and embrace the pros. Thats plenty of people even with all the out-of-staters and foreigners.
The primary market for sports (and most entertainment) has always been the young (30 and under) and the old (maybe 55+). Baby boomers reaching the age where they have money and more free time is definitely a plus for sports in general and college football in particular, but football remains popular across a wide spectrum.
The sports at demographic risk are golf (much more dependent on the AARP set) baseball, which doesn’t have much appeal to younger viewers and players (though it does have a greater popularity among immigrants), and college basketball, which for reasons I can’t quite explain has become disproportionately supported by the older generation.
Longer term, I think college sports has a very bright future based on the constant increase in college education. 40 years ago, only 10% of the US population was a college graduate. Today it’s about 30%. In other words, for every blue-haired 60 year old booster buying practice facilities today, there will potentially be 3 of them 40 years from now.
I would guess MBB is suffering because only the older generations remember the days of NBA level players as seniors in college and the regular season being important. MBB used to be bigger as a sport, but March Madness has killed the regular season for most fans. TV growth really helped CFB and the NFL explode, and that dominates most of the MBB season.
The FBS colleges, however, are going to be a much lower % of college graduates. The commuter schools and community colleges are getting larger %s of the new students.
And distance learning and the internet will become a bigger player. 40 years from now college will be very different than today. And computers haven’t really yet drastically changed education. 30 years ago when I went I used keypunch machines (90% of you will probably have to look that up) and bought boxes of 400 computer cards. Erasable bond was a wonderful new invention (most of you will have to look that up too).
I think its pretty hard to project what college sports (or for that matter much of anything) will look like 40 years out.
I am an old fart, so I remember paper media and vaccum tubes. I remember a box full of IBM punch cards just to run a simple blackjack program! 😉
West coast Frank fan here, first time poster, medium time reader,
I agree with most of your points except one. I think Comcast is probably the leading contender for the PAC-10 rights and the PAC-10 Network. While Fox is making a big splash with the money they are throwing at the league championship, Comcast is a much better fit.
I don’t think Comcast will allow Ebersol to throw money at the Olympics since unlike GE’s China interests, they have little appetite for losing money. However, Comcast does want to compete with ESPN and regional networks. Comcast realizes that 80% of NBC’s profit were from NBC’s cable networks, thus adding a PAC-10 network to the portfolio makes more business sense. Granted, the PAC-10 network will not make as much money as the BIG-10 network, but would still be profitable.
One thing about the west coast, they love their basketball and the PAC-10 network would carry plenty of games. Moreover, the league is crazy about their Olympic sports and desperate to showcase them. There is probably little money in those sports, but they do have the cachet of ranking high in their sports. It’s one of the reasons Scott reserved all the rights for the league: they want the best games on the PAC-10 network. The PAC-10 network will have plenty going for it and a reasonable chance of success. If the Big-10 gets $6M for their network, the PAC-10 could get $4-5M for their rights. Plus, Comcast is already located in 8 of the PAC-10’s market.
$13-15M for broadcast rights for NBC, USA and NBC Sports (Versus), plus $4-5M for the Pac-10 network, $17-19 total. I think that is very do-able for Comcast and fills the financial and exposure needs of the Pac-10.
The one wildcard would be Time Warner. As a Laker fan, I could not believe they are throwing that kind of money at one team. Plus, you can’t have a regional network with only one team. Maybe you could, as a Dodger fan, whose rights expire at Fox in 2013, I could only hope they get a similar deal, but until then I worry Time Warner will throw out a ridiculous money to USC and UCLA to go independent. Say $30M a piece. As a Bruin fan, I know SC only cares about football and would probably go for the cash in a heartbeat (that’s just my bias, they’d think for a minute, say F the Pac-10, and hum Fight On [by far the most obnoxious song every written]). The Bruins, on the other hand, like the Bears, have serious budget problems and could talk themselves into the deal. If that happens, that would be a very sad day.
thanks for the west coast backstory, as we do not have a huge PAC group on here to give us a better view from right where it is going on. Interesting about TW, because right after IMG sold tu to ESPN, it was my understanding that ESPN spun off 20% – 40% to TW. UCLA is an IMG school (look at the new map now that they have added ISP, can you say monopoly)http://www.imgcollege.com/about-us/imgc-about-us.html
not to be totally tinfoil, but back when it happened I thought the NBC / China / Olympics was a partial sweetner to unload their appliance division! Then the economy crashed, and China backed out of the appliance deal. I had some friends who were tied to the big plant in Louisville, and they were 100% sure the plant was closing, and the jobs were moving to China the summer just before the Olympics.
Interesting. Amongst the AQ conferences, the B10 and B12 seem to have the most holdouts to joining the Borg.
I think it is just that learfield was there first with them. To be fair, most of the SEC and ACC teams were ISP and became IMG after being bought out. However, after this UT TV deal, the Borg may have scored a major win for future assimilation!
Those are really interesting points. One thing wrt Comcast/NBC I think would/should make the league hesitate is the fact that the mtn. (their other league network property) is widely considered to be a titanic mess. I think that if the $$$ were close to even, the league would probably prefer not to take that chance. That said, given the fact that Comcast is located in a number of the league’s markets, maybe they throw together a crazy-good deal for the league.
I’d also be skeptical that the league would get a materially worse deal for the network than the BTN IF they’re actually going to put a lot of premium content on it. Pac-12 leftover content = B10 leftover content.
And if not, then your comment about TW throwing crazy $$$ at USC/UCLA to go independent might become more relevant. As FTT noted above, the logistics / politics of the move would make it difficult for UCLA to come along… but for enough money, who knows? At the least, it’s plausible that there’s enough money floating around to make it feasible to make an “acceptable” offer to Cal, whatever that might be (also independent, w/ a share of the TV revenue? something else? not sure)
The Mtn does worry me. I chalk it up that no matter how much money you put into it, you’ll never get a return. MWC teams are in small cities and states and the teams in the bigger states and cities never were #1 in the hearts of fans.
Scott has been making noise about putting better games on the PAC-10 It’s probably just smoke. At this moment exposure on national networks is probably more important than the PAC-10 network. It’s been so lousy for so long.
That would be interesting for Time Warner to include Cal. Even without Cal, California is going through such tough times, I can’t see how regents will be able to deny UCLA if the university argues that Time Warner money is the only way to save 4 or 5 sports.
I have been wondering why Time Warner and Comcast don’t collude more. The don’t compete with each other, yet they don’t seem to engineer better deals for themselves. It’s probably illegal. If not, I think there is a deal here between the Laker channel and PAC-10 Network. If the Lakers could find a way to lift blackout rules by getting approval from the Kings, Warrior in the Bay area, Time Warner and Comcast could make a deal about placing both channels on the basic tiers in both markets. That’s just a pipe dream, though. The Kings and Warrior get nothing out of it, unless you cut them in on some of the sub and ad money. But, NBA teams are complaining about losing money, so who knows about the Warriors and Kings. Perhaps they come cheap now days.
Aren’t the Kings owners looking to move to Anaheim?
More than a rumor apparently. That would stink, though, Kings fans are some of the best in the NBA. I, as a Lakers fan, even feel they were jobbed in 2002. 2002 was an epic series. They lost because of a miracle shot and some atrocious referring.
It seems hard to believe the NBA would think 3 LA teams are a good idea. What happens if the NFL ever comes back?
@Brian – I don’t personally think that it’s a good idea, but on paper, Orange County alone can provide more than enough support for an NBA team. Although Anaheim is part of the LA TV market, it’s still 60 miles away from downtown LA and culturally considers itself to be a distinct region. The issue that I see is more of the power of the Lakers as the equivalent of the Yankees and Cowboys of the NBA. The Clippers have a difficult enough time attracting attention – it took a ridiculous athletic phenom like Blake Griffin that dunks over cars to get anyone to notice.
If I were running the NBA and knowing the reality that top shelf arenas are a requirement (which nixes Seattle and Las Vegas), I’d really push for Kansas City with the Sprint Center.
I have heard San Jose is high on the list.
@Frank – I read somewhere, probably an off-the-cuff remark, that SoCal could support 3 pro football teams, so 3 pro basketball teams would not be a stretch. I live here, so I don’t think about it so much, but southern California is huge and crowded. It’s basically vast stretches of suburbia from Santa Barbra to San Diego and Long Beach to Riverside. If you add L.A. county, Orange County, Ventura County and San Bernadino County, the population is well over 15M and within a two hour drive of each other on a traffic-free day (kind of rare, but so blissful when it happens).
What kills this market is a point you and others have made…intensity. Half the population immigrated here with their old team connections from other US cities or even non-US cities. Moreover, native Angelinos have a limit to their fandom. Los Angeles has many problems, huge problems. Yet, this city and region has so much to offer other than sports. And the weather is spectacular.
We don’t care if you (Rams) leave. No, we’re not going to build you a stadium (Raiders). When the Rams left, I was heart-broken, but when I looked around, nobody cared that much and went back to tanning. It drives me crazy. The Dodgers draw 2.5-3M every year, good or bad because everybody goes 4-5 times during the summer as a social event. I swear, when the Cubbies roll in, 10% of the crowd looks like Butkis (it never gets old to shout, “Sit down, Bartman).
Just from sheer numbers of casual fans, L.A can support multiple teams. Heck, we support two pro hockey teams without any problems.
Hey guys……BIG 10 Icons…..Magic ahead of Jesse Owens???? That rates a big WTF in my book…..
Magic—1 NCAA championship in 2 years.
Jesse Owesn–4 world records in 1 hour at the ’35 BT meet…….4 NCAA titles in both ’35 and ’36.
Magic isn’t even the most accomplished BTB player….that was easily Jerry Lucas. I’d put Magic behind Cazzie and John Wooden, who was a 3 yr CAA.
And, possibly, Rick Mount.
It’s too bad the producers screwed up the ratings, because the shows have been pretty darn good……….
while I agree 100%, it depends on how they are targeting the list. Like the top 100 movies, it amazing how many were made in the past 10 – 20 years. I am an old guy so I have seen many of the older movies, and my view of history is probably broader. The problem is the folks who make these lists probably have an average age of around 30.
The voters at the BTN were in their 20s and 30s and some in their 40s, so yes they lack perspective.
Well, Magic and Bird did create March Madness. But kicking Nazi ass ought to rank ahead of winning a tournament. Don’t know the rules, but it looked like they were only considering the college years.
#1 has to be Red Grange…Galloping Ghost. He’s only the Babe Ruth of college football. The Ghost also popularized pro football. I don’t know any other Big-10 player immortalized by Grantland Rice:
Could the Big-10 actually forget a ‘legend?’
Having trouble with the HTML tags.
Grange will be #1. It’s a shame he is more famous for what was written about him than what he actually did in college. Unfortunately, most people never got to see him play so he’s evaluated on one great game and legends written by now dead sports writers. Really hard to evaluate where he belongs when you can’t see the tape yourself.
I think ed hightower should have got number 1
I heard some talk on the radio today about WAC expansion. It was not clear what exactly prompted it since no news is available, at least officially.
Supposedly they are looking at adding 3 non-FB schools (Cal State Bakersfield, Utah Valley, Seattle) and Lamar. The three non-FB schools are all independents while Lamar is in the Southland and will need to move up to FBS. That would get the WAC to 8 FB schools (minimum to be considered a FBS conference) and 12 total.
The WAC said in January that they were assessing those 3 non-FB schools and additions could be announced by April 1.
april fool prank????
Any schools they add will certainly sound like April Fools jokes. From their POV, though, what else can they do? They’ll build back their numbers and hope the TX schools grow to become WAC powers.
At this point the “New WAC” (w/o Boise, Fresno, Nevada, Hawaii) has become Sun Belt West (just like the MAC is Sun Belt North). Other than maybe to relieve boredom, does anyone even care what they’re doing? If every single athletic dept folded I don’t think I’d consider it especially noteworthy.
If you like playoffs, continously adding schools to FBS makes it more difficult.
If you like the status quo, continously adding schools to FBS might make it more likely for the AQ schools to bolt or force realignment of the NCAA.
Directly, they don’t impact much, but indirectly they can have an impact. Seems like whenever the top division gets around 110 schools, they try to realign (early 70s, early 80s). They did pass the 15,000 attendance leglislation a few years back, but that doesn’t seem to be limiting anyone from moving or staying up.
Well, it would leave a lot of holes in schedules if they all went away. It would be great for the MWC and CUSA teams as there would be a huge demand for them as OOC opponents for the AQs. The payouts would go way up. At some point it might force the AQs to just play each other OOC.
The WAC shows a lot of parallels to the Southern Conference. Both have had a continuous existence, never losing all of their then-current members at any one given time. Both have had members who have moved on to multiple other, stronger conferences. Both have spawned off at least one new conference, in part as a result of being too large. Both have progressively grown weaker and weaker over time but somehow managed to continue in existence.
SoCon: Parent conference of both the SEC and ACC. All current SEC members except Arkansas were once in the SoCon. All current ACC members except Miami, FSU, and Boston College were once in the SoCon. Big East member West Virginia was in the SoCon. C-USA members Tulane, ECU, and Marshall were in the SoCon, as were several FCS, D-1 non-football, and D-III schools. Today the league has 12 members. The only constant has been a presence in the states of North and South Carolina. Total membership in its history: 46 schools.
WAC: Parent conference of the Mountain West. All current MWC members were once in the WAC. Pac-12 members Arizona, Arizona State, and Utah; WCC member BYU; soon-to-be Big East member TCU; and C-USA members UTEP, Rice, SMU, and Tulsa were all in the WAC at one time or another. No state has had constant representation. The only constant has been a presence in the Mountain Time Zone. Total membership in its history (including confirmed new members): 27 schools.
It’s amazing that when TCU officially begins being a Big East member over the course of history they will have shared conferences with both Hawaii and UConn.
They may well join a FL school soon, too. If they start a hockey team they could also be in a conference with Alaska.
Well, they will when they join the BE (USF).
Alaska seems a bit unlikely but they will be in the same conference as a school from Idaho (Boise) next year.
NBC’s Golf Broadcasts To Have Golf Channel Look, Feel Beginning This Weekend.
Looks like the re-branding of NBC sports is beginning. Is college football next with Big East and ND?
It’s a pretty obvious tie-in to build the Golf Channel brand. Many golf fans may not realize what they are missing until they look into what the GC offers them.
It makes sense to unify their real sports coverage into one brand and do more cross-promotion. Then they can push coverage to cable networks without losing as many viewers. Their hockey coverage is being treated similarly to golf with NBC and Versus blending. I’d expect Versus and ND football coverage to look the same going forward, too, but probably with different talent.
One interesting question is if NBC tries to buy the Olympics again. The winter games are in Russia, so the time difference will hurt. The summer game are in Brazil, though, so the U.S. networks should be drooling over the chance for lots of live coverage.
@Brian – It all makes sense to me for Comcast/NBC to do cross-promoting with The Golf Channel just like “ESPN on ABC”. I’d anticipate that the NBC Sports stand-alone division will eventually disappear like ABC Sports did and there will be an entity that combines all of the cable and over-the-air sports properties.
Whether NBC goes after the Olympics again will be an interesting display of how much Comcast is going to be willing to pay for sports in general. As I noted in the blog post, NBC took a bath on the Vancouver Winter Olympics even though the time zone was a complete non-factor for US TV. NBC Sports chief Dick Ebersol looked at the Olympics as a labor of love as well as an important branding vehicle for the network (i.e. use of the Olympic rings in the logo). However, they’ve ultimately been overpaying for the games and the last thing that Comcast needs is to have NBC lose any more money. With NBC also losing money on Sunday Night Football (even with the NFL’s massive ratings), I wonder if NBC is making money on ANY sports programming at all.
I think the Olympics bring a lot of intangible value that isn’t apparent on a balance sheet, though. How much free promotion do they get with the Games? Every time the Olympics are mentioned, people think of NBC too. It may also influence advertising for months or years. I don’t think it is as cut and dried as losses on paper.
Yeah, the Olympics are pretty much the only time I watch NBC (apart from “Community,” of course), so it may be worth keeping. Although with all of these loss leaders, I have to wonder what shows on NBC are actually making money. The Today Show, maybe?
@Frank – but ESPN was a huge brand with established personalities and programs when they merged the sports programming; what brand would replace NBC Sports? Versus? Comcast? I think this one may go the other way, as I seem to recall reading that Versus would be the one getting rebranded. But yeah, putting it all under one banner makes sense, and this will certainly be great exposure for the Golf Channel. Golf Channel. Man, it still gets me that people watch golf on TV.
@Jake – True – the branding for Versus would likely be related to NBC instead of the other way around. I was thinking more along the lines the the NBC Sports department would really cease to exist and become some type of organization that runs all of the cable sports properties plus the over-the-air NBC sports programming under one umbrella just like ESPN directs all ABC sports programs now.
Personally, I enjoy flipping on golf. It’s really nice to have on in the background during a Sunday afternoon nap. Of course, that makes me sound like I’m 80.
Urban Dictionary knows what I’m talking about:
“Golf nap”- that’s a good one, Frank.
Nice to see Doug Williams back in college football at Grambling. He went 52-18 at Grambling the first time before leaving for the pros as an administrator.
Pingback: Big XII TV Negotiations - Page 4 - CycloneFanatic
A random thought bouncing in my head:
Earlier in this blog I think it was UT breaking off a future game with a B1G team because of who would own the broadcast rights. With all the lawyers on here can I get a clarification?
If the BTN and PTN wind up this way, will there be a line in the sand with the BTN and PTN on one side, and everybody else on the other? Can this have a major impact on regular season OOC scheduling?
Texas & Minnesota.
I can’t say I understand it, unless Texas wanted to own the broadcast rights for the Minnesota home game or something beyond the norm like that. Pretty much always, the home owns broadcast rights.
Or maybe Texas wanted replay rights?
I was thinking the replay rights, and wondered if we came to a conclusion on this issue.
@Richard – The “official” reason given was a dispute over replay rights. The real reason likely has more to do with Notre Dame taking Minnesota’s place on the schedule a couple of days after the Gopher series was canceled. ND/NBC wouldn’t be providing replay rights to UT for the games in South Bend, either, so that reason was ultimately bogus.
“…will there be a line in the sand with the BTN and PTN on one side, and everybody else on the other?”
Those two now have 24 BCS schools. With a bit more expansion by B1G and Pac12 thay would be nearly 50% of the BCS. That would seem to have potential impact/leverage.
College Baseball Update. Michigan and Notre Dame will travel to Baton Rouge in 2012 to play LSU in a three round-robin tournament.
As a follow up to the discussion about the B12 lacking enough big games to fill their TV slots, it’s now clear that they will extend the season for a week, too. OU sources say that the B12 is planning to move OU/OkSU and TX/TAMU to CCG weekend to keep the B12 in the national spotlight. We already knew OU/OkSU was moving and that TX said they would be willing to move if TV needed them to move, but TX/TAMU actually being moved is news.
1. It’s not as good as a CCG, but the odds are pretty good the champ will be playing in one of those games, most likely with the title on the line. Those 4 schools always provided the B12 South representative, and won 11 of the 15 B12 CCG. Three CCG wins and 7 losses left the league (NE 2-4, CO 1-3), leaving KSU’s upset of OU as the only available winner not involved (KSU 1-2, MO 0-2). That means ESPN will pay attention, especially since they don’t have the B10 or P12 CCG to air. I’m sure ESPN’s coverage will perfectly align with the national interest and rankings of the combined teams playing as opposed to their business interests.
2. They are messing with tradition moving these two games from Thanksgiving. It appears TX and TAMU don’t want to move but are willing. Does that put ESPN in a bind with their desire to have good games to air that weekend versus not pissing off their newly bought friend?
3. OU says they would still like to play a game on Thanksgiving while TX and TAMU would have a bye. Would OkSU also play on T-day, or try to get an advantage by having an extra week to prepare? MO/KS is also T-day, so that doesn’t leave many choices for OU to play: Baylor, TT, ISU and KSU. Maybe an OOC game instead?
4. They are basically trading national coverage T-day weekend for CCG weekend. They’re going to lose a lot of eyeballs over the holiday weekend unless OU and OkSU play solid OOC games, which is unlikely. I see how ESPN benefits from having programming to battle the CCGs, but the loss over T-day weekend is substantial. Is Fox supporting this too, or do they not matter?
5. Moving these two games to the final weekend could really stretch their depleted number of marquee games. They seem to be just giving up on T-day weekend, so that helps for the other weeks if the networks don’t mind. If the networks try to also get another good game that weekend, I’m not sure where it would come from unless OU plays a good OOC opponent (BYU, TCU, ND, BSU, etc).
I expect to see two B10 games replace the two B12 games that had been standard fare on ABC the Friday after Thanksgiving. Specifically, Nebraska-Iowa and PSU-Wisconsin.
Certainly moving at least one makes sense for ESPN. They may want the second one for Saturday to follow OSU/MI, though. It depends what else they have available.
C’mon, you don’t think Illinois-Minnesota would be scintillating enough? No worries, there’s always MSU-NU.
MSU/NW is clearly the best in terms of expected team success, but there’s no storyline. They do have IU/PU, which might be ESPN2 fodder as a battle for bowl eligibility.
I’m a state man and nw has been one of the better games on the schedule for the past 5 years or so. Tend to be exciting for some reason.
Agreed about MSU/NWU being great games recently. They always seem to be a 41-38 affair.
There has been a lot of speculation about moving the Iowa-Nebraska game, particularly since NE has historically played on that Friday. Originally against Oklahoma and lately against Colorado (if I’m not screwing up my Nebraska history). But it has been announced that it will remain on Saturday for at least the first two years. I have heard rumors that Iowa disliked the idea.
I love the politically correct statement about the strong last week of games with the Big Ten exec mentioning OSU-Michigan, PSU-Wisky, Iowa-Nebraska… and Purdue-Indiana.
IU/PU is a decent rivalry although both teams are rarely strong. It’s the best IU game of the year and fairly important to PU.
It’s no match for OSU/MI, NE/IA and PSU/WI, but it has a better storyline than MSU/NW or IL/MN.
I’m pretty certain ratings tend to correlate with success more than storyline. Would like to see a study if anyone’s done one on that.
I’d guess you are right, although I don’t think a neutral fan would watch either game unless desperate. None of the schools are ratings magnets, but both NW and IU are poison for ratings.
Maybe in the B10 footprint the rivalry would do better than expected (NW is never a strong draw, which helps). Nationally, you could probably count by hand the number of TVs watching either game.
In general, ratings for games between schools from different states do better than ratings for games of schools from the same state, all else being equal (including the size of the state).
Also, get with the times, Brian; more people watch NU football than attendance numbers would indicate (http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2010/01/northwestern-a-hit-with-tv-viewers.html). This, of course, makes sense if you remember that NU has a national (not regional) fanbase.
TV execs evidently think so as well, as
1. Northwestern-Minnesota was selected to be shown on ESPN over Michigan-Indiana (which went on ESPNU)
2. MSU-NU was chosen for ESPN over both PSU-Minnesota (ESPNU) and PU-tOSU (BTN after tOSU had already made their one required showing on the BTN that year)
3. Iowa-NU was chosen for ESPN over Wisconsin-IU (ESPN2) & Michigan-PU (BTN) (& Minnesota-Iowa)
NU-Wisconsin was also chosen (for ABC) over MSU-PSU, but I won’t use that as an example.
Northwestern actually had as many conference games shown on the BTN as tOSU & Wisconsin (twice each) and fewer times than league-winning MSU (3 times).
BTW, Illinois was on the BTN 4 times in 2010.
Did you find some data to support your statement about in-state versus inter-state game ratings? It makes sense, since the fan bases would be separate, but making sense isn’t proof. I think it would take a lot of ratings data to properly isolate this one variable from all the others.
I’m willing to believe NW does better on TV than live (it’d be hard to do worse), but Greenstein doesn’t really provide much evidence. The 2010 Outback set a network bowl record for Chicago, but not all bowls are on that network. I’m guessing the ’97 Rose Bowl probably did a little better, for example. The shifting of the bowl schedule also makes comparisons hard. Accounting for it being a high scoring shootout is important, too.
Beyond that, he claims strong ratings during the season but doesn’t provide any numbers. He only discusses the ’09 season, and one year isn’t enough data to show NW is a TV draw.
I found some out of date numbers on teams as TV draws. NW didn’t have enough games to make their list, though (I’m working on some more data, so I might add something later). I’m including a link below because I found the results interesting despite not being relevant here. The top 2 schools will surprise most people. Of 30 schools, only 10 boosted ratings. The problem is they only looked at bowls and that doesn’t provide enough data to correct for everything (opponent, TV competition, weather, time, network, score, expectations, etc). My data will also face the same problem, though. I’d rather use regular season data because it would be much more accurate, but I don’t have a good source.
You mention the geographic spread of the NW fan base as a plus, but that makes no sense. TVs are TVs no matter where they are. It’s the size of the fan base and the attractiveness to the neutral fan that matters for national ratings.
Concerning TV appearances, I’ll remind you that the networks face some contractual limitations when making their choices. They have to consider the big picture, not just what is the best pick for that week. You also need to remember that a game that’s expected to be close is often a better TV choice than a game likely to be a blowout.
If you’re happy thinking NW is a big TV draw, then keep believing it. I can’t prove that they aren’t, at least not yet.
Just better than Minnesota, IU, & PU (granted, given recent success).
Based purely on success I’d totally agree NW is a better TV draw than IN, PU and MN (and probably IL, too) right now. I was never trying to say they were worse than those teams. For their actual success level, though, I don’t think they do well on TV.
The tail end of last year was dreadful and reinforced the old stereotype of NW football as junior league for the neutral national fan. I’d bet that a national poll would vastly undervalue NW’s recent success if asked to guess how many games NW had won over the last 5 or 10 years. That’s what hurts NW in the big picture. Winning some bowl games and competing for the B10 title would help NW immensely.
Sometimes, I wonder what the heck the old farts in Park Ridge think they’re doing.
Part of the reason the game likely isn’t being moved is the Big Ten really doesn’t need to. Every Big Ten game is already on national TV. I realize ABC reaches more households than any of the other broadcast venues.
In the Big 12, the Nebraska Colorado game was the only game we knew going into the season would be nationally televised. Now we know every home non-conference game, and every conference game will be. There is a lot less of an incentive to move the game to Friday for exposure.
Sorry I was referring to we as in Nebraska not the Big XII. In the Big 12 you knew OU-Texas, Texas-A&M, and Nebraska Colorado. Those were the only guarantees. Point still stands that in the Big 10 through the reverse mirror you know every game is nationwide with cable/sat.
I think it’s a mistake on Iowa’s part if they were who nixed the idea. Iowa isn’t on national TV very often for a program of its stature, and when they are, it’s usually bowl games. A regular season game broadcast nationally (not just regionally) on ABC would be great publicity for them. It would also help to build a rivalry that right now exists much more on paper than in reality.
See the earlier discussion on their OOC scheduling. They seem to not desire the spotlight.
I assume they have two main concerns. First, they may not like getting a short week that late in the season, especially when NE is still a novel opponent. Second, it is always tricky messing with holiday tradition and plans. B10 fans aren’t used to playing on that holiday weekend, and the B10 avoids weekdays like the plague.
With that game on Saturday, it will be hard to stand out. OSU-Michigan, FSU-Florida, GT-Georgia, Clemson-SC, Cal-Stanford, USC-UCLA, and many other games will be on that day. Very silly decision.
Count me as disapointed. This is one of my favoite Nebraska traditions and the biggest reason most companies in Nebraska make that day a paid holiday.
We had Friday off long before Nebraska played on Friday. Count me as indifferent about it right now. The Friday game in the Big 12 was basically an appeasement for losing the actual rivalry with Oklahoma and an attempt to create a fake faux rivalry with Colorado by the conference.
It was great for exposure when it used to be the only game we knew would be on national television for sure. That isn’t something we have to worry about anymore.
Is ABC ceding TH & F to CBS and the SEC? Texas/Texas A&M and UNL/CU were the ABC games on TH/F of Thanksgiving weekend. Pitt/WVU just isn’t quite the same.
Now we’re hearing Texas/Texas A&M and OU/OSU are likely being moved to the next week and the B1G isn’t going to use the Friday slot.
I agree with you, Bullet. ABC will certainly have limited options on Black Friday if UT-A&M and OU-Ok. State aren’t until the next week and all the Big Ten games are on Saturday. Other Big 12 games frankly aren’t capable of drawing a strong national audience. SEC home games, including FSU @ Florida and Clemson @ South Carolina, can’t be on ABC.
Convincing teams to play on Thanksgiving Day can’t be easy because of the holiday itself, obviously, and because it’s a shortened week for practice. If Ole Miss-Miss. State is willing to return as a Thanksgiving game, ESPN should agree to that game and move on.
The Black Friday games on ABC would be limited to these options:
– Pitt-WVU, which, as you said, just isn’t the same. Other Big East games aren’t really standout rivalries.
– Georgia-Georgia Tech, I think, is in Atlanta in 2011 and would be an okay game for Black Friday, if they’re willing.
– Virginia-Virginia Tech is probably the only ACC in-conference game worth considering.
That pretty much leaves the Pac-12.
– Colorado-Utah would probably put up the least resistence if ESPN asked them to do a Black Friday game since CU is accustomed to playing that day, but that game could easily be Pac-12 South #4 vs. #6.
– USC-UCLA would provide the most national appeal of the six end-of-season games, except if another pair happens to have one team contending for the national title, but the schools would put up more resistence to playing that day.
But I doubt ABC/ESPN is eager to promote the Pac-12 with a special time slot if they’re not willing to sign the league to the TV contract it’s seeking. It’s all the more reason for the UT-A&M game to be on that day, especially if Nebraska-Iowa is a no-go.
@Richard, Big Ten has already said Nebraska-Iowa isn’t moving.
This is basically ESPN taking away publicity from the Big 12 to help itself.
That week after Thanksgiving will have the SEC championship game on CBS while the first ever Pac 12 and Big Ten championship games will be on Fox. ABC/ESPN wants something to go with the ACC championship game.
While the Big 12 might be served by moving the OU/OSU game (which would otherwise be on Thanksgiving Saturday, against games like Alabama/Auburn and Florida/FSU), it makes no sense for the Big 12 to move the UT/A&M game. If that game’s on Thanksgiving night, it will be the sole college football game on, and the only football game for those without the NFL Network.
If UT and A&M are highly ranked, the game will get good ratings on Thanksgiving, but will lose at least some viewers against the championship games. If UT and A&M aren’t highly ranked, they would still get attention on Thanksgiving night, but get overlooked on championship weekend.
I’m guessing ESPN already has plans to shift an SEC or ACC game Thanksgiving night, giving that conference the publicity. They had Ole Miss/MSU on that night for awhile.
@m (ag) – I agree that it would be a bad idea for the UT-A&M game to be moved. The game has always received a great rating on Thanksgiving night. If it moved to championship weekend, it would be going head-to-head with either the SEC and Pac-12 championship games in the afternoon or the Big Ten and ACC championships in prime time. I wouldn’t do it if I were the Big 12, but you may be right that ESPN could be pushing the move.
Well, TX said they would only do it if the game needed to be moved for the sake of the TV contract. Neither TX nor TAMU seem to want to move it.
Frank, keep in mind that these “great ratings” the Texas-A&M game “always” gets on Thanksgiving only reflects three games in the last 18 years, with two of those games (2008 & 2009) having direct national championship implications.
I’m confident that the game would enjoy similarly good ratings, if not better, in a prime time ABC slot on the final Saturday, for the reasons I articulate below, especially in years in which the game again has national championship implications.
before I read this I posted just above. Its looking like TH/F of Thanksgiving week are being given to the SEC.
I point it out below (I’m slowly working my way backwards up this thread on my smartphone), but the Texas-A&M game has only been played on Thanksgiving three times since 1993. It’s better to think of the game as one that’s the last game of the season played on or around Thanksgiving. The proposed change wouldn’t alter that.
I think moving to the following week is a significant change. Whether Thursday, Friday or Saturday (I didn’t mean to imply that the actual day was all that important), that game was a part of holiday weekend plans for many fans. It will upset some fans not to see their teams play that weekend.
I understood Frank Beamer hiring his son last week, although I think schools would be better served with a nepotism clause to prevent it.
Am I the only one that finds it odd that he just promoted his son (RB coach, 1st year at VT, 1 year as a RB coach, 7 years as a CFB coach) to associate head coach after 1 week, though?
I see the green wave have a 13 game schedule this fall and LSU is not on it!
Duff – its a shame that Tulane and LSU can’t work things out. The two schools signed a 10 year home and home agreement 6 years ago that was fairly beneficial to LSU. LSU treated Tulane like a local rent-a-win at Tiger Stadium ($500k, I think) and was going to split the gate at the Superdome. It still wouldn’t make up for the loss of a home game, though. Many LSU fans went crazy, thinking that the Tigers were propping up Tulane. I was in the distinct minority in thinking that there is nothing wrong with helping New Orleans largest employer (Tulane) survive in the post-Katrina world.
Then ESPN kept coming to LSU with made-for-TV games, and LSU kept asking Tulane to move games and Tulane got tired of it. Four years into the 10 year deal, with 3 games at Tiger Stadium and 1 in the Superdome, Tulane and LSU mutually voided the deal. Tulane will probably appear in Tiger Stadium again as part of the in-state rent-a-win parade with ULL, ULM, and La Tech.
Things like this make me sad about the monetization of college football. If Houston wasn’t such a great recruiting area I would expect Texas to do the same thing. Even as it is I don’t think they’ll come here more than twice a decade.
Unfortunately, it looks like Texas is filling up with TV games and dropping Rice to rare games. Also, with the way they are filling up the expanded stadium, they may not feel like they need to connect in Houston.
We still have 2011 and 2015 scheduled in Austin. Hopefully we’ll get another game here late in the decade.
or anybody else, what is the ruling for the 13th game that Tulane is getting? anybody have a lionk to the actual NCAA rule? I tried using google for several variants, but not getting the source I seek.
They play @ Hawaii.
They cite the rulebook here:
If Puerto Rico or Alaska ever field a football team, they would get the exemption as well.
@m (Ag) – Division 1 hockey teams that play a 2-game series at one of the Alaska schools also get 2 extra games added to the regular season.
puerto rico and alaska might be in there by default as both are tourney sites for early season basketball games. I was more interested as the was a blog on PAC schools, and wondered if they played a game in asia every year (as scott has mentioned) if it would allow a 13th game for said site. This could be a way to add inventory for the PTN and up the dollars for the TV contract of the PTN.
Likely not. Nebraska and Kansas State played a game in Toyko in the 90’s and didn’t get an extra game. The extra game rule is there to give an incentive to trams to travel the distance to place like Hawaii and help The Hawaii’s or the Alaska hockey teams fill out their schedule. If the Pac 10 wants to play Asia games they can do that on their own prerogative, but until a Tokyo University joins the NCAA there is no need to reward it.
Er, no. That clause was put in to help schools located in Hawaii, Alaska, & PR (because it’s tough for them to get opponents to travel to play them due to travel costs), not schools trying to make extra money playing overseas. As proof, Wisconsin playing MSU in Japan in 1993 (the year of their first Rose Bowl trip in 3 decades) didn’t mean those 2 teams got to play an extra game that year.
Based on a discussion Richard and I were having above, I crunched some numbers on the impact of certain teams on TV ratings and attendance. The best data I could find was for all the bowls from the 2002-2009 seasons.
(the ’09 Outback was listed wrong, but I fixed it)
I crunched the numbers to find the average rating and attendance for each bowl over that time period, and then found each team’s average effect. The most obvious problem is that there aren’t enough data points to average out other factors, but it’s the best I could do. The other problem is that bowls are less representative of a team than the regular season since so many outside factors can change the result. Bowl ratings are highly influenced by how exciting the game is, much more so than regular season games.
Top level results (full numbers at end):
107 schools played in bowls over those 8 years, but 28 played in only 1 or 2 so I largely ignored them. Of the remaining 79, 33 boosted TV and attendance, 8 only boosted TV, 15 only boosted attendance and 23 hurt both numbers. The biggest TV bumps (> 20%) came from ND, Miami, FSU, Miss and USC. The worst AQs were UVA, USF, TAMU, MN and GT (> 20% drop in TV).
Breakdown of the 41 TV boosters:
ACC 6 – Miami, FSU, NC, MD, BC, WF (<1%)
BE 4 – RU, Pitt, UConn, UL
B10 7 – PU, MI, OSU, WI, MSU, NE, NW (<1%)
B12 4 – TX, MO, OU, OkSU
P10 6 – USC, Cal, ASU, OrSU, UCLA, OR (<1%)
SEC 4 – Miss, Ark, FL, LSU
Ind 1 – ND
Noted absences: AL, AU, GA, PSU, TAMU
Nobody should read too much into these numbers due to all the noise sources, but it seemed like good fodder for conversation.
School … TV Delta
Air Force … -0.194
Akron … -0.054
Alabama … -0.021
Arizona … 0.026
Arizona State … 0.141
Arkansas … 0.074
Arkansas State … 0.295
Auburn … -0.032
Ball State … 0.075
Boise State … 0.120
Boston College … 0.041
Bowling Green … -0.013
Buffalo … 0.340
BYU … 0.032
California … 0.163
Central Michigan … 0.146
Cincinnati … -0.107
Clemson … -0.168
Colorado … -0.109
Colorado State … -0.387
East Carolina … -0.087
Florida … 0.054
Florida Atlantic … 0.162
Florida State … 0.256
Fresno State … -0.017
Georgia … -0.027
Georgia Tech … -0.198
Hawaii … 0.039
Houston … -0.169
Idaho … 0.265
Illinois … -0.190
Indiana … -0.801
Iowa … -0.048
Iowa State … -0.079
Kansas … -0.192
Kansas State … -0.122
Kentucky … -0.014
La. Tech … -0.621
Louisville … 0.014
LSU … 0.045
Marshall … 0.089
Maryland … 0.060
Memphis … 0.049
Miami … 0.261
Miami (Ohio) … -0.087
Michigan … 0.109
Michigan State … 0.077
Middle Tenn. … -0.252
Minnesota … -0.203
Miss. State … 0.249
Mississippi … 0.205
Missouri … 0.104
Navy … 0.018
Nebraska … 0.060
Nevada … -0.030
New Mexico … -0.139
North Carolina … 0.196
North Carolina State … -0.067
North Texas … 0.096
Northern Illinois … -0.341
Northwestern … 0.006
Notre Dame … 0.312
Ohio … 0.055
Ohio State … 0.087
Oklahoma … 0.096
Oklahoma State … 0.015
Oregon … 0.005
Oregon State … 0.111
Penn State … -0.016
Pitt … 0.088
Purdue … 0.125
Rice … -0.412
Rutgers … 0.143
San Jose State … -0.209
SMU … -0.122
South Carolina … -0.044
South Florida … -0.240
Southern Miss … -0.029
Stanford … 0.167
Syracuse … -0.372
TCU … -0.070
Temple … 0.000
Tennessee … -0.074
Texas … 0.128
Texas A&M … -0.234
Texas Tech … -0.093
Toledo … -0.136
Troy … -0.051
Tulane … 0.069
Tulsa … -0.036
UAB … -0.020
UCF … 0.138
UCLA … 0.098
UConn … 0.066
USC … 0.203
Utah … -0.113
UTEP … 0.095
Vanderbilt … 0.068
Virginia … -0.251
Virginia Tech … -0.058
Wake Forest … 0.003
Washington … 0.269
Washington State … -0.041
West Virginia … -0.028
Western Michigan … -0.495
Wisconsin … 0.081
Wyoming … 0.019
Well, at least we’re not La Tech or Western Michigan…
Keep in mind that teams with few bowl appearances, like Rice with 2, can be more affected by one bad game (bad time slot, bad opponent, etc). Unfortunately, I don’t think that was the case with Rice. They pulled terrible numbers both times. The size of the built-in fan base hurts them. That’s why TAMU doing so poorly surprised me.
TAMU’s really suffered from the Cotton Bowl against TN and the Alamo Bowl versus PSU. Neither of those teams are inherently bad draws, so I’m surprised the ratings were so low.
I looked a bit at this last night (I was quite surprised that PSU would be considered a “negative draw.”) and IMO however the numbers are crunched the results are “educated garbage.” As an example, comparing the 2005 Orange Bowl (USC-OK; MNC) to the 2006 OB (PSU-FSU) is comparing oranges to some other fruit. I think it’s amazing that the rating slipped only about 1.5 points between the two games. Then there is the 2007 Alamo Bowl (UT-Iowa) vs. the 2008 AB (PSU-TAMU). The 2007 AB was the highest-rated bowl game on ESPN up to that time and did feature the previous year MNC Longhorns. In short, I think drawing too many conclusions from the indicated data is foolish as there are too many factors that need to be taken into account.
I think I pointed out all the same caveats about drawing conclusions due to the lack of data points and the number of noise sources.
I was thinking about correcting for the 4 NCGs that took place in BCS bowls (’02-’05), but that was 1 out of 8 for each of the 4 BCS bowls. Since I was comparing each game to the average for that bowl, the NC bump would be reduced by a factor of 8. I wanted to do a first cut at the numbers first. I’ll take a look at that today.
The other factor you mention, that certain match-ups make for higher ratings was the whole point. It isn’t clear on paper why UT/IA should draw much better TV ratings than PSU/TAMU. Being reigning NC doesn’t carry much weight in the next year’s bowl game. The numbers show that TAMU was the problem team, not PSU, but PSU’s overall numbers took a hit. PSU would have been at 0.066 without that game.
Another factor that I didn’t correct for is the changing level of bowl tie-ins. If a bowl slides down the list for a conference, or changes to a less desirable conference, its ratings will drop. Those teams would suffer despite it not being their fault.
All of those problems are why I say regular season data would be better, but I don’t know of a freely available source that is conveniently compiled.
Bleah, you’re making me review an awful decade for A&M.
Since you have so few years (and this was such a bad streak for A&M), there are only 3 bowl games A&M played in with ratings listed the year before and after:
2004 31-28 Miss(10-2,#16) v. OkSU(9-3,#21) 4.5
2005 38-7 Tenn(10-2,#15) v. A&M(7-4,#22) 2.6
2006 13-10 Bama(9-2,#8) v. Texas Tech(9-2,#20) 3.7
This is easy to explain. The Cotton was played on Jan 1 or 2, at the same time as several other games. A&M wasn’t even competitive, so people changed to better games.
2005 17-14 OU(7-4,UR) v Oregon(10-1,#6) 5.06
2006 10-45 A&M(9-3,#21) v Cal(9-3,#20) 4.11
2007 52-34 Texas(9-3,#17) v ASU(10-2,#12) 4.38
2005 was a competitive game featuring the #6 team in the country, so it got the best ratings. A&M’s game wasn’t far behind the UT game the following year despite being less competitive.
2006 26-24 Texas (9-3,#18) v Iowa (6-6,UR) 5.99
2007 17-24 A&M (7-5,UR) v. PSU (8-4,UR) 2.67
2008 30-23 Missouri (9-4,#25) v NW (9-3,#22) 4.60
This was a competitive game, although both teams are unranked. However, there are 2 other reasons the ratings are low:
1)A&M’s coach had already resigned in controversy.
2)At the same time, the 15-0 New England Patriots were playing their final regular season game against the NY Giants, a game televised on CBS, NBC, and the NFL network. You might recall it got some attention.
For A&M to boost it’s bowl ratings, it needs to:
1) not get blown out
2) not play in bowls there are scheduled against NFL games featuring a 15-0 team.
FWIW, the A&M/LSU Cotton Bowl this year got the 2nd best ratings for a non-BCS bowl, despite the fact it turned out to be a blowout:
Sorry for stirring up bad memories.
I also have the bowl averages for those 8 years:
Cotton 3.89 (2.6)
Holiday 4.44 (4.11)
Alamo 4.64 (2.67)
Independence 2.64 (2.36)
The Cotton must have TV competition most years, not just when TAMU played, so that should only matter if the game is not competitive. I think it’s fair to place losing badly in TAMU’s lap as part of being a bad draw. The good news is that’s easy to fix, unlike lacking fans.
There’s no obvious explanation for the Holiday bowl. Maybe other games on TV were better, but more likely it was a blow out so some people tuned out.
I’ll grant you playing the Alamo against a historic NFL game is bad luck. If it makes you feel any better, I watched the Alamo Bowl unless there was a better bowl on (I don’t remember). I’ll excuse the rating completely. The problem for TAMU is that it was a down period so they only went to 4 bowls in 8 years, making it hard to average out that rating. Without that game, TAMU would only improve from -0.234 to -0.170 which is still bad. PSU didn’t perform as poorly despite also being in that bowl.
I agree with your ratings solution for TAMU, but I would also add playing in more bowl games. That will improve their image with neutral fans and give them more games to average out a bad day.
m(Ag), thanks for pointing out the NFL game on opposite the 2008 AB. I knew there had to be some other factor there. I had forgotten about that one, mostly because I’m not a Patriots fan, and if Penn State’s on, I’m watching that game with blinders on.
As a follow up, I re-ran the numbers lumping the title games that were played as BCS bowls (’02 Fiesta, ’03 Sugar, ’04 Orange, ’05 Rose) in with the other championship games. This improves the accuracy of TV ratings averages for the bowl games and the teams that played in the non-championship game BCS bowls.
This helped the TV averages for 25 schools and hurt them for 6. However, only 2 schools changed from a drain to a boost (PSU, UGA (<1%)) while 2 others almost did (WV, UW both 2 bowl game played:
ACC 6 – FSU, NC, Miami, MD, BC, WF
BE 4 – RU, Pitt, UConn, UL
B10 8 – MI, PU, WI, MSU, NE, OSU, PSU, NW (<1%)
B12 3 – TX, MO, OkSU
P10 6 – Cal, ASU, USC, OrSU, UCLA, OR
SEC 4 – Miss, Ark, FL, UGA (<1%)
Ind 1 – ND
Noted absences (size of drain):
AL (<2%), AU (<2%), LSU (3%), OU (20%)
These numbers aren’t meant to be exact, but they support some things we already knew:
1. The B10 draws eyeballs and thus makes good TV money.
2. The B12 has a weak TV contract for a reason.
3. The P10 TV deal is really bad.
4. ND may suck but it draws viewers.
A few things still surprise me:
1. So few SEC teams draw big viewership. Maybe SEC love really is localized to the footprint and ESPN HQ.
2. TAMU is really unpopular.
3. Illinois only went to 1 bowl game and it was the Rose. I knew they were up and down, but I forgot the Sugar Bowl was that long ago. North Texas went to 3 bowls, for God’s sake.
4. WF draws viewers but VT doesn’t.
5. Rutgers draws viewers but WV doesn’t.
The whole list:
School … TV D … Old TV D … Change (%)
Air Force … -0.194 … -0.194
Akron … -0.054 … -0.054
Alabama … -0.012 … -0.021 … 42.1
Arizona … 0.026 … 0.026
Arizona State … 0.141 … 0.141
Arkansas … 0.074 … 0.074
Arkansas State … 0.295 … 0.295
Auburn … -0.019 … -0.032 … 39.2
Ball State … 0.075 … 0.075
Boise State … 0.143 … 0.120 … 19.0
Boston College … 0.041 … 0.041
Bowling Green … -0.013 … -0.013
Buffalo … 0.340 … 0.340
BYU … 0.032 … 0.032
California … 0.163 … 0.163
Central Michigan … 0.146 … 0.146
Cincinnati … -0.086 … -0.107 … 19.6
Clemson … -0.168 … -0.168
Colorado … -0.109 … -0.109
Colorado State … -0.387 … -0.387
East Carolina … -0.087 … -0.087
Florida … 0.059 … 0.054 … 9.6
Florida Atlantic … 0.162 … 0.162
Florida State … 0.292 … 0.256 … 13.7
Fresno State … -0.017 … -0.017
Georgia … 0.002 … -0.027 … 106.5
Georgia Tech … -0.190 … -0.198 … 3.8
Hawaii … 0.050 … 0.039 … 27.0
Houston … -0.169 … -0.169
Idaho … 0.265 … 0.265
Illinois … -0.117 … -0.190 … 38.7
Indiana … -0.801 … -0.801
Iowa … -0.027 … -0.048 … 44.2
Iowa State … -0.079 … -0.079
Kansas … -0.176 … -0.192 … 8.6
Kansas State … -0.090 … -0.122 … 26.2
Kentucky … -0.014 … -0.014
La. Tech … -0.621 … -0.621
Louisville … 0.027 … 0.014 … 87.0
LSU … -0.030 … 0.045 … -167.4
Marshall … 0.089 … 0.089
Maryland … 0.060 … 0.060
Memphis … 0.049 … 0.049
Miami … 0.179 … 0.261 … -31.2
Miami (Ohio) … -0.087 … -0.087
Michigan … 0.154 … 0.109 … 41.0
Michigan State … 0.077 … 0.077
Middle Tenn. … -0.252 … -0.252
Minnesota … -0.203 … -0.203
Miss. State … 0.249 … 0.249
Mississippi … 0.205 … 0.205
Missouri … 0.104 … 0.104
Navy … 0.018 … 0.018
Nebraska … 0.060 … 0.060
Nevada … -0.030 … -0.030
New Mexico … -0.139 … -0.139
North Carolina … 0.196 … 0.196
North Carolina State … -0.067 … -0.067
North Texas … 0.096 … 0.096
Northern Illinois … -0.341 … -0.341
Northwestern … 0.006 … 0.006
Notre Dame … 0.357 … 0.312 … 14.5
Ohio … 0.055 … 0.055
Ohio State … 0.055 … 0.087 … -36.4
Oklahoma … -0.045 … 0.096 … -146.4
Oklahoma State … 0.015 … 0.015
Oregon … 0.017 … 0.005 … 264.2
Oregon State … 0.111 … 0.111
Penn State … 0.015 … -0.016 … 197.4
Pitt … 0.105 … 0.088 … 18.4
Purdue … 0.125 … 0.125
Rice … -0.412 … -0.412
Rutgers … 0.143 … 0.143
San Jose State … -0.209 … -0.209
SMU … -0.122 … -0.122
South Carolina … -0.044 … -0.044
South Florida … -0.240 … -0.240
Southern Miss … -0.029 … -0.029
Stanford … 0.167 … 0.167
Syracuse … -0.372 … -0.372
TCU … -0.057 … -0.070 … 18.5
Temple … 0.000 … 0.000
Tennessee … -0.074 … -0.074
Texas … 0.117 … 0.128 … -8.6
Texas A&M … -0.234 … -0.234
Texas Tech … -0.093 … -0.093
Toledo … -0.136 … -0.136
Troy … -0.051 … -0.051
Tulane … 0.069 … 0.069
Tulsa … -0.036 … -0.036
UAB … -0.020 … -0.020
UCF … 0.138 … 0.138
UCLA … 0.098 … 0.098
UConn … 0.066 … 0.066
USC … 0.136 … 0.203 … -32.8
Utah … -0.091 … -0.113 … 19.3
UTEP … 0.095 … 0.095
Vanderbilt … 0.068 … 0.068
Virginia … -0.251 … -0.251
Virginia Tech … -0.032 … -0.058 … 43.8
Wake Forest … 0.018 … 0.003 … 563.2
Washington … 0.269 … 0.269
Washington State … -0.003 … -0.041 … 91.6
West Virginia … -0.008 … -0.028 … 73.2
Western Michigan … -0.495 … -0.495
Wisconsin … 0.081 … 0.081
Wyoming … 0.019 … 0.019
I saw this same analysis at National Championship Issue, and I think the issue with the SEC schools is that you’re measuring the impact of a team on a bowl’s ratings, but the SEC schools are so close to one another that for an SEC tie-in bowl, the ratings will be strong no matter who gets picked, diluting the apparent impact of any one school.
The Big 12 ought to keep Texas-Texas A&M on Thanksgiving or Black Friday and move only Ok. State-OU to championship weekend. On Thursday, the Big 12 could have the spotlight all to itself with, presumably, a huge viewing audience. It would be a great alternative for anyone who doesn’t feel like watching It’s a Wonderful Life for the 50 bagillionth time, or, as someone else mentioned, for anyone who doesn’t get NFL Network. On Friday, it would be a great competitor to Auburn-Alabama and most other rivalries scheduled to be played on Black Friday. (In my opinion, UT vs. A&M would compete against Black Friday rivalries for TV viewers much better than it would against Big Ten, SEC, and Pac-12 championship games, where BCS bowl berths would unquestionably be on the line.)
Neither Big 12 game will be able to compete with the championship games with true reliability because, in a given year, one of them may have only 2nd or 3rd place on the line. But A&M-UT, over the long haul, has been much more able to compete with the major national rivalries for viewers on Thanksgiving weekend than OU-Ok. State has.
All this leads me to some questions: With the Big 12 championship out of existence and with three of the four AQ conference championship games on other networks, does ESPN move the ACC title game from ESPN back to ABC? Would the OU-Ok. State game be part of a double-header on ABC, or would it go to ESPN? Are any Big East games or scheduled for championship weekend?
My feeling is that, if possible, the ACC game should go back on ABC but try to avoid going head-to-head against the SEC and the Big Ten games. Against the Pac-12, the ACC game would do much better. The OU-Ok. State game, on ESPN, should go simaltaneously with the ACC game and avoid going head to head against any other game but the Pac-12. An argument could be made that the Oklahoma game might do better nationally than the ACC, especially if yet again both ACC teams have mediocre records, but ESPN has much more invested in the ACC title game than in any one regular season Big 12 game.
I’d love to hear others’ opinions on when these games should be played and on which stations.
For the majority of the Big 12 The UT-Texas A&M game was on Friday. Friday was a Big XII day. You had Nebraska/Colorado and UT/A&M. The Sec essentially caught on and put a game on CBS, but I digress…
I’m not sure what the right solution for the Big XII is, but they likely do need to do something that weekend. I realize it a less than ideal situation because you are going to be head to head with the CCG games. But, what I like to refer to as the “Big Ten effect” is something the Big XII needs to consider. If you skip that weekend all together you risk being overlooked at the end of the season. In order to stay considered, you would need to have teams that you think are likely to be competing for something at the end of the year playing decent games at the end of the year.
This goes back to the inventory thing again. The Big 12 has a very limited amount of desirable games. At some point decisions are going to have to be made that may have less than desirable outcomes. Do you sacrifice the thanksgiving game for relevancy? Is playing Bedlham as your only conference game that first week in December enough to keep the conference relevant at the end? Tough choices…
The logical thing to me would be to leave the RRSO where it is. Leave UT/aTm on Thanksgiving. Play OU/oSu that same weekend. And on the last weekend play UT/oSu and aTm/OU. That leave the B12-2 with potential for big games without disturbing traditions.
I kind of doubt that OU, OSU, Texas, or TAMU have any interest in playing their rivalry game anywhere than as the last game of the regular season.
OU and Texas both play their rivalry game in October.
And maybe it is just because Nebraska got left at the alter at the formation of the Big 12 regarding rivalries i.e. I may have a jaded view on this… But from my experience, end of the season last game rivalry games aren’t as “sacred” in the Big XII as other conferences. Part if it a lot of stuff got moved around when the conference formed. Nebraska and Oklahoma no longer played each other the last game. Bedlam for Oklahoma got moved to the final game. Nebraska got paired with Colorado. I will give them credit though, with their current schedule they’ve done a pretty good job of pairing teams on the final weekend.
@Richard – I know at least UT and A&M have been clear on that in the articles I’ve seen. Regardless of the date of the game, they are insisting that to be the last one of the regular season.
@Loki, I agree that might be a plausible solution. My two issues with it are 1) It back-end loads the schedules of A&M and Texas, having both schools play their two toughest games back to back every year. Pluses/minuses there.
2) and More importantly back to the inventory. I’m basing this off of the current Big XII schedule. I understand it is likely going to change as they are still trying to fit a couple of games in. If you move Oklahoma and A&M, and Texas, Oklahoma State from their originally scheduled weeks, you’ve created the new problem of depriving ABC if the game they would’ve showed that week. That goes back to Trammel’s argument about the lack of inventory. The OU/A&M game may be fine as Texas plays Tech that weekend too, but the Texas Oklahoma State weekend becomes bleak.
Count me in as thinking its bizarre that the B12 would want to move the UT/TAMU game. That is a known quantity that gets good ratings on TGiving. On championship Saturday, it’s near the bottom of the viewing list.
mike – just a couple of points:
1. Its a Wonderful Life is a Christmas Eve staple on NBC, not that it really matters in the greater discussion.
2. Over LSU’s objections, the LSU/Arkansas game is being moved back to the 1:30pm Central Black Friday timeslot and the Iron Bowl is going back to Saturday. The Saturday SEC slots include Bama/Auburn, Tenn/Kent, and Ole Miss/Miss St., and every other year UF/FSU, UGA/GT, and S.Car/Clemson, I think Ole Miss/Miss St is the only game that has willingly moved to Thanksgiving night in the past.
Over at BON, I seem to be in the minority of Horns followers who is OK with the proposed move.
Even though many Longhorns and Aggies associate the game with Thanksgiving night, the reality is, over the last twenty years, the game has been moved around frequently, being played on Thanksgiving and the Friday after Thanksgiving and the Saturday after Thanksgiving and the Saturday the week after Thanksgiving and even a Saturday a few weeks before Thanksgiving one year when the Aggies were cheating. What’s so big about another move?
Also, it dawned on me that, counter-intuitively, we might get a bigger audience moving the game. I get the sense now that the game gets a little lost in the shuffle being played at the end of a day otherwise devoted to the NFL. However, I think we could get a 100% national prime time ABC broadcast if it’s moved to that final Saturday, as the only major conference championship the ESPN family of networks now has is the ACC. Keep that on ESPN where it’s been, and have an ABC triple-header of a Big East game, Bedlam and Texas-A&M. I like the game’s chances to draw good ratings in that scenario, especially if the SEC game stays in its slightly earlier time slot.
Some of this depends on the timing of the Big 10 and Pac 12 games on Fox, but my hunch is that the ratings for those games will be slightly depressed outside of their geographic footprint by virtue of being shown on a non-traditional network (as far as college football go).
So if the game can be moved with that sort of guaranteed national exposure, I’m ok with it. If we’re getting into some sort of early day, split national broadcast, though, then I’m absolutely against it.
We know that the B10 game will be primetime on Fox so the P12 game will almost surely be on the afternoon on Fox. Assuming CBS keeps the SEC game in the afternoon, ESPN likely will put the ACC game in primetime against the B10 game (they wouldn’t want to go head-to-head against the SEC, which is in the same region); probably on ABC. We could then see the 2 B12 games in the afternoon & primetime on ESPN. BE games will fill the various ESPNs in the morning. With so few games, we won’t see any split coverage.
Texas-TAMU would likely go head-to-head with the B10 and ACC title games. I think from a purely ratings perspective, that’s worse than having Thanksgiving evening all to yourself. I know that I’ve watched the Thanksgiving evening football games many times (even when it was the Egg Bowl), but certainly wouldn’t watch Texas-TAMU if the B10 title game was on at the same time.
Also keep in mind that there’s an intangible value about not being dark on a finale day when all other potential competitors for a BCS/NCG slot are playing. I kind of like the idea of playing in the last regular season game and, depending on the time of kickoff, the last pre-bowl game (Army-Navy notwithstanding).
No offense to the Big 10ers on here, but if we move, I’d much rather go head to head with the prime time Big 10 game on Fox than I would with the the SEC game on CBS in the afternoon.
None taken, but I also wouldn’t assume you “might get a bigger audience moving the game.” You mention getting lost in the shuffle on Thursday. I don’t know about that… The game goes head to head with one NFL game. It isn’t like a typical Saturday where you are going head to head with maybe 20 games and up to 5 or 6 directly. Not to mention a championship weekend where you are either going to go head to head with the SEC or the Big Ten.
Both the SEC and Big Ten have a leg up in that one given the participants are determined by merit, not picked before the season starts. I do agree with you though about the intangible benefits, and I think that is a huge part of the equation. Either a solid game/games get moved to help out the schools be keeping them relevant, or to help ABC fill a void. Either way though, it is a less than optimal situation to go head to head with one of the two main power conferences (television wise) in CFB.
I would say that in seasons where the UT/A&M game features (1) a national championship contender and (2) the opponent is a top 15 or so squad, then it *might* put a dent in the ratings versus the Big Ten or SEC Championship Games going head-to-head. (Think of the Iron Bowl matchup this past season.). Unless that standard is met, though, then a game where the *minimum* is the winner goes to the Rose Bowl is going to draw significantly more interest. You can usually bank on at least one of the 4 “kings” playing in the Big Ten title game, too, so there’s going to be star power in the average year.
Thinking about this a little more, predicting the ratings of a Texas-A&M game going head-to-head against the Big 10 championship has a bit of a wild card factor involved for anyone to be so sure about how the games would fare against each other.
As you mention, the Big 10’s participants will be selected on merit, while the Texas-A&M game would be set in stone. However, in three of the last six years (2005 and 2009 certainly; perhaps 2008 as well), the Texas-A&M would have been the much more important game, given the national championship implications, and a theoretical Big 10 championship game might have suffered in comparison. On the flip side, 2007 and 2010 had neither national nor conference title implications, and those games would certainly have been lost in the shuffle. 2006 would have been a de facto conference championship game (for Texas, at least) but still would have been lost in the glare of what would have been a monster OSU-Michigan rematch.
Sure there is a little bit of a wildcard factor involved, but how much is pretty debatable. The 2010 Texas/A&M game drew a 2.5 overnight rating. Solid ratings especially considering nothing was on the line. The 2010 Big XII championship game drew a 5.3 overnight, the lowest in 4 years. Also somewhat strong considering there was no BCS championship game spot on the line.
I’m not a huge fan of going back and looking at “what would’ve happened” in the past considering the upcoming changes. Perhaps Texas or Texas A&M would’ve slipped up against a North school that wasn’t on their schedule at the time, but would’ve been in the round robin format. Perhaps the new scheduling format would’ve benefited a Big Ten team in a way it didn’t, etc.
I’m willing to bet that the Big Ten championship game pitting the two best teams in each division against each other, has greater odds of having a meaningful game (a spot in the NCG, or at the very least a Rose Bowl berth) than the Texas A&M, Texas game on a yearly basis. The state of Texas, and the University of Texas has an enviable position that really no school in the country can match. You have a state with a lot of people, and a lot of people that like football. That pays dividends as seen by the LSN deal with ESPN. I’m really not sure that translates into a lot of interest outside the traditional Big 12 territory though. The Big Ten has a bigger natural population base. The casual fan is going to go with the bigger game. I’d be willing to wager 8 or 9 times out of 10 that the Big Ten championship game will be a bigger game than a Texas/Texas A&M matchup at the end of the season simply due to the natural of the selection process.
And even if we want to try and backwards compare the results aren’t necessarily flattering for Texas. I left Nebraska out of it.
2001 Illinois 10-1 vs. Michigan 8-3
Texas 9-1 vs. Texas A&M 7-3
Conclusion: If we keep Nebraska out of all of this, the head to head matchup is an effective draw. If you wanted to include NU, which I am not doing Nebraska replaces Michigan and you have a 10-1/10-1 game or 10-1/11-0 game. Draw.
2002 Ohio State 13-0 vs. Iowa 11-1
Texas 9-2 vs. Texas A&M 6-5
Conclusion: Undefeated Ohio State against one loss Iowa beats a 6-5 A&M. Big Ten
2003 Michigan 10-2 vs. Iowa 9-3
Texas 9-2 vs. Texas A&M 4-7
Conclusion: again A&M doesn’t help here. Big Ten.
2004 Iowa 9-2 vs. Wisconsin 9-2
Texas 9-1 vs. Texas A&M 7-3
Conclusion: We’ll give it to a 1 loss Texas. Texas.
2005 Penn State 10-1 vs. Michigan 7-4
Texas 10-0 vs. Texas A&M 5-5
Conclusion: Undefeated Texas. Texas.
2006 Ohio State 12-0 vs. Michigan 11-1
Texas 8-2 vs. Texas A&M 8-3
Conclusion: rematch yes, but 12-0 vs. 11-1. Big Ten.
2007 Ohio State 11-1 vs. Michigan 9-3
Texas 9-2 vs. Texas A&M 6-5
Conclusion: 1 loss vs. 3 loss> 2 loss vs. 5 loss. Big Ten.
2008 Penn State 11-1 vs. Michigan State 9-3
Texas 10-1 vs. Texas A&M 4-7
Conclusion: 1 loss vs. 3 loss> 1 loss vs. 7 loss. Big Ten
2009 Ohio State 11-2 vs. Iowa 10-2
Texas 12-0 vs. Texas A&M 6-5
Conclusion: Texas again undefeated playing for spot in National championship game. Albeit a game against a 6-5 team is less than thrilling. Slight edge Texas.
2010 Ohio State 11-1 vs. Michigan State 11-1
Texas 5-6 vs. Texas A&M 8-3
Conclusion: two one loss teams. Big Ten
6-3-1 Big Ten.
Texas-Texas A&M used to be played on Thanksgiving Day nearly every year. In recent years it is more often Friday after Thanksgiving, as Hopkins points out, TH has been the exception.
And another random thing to keep in mind, for what it’s worth, is that there is a considerable overlap, as one might imagine, between the fanbases of the Longhorns and the Cowboys. I fall in that category, and the Cowboys have played on each snd every Thanksgiving in my living memory. For me at least, and I’ve seen some other Horn fans echoing this theme, given the ever-changing date of the Texas-A&M game, envisioning Thanksgiving without that game is much easier than envisioning Thanksgiving without the Cowboys. A lot of us will still have a favorite team to root for that day regardless of whether Texas and A&M continue to play on that day. I’m sure this fact is driving my “I don’t really care one way or another” attitude about the possible move.
From what I gather, based partly on last year’s schedule and partly on the opinions of other FTT posters, it looks like “Championship Weekend” will have a schedule looking something like this:
Friday, 8:00 ET
ESPN: MAC Championship Game
FSN (maybe Fox?): Conference USA Championship Game
ESPN: Big East game
ESPN2: Big East game
ESPNU: Sun Belt, WAC, or FCS playoff game
CBS: SEC Championship Game
Fox: Pac-12 Championship Game
ESPN/ABC: Texas vs. Texas A&M (variable by region)
ESPN/ABC: Big East Game (variable by region)
ESPN2: Big East Game
ESPNU: Sun Belt, WAC, or FCS playoff game
Fox: Big Ten Championship Game
ESPN/ABC (Variable by region): ACC Championship Game
ESPN/ABC (Variable by region): Oklahoma vs. Oklahoma State
ESPN2: WAC game (BYU at Hawaii)
ESPNU: Sun Belt, WAC, or FCS playoff game
It appears that reason ESPN might be pushing the Big 12 to move the UT-A&M game is that it simply has holes in its schedule to fill. Last year, it had a healthy selection for its networks with 5 Pac-12 games, a game involving the Big Ten (Illinois vs. Fresno State), and the C-USA championship game. All games with those conferences will now be on Fox. Oklahoma State vs. Oklahoma has essentially filled in for the Big 12 Championship Game’s absence.
Without UT-A&M that weekend, ESPN would be left to fill a key 3:30 game on ABC/ESPN a much less-desirable matchup. I suppose on Thanksgiving weekend, ESPN would have many more quality games to work with.
Big East moving Pitt/Syracuse and Connecticut/Cincinnati to Sat, Dec 3rd on ABC/ESPN. Full conference schedule in link below. I suspect the Big East will go to 12 teams with a CCG in time for the next BCS contract.
Only if they find 2 more schools worth adding (which I think will be tough for them). Remember that their championship game won’t be worth a whole lot of money, and they’ll certainly not expand from 10 to 12 if it means a decrease in the average payout. They will expand to 10, though, in order to have 9 conference games, since their attendance just doesn’t justify paying the skyrocketing costs of guarantee games.
I think politics might be a bigger hurdle to 12 than money. I don’t think the BB schools want to be outnumbered that badly.
Just based on geography, several BE candidates if they want 12 are obvious. UCF is the clear #1 with a growing program, a built in rival and providing more access to Florida. It also provides USF with a southern companion so it feels more a a part of the conference.
For similar reasons, the BE would have to look to Texas for a partner for TCU. That probably means Houston or maybe SMU. ECU is a better geographic fit, but suffers from being somewhat isolated from the other BE schools and from being the 5th school in a BB state.
Adding FL and TX markets plus a championship game might be OK financially, but the BB conference would be unwieldy.
You’re right about ECU. They have aspirations, however fleeting they may be, to be the next Boise State. That’s good, because there’s no way they’ll be the next TCU, Utah, BYU, Louisville, Cincy, etc. In other words, the best they can hope for is to become a regular contender for BCS bowls, and if the stars align correctly, a rare chance at a national title. Their chances of getting into an AQ league are shot.
I keep reading that the AQ Commissioners think that “12 is the model”. Almost makes me think that there is a gentleman’s agreement between the AQ Conferences to try and get to 12 plus a CCG before the next BCS contract. The first week of December would have the look and feel of a first round playoff with all the CCG’s. Then, add the Cotton Bowl as the fifth BCS game and re-tabulate the BCS rankings after the New Year’s Day bowl games to determine the participants in the unseeded Plus-1 BCS Championship Game. Six conferences with 12 teams allows for 72 BCS teams. That’s enough.
I think what all the conferences have learned, except the P12 maybe, is that the numbers say going past 12 is really difficult. Sure, you can do it with a Texas or ND, but not with other schools. The CCG makes 12 desirable for many conferences, but 13 and beyond generally cost money. The test will be if the BE really wants to go to 12, or if they stop at 10. They get 9 conference games with 10 and that is a financial boon. Going to 12 means the CCG has to provide value or the next two teams need to have good value.
Interesting that Pitt has 8 home this year including Notre Dame and Utah. On the road at Iowa and W. Virginia.
Does the NCAA have a limit on how many home games a team can play? Could an independent like Notre Dame play 9 or 10 home games? How would that affect the BCS rankings?
@Paul – There’s no cap on home games, so ND could play that many home games in theory. Now, in practicality, ND’s alumni base (to its credit) insists upon fairly top tier schedules where that’s not really possible with the opponents they want to play. ND is moving to a 6 home – 1 “home” at off-campus site – 5 road game schedule, which is why you’re seeing much better schedules from the Irish over the next decade compared to the last 5 years.
I don’t think the computer components of the BCS rankings take into account home and road wins, but I could be wrong. For basketball, teams do get more credit for road win compared to a home win in the RPI formula.
Pitt has a Thursday 8pm game with USF and a Wednesday game with Connecticut, both on ESPN. I guess when you have 8 home games you can play twice in mid-week.
Well, they only had 6 home games in 2008 & 2010 (and look to have only 6 home games in 2012), so it’s probably just how the OOC scheduling worked out.
There is no upper limit but there is a lower limit on home games. You have to play