8 Comments

  1. System Poster

    I agree with your overall point that this is the right approach when evaluating expansion candidates. The idea of adding teams to add certain markets is going to become more and more antiquated the more streaming starts to take over. What I’m not so sure about is the usefulness of evaluating teams based on a single year. I get that evaluating on, for instance, a five-year rolling average would be a lot of work for you and wouldn’t really add to your analysis, but I just want to make the point that so much of the year over year ratings is dependent on how good a team is, especially early in the season when TV execs are making decisions about what network to put games on. Obviously, games on ABC or fox going to outdraw anything on cable, and ESPN games draw a lot more, on average, than FS1 games. A team that has a bad year, like Texas Tech, is going to have its games shunted off to 11am on FS1 or ESPN2 where it’s almost impossible to get good numbers. All of that is to say, a variation of 500K or so viewers probably has more to do with a team’s network assignment than any innate drawing ability.

    Look, for instance, at 2013 Texas Tech’s viewing numbers: https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings-archived/4/

    If my math is right, Tech averaged 2.02 million average viewers, which included drawing 2.13 mil for a matchup against SMU, 3.08mil against Baylor, and 3.51mil against Arizona State.

    • ianaboyd

      Yeah I only looked at 2019 with a few glimpses at 2018. I know it’s a snapshot but it’s still useful.

      I reckon Texas did better a year ago and could do vastly better in the future, of course the same is true for Tech.

      I’ll do more in the future, I just finally found that website.

  2. Andrew

    The idea of the B12 cannibalizing the top part of the PAC12 is an interesting idea. However, the logistics & tv game sales are going to be more difficult than anticipated. It’s an interesting thought by Staples. Consider the most recent show by the B12 regarding letting any other teams in. Their handling & execution of that was a mess, which showed who will be handling the next round of realignment. The facepalm way they handled things was a glaring example of how not to say no & drag it out. I admit that those teams were not P5, but a handful of those teams have a lot of eyeballs regarding more than just FB. They also have rich recruiting areas.

    If I’m OU or UT, I’m subsidizing the other B12 teams. What other conference can they have outsized influence? What other conference can they have an easier road to the CFP? If OU goes to the B10, good luck not getting smashed by OSU, PSU, Michigan, WS, etc when they play them. With UT heading to the PAC12, I doubt the can call the shots like they do with the B12 now. Nike aka Oregon can field quality teams every given year, more so now with HC Cristobal. Other teams are beginning to improve. Not saying those games are a given loss, just the likelihood of going up against better quality teams really decreases their chances. I’m not going to deny the improvement in the quality of games, but to give up a realistic annual shot at the CFP is nuts.

    • System Poster

      I think a lot of people misinterpret the Big 12’s expansion pageant when it solicited bids from G5 teams. At the time, the conference TV deal had an escalator that would increase payouts from the networks on a pro rata basis for any new team added to the conference. So using that provision, the conference could have, just for illustrative purposes, added four teams and increased the TV payout by 40%. Then, make the new teams take a reduced TV payout, the way TCU and WVU had to do when they joined the conference, and funnel the additional money to the current teams. Heck, even make the reduced payout permanent. Make the 4 new teams “junior members” or something.

      Of course, the networks called the Big 12’s bluff, and the Big 12 ended up taking an embarrassingly small amount of money to remove that provision from it contracts. But at the same time, it’s not as though the Big 12 had another play. They were never going to add the likes of Houston, Memphis, etc. The only way to capitalize on that contract provision was the bluff they ended up using.

    • ianaboyd

      The counter to this argument is that in a much tougher league the B12 can make a case for inclusion with a one loss team. Also, the playoffs may expand anyways. Particularly if this scenario occurs and there’s super conferences.

      B12 champ likely becomes automatic.

    • SCOTTY OH

      yea I don’t think ohio state, michigan and penn state scare OU .is the flag still planted at midfield in Columbus from Baker Mayfields beatdown he gave the buckeyes….yes I thought so…..

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *