The Big 12 expansion groundswell

[Paperback Writer]

Your arguments are based on a snapshot in time and shifting sands. There is no reason Missouri or any number of teams cannot fill Nebraska's shoes. Nebraska has a longer and finer football tradition than Utah or Colorado. But either of those schools have the resources to match Nebraska. Utah's past decade has been better than Nebraska's. The ten years before that were a monster decade for Colorado. ...[snip]

It's not a matter of having the resources, it's a matter of fan support. Colorado, Missouri, and even Utah have more resources than Nebraska but not near the same level of fan support. Missouri and Colorado have been playing Nebraska for a long time. If it was just a matter of resources, they would have over taken Nebraska long ago. However, Missouri and Colorado have never been able to sustain their fan support even when they are successful. Contrast that with Nebraska - even when the Cornhuskers had losing seasons, they continued to sell out Memorial Stadium. It's probably something one has to experience. Perhaps the best description is picturing BYU-Utah but on every Saturday rather than just once a season. People plan their weddings around the football schedule. Nebraska football is just part of a Nebraskan's identity.

Having said that, the closest replacement for a "Nebraska" in the Big 12 is BYU. If the Big 12 gets its act together, BYU will be seen as the replacement for Nebraska since I highly doubt Notre Dame or Arkansas will join. That just leaves another team to pair BYU with...and I'm warming up to AFA.

[Paperback Writer]

It looks like future schedules are shooting for 5-6 BCS opponents, a game with the top non-BCS school every year (BSU), and then the rest as MWC/WAC schools. I don't really have a problem with that. That's certainly a better schedule than we've consistently had previously. And it's not really very different from a BCS schedule - except for the fact that eventually all the BCS teams going to a BCS Bowl will have to play and win a league championship game to get there...

The risk of such a schedule - that is usually mitigated if you play in a league where you get a team every year, so the natural ups and downs of programs within the league tend to balance each other - is that you hit the majority of your BCS opponents on either an up or down year. If 5 of the 6 BCS teams suck in that particular year, your schedule won't be so impressive. But if they're all really good, you'd end up with one of the hardest schedules in the country.

I really like the arrangement for Independence that BYU has now - which really is only possible with ESPN helping-out and ultimately providing $ with scheduling a minimum number of solid opponents. But the Big-12 would be FABULOUS - and definitely an upgrade. The impact that the Big-12 would have on basketball at BYU would be worth anything we had to give up from being independent.

A concern I have about BYU's future scheduling as an independent will be that many conferences will be going to a 9-game format. The Big 12 and PAC-10 are already there and the Big Ten will be there in a few years (2013?). That only leaves 3 slots for OOC. Typically, a BCS team will only schedule 1 "tough" OOC opponent. If BYU is viewed as a "tough" opponent then that could hurt BYU's chances of landing on their schedule if a BCS team already has an OOC rival or has a "name" program already on the schedule. That's probably why Bronco allowed the Cougars to go 6-6 this year...to make BYU more attractive to schedule

[Superdeluxe]

It looks like Belf Self thought if the original pac-16 happened, that the B12 leftovers would have formed a western half of the Big East:

http://kansascity.sbnation.com/kansa...s-tcu-big-east

During that time when it was possible that the Big 12 would have imploded all together, Kansas Jayhawks basketball coach Bill Self and other schools thought they were headed to the Big East.

"To be honest with you, Kansas could have been making the same announcement today that TCU made. And Kansas State could have been in there too, because the feeling that we got -- or we had, when the conference realignment was going on, that if by chance, Texas would have gone to the Pac-10 and we would have stayed buddies with Kansas State and not separated and done all that stuff, then the Big East would have came and gotten us, and KSU, and Iowa State, and Missouri. Which, in theory, you say, 'Oh god, the Big East, bad travel.' They would have gone to divisions, so we would have had divisions with probably the teams that are close, and maybe Louisville and Cincinnati or whatever."

[shoganai]

It looks like Belf Self thought if the original pac-16 happened, that the B12 leftovers would have formed a western half of the Big East:

http://kansascity.sbnation.com/kansa...s-tcu-big-east

I made a post on CB back in June about this. A lot of the media were writing off the potential Big 12 leftovers as MWC pickups without giving it any critical thought.

It is very likely the Big East would have made a move for at least some of them.

[Red Legger]

From a KU perspective...

I believe there is a growing feeling that our assets are a bit overlooked in this game. When the NCAA MBB tournament supports 90% of the NCAA budget and major program like Jayhawk Basketball gets jerked around like it has these last 6 months, some scores are gonna be settled sooner or later on the matter of 'who gets what's rightfully theirs.' I believe that Bill Self commenting on the TCU/Big East movement is the beginning of letting the Nutless Bovines/Gooners/Aggies know we have some options, too. The current NCAA teevee contract is worth around $750 million split pretty evenly amongst the 300 schools that participate. Much more even and spread out than the total NCAA football income. Most Jayhawkers and a few other schools w/ strong KU basketball ties (Kentucky/UNC) might have some objections to that money being distributed so evenly in the future.

On the Big 12 and expansion, the round-robin has a lot of appeal right now. It takes us back to that old Big 8 feel of playing the same folks year after year for 100 straight years. KU by itself has three of five most often contested rivalries in NCAA football (KU/OU, KU/UNL, KU/Mizzou), and I can tell you there is a certain amount of shock that KU will never play UNL on the gridiron again. Just seems to be a need to step back from conference realignment for a few years and play some old style Big 8 football afore we go about building the next teevee contract w/ new partners. We're Kansans for gawdsakes. We just want to have a nice stable place for our varsity athletes to compete. We're not looking to get rich off this.

Finally, I read some comments on how the Big 12 will object to BYU's no-Sunday-play or religious mission. I cannot stress enough that this is a non-issue in the Big 12. BYU will play in the Big 12 because it brings its share of the money. Period. Everything else is negotiable.

And, lastly, someone state that Missoura is the new Norte counterweight. BS. They've had a nice run. So'd Woody Widenhofer. KU Football will get its act together soon enough. That's how the series is dead even after 120 meetings.

Rock Chalk Jayhawk, Beat Mizzou

[Sizzle]

It's not really a problem. 95% of the DMA's population lives between the northern suburbs of Ogden and Spanish Fork. And it's bounded by mountains on the East and desert/mountains/lakes on the West.

It is funny shaped - it's 70 miles long and 5-10 miles wide - not the circular metro area that marketers like for minimizing drive-time. Yeah, that presents issues for advertisers. There's no way in hell someone from Payson is going to be driving to Layton to get new tires or to get Lasix or their teeth whitened. But the core of the DMA - with 1 million of the 1.8 million population - is the Salt Lake Valley, which in and of itself is a pretty standard place geographically, even if the population and commercial center of mass is shifted toward the NE corner of the valley rather than at its center...

And probably the biggest attraction of the DMA - it's growth. Utah County is expected to grow about 40% over the next decade. Salt Lake County about 20%. Davis & Weber - about 30%. That's an increase of about 28% in total, with the DMA expected to have almost 2.6 million people and over 1.2 million households by 2020. In today's DMA rankings, that would put the current SLC market at about #21. I know, other markets will be growing as well, but many of the ones above SLC will be shrinking. #21 is a pretty good guess at where SLC will be in 2020. Any organization interested in long-term growth would be wise to consider SLC...

And one further point - if you put SLC in the Big-XII today, it'd be the third largest DMA in the conference foot-print, and while it will be a long-while before SLC overtakes either of those two, it will grow faster in relative and absolute terms than either DFW or Houston (or San Antonio) over the next decade. There will be more new TV sets in SLC than either Houston or DFW. And just for a point of additional trivia, neither DFW nor Houston actually have Big-12 teams inside the core of their DMA footprint itself...

Right, but the fact still remains that you don't capture any adjoining DMAs, which is the biggest issue with the SLC DMA. Look at the Texas DMAs. You have interest in two of the largest DMAs in Houston and Dallas, as well as San Antonio (which is only slightly smaller than SLC), Corpus Chrisi, Waco, etc.

The Salt Lake DMA isn't bad. But that is the problem with BYU/Utah. You only really get the Salt Lake DMA. You don't get Denver. You don't get Boise. You don't get Las Vegas. You get Salt Lake. BYU, like I said, has a little bit more of an appeal because of its national following, but a lot of the major programs not only capture their DMA, they get neighboring ones around it. SLC is so big geographically regardless of where the population is centered that it DOESN'T get any of the "spill" into neighboring DMAs.

[Paperback Writer]

Right, but the fact still remains that you don't capture any adjoining DMAs, which is the biggest issue with the SLC DMA. Look at the Texas DMAs. You have interest in two of the largest DMAs in Houston and Dallas, as well as San Antonio (which is only slightly smaller than SLC), Corpus Chrisi, Waco, etc.

The Salt Lake DMA isn't bad. But that is the problem with BYU/Utah. You only really get the Salt Lake DMA. You don't get Denver. You don't get Boise. You don't get Las Vegas. You get Salt Lake. BYU, like I said, has a little bit more of an appeal because of its national following, but a lot of the major programs not only capture their DMA, they get neighboring ones around it. SLC is so big geographically regardless of where the population is centered that it DOESN'T get any of the "spill" into neighboring DMAs.

Interesting stuff. I'm no expert on media share and DMA but I have to think that market penetration needs to factor in some how. For instance, I'm very familiar with Nebraska football and the Omaha/Lincoln DMA cannot be that attractive. No other DMAs are really close except Kansas City and Kansas and Missouri are more dominant there then Nebraska. However, the market penetration for all of Nebraska for Husker football is steep. Memorial stadium still holds the NCAA sell out streak (dating from 1962) and basically every TV set in the state is tuned in to a Nebraska game. Further, Nebraska has a national following throughout the Midwest and Southwest from Nebraska alumni. In short, Nebraska football probably doesn't show well on a DMA map but the fan support runs deep and helps ratings. In other words, a 75% share of a 2 million DMA is equivalent to a 30% share of a 5 million DMA.

I'm not saying Utah has the same level of market penetration as Nebraska. However, I have noticed similarities between BYU's national following and Nebraska's national following.

[LA Ute]

The numbers here are always a good reality check regarding the number of eyeballs Utah or BYU football can attract to TV sets.

A look at the BCS TV ratings through the years

[Sizzle]

Interesting stuff. I'm no expert on media share and DMA but I have to think that market penetration needs to factor in some how. For instance, I'm very familiar with Nebraska football and the Omaha/Lincoln DMA cannot be that attractive. No other DMAs are really close except Kansas City and Kansas and Missouri are more dominant there then Nebraska. However, the market penetration for all of Nebraska for Husker football is steep. Memorial stadium still holds the NCAA sell out streak (dating from 1962) and basically every TV set in the state is tuned in to a Nebraska game. Further, Nebraska has a national following throughout the Midwest and Southwest from Nebraska alumni. In short, Nebraska football probably doesn't show well on a DMA map but the fan support runs deep and helps ratings. In other words, a 75% share of a 2 million DMA is equivalent to a 30% share of a 5 million DMA.

I'm not saying Utah has the same level of market penetration as Nebraska. However, I have noticed similarities between BYU's national following and Nebraska's national following.

Absolutely market penetration plays a huge key and would be something that would need to be evaluated when making those types of decisions. It is why a school like San Jose State is never going to be a good fit for a BCS conference. Yes they are in a top-10 TV DMA, but there is absolutely no following so having a presence means jack.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

The numbers here are always a good reality check regarding the number of eyeballs Utah or BYU football can attract to TV sets.

A look at the BCS TV ratings through the years

It's also nice to see that Marshall and Ohio are on almost equal footing with Oklahoma judging by the numbers you posted. I'm glad that the Okies are getting a reality check.

[Sizzle]

The numbers here are always a good reality check regarding the number of eyeballs Utah or BYU football can attract to TV sets.

A look at the BCS TV ratings through the years

You're right. Look at the difference in ratings for the Sugar Bowl in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010:

2006: 9.0
2007: 9.29
2008: 7
2009: 7.8
2010: 8.5

Let's look at the Poinsettia Bowl:
2008: 2.0
2009: 3.7
2010: 2.81

Fiesta Bowl:
2005: 7.4
2006: 12.9
2007: 8.4 (What a shame as this was one of the greatest games of the decade)
2008: 7.7
2009: 10.4
2010: 8.23

Las Vegas Bowl:
2004: 1.76
2005: 1.9
2006: 2.4
2007: 1.97
2008: 2.48
2009: 2.5
2010: 2.58

Rose Bowl:
2004: 14.4
2005: 12.4
2006: 21.7
2007: 13.94
2008: 11.11
2009: 11.70
2010: 13.18

Given the timing of when the Bowls are played, I don't think you can compare bowls to bowls, but a more accurate way to judge is looking at bowl performance from year to year. The same matchup of Boise-TCU in 2009 drew a 3.71 share in the Poinsettia Bowl drew a 8.23 the next year in the Fiesta Bowl. Bowl "prestige" and timing makes a difference in my mind more so than particularly which two teams are playing. That is why I think it is better to look at how the ratings vary from year to year to really get a gauge, and I imagine it is the similar metrics that the Bowls would use in selecting their teams.

[TripletDaddy]

The numbers here are always a good reality check regarding the number of eyeballs Utah or BYU football can attract to TV sets.

A look at the BCS TV ratings through the years

These numbers are probably a dichotomy for Ute fans.

On one hand, it must be sad to no longer hold the record for lowest rated BCS bowl of all time.

On the other hand, it is encouraging to have played in 2 of the 7 lowest rated BCS bowl games of all time. Something to build on, I suppose.

[statman]

Absolutely market penetration plays a huge key and would be something that would need to be evaluated when making those types of decisions. It is why a school like San Jose State is never going to be a good fit for a BCS conference. Yes they are in a top-10 TV DMA, but there is absolutely no following so having a presence means jack.

Same can be said for NY, Boston, Philly & DC. They're huge DMAs but they're pro-football areas, and essentially no one cares about college football prior to the BCS games...

[LA Ute]

It's also nice to see that Marshall and Ohio are on almost equal footing with Oklahoma judging by the numbers you posted. I'm glad that the Okies are getting a reality check.

I am not interpreting the numbers. They are what they are and I do not know what they mean, except that they do not seem to support the assumptions of many BYU fans about BYU's national following, at least as far as TV viewership goes. I made the same assumption until I saw these data.

[Mormon Red Death]

You're right. Look at the difference in ratings for the Sugar Bowl in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010:

2006: 9.0
2007: 9.29
2008: 7
2009: 7.8
2010: 8.5

Let's look at the Poinsettia Bowl:
2008: 2.0
2009: 3.7
2010: 2.81

Fiesta Bowl:
2005: 7.4
2006: 12.9
2007: 8.4 (What a shame as this was one of the greatest games of the decade)
2008: 7.7
2009: 10.4
2010: 8.23

Las Vegas Bowl:
2004: 1.76
2005: 1.9
2006: 2.4
2007: 1.97
2008: 2.48
2009: 2.5
2010: 2.58

Rose Bowl:
2004: 14.4
2005: 12.4
2006: 21.7
2007: 13.94
2008: 11.11
2009: 11.70
2010: 13.18

Given the timing of when the Bowls are played, I don't think you can compare bowls to bowls, but a more accurate way to judge is looking at bowl performance from year to year. The same matchup of Boise-TCU in 2009 drew a 3.71 share in the Poinsettia Bowl drew a 8.23 the next year in the Fiesta Bowl. Bowl "prestige" and timing makes a difference in my mind more so than particularly which two teams are playing. That is why I think it is better to look at how the ratings vary from year to year to really get a gauge, and I imagine it is the similar metrics that the Bowls would use in selecting their teams.

How do you have the ratings for the 2010 Vegas and Poinsettia bowls?