How UConn athletic director David Benedict views conference realignment: ‘Landscape is changing’ (Borges)

[upstater]

Staples: The realignment battle for No. 1 — and for No. 3 — comes down to TV eyeballs

As the Pac-12 deals with losing UCLA and USC to the Big Ten and the Big 12 explores a raid on the Pac-12, audience data can be instructive.

theathletic.com

over the past 6 years (not including 2020) these are the teams outside the SEC/B1G (and not including OU/UT/USC/UCLA) that attracted over 1 million views for a game. viewership is obviously the most important factor in the realignment calculus:

34 games	Clemson
31	Florida State
28	Washington
26	Oregon
22	Miami
21	Washington State!
19	Oklahoma State, Utah
18	Louisville, Stanford
16	North Carolina
15	Baylor, Colorado, Virginia Tech
14	TCU, West Virginia
13	Arizona State, Boise State
12	BYU, Cal, Pittsburgh
11	Cincinnati, NC State
10	Syracuse
9	Texas Tech, UCF, Virginia
8	Houston, USF, Wake Forest
7	Army, Boston College, Iowa State, Navy
6	Arizona, Georgia Tech, Memphis
5	Duke
4	Kansas State, SMU, Temple
3	Oregon State
2	Air Force, Colorado State, Kansas, Marshall, Tulsa, UConn, Utah State

This has a lot to do though with a team's success. Doesn't really tell you about interest in the market.

If Virginia, North Carolina or Colorado were better, they'd all surpass Washington State. What are these #s when schools revert to the norm?

This is why I thought it was a big problem to bring schools like Wichita State into the AAC.

 

[bendm]

Based on the above I have to revise my prediction:

1. ND stays indy.
2. B1G adds UW and OR.
3. SEC adds Clemson and FSU.
4. PAC backfills with Boise and SDSU.
5. ACC stays at 12.5 members. (I wanted to say backfills with UConn but there’s really no justification based on those numbers).

 

[bobbyinaz]

Based on the above I have to revise my prediction:

1. ND stays indy.
2. B1G adds UW and OR.
3. SEC adds Clemson and FSU.
4. PAC backfills with Boise and SDSU.
5. ACC stays at 12.5 members. (I wanted to say backfills with UConn but there’s really no justification based on those numbers).

There is no way the B1G adds UW/OR as stand alone adds. There is not enough value

 

[ScottVib]

These numbers aren't an absolute value. Viewership numbers are skewed by opponents/networks/and timeslot. Do you really think Washington State is more valuable than UNC or Stanford? It's a data-point, but Wazzou's numbers are inflated by games where they faced USC, Oregon, etc, they didn't attract them and no conference or TV valuation is giving them credit for attracting all those viewers.

 

[bendm]

These numbers aren't an absolute value. Viewership numbers are skewed by opponents/networks/and timeslot. Do you really think Washington State is more valuable than UNC or Stanford? It's a data-point, but Wazzou's numbers are inflated by games where they faced USC, Oregon, etc, they didn't attract them and no conference or TV valuation is giving them credit for attracting all those viewers.

You have to read the methodology contained in the article. No one has ever argued the PAC has favorable tv time slots and WSU can’t be the only school to have benefited from good matchups yet they still rank very highly. Why didn’t UNC get more highly viewed games when they were playing Notre Dame and Clemson and FSU and Miami etc?

 

[bendm]

There is no way the B1G adds UW/OR as stand alone adds. There is not enough value

Conference networks can charge more to subscribers that live within their geographic footprint. Adding two big brands in two new states with big populations/markets is very valuable.

 

[upstater]

You have to read the methodology contained in the article. No one has ever argued the PAC has favorable tv time slots and WSU can’t be the only school to have benefited from good matchups yet they still rank very highly. Why didn’t UNC get more highly viewed games when they were playing Notre Dame and Clemson and FSU and Miami etc?

The answers to these questions are simple. WSU was highly ranked under Leach so they had a lot of national games as ll ranked teams do.

But teams will revert to the mean. Virginia Tech should have more successful teams than WSU.

 

[bendm]

The answers to these questions are simple. WSU was highly ranked under Leach so they had a lot of national games as ll ranked teams do.

But teams will revert to the mean. Virginia Tech should have more successful teams than WSU.

It’s not just ranking either tho. Clemson has been a top 3 team over the last 6 seasons yet has about the same number ofhighly viewed games as a very mediocre FSU. I agree WSU benefited from always being ranked under leach but they also have a very devoted following here in WA. They just aren’t a big brand so don’t command much attention outside the state.

 

[bendm]

Las Vegas releases odds on next schools to next accept offers from SEC, Big Ten

Las Vegas oddsmakers have weighed in on who could be next to accept an invitation from the Big Ten or SEC in conference realignment.

www.on3.com

FWIW Vegas is giving the best odds for joining the B1G/SEC to the top 5 teams in that viewership list I posted, plus ND obviously.

To join the BIG:
+150 ND
+150 Oregon
+600 UW

To join the SEC:
+250 Clemson
+250 FSU
+325 Miami

 

[ScottVib]

The bigger point I'm making is that data is not the be all, end all to setting the valuation. There are exactly 0 media consultants that will tell you Washington State is worth more than UNC, in fact they'd probably value UNC at multiples ahead of Washington State, regardless of that data.

North Carolina is the known brand, situated in the fastest growing state not currently in the Big Ten or SEC. In fact UNC is valued higher than Washington, let alone Washington State. I don't say that with any malice towards Wazzou, they're just the easiest team to point out the nature of short-term data and TV matchups. It's a datapoint, but not a particularly valuable one.

The actual analysis goes through and normalizes the teams draw plus or negative to the mean within the usual rating within the time slot and tries ascribe the percentage of value drawn by each team within the game.

 

[bendm]

The bigger point I'm making is that data is not the be all, end all to setting the valuation.

I never said it was the be all end all I said the ability to attract eyeballs is the most important factor, which it 100% is. Per my last post vegas also seems to agree regarding the teams at the top of the viewership list. And they give UW better odds than UNC for joining the big10.

 

[ScottVib]

Vegas is responding to name values. I’d be more interested in the next tier and aligning that to those numbers.

Ability to draw viewership is absolutely an/the important metric. The point is it's more than looking at a list of “these guys were in a game of a million viewers a lot” does not do that. By the level of import you are putting on the numbers you’d expect Washington State to clearly be the next target for the Big XII if UW and Oregon leave. They’re perhaps the lowest valued Pac-12 team.

 

[HuskyHawk]

I never said it was the be all end all I said the ability to attract eyeballs is the most important factor, which it 100% is. Per my last post vegas also seems to agree regarding the teams at the top of the viewership list. And they give UW better odds than UNC for joining the big10.

That may be because UNC is more likely to join the SEC than B1G. Also, it keeps USC and UCLA from being quite so isolated. They might go to pods.

 

[Jbirdp5]

I never said it was the be all end all I said the ability to attract eyeballs is the most important factor, which it 100% is. Per my last post vegas also seems to agree regarding the teams at the top of the viewership list. And they give UW better odds than UNC for joining the big10.

I don’t know if the article does it or not but the viewership should be compared to your opponents average viewership. Are more people watching when you play team X or less. If you play 5 teams that get a million views no matter what you look like a draw when in reality you could be getting less eyeballs than the average.

 

[NJHusky]

Conference networks can charge more to subscribers that live within their geographic footprint. Adding two big brands in two new states with big populations/markets is very valuable.

Exactly! It’s why Ru got the B1G invite. The b1g network is now on the metro ny and nj tv packages. And u r forced to pay it. Prob 10m per month added to conf coffers

 

[FlippinCrazy!]

Exactly! It’s why Ru got the B1G invite. The b1g network is now on the metro ny and nj tv packages. And u r forced to pay it. Prob 10m per month added to conf coffers

$10M per month? Idk about that…

 

[McLovin]

$10M per month? Idk about that…

If the BIG Network charges providers $1.10 per subscriber per month in their markets, it’s certainly possible. (Note: idk the source of the $1.10 but have seen it tossed around on multiple threads)

 

[McLovin]

If the BIG Network charges providers $1.10 per subscriber per month in their markets, it’s certainly possible. (Note: idk the source of the $1.10 but have seen it tossed around on multiple threads)

Looks like it’s closer to $1.50 per month.

Adding USC and UCLA could be huge for Big Ten Network

 

[Zissou]

The Catholics want nothing further to do with football schools.

Are you talking about Notre Dame or BC?

 

[Zissou]

Based on the above I have to revise my prediction:

1. ND stays indy.
2. B1G adds UW and OR.
3. SEC adds Clemson and FSU.
4. PAC backfills with Boise and SDSU.
5. ACC stays at 12.5 members. (I wanted to say backfills with UConn but there’s really no justification based on those numbers).

FSU is 26-33 over the last 5 years with their best conference record being .500

My guess:
1. ND and Stanford go B1G.
2. Although the ACC GOR isn’t strong enough to hold ND, it’s strong enough to hold full members for now. ACC retains its full members this year.
3. Wild movement is very possible for PAC, B12, and non-p5. ACC could add, but won’t lose members beyond ND.

 

[NJHusky]

$10M per month? Idk about that…

I don’t know the actual number but that was a guess based off 8-10 M households in NJ, Ny and southern Ct. what I am confident of is that letting RU in gave the B1G a lot more income than they are paying RU.

 

[bendm]

FSU is 26-33 over the last 5 years with their best conference record being .500

that's like saying louisville isnt a good basketball program anymore b/c theyve had a few bad years in a row. FSU is still right up there w/ Clemson in terms of attracting viewers. as to when/if clemson and fsu join the sec it all depends on espn and whether they want to consolidate their most valuable assets in a super conference as FOX is doing. that's certainly the way things are trending.

 

[Zissou]

that's like saying louisville isnt a good basketball program anymore b/c theyve had a few bad years in a row. FSU is still right up there w/ Clemson in terms of attracting viewers. as to when/if clemson and fsu join the sec it all depends on espn and whether they want to consolidate their most valuable assets in a super conference as FOX is doing. that's certainly the way things are trending.

I agree with you, FSU is attractive for its location, some history, and its fan base. It’s a little tarnished as football drives the value, and they are off by more than just a bad year. They have yet to show they can have even a winning season post Jimbo. They were a more attractive target with Jimbo than over the losing string of seasons since Jimbo.

 

[freescooter]

Good answer. Better than the tired old newbie angle

I think you underestimate the reach of lots of these schools in terms of national trends. Walk ddown the street in most big cities and you’ll find on Saturday a Michigan bar, an Ohio State bar, Notre Dame bars…you look at UConn even, most fans have never set foot in a classroom in Storrs. In fact most have never set foot on campus anywhere but Gampel. Guys from Ohio who went to Yale and then to Wall Street are the same way. Ohio State fans. To say nothing of the people who just selected one of those national brands to root for. If you look at the current round of changes, it isn’t about performance or markets or any of that it is about brands. USC and UCLA and Texas are all basically also fans for the past decade. But they have brand recognition.

In some ways, though we are returning to the way things were in the 1960s through 1980s. There were big national teams, Ohio State, Michigan, Texas Norte Dame Southern Cal, Alabama, Penn State etc. Then there was another level of sort of good regional powers, Syracuse, Pitt, West Virginia, BC, are examples in the East, the MAC was the midwestern version, who occasionally played national programs but seldom won, and even occasionally were among the best in the country, as Syracuse was in the mid-60s, or Pitt was under Majors, but those “ dynasties” seldom lasted long. Then there were regional teams like the Yankee Conference, Colgate, Rutgers, Temple Lehigh, etc. we Most had decent followings played other regional teams.

 

[Zissou]

I think you underestimate the reach of lots of these schools in terms of national trends. Walk ddown the street in most big cities and you’ll find on Saturday a Michigan bar, an Ohio State bar, Notre Dame bars…you look at UConn even, most fans have never set foot in a classroom in Storrs. In fact most have never set foot on campus anywhere but Gampel. Guys from Ohio who went to Yale and then to Wall Street are the same way. Ohio State fans. To say nothing of the people who just selected one of those national brands to root for. If you look at the current round of changes, it isn’t about performance or markets or any of that it is about brands. USC and UCLA and Texas are all basically also fans for the past decade. But they have brand recognition.

In some ways, though we are returning to the way things were in the 1960s through 1980s. There were big national teams, Ohio State, Michigan, Texas Norte Dame Southern Cal, Alabama, Penn State etc. Then there was another level of sort of good regional powers, Syracuse, Pitt, West Virginia, BC, are examples in the East, the MAC was the midwestern version, who occasionally played national programs but seldom won, and even occasionally were among the best in the country, as Syracuse was in the mid-60s, or Pitt was under Majors, but those “ dynasties” seldom lasted long. Then there were regional teams like the Yankee Conference, Colgate, Rutgers, Temple Lehigh, etc. we Most had decent followings played other regional teams.

You are comparing teams that won and regularly competed for championships with ones that have not. UConn has a lot more non alumni fans since it started winning championships. Nova as well.

WVU never won a championship. Pitt with Majors and Cuse with Ernie Davis were one offs compared to the national programs. I can’t think of a MAC team in either category.

 

[huskyinfl]

Can the Saudis just make a super league already?

 

[CL82]

I don’t know the actual number but that was a guess based off 8-10 M households in NJ, Ny and southern Ct. what I am confident of is that letting RU in gave the B1G a lot more income than they are paying RU.

There’s 9 million people altogether in New Jersey so figure it’s probably closer to 3 million households. Maybe less because of cutting the cord. Keep in mind though that that one $51.50 per household isn’t limited to New Jersey it also includes every home in the NYCDMA.

Assuming it is 3 million households and $1.50 per month per household you’re looking at Rutgers generating $54 million a year for the Big Ten.


The great irony is that the only other FBS school with ties to the the NYCDMA is Connecticut.

Damn you Rutgers!

 

[NJHusky]

There’s 9 million people altogether in New Jersey so figure it’s probably closer to 3 million households. Maybe less because of cutting the cord. Keep in mind though that that one $51.50 per household isn’t limited to New Jersey it also includes every home in the NYCDMA.

Assuming it is 3 million households and $1.50 per month per household you’re looking at Rutgers generating $54 million a year for the Big Ten.


The great irony is that the only other FBS school with ties to the the NYCDMA is Connecticut.

Damn you Rutgers!

It’s not just NY metro…it’s all of NY state I believe. I use Hulu and I still pay for B1G network. So even cable cutters are paying.

 

[superjohn]

It's amazing that a conference (Big 10) who never wins anything is dictating everything.

 

[CL82]

It's amazing that a conference (Big 10) who never wins anything is dictating everything.

Well, never wins anything other than outstanding media contracts are and a successful Network.