It seems as though expansion has been solely about TV markets with little regard to attendance and size of fan base.

There have been many discussions in the past as to which is the driving force behind television revenues; the amount of market "pull" or penetration schools and conferences have or is it merely the amount of potential "eyeballs" that could be sold to advertisers.

I've put together a series of grahical representations that may shed some light on these questions.

First of all, here is a graphical representation showing the correlation between Average Conference Attendance and the Average Annual TV Revenues per team.




As the title of the graph illustrates, this is based on 2011 numbers; prior to the movement of Pitt and Cuse to the ACC and TCU and WVU to the B12.

From this chart, it indicates some degree of correlation between attendance (market penetration) and TV revenue.

It would indicate that the Pac 12 hit a homerun in their negotiations. I presume, this may be due to the ability to show games on the East Coast at a late time slot. (maybe)

It also shows the Big East to be undervalued.

Interesting graph. Attendance doesn't drive realignment, but it's not really surprising that the leagues that have the highest overall attendance make the most money. However there are only so many schools who draw 80k people per game, and most of them are in the B1G, SEC, and B12.

I think the above graph shows a definite degree of correlation between market penetration (using attendance as a measure) and TV Revenues.

What happens when we take the same graph, but add in the ESPN offer to the Big East last year that they turned down. It was reported to be in the neighborhood of $11 million per football school. This was before the defections of Pitt, Cuse and WV. At that time, the Big East averaged 43,766 fans per game.

In the previous graph, we see that the former Big East TV offer by ESPN actually reinforces a correlation between market penetration and TV Revenues.

It is a near linear relationship from CUSA through the Big 10.

Again, I tip my hat to the Pac 12. They have shown good negotiation skills with their TV contract.

Could you possibly redo the graph w/o CUSA and MWC- and putting the B12 tentative deal of 20 million in. I think that would show where the ACC is right now.

And- man, the SEC was really undervalued going into this negotiation.

(05-24-2012 10:27 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Interesting graph. Attendance doesn't drive realignment, but it's not really surprising that the leagues that have the highest overall attendance make the most money. However there are only so many schools who draw 80k people per game, and most of them are in the B1G, SEC, and B12.

Makes you wonder if East Carolina wasn't the only team in CUSA averaging 50,000 what our TV media deal would look like. Imagine if every team in CUSA was averaging 40,000 to 50,000 in attendance or more how the networks might look at that and then factor a Tulane in the New Orleans market, UAB in Birmingham, Memphis in Memphis, UTSA in San Antonio, ODU in Norfolk, FIU in Miami, etc. There has to be a direct correlation.

The SEC, B12, and ACC have all gotten a bump and the B10 will surely get one in a few years so I think the line is getting steeper.

(05-24-2012 10:31 AM)piratefan1975 Wrote:  In the previous graph, we see that the former Big East TV offer by ESPN actually reinforces a correlation between market penetration and TV Revenues.

It is a near linear relationship from CUSA through the Big 10.

Again, I tip my hat to the Pac 12. They have shown good negotiation skills with their TV contract.

There's no doubt that the PAC did an amazing job in their negations. Honestly they do not have a huge number of brand name football programs. They have USC obviously, Oregon is a newish brand but working their way up, and past that there isn't a whole lot there. You compare their 3-12 with the ACC's 3-12 and there isn't a whole lot of difference. They lucked out by having their deal run out at the exact right time, while the ACC had the misfortune of locking into a really long term deal right before the deals started to explode.

Now, lets take a look at at a graph that shows the relationship between the Average Number of TV Households per Team and the Annual TV Revenue per team.

The information regarding DMA and number of television households was gathered from the Neilson website.

It should be noted, that if a conference had more than one team within a defined DMA, they were given credit for each team. For instance, the Pac 12 got credit for both USC and UCLA in the same DMA. The same goes for every conference that had multiple teams within the same DMA.




It is very interesting that this graph shows no correlation between the number of TV households and TV revenues.

(05-24-2012 10:34 AM)4x4hokies Wrote:  The SEC, B12, and ACC have all gotten a bump and the B10 will surely get one in a few years so I think the line is getting steeper.

Patience Grasshoppa. It's coming

Now, as 4x4Hokie mentioned above, the ACC and Big 12 recently renegotiated their contracts based on the additions of Pitt, Cuse and TCU and WVU, respectively.

This graph shows the correlation between average attendance and TV revenue. The average attendance of both the ACC and Big 12 has been adjusted to include the new additions. It also reflects the value of their new TV contracts accordingly.

4x4Hokie nailed it. These new contracts push the "best fit" line steeper; although there is still a correlation between attendance and revenue.



This graph brings the ACC and Big 12 in line with the Pac 12. The Big 10 network revenues and the SEC lag behind now. What will the SEC do in response?

The Big East is even more undervalued based on their former average conference attendance.

4x4Hokie, I don't know if I included the proper revenue for the SEC or not. I'll be glad to check and adjust the chart if necessary.

(05-24-2012 10:35 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 10:31 AM)piratefan1975 Wrote:  In the previous graph, we see that the former Big East TV offer by ESPN actually reinforces a correlation between market penetration and TV Revenues.

It is a near linear relationship from CUSA through the Big 10.

Again, I tip my hat to the Pac 12. They have shown good negotiation skills with their TV contract.

There's no doubt that the PAC did an amazing job in their negations. Honestly they do not have a huge number of brand name football programs. They have USC obviously, Oregon is a newish brand but working their way up, and past that there isn't a whole lot there. You compare their 3-12 with the ACC's 3-12 and there isn't a whole lot of difference. They lucked out by having their deal run out at the exact right time, while the ACC had the misfortune of locking into a really long term deal right before the deals started to explode.

Another advantage that the Pac-12 has is that it effectively has a complete power conference sports monopoly in two time zones (Pacific and Mountain). They have no direct power conference competition within their footprint (unless you still consider the Big East to be a power conference), whereas every single other league does. A network losing out on an SEC deal can still sign up the ACC to at least get some coverage in the Southeast. The Pac-12, on the other hand, is the only college sports choice out west (so their control of such a large region that includes important markets like LA and San Francisco overrides the fact that they don't get watched much outside of that region).

Now, to be fair, I've included the New ACC and New Big 12 in the above graph. I don't think I've included the new SEC figures. I'll recalculate those asap.

Does anyone know the new TV payout per team of the SEC contract with Mizzou and A&M included?

I've taken the same graph and projected the New Big East onto it. The New Big East, while HUGE in terms of market potential, has suffered a 21% loss in average attendance with their additions; far more than any other conference.



The projections for the New Big East fall at approximately $6 million per football school. Assuming that the Big East negotiates properly and uses their potential of markets and west coast time slots, I think they may be able to squeeze up to $10 million per team; but I just don't see them being that far above the line.

I see no way they would be below the line. So, I'm assuming $6 million per team to be the bare minimum.

CUSA has taken slight downward slide in attendance also. Charlotte is the big question mark. I expect our revenue per team to slide; at least in the short term. Although, I do expect it to reasonably fall along this red line.

(05-24-2012 10:45 AM)piratefan1975 Wrote:  4x4Hokie, I don't know if I included the proper revenue for the SEC or not. I'll be glad to check and adjust the chart if necessary.

I don't think it is official but the strongest rumor is 25 million which fits in well with your line.

EDIT: Actually, with the steeper line it looks to be low

(05-24-2012 10:34 AM)ECUPirated Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 10:27 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Interesting graph. Attendance doesn't drive realignment, but it's not really surprising that the leagues that have the highest overall attendance make the most money. However there are only so many schools who draw 80k people per game, and most of them are in the B1G, SEC, and B12.

Makes you wonder if East Carolina wasn't the only team in CUSA averaging 50,000 what our TV media deal would look like. Imagine if every team in CUSA was averaging 40,000 to 50,000 in attendance or more how the networks might look at that and then factor a Tulane in the New Orleans market, UAB in Birmingham, Memphis in Memphis, UTSA in San Antonio, ODU in Norfolk, FIU in Miami, etc. There has to be a direct correlation.

First off....VERY good visual aids to the OP.

I've always thought our media deal would be A LOT better if our current members could just put 35K butts IN THE SEATS. A lot of the numbers are reporting sold tickets as "attendance". Bottom line is CUSA & MWC product is horrible for the most part.

Joe Sports Fan doesn't want to watch a game say....@UAB or @Tulane or @Rice with 10K in the stands. I barely wanted to watch ECU @UAB the last time we played there. It's freaking embarrassing to be in a conference with THAT to be totally honest. Don't get me wrong, I don't think we'd all of a sudden get SEC or Big10 type ratings with better attendance but I DO believe it would help a lot.

There's something cool about watching a game where you can hear the fans roar in the background and cameras pan over a crowd that's whipped into a frenzy. We don't really have much of that at all in CUSA and that really hurts us.

I think that's where UTSA was brilliant in doing what they did. And- probably a good reason why they are where they are right now.

I think it comes down to TV execs can say the games will big in these major markets. I do tend to agree that teams like ECU with a big following should be considered as pulling from other markets.

(05-24-2012 10:50 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 10:35 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 10:31 AM)piratefan1975 Wrote:  In the previous graph, we see that the former Big East TV offer by ESPN actually reinforces a correlation between market penetration and TV Revenues.

It is a near linear relationship from CUSA through the Big 10.

Again, I tip my hat to the Pac 12. They have shown good negotiation skills with their TV contract.

There's no doubt that the PAC did an amazing job in their negations. Honestly they do not have a huge number of brand name football programs. They have USC obviously, Oregon is a newish brand but working their way up, and past that there isn't a whole lot there. You compare their 3-12 with the ACC's 3-12 and there isn't a whole lot of difference. They lucked out by having their deal run out at the exact right time, while the ACC had the misfortune of locking into a really long term deal right before the deals started to explode.

Another advantage that the Pac-12 has is that it effectively has a complete power conference sports monopoly in two time zones (Pacific and Mountain). They have no direct power conference competition within their footprint (unless you still consider the Big East to be a power conference), whereas every single other league does. A network losing out on an SEC deal can still sign up the ACC to at least get some coverage in the Southeast. The Pac-12, on the other hand, is the only college sports choice out west (so their control of such a large region that includes important markets like LA and San Francisco overrides the fact that they don't get watched much outside of that region).

^^^^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Don't know what's going on. Let's try this....