What will it take for a USC-led coup to occur in Pac 12 Country?

There's another path out there to 24:

4 California schools, UO, UW, UC, UA, plus Kansas and Oklahoma. the 8 Pac schools form Big 12 West.

Big 12 Central is Kansas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, N'western, and Illinois.

I'm curious why Utah keeps getting brought up. They aren't AAU so the Big Ten probably isn't interested.

(01-25-2018 09:47 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  

(01-22-2018 06:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Conference/Attendance Average / Gross Total Revenue Average / WSJ Estimated Values For Product Average

1. SEC / 77,565 / $121,240,504 / $523,416,428

2. B1G / 66,162 / $108,269,417 / $415,748,643

3. B12 / 57,238 / $102,170,537 / $376,433,300

4. PAC / 50,112 / $ 89,239,736 / $253,766,417

5. ACC / 49,827 / $ 87,034,205 / $182,383,929

Those attendance figures don't paint the whole picture from my calculations (I made a thread on the Liberty board as a project to show what it would take to be a P5 candidate). I assume you got those from the NCAA website. If so, their conference breakdown is on a per conference game average, not a per school average. Since each of the schools don't have the same number of home games, the two averages don't match.

Another way of explaining it:
The NCAA gets their average from the total home attendance for a conference divided by the number of games instead of taking the average attendance for each school and averaging over the number of schools. I think the latter is the better method as it accounts for the disparity in the number of home games but I understand those who prefer the former.

What I came up when averaging the conference members' averages were these:

SEC: 77,165
Big Ten: 65,574
Big 12: 57,569
PAC 12: 50,366
ACC: 49,716

I took the annual reported attendance figures for each of the schools and averaged them by conference. But truthfully there's not enough difference there to quibble over. Statistically they are virtually the same. It is a tool for determining the strength of a candidate, and as I stated it's not a stat that is a deal maker, but it is certainly one that could be a deal breaker. E.G. Kansas averaged a little over 25,000 in 2016-7. The ones for 2017-8 won't be available until late March or early April. It looks like most are lower by 200 to 300 by your calculations and the PAC is up by about 200. That's less than a 3/1000th variance.

And once again my links for all of this kind of data is in the pinned threads at the top of the SEC board.

The more relevant numbers are those of the Gross Total Revenue which is an indicator of earning potential and the ability to raise funds, and that supplied by the WSJ annually which shows the economic impact that a school has over its state or region. Somtimes the number of living alumni are compared to attendance, TV ratings, the number of contributors, etc.

Geographical fit, cultural fit, and academics are also weighed, but the bottom line again is if they don't add to the bottom line they aren't added. Which of course why the data sets I listed are essential to determining their estimated value as an addition.

Michigan State was admitted in the 1950s before entering the AAU and Nebraska lost its AAU designation in the process of admission. So there is some precedence. And then there's that small school in South Bend that they'd be willing to overlook the lack of AAU if it ever applies again, but that's a more hypothetical than not discussion these days.

What intrigues me about Utah is the growing Salt Lake City market which, if combined with Denver, would basically own the interior West except for Phoenix and either of the Arizona schools would cover the Phoenix market anyways in the old model. Utah wouldn't be a priority in either case but only as a secondary target to combine with prime choices for the purpose of creating better geographical divisions.

Even in the new model, any pick up of PAC schools by the Big Ten would depend on how deep they can penetrate the bigger markets out there. So CU (Denver), UW (Seattle), UO (Portland), Cal, Stanford (Bay Area), UCLA, USC (Los Angeles), Arizona State, Arizona (Phoenix) and Utah (Salt Lake City) would be looked at in the event.

(01-25-2018 12:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  A couple of points from your recent two posts. The PAC would have to be the supplier of a Big 10 move to 20 if the SEC moved to 18 out of the Big 12. And economically speaking that would be the best approach.

Let's say that Colorado, the 4 California schools and Washington all headed to the Big 10 and that Texa-homa moved to the SEC. The ACC would still have reasonable expansion targets for new market penetration out of the remnants of the Big 12. Baylor and T.C.U. both are above the ACC mean in attendance, gross revenue, and about in line if not slightly better in their revenue impact projections. The are ahead also ahead of comparable schools in the ACC in the % of viewers who actually watch. Add West Virginia and the ACC moves to 18. Toss in the two Kansas schools or Iowa State and Kansas and you are at 20.

Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas, Louisville, T.C.U.

Boston College, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia

Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia, Virginia Tech

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, Wake Forest

So with the SEC at 18, the Big 10 at 20, the ACC at 20, Kansas State could join the other 6 PAC schools plus B.Y.U., San Diego State, Colorado State, Boise State, one of the Nevada's, Houston and a few more to form their own conference. But the point is that it would provide all the necessary impetus for moving to conference semi finals.

Given the economic disparity between the Big 10/SEC and ACC taking 6 each from the ACC is the still probably the best way for the SEC and Big 10 to grow. That would leave the Big 12 and PAC the room needed for merging with their best 20 and then the P3 will have trimmed 5 from its ranks. 60 is a good number to work with and that too weeds out many of those who are P5 / G5 tweeners.

But that kind of movement will have different motives than those expressed in the OP. That kind of movement would be about geographic consolidation and leverage.

That Disney decided on passing on BTN gave me a big clue as to where they want to prioritize. I think they decided to let the "New" Fox figure out what to do with the PAC schools in seven years, while they pick up whatever pieces from what remains of the Big XII to complement their holdings in the East Coast. One of the aims of the ACCN would be to kick Fox out of the Southeast but buying out the Fox RSNs make that a moot point, anyway. So your scenario may be closer to the truth than you realize.

Another intriguing idea. I tip my hat to you.

If, indeed, there is unrest in the PAC 12, there is a simple solution to several problems in one fell swoop when their current contract expires.

Let's take 18 and 20 team conferences off the table for now, because they would require the collective agreement of the P5 to allow four team conference tournaments. Instead, let's stick with 16 being the max.

Both the PAC and the Big 12 have geography problems. What if the 4 California schools plus Washington and Oregon, which are the six most valuable properties in the PAC, moved together to the Big 12, adding Baylor and Texas Tech to form an 8 team western division of the B12? Now you have a 16 team league that is on a par competitively with the SEC. You have the foundation for a conference network with teams from all four mainland time zones.

And, just as important, you have taken off the table virtually all viable candidates for expansion by the other three power conferences. I say three power conferences, because the remnants of the PAC, while they can add teams to make a nice tweener conference, still lacks the tentpole to give them P status. I could see the PAC adding Boise State, San Diego State, Fresno State and BYU, to go along with Washington St, Oregon St, Arizona, Arizona St, Utah and Colorado for a solid 10 team league, that also has plenty of viable opponents west of the Rockies to fill out their OOC schedules.

My only question would be which network would be first to jump on the new and improved Big 12 bandwagon?

(01-26-2018 11:14 AM)ken d Wrote:  If, indeed, there is unrest in the PAC 12, there is a simple solution to several problems in one fell swoop when their current contract expires.

Let's take 18 and 20 team conferences off the table for now, because they would require the collective agreement of the P5 to allow four team conference tournaments. Instead, let's stick with 16 being the max.

Both the PAC and the Big 12 have geography problems. What if the 4 California schools plus Washington and Oregon, which are the six most valuable properties in the PAC, moved together to the Big 12, adding Baylor and Texas Tech to form an 8 team western division of the B12? Now you have a 16 team league that is on a par competitively with the SEC. You have the foundation for a conference network with teams from all four mainland time zones.

And, just as important, you have taken off the table virtually all viable candidates for expansion by the other three power conferences. I say three power conferences, because the remnants of the PAC, while they can add teams to make a nice tweener conference, still lacks the tentpole to give them P status. I could see the PAC adding Boise State, San Diego State, Fresno State and BYU, to go along with Washington St, Oregon St, Arizona, Arizona St, Utah and Colorado for a solid 10 team league, that also has plenty of viable opponents west of the Rockies to fill out their OOC schedules.

My only question would be which network would be first to jump on the new and improved Big 12 bandwagon?

Colorado won’t be left behind like that. If anything, the PAC would absorb 8 XII schools (not West Virginia or Baylor).

(01-26-2018 11:26 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(01-26-2018 11:14 AM)ken d Wrote:  If, indeed, there is unrest in the PAC 12, there is a simple solution to several problems in one fell swoop when their current contract expires.

Let's take 18 and 20 team conferences off the table for now, because they would require the collective agreement of the P5 to allow four team conference tournaments. Instead, let's stick with 16 being the max.

Both the PAC and the Big 12 have geography problems. What if the 4 California schools plus Washington and Oregon, which are the six most valuable properties in the PAC, moved together to the Big 12, adding Baylor and Texas Tech to form an 8 team western division of the B12? Now you have a 16 team league that is on a par competitively with the SEC. You have the foundation for a conference network with teams from all four mainland time zones.

And, just as important, you have taken off the table virtually all viable candidates for expansion by the other three power conferences. I say three power conferences, because the remnants of the PAC, while they can add teams to make a nice tweener conference, still lacks the tentpole to give them P status. I could see the PAC adding Boise State, San Diego State, Fresno State and BYU, to go along with Washington St, Oregon St, Arizona, Arizona St, Utah and Colorado for a solid 10 team league, that also has plenty of viable opponents west of the Rockies to fill out their OOC schedules.

My only question would be which network would be first to jump on the new and improved Big 12 bandwagon?

Colorado won’t be left behind like that. If anything, the PAC would absorb 8 XII schools (not West Virginia or Baylor).

The problem with that is that you have to go to 20 teams to do it. Then you will essentially have two distinct 10 team divisions with no crossovers. Two PAC teams would have to be permanently split from their PAC brothers - most likely Utah and Colorado. It would also require that the Big 12 formally dissolve - which they could do with the votes of the 8 teams who would move as a bloc to the PAC.

I don't believe the other P conferences would permit this new behemoth to hold a four team conference championship - unless, of course, the three 14 team leagues got to do so as well. Maybe that is the impetus for not requiring those leagues to have fixed divisions.

Another question I would have for you is why you think Colorado wouldn't be left behind? Do you think they have enough power to prevent it? The six PAC schools I picked all have a strong affinity to one another. I don't think Colorado has any such affinity.

How would you feel if the new PAC were given an autobid to the Fiesta Bowl against the AAC champ, as part of a P6? Would that make my suggestion more palatable to most of the schools involved?

(01-26-2018 12:01 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-26-2018 11:26 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(01-26-2018 11:14 AM)ken d Wrote:  If, indeed, there is unrest in the PAC 12, there is a simple solution to several problems in one fell swoop when their current contract expires.

Let's take 18 and 20 team conferences off the table for now, because they would require the collective agreement of the P5 to allow four team conference tournaments. Instead, let's stick with 16 being the max.

Both the PAC and the Big 12 have geography problems. What if the 4 California schools plus Washington and Oregon, which are the six most valuable properties in the PAC, moved together to the Big 12, adding Baylor and Texas Tech to form an 8 team western division of the B12? Now you have a 16 team league that is on a par competitively with the SEC. You have the foundation for a conference network with teams from all four mainland time zones.

And, just as important, you have taken off the table virtually all viable candidates for expansion by the other three power conferences. I say three power conferences, because the remnants of the PAC, while they can add teams to make a nice tweener conference, still lacks the tentpole to give them P status. I could see the PAC adding Boise State, San Diego State, Fresno State and BYU, to go along with Washington St, Oregon St, Arizona, Arizona St, Utah and Colorado for a solid 10 team league, that also has plenty of viable opponents west of the Rockies to fill out their OOC schedules.

My only question would be which network would be first to jump on the new and improved Big 12 bandwagon?

Colorado won’t be left behind like that. If anything, the PAC would absorb 8 XII schools (not West Virginia or Baylor).

The problem with that is that you have to go to 20 teams to do it. Then you will essentially have two distinct 10 team divisions with no crossovers. Two PAC teams would have to be permanently split from their PAC brothers - most likely Utah and Colorado. It would also require that the Big 12 formally dissolve - which they could do with the votes of the 8 teams who would move as a bloc to the PAC.

I don't believe the other P conferences would permit this new behemoth to hold a four team conference championship - unless, of course, the three 14 team leagues got to do so as well. Maybe that is the impetus for not requiring those leagues to have fixed divisions.

Another question I would have for you is why you think Colorado wouldn't be left behind? Do you think they have enough power to prevent it? The six PAC schools I picked all have a strong affinity to one another. I don't think Colorado has any such affinity.

How would you feel if the new PAC were given an autobid to the Fiesta Bowl against the AAC champ, as part of a P6? Would that make my suggestion more palatable to most of the schools involved?

I want to start by saying that, personally, I love the idea of being in a conference with Washington St, Oregon St, Arizona, Arizona St, Utah, and Colorado.

Regarding my thoughts...

It would help the PAC get into the Central Time Zone. Texas and Oklahoma would get to play their friends. 4-school conference playoffs wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. Each of the 4 major conferences would have plenty of decent cities to host semi-finals and championships.

Colorado has a lot going for it. The 6 you picked originally (Washington, Oregon, California, Stanford, USC, UCLA) definitely have strong ties to each other that Colorado doesn't have. Colorado does have strong ties to the original Big 8 schools and looser ties (but still ties) to the original Texas XII schools. Colorado's long history with Midwest schools, short history with Texas schools, and brief history with Pacific schools would help. It also would serve as a great physical bridge.

The new PAC, even with my team (Boise St), would have AAC written all over it. It would be a good partnership and I'd love being in that conference but it still leaves a lot left to be desired because the PAC and AAC would both be on the outside looking in. If both conferences were treated as power conferences, then I wouldn't have an issue.

(01-26-2018 12:29 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(01-26-2018 12:01 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-26-2018 11:26 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(01-26-2018 11:14 AM)ken d Wrote:  If, indeed, there is unrest in the PAC 12, there is a simple solution to several problems in one fell swoop when their current contract expires.

Let's take 18 and 20 team conferences off the table for now, because they would require the collective agreement of the P5 to allow four team conference tournaments. Instead, let's stick with 16 being the max.

Both the PAC and the Big 12 have geography problems. What if the 4 California schools plus Washington and Oregon, which are the six most valuable properties in the PAC, moved together to the Big 12, adding Baylor and Texas Tech to form an 8 team western division of the B12? Now you have a 16 team league that is on a par competitively with the SEC. You have the foundation for a conference network with teams from all four mainland time zones.

And, just as important, you have taken off the table virtually all viable candidates for expansion by the other three power conferences. I say three power conferences, because the remnants of the PAC, while they can add teams to make a nice tweener conference, still lacks the tentpole to give them P status. I could see the PAC adding Boise State, San Diego State, Fresno State and BYU, to go along with Washington St, Oregon St, Arizona, Arizona St, Utah and Colorado for a solid 10 team league, that also has plenty of viable opponents west of the Rockies to fill out their OOC schedules.

My only question would be which network would be first to jump on the new and improved Big 12 bandwagon?

Colorado won’t be left behind like that. If anything, the PAC would absorb 8 XII schools (not West Virginia or Baylor).

The problem with that is that you have to go to 20 teams to do it. Then you will essentially have two distinct 10 team divisions with no crossovers. Two PAC teams would have to be permanently split from their PAC brothers - most likely Utah and Colorado. It would also require that the Big 12 formally dissolve - which they could do with the votes of the 8 teams who would move as a bloc to the PAC.

I don't believe the other P conferences would permit this new behemoth to hold a four team conference championship - unless, of course, the three 14 team leagues got to do so as well. Maybe that is the impetus for not requiring those leagues to have fixed divisions.

Another question I would have for you is why you think Colorado wouldn't be left behind? Do you think they have enough power to prevent it? The six PAC schools I picked all have a strong affinity to one another. I don't think Colorado has any such affinity.

How would you feel if the new PAC were given an autobid to the Fiesta Bowl against the AAC champ, as part of a P6? Would that make my suggestion more palatable to most of the schools involved?

I want to start by saying that, personally, I love the idea of being in a conference with Washington St, Oregon St, Arizona, Arizona St, Utah, and Colorado.

Regarding my thoughts...

It would help the PAC get into the Central Time Zone. Texas and Oklahoma would get to play their friends. 4-school conference playoffs wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. Each of the 4 major conferences would have plenty of decent cities to host semi-finals and championships.

Colorado has a lot going for it. The 6 you picked originally (Washington, Oregon, California, Stanford, USC, UCLA) definitely have strong ties to each other that Colorado doesn't have. Colorado does have strong ties to the original Big 8 schools and looser ties (but still ties) to the original Texas XII schools. Colorado's long history with Midwest schools, short history with Texas schools, and brief history with Pacific schools would help. It also would serve as a great physical bridge.

The new PAC, even with my team (Boise St), would have AAC written all over it. It would be a good partnership and I'd love being in that conference but it still leaves a lot left to be desired because the PAC and AAC would both be on the outside looking in. If both conferences were treated as power conferences, then I wouldn't have an issue.

The more I study this, the more I am inclined to think those six proposed conferences are clearly separated in every way from the other four. While the new PAC and the existing AAC are clearly a cut below the top four, they are also clearly better than the bottom four. In effect, if these were a P6, there would be 81 schools (including ND) that would have P6 status in my view. A majority of the remaining schools have moved up to FBS in the past 20 years or so.

The following data uses the Sagarin ratings over the past eight years. The first column is the 8 year average strength rating for each conference. The second column is the latest trailing 3 year average for each conference. The third is the latest average 3 year rating of the four strongest teams from each conference. The fourth is the latest 3 year average for the top team in each conference.

Conf...8 yr...3 yr...Top 4...Best
..........avg..avg....avg.....team

SEC.....81....79....90.....103...Alabama
B12.....79....78....89.......93...Oklahoma
ACC.....75....78....87.......99...Clemson
B1G.....75....76....89.......94...Ohio State

PAC.....73....71....77.......80...Utah
AAC.....66....67....75.......76...USF

MWC....61....60....65......68...Air Force
MAC.....59....59....69......73...Toledo
SBC.....58....58....67......73...Appalachian St
USA.....58....57....69......72...Western Kentucky

I would have no problem with adding a 7th NY bowl to the mix, giving both the PAC and AAC a guaranteed berth, without taking anything away from the top four conferences. It would be hard for the tweener conferences (and Notre Dame) to break through to the Final Four, but not impossible. That is already true for all 23 of those schools (not to mention about half of the teams from the top four conferences). But that's how it has always been. Only 22 different schools have appeared in the BCS / CFP top four over the past 15 years. Thats roughly 25% of the 81 team P6.

It should also be noted that, P6 designation notwithstanding, there is no assurance that either the PAC or the AAC are likely to command anywhere near the kind of media contract the top four conferences will have. But they should get far more than any of the bottom four conferences.

(01-25-2018 07:56 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(01-25-2018 01:21 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  If we decide to ditch the “eliminate the Big 12” stuff and use these same metrics/methods, at least two of these methods shows why the Big 12 decided not to expand (I used the first two methods, FYI. Have not tried method #3 but have a morning appointment to attend. I will attempt #3 later.). Using the first two methods, only UCONN looks like an expansion candidate and that’s only by substituting the Big 12 Conference’s median for its mean.

While I have a brief respite duel this very busy day, I had time earlier to look at JRSec’s criterion #3, and once again, using the Big 12 as the conference average/median, I once again examined the Big 12’s expansion candidates. None, not even BYU, met the average!!!! Now I see why the Big 12 did what they did (no other real choice), but they could have handled the process a lot better!!

While the average and median numbers are immensely important, Texas and Oklahoma greatly skew the Big 12's numbers across the board.

There are expansion candidates that fit the attendance numbers and would fit with the revenue numbers as part of the B12 media package (add $30M to their revenues).

Also, with improved revenue, attendance, and the B12 affiliation, you would see significant improvements to WSJ values.

FOOTBALL ATTENDANCE
Texas: 97.8k
Oklahoma: 86.8k
--------
BYU 58.5k
Texas Tech: 58.2K
WVU: 57.5k
B12 Average: 57.2k
--------
Oklahoma St.: 53.8k
B12 Median: 53.1
Iowa St.: 52.5k
Kansas St.: 51.9k
Baylor: 45.8k
TCU: 45.1k
--------
Houston: 38.9k
South Florida: 37.5k
Memphis: 37.3k
UCF: 35.8k
Cincinnati: 33.5k
UConn 26.7K
Kansas: 25.8k


REVENUE
Texas: $182M
Oklahoma: $150M
--------
UConn: $109M (+30M)
B12 Average: $102M
--------
Kansas: $94M
TCU: $93M
BYU: $92M (+30M)
WVU: 91M
B12 Median: 91.5
Oklahoma St.: 90M
Baylor: $90M
UCF: $89M (+30M)
Cincinnati: $89M (+30M)
--------
Texas Tech: $82M
Houston: $81M (+30M)
Memphis: $80M (+30M)
Iowa St.: $78M
Kansas St.: $77M
South Florida: $77M (+30M)


WSJ VALUE
Texas: $1.243B
Oklahoma: $1.0B
--------
--------
B12 Average: $376M
--------
Oklahoma St.: $285M
Kansas St.: $277M
Texas Tech: $246M
--------
B12 Median: $221
Iowa St.: $196M
Kansas: $183M
TCU: $153M
-------
Baylor: $103M
BYU: 98.9M
UCF: $82.3M
WVU: $72M
South Florida: 70.1
-------
UConn: $59.7
Houston: 41.3M


BASKETBALL ATTENDANCE
Kansas: 16.3k
BYU: 14.4k
Iowa St.: 14.2k
--------
Kansas St.: 11.4k
West Virginia: 11.3k
Texas: 10.4k
B12 Median: 10.3k
Cincinnati: 09.8k
B12 Median: 9.8k
Memphis: 09.6k
Oklahoma: 9.2k
Texas Tech: 9.0k
--------
UConn: 8.5lk
Oklahoma St.: 8.4k
--------
Baylor: 6.8k
TCU: 6.1k
--------
UCF: 4.6k
Houston: 4.1k
South Florida: 2.5k
*Included basketball attendance because it is still relevant to expansion considerations.

(01-26-2018 02:36 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(01-25-2018 07:56 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(01-25-2018 01:21 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  If we decide to ditch the “eliminate the Big 12” stuff and use these same metrics/methods, at least two of these methods shows why the Big 12 decided not to expand (I used the first two methods, FYI. Have not tried method #3 but have a morning appointment to attend. I will attempt #3 later.). Using the first two methods, only UCONN looks like an expansion candidate and that’s only by substituting the Big 12 Conference’s median for its mean.

While I have a brief respite duel this very busy day, I had time earlier to look at JRSec’s criterion #3, and once again, using the Big 12 as the conference average/median, I once again examined the Big 12’s expansion candidates. None, not even BYU, met the average!!!! Now I see why the Big 12 did what they did (no other real choice), but they could have handled the process a lot better!!

While the average and median numbers are immensely important, Texas and Oklahoma greatly skew the Big 12's numbers across the board.

There are expansion candidates that fit the attendance numbers and would fit with the revenue numbers as part of the B12 media package (add $30M to their revenues).

Also, with improved revenue, attendance, and the B12 affiliation, you would see significant improvements to WSJ values.

FOOTBALL ATTENDANCE
Texas: 97.8k
Oklahoma: 86.8k
--------
BYU 58.5k
Texas Tech: 58.2K
WVU: 57.5k
B12 Average: 57.2k
--------
Oklahoma St.: 53.8k
B12 Median: 53.1
Iowa St.: 52.5k
Kansas St.: 51.9k
Baylor: 45.8k
TCU: 45.1k
--------
Houston: 38.9k
South Florida: 37.5k
Memphis: 37.3k
UCF: 35.8k
Cincinnati: 33.5k
UConn 26.7K
Kansas: 25.8k


REVENUE
Texas: $182M
Oklahoma: $150M
--------
UConn: $109M (+30M)
B12 Average: $102M
--------
Kansas: $94M
TCU: $93M
BYU: $92M (+30M)
WVU: 91M
B12 Median: 91.5
Oklahoma St.: 90M
Baylor: $90M
UCF: $89M (+30M)
Cincinnati: $89M (+30M)
--------
Texas Tech: $82M
Houston: $81M (+30M)
Memphis: $80M (+30M)
Iowa St.: $78M
Kansas St.: $77M
South Florida: $77M (+30M)


WSJ VALUE
Texas: $1.243B
Oklahoma: $1.0B
--------
--------
B12 Average: $376M
--------
Oklahoma St.: $285M
Kansas St.: $277M
Texas Tech: $246M
--------
B12 Median: $221
Iowa St.: $196M
Kansas: $183M
TCU: $153M
-------
Baylor: $103M
BYU: 98.9M
UCF: $82.3M
WVU: $72M
South Florida: 70.1
-------
UConn: $59.7
Houston: 41.3M


BASKETBALL ATTENDANCE
Kansas: 16.3k
BYU: 14.4k
Iowa St.: 14.2k
--------
Kansas St.: 11.4k
West Virginia: 11.3k
Texas: 10.4k
B12 Median: 10.3k
Cincinnati: 09.8k
B12 Median: 9.8k
Memphis: 09.6k
Oklahoma: 9.2k
Texas Tech: 9.0k
--------
UConn: 8.5lk
Oklahoma St.: 8.4k
--------
Baylor: 6.8k
TCU: 6.1k
--------
UCF: 4.6k
Houston: 4.1k
South Florida: 2.5k
*Included basketball attendance because it is still relevant to expansion considerations.

That's a good use of the data and I agree about UConn and B.Y.U.. But while B.Y.U. makes sense, it is unfortunate that UConn would be even more of an outlier than W.V.U. and geography does enter into the equation when it comes to travel costs.

But doesn't this really miss the obvious? Texas and Oklahoma aren't with peers. And in no other conference is the disparity between the top two brands and the rest so evident. We aren't looking at gaps in revenue here of 20 million, but rather 50 million and more. The fact that the rest of the Big 12 with a couple of exceptions fits better with B.Y.U. and UConn doesn't mean that those two add value for Texas or Oklahoma.

And then there is the question of is B.Y.U. and UConn, and the Florida twins worth an additional 30 million to the networks who pay for the over pricing of Baylor, T.C.U., Kansas State, Texas Tech, West Virginia, and Iowa State to just hang onto Texas and Oklahoma? I think given the fact that they raised the Big 12 rates a few years ago to prevent expansion that their answer is a resounding, "No".

So paying Texas and Oklahoma more in either Big 10 or SEC where they play other big draws makes sense and cents. Paying them to play a slate of schools that the nation is not interested in seeing them play, and paying that slate more than they are worth to play them, does not.

One Pac 12/Big 12 solution would be for the Pac 12 to dump Washington St and Oregon St and add the Big 12 schools in Oklahoma and Texas to make 16. It's not as profitable as moving to the Big Ten or SEC. I'd be hard pressed to see that happen but it is a thought.

Nothing will happen anytime soon, until..............................

the PAC decides what to do with their network.
If they can strip enough overhead to make it more profitable for the PAC members....great.
My bet is that the whole network will go up for sale.

If the PAC network goes to FOX, then ESPN will utilize Texas the best they can and attempt to buy Oklahoma.
If ESPN buys the PAC network, I would look for both Tejas and Oklahoma to head west to boost the visibility and increase the level of play in the PAC.

Stupid question, but the allegations against Emmert make me wonder:

If the NCAA gets reformed, is there a chance that this is conveniently used as a way to re-arrange FBS and divisional structures? If FBS is rearranged, then there will be huge knock-on effects at the P5 level. There has been a whole lot of smoke before, but a big factor that sort of slowed the process was inertia.

...well, inertia just broken. The NCAA of tomorrow may have to look totally different than it does now - at least for a while.

(01-26-2018 09:59 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  Stupid question, but the allegations against Emmert make me wonder:

If the NCAA gets reformed, is there a chance that this is conveniently used as a way to re-arrange FBS and divisional structures? If FBS is rearranged, then there will be huge knock-on effects at the P5 level. There has been a whole lot of smoke before, but a big factor that sort of slowed the process was inertia.

...well, inertia just broken. The NCAA of tomorrow may have to look totally different than it does now - at least for a while.

I think at the very least, people will start asking questions about the NCAA that maybe they never did before. All of a sudden, it might not be so much about the money and it might be more about the effectiveness of an organization to protect student athletes along with the general student population.

Just my two cents, but maybe it would be more beneficial to devise a new structure sooner than later.

(01-27-2018 01:03 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(01-26-2018 09:59 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  Stupid question, but the allegations against Emmert make me wonder:

If the NCAA gets reformed, is there a chance that this is conveniently used as a way to re-arrange FBS and divisional structures? If FBS is rearranged, then there will be huge knock-on effects at the P5 level. There has been a whole lot of smoke before, but a big factor that sort of slowed the process was inertia.

...well, inertia just broken. The NCAA of tomorrow may have to look totally different than it does now - at least for a while.

I think at the very least, people will start asking questions about the NCAA that maybe they never did before. All of a sudden, it might not be so much about the money and it might be more about the effectiveness of an organization to protect student athletes along with the general student population.

Just my two cents, but maybe it would be more beneficial to devise a new structure sooner than later.

Two reasons that inertia is still a heavy favorite.

(1) Schools outside the power conferences don't want the NCAA to go away because the alternative is likely a new organization controlled entirely by the power conference members that may have a limited number of member schools, with other schools left to stay in a rebuilt NCAA or join the NAIA or whatever, or otherwise would be entirely controlled by the big boys with a "if you don't like it, just leave" attitude toward smaller athletic departments. Thus, heavy pressure to give the NCAA a patch or two and keep it going.

(2) Even for the power-conference schools, creating a new college-sports governing body would be a giant PITA for those tasked with starting it from the ground up, and everyone who would likely be doing that -- university presidents, ADs, etc. -- already has a full-time job and starting a new organization would be like adding a second full-time job on top of it. Few if any competent people would volunteer to take on that second job.

(01-25-2018 10:51 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-25-2018 09:47 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  

(01-22-2018 06:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Conference/Attendance Average / Gross Total Revenue Average / WSJ Estimated Values For Product Average

1. SEC / 77,565 / $121,240,504 / $523,416,428

2. B1G / 66,162 / $108,269,417 / $415,748,643

3. B12 / 57,238 / $102,170,537 / $376,433,300

4. PAC / 50,112 / $ 89,239,736 / $253,766,417

5. ACC / 49,827 / $ 87,034,205 / $182,383,929

Those attendance figures don't paint the whole picture from my calculations (I made a thread on the Liberty board as a project to show what it would take to be a P5 candidate). I assume you got those from the NCAA website. If so, their conference breakdown is on a per conference game average, not a per school average. Since each of the schools don't have the same number of home games, the two averages don't match.

Another way of explaining it:
The NCAA gets their average from the total home attendance for a conference divided by the number of games instead of taking the average attendance for each school and averaging over the number of schools. I think the latter is the better method as it accounts for the disparity in the number of home games but I understand those who prefer the former.

What I came up when averaging the conference members' averages were these:

SEC: 77,165
Big Ten: 65,574
Big 12: 57,569
PAC 12: 50,366
ACC: 49,716

I took the annual reported attendance figures for each of the schools and averaged them by conference. But truthfully there's not enough difference there to quibble over. Statistically they are virtually the same. It is a tool for determining the strength of a candidate, and as I stated it's not a stat that is a deal maker, but it is certainly one that could be a deal breaker. E.G. Kansas averaged a little over 25,000 in 2016-7. The ones for 2017-8 won't be available until late March or early April. It looks like most are lower by 200 to 300 by your calculations and the PAC is up by about 200. That's less than a 3/1000th variance.

And once again my links for all of this kind of data is in the pinned threads at the top of the SEC board.

The more relevant numbers are those of the Gross Total Revenue which is an indicator of earning potential and the ability to raise funds, and that supplied by the WSJ annually which shows the economic impact that a school has over its state or region. Somtimes the number of living alumni are compared to attendance, TV ratings, the number of contributors, etc.

Geographical fit, cultural fit, and academics are also weighed, but the bottom line again is if they don't add to the bottom line they aren't added. Which of course why the data sets I listed are essential to determining their estimated value as an addition.

I wasn't trying to be difficult, just accurate. I was surprised to see the NCAA's averages for each conference when I was going through. For reference:

SEC: 77,507
Big Ten: 66,151
Big 12: 57,531
Pac 12: 50,073
ACC: 49,734

I agree with you that it is very stark the contrast between Texas and Oklahoma compared to the remaining Big 12 schools. Personally, I found the Pac 12 schools interesting as they had the tightest range for all of them. Their lowest performing school had the second-best attendance compared to all other lowest performing schools in each conference. On the other hand, they have the lowest median and the lowest top figure (by far). And not that it matters, I came up with the same numbers on the WSJ numbers that you posted with a slight difference with the Big 12 but not enough to matter.

Thinking out loud, I wonder if an analysis like this sparks a conference to question whether or not certain members are pulling their weight. As I think about it, probably not unless they could really pull in the big fish. Purdue, Vanderbilt, Washington State, Wake Forest, Kansas State, etc. are all ahead of G5 schools so unless there were unofficial trades (Purdue for Vanderbilt for instance), then there would be no reason to expel a member(s) unless the conference would make a boatload more money to offset potentially destroying a relationship.

(01-26-2018 03:38 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  One Pac 12/Big 12 solution would be for the Pac 12 to dump Washington St and Oregon St and add the Big 12 schools in Oklahoma and Texas to make 16. It's not as profitable as moving to the Big Ten or SEC. I'd be hard pressed to see that happen but it is a thought.

The problem with that is that no conference is going to dump any member, whether that's the PAC shedding WSU and OSU or the B12 dropping WVU and Baylor (or Iowa State). If something is going to happen between those two conferences, one of them will have to add less than all of the other. That's the only way the big dogs can shed the little ones - they have to be the ones who move.

(01-27-2018 09:15 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  

(01-25-2018 10:51 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-25-2018 09:47 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  

(01-22-2018 06:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Conference/Attendance Average / Gross Total Revenue Average / WSJ Estimated Values For Product Average

1. SEC / 77,565 / $121,240,504 / $523,416,428

2. B1G / 66,162 / $108,269,417 / $415,748,643

3. B12 / 57,238 / $102,170,537 / $376,433,300

4. PAC / 50,112 / $ 89,239,736 / $253,766,417

5. ACC / 49,827 / $ 87,034,205 / $182,383,929

Those attendance figures don't paint the whole picture from my calculations (I made a thread on the Liberty board as a project to show what it would take to be a P5 candidate). I assume you got those from the NCAA website. If so, their conference breakdown is on a per conference game average, not a per school average. Since each of the schools don't have the same number of home games, the two averages don't match.

Another way of explaining it:
The NCAA gets their average from the total home attendance for a conference divided by the number of games instead of taking the average attendance for each school and averaging over the number of schools. I think the latter is the better method as it accounts for the disparity in the number of home games but I understand those who prefer the former.

What I came up when averaging the conference members' averages were these:

SEC: 77,165
Big Ten: 65,574
Big 12: 57,569
PAC 12: 50,366
ACC: 49,716

I took the annual reported attendance figures for each of the schools and averaged them by conference. But truthfully there's not enough difference there to quibble over. Statistically they are virtually the same. It is a tool for determining the strength of a candidate, and as I stated it's not a stat that is a deal maker, but it is certainly one that could be a deal breaker. E.G. Kansas averaged a little over 25,000 in 2016-7. The ones for 2017-8 won't be available until late March or early April. It looks like most are lower by 200 to 300 by your calculations and the PAC is up by about 200. That's less than a 3/1000th variance.

And once again my links for all of this kind of data is in the pinned threads at the top of the SEC board.

The more relevant numbers are those of the Gross Total Revenue which is an indicator of earning potential and the ability to raise funds, and that supplied by the WSJ annually which shows the economic impact that a school has over its state or region. Somtimes the number of living alumni are compared to attendance, TV ratings, the number of contributors, etc.

Geographical fit, cultural fit, and academics are also weighed, but the bottom line again is if they don't add to the bottom line they aren't added. Which of course why the data sets I listed are essential to determining their estimated value as an addition.

I wasn't trying to be difficult, just accurate. I was surprised to see the NCAA's averages for each conference when I was going through. For reference:

SEC: 77,507
Big Ten: 66,151
Big 12: 57,531
Pac 12: 50,073
ACC: 49,734

I agree with you that it is very stark the contrast between Texas and Oklahoma compared to the remaining Big 12 schools. Personally, I found the Pac 12 schools interesting as they had the tightest range for all of them. Their lowest performing school had the second-best attendance compared to all other lowest performing schools in each conference. On the other hand, they have the lowest median and the lowest top figure (by far). And not that it matters, I came up with the same numbers on the WSJ numbers that you posted with a slight difference with the Big 12 but not enough to matter.

Thinking out loud, I wonder if an analysis like this sparks a conference to question whether or not certain members are pulling their weight. As I think about it, probably not unless they could really pull in the big fish. Purdue, Vanderbilt, Washington State, Wake Forest, Kansas State, etc. are all ahead of G5 schools so unless there were unofficial trades (Purdue for Vanderbilt for instance), then there would be no reason to expel a member(s) unless the conference would make a boatload more money to offset potentially destroying a relationship.

Whether you look at mean or median, the numbers tell basically the same result. Its actually the Big 10 that is most impacted in its average by the big attendance schools, not the Big 12. Weighting each school equally in a 4 year average gives you the following:
Conference-mean-median
SEC 77,441-82,999
B10 65,973-56,880
B12 57,517-55,233
P12 50,907-47,793
ACC 49,018-49,845
AAC 30,100-31,553
MWC 24,435-23,299
USA 19,877-19,894
SuB 18,658-19,049
MAC 15,565-16,007

There are only 6 non-P5 schools in the top 65 in 4 year average attendance with only BYU in the top 50:
BYU #29 57,627
ECU #55 42,225
Memphis #59 37,825
UCF #62 35,131
SDSU #64 34,527
Houston #65 33,457

P5 below:
BC #66 33,139
Vanderbilt #69 32,244
Washington St. #73 30,965
Kansas #76 28,457
Duke #79 27,603
Wake Forest #80 27,194

ECU is also ahead of Illinois, Virginia, Purdue, Oregon St., Northwestern and Syracuse (the rest of the bottom dozen P5).

I wish I had the time to do this but I wish there was a way to look at which schools boost the attendance of other schools the most. For example, take Alabama and see the attendance of their away games and compare those games to the average attendance for those games.

Say Alabama travels to Mississippi State and the attendance is 70,000 but their average is 65,000 for the year, then Alabama increases attendance by 5,000 or a +7.7%. It may not tell us anything we don't already know but it sure would be interesting.