Independence and Exposure: Access vs. Eyeballs

I will go on record here as one that hopes independence works out.  (Right about now, some of you are blowing up...)  To clarify, I am not for independence at all costs--I am for it working out, as long as it is better than any conference affiliation: more freedom, more money, better recruiting, more relevance, easier TV access, higher rankings, better opponents, more games in new parts of the country, good rivalries, etc. 

I hope it is.  It may not be.  In fact, it is probably impossible to get all of those in either scenario.  So, it’s important to both define and prioritize those aspirations.  And, it probably doesn't matter how I would prioritize them... the administration has already claimed that exposure is the name of the game.  Fair enough.  And, actually, probably not a bad pick, as it encompasses nearly all of the items above (except perhaps money).

Hear (read) me out...

Exposure is a function of:

1. Being TV accessible to households (Access)

AND

2. Offering something that viewers will tune in to watch (Eyeballs)

Access

This means being on TV and being on stations that as many people as possible have access to.  BYU has effectively solved this problem.  In fact, they have knocked it out of the park.  Between ESPN and BYUtv, the Cougars likely have more Access than any other team in the country... and it might not even be close, considering the ubiquity of BYUtv in the US as well as its international reach.  Only 3-4 other teams had as many as 10 games on an ESPN network.  And, no other team gets every last one of their 3rd tier games broadcast in 70M homes and across the world.

So… access, check-plus….

Advantage: Independence.

Eyeballs

Getting viewers is another story… just because it’s on, doesn’t mean people will watch it.  There are several factors that make people want to watch your game (1-4 apply to both the team’s fanbase and the casual opportunistic viewer, while 5 pertains just to the teams fanbase):

1. Opponents: Who you are playing 
   o   Quality of opponents (ranked, brand names)  
   o   Region of country they are from  
   o   Opponents’ fan interest

2. Performance: How good your team is (record/ranking)
   o   Quality athletes (recruiting)  

   o   Competent coaching  

   o   Competitive facilities 

   o   Money to pay for coaches, facilities, and recruiting 

3. Relevance: What you are playing for and implications of outcome 
   o   BCS, conference championship, bowl game invitations 
4. Time Slot: What day and time do you play in 
5.  Competitive: How close is the game 
6. Watch-ability: Exciting style of play

So how is BYU doing on these metrics…

1. Opponents. This one is improving and looking up.  There are still some remnants of the WAC agreement on the 2012 schedule, but beyond that, the team is getting around the country, playing quality teams.  Conference affiliation with a major conference could also solve this, though with less freedom and regional variety. 

Advantage: Independence.

Task: Continue to prioritize scheduling of quality opponents, and if that proves too difficult, consider conference affiliation.

2. Performance.  As far as team quality goes… coaches, facilities, and money are essentially neutral, as BYU would not do much differently even with more; the bigger question then is recruiting, and whether one situation or another provides improved recruiting outcomes.   
Advantage: To be determined.

Task:  Closely follow the impacts of independence on recruiting.

3. Relevance.   As for implications of the outcome, unless BYU is in the BCS discussion (undefeated?), conference affiliation would be better.

Advantage: Conference.

Task: Win.  Consider creating things to play for (e.g. an independent championship?). Sign contracts for outcome-dependent post-season play.  Or, consider conference membership.

4. Time slot.  This depends on when you play as well as who else is playing at the same time.  Despite BYU’s late night kickoffs and Thur/Friday games, this last season, this was probably not a hindrance to viewership (though could be for game attendance).   More people are likely to watch the only game on a Friday night than a mediocre game on prime time (see Utah game).  And, even in a conference, they will be in the same boat.

Advantage: Neutral.

Task: Continue as is.

5. Competitivity.  This isn’t related to conference affiliation, as there will be close games and blowouts in both instances.

Advantage: Neutral.

Task: None.

6. Watch-ability.  The high-flying offensive reputation that BYU earned in the 1980’s, and still carries to some degree, is no longer accurate.  The number of low scoring games and 3-and-outs this season was more than I ever remember.  I am a passionate fan, and found myself bored at times by the drudgery of our offense.  I was usually more excited to watch our defense than our offense.  Exposure will truly “expose” the Cougars here.

Advantage: Neutral.

Task:  Utilize a more exciting style of play. 

Final Tally

Access: Independence

Eyeballs: Independece 1, Conference 1, Neutral 2, TBD 1, Unrelated 2

        Opponents: Independence

        Performance: TBD

        Relevance: Conference

        Time Slot: Neutral

        Competitivity: Neutral

        Watchability: Unrelated

Independence is clearly better for access (though a conference affiliation might come close, depending on the way contracts are negotiated).  That is generally undisputed.  But, it is also only half the battle.

As for eyeballs, it is currently a draw, though any negative impacts on recruiting from independence (or missed positive impacts from a conference), and thus impacts on team performance, should be closely monitored.  Additionally, employing a more exciting style of offensive play would add eyeballs regardless of the conference status, which in an independent world, might be essential.

So there you have it.  “Exposure” really is much more than being on TV, and as long as the administration is thinking of it in these terms—access AND eyeballs—I trust that they will be on top of things and make the best decision.

College Football Playoffs Are a Goldmine

With another college football bowl season having been sufficiently tampered with by the BCS to lose much of its luster, fans clamoring louder than ever for a playoff, and all-the-while the NCAA effectively looking the other way while the purse-strings of its post-season are given away to conference big-wigs and bowl committee fat cats, it is perhaps time to shout something in a language that the parties in power will listen to… "$$$!".

The current BCS system is quite lucrative for those involved (both personally and organizationally), and thus there has been very little momentum to change it.  But greed (or self-interest as you may prefer to call it) could perhaps move them when nothing else will.  So, that begs the question… just how much money would a college football playoff be worth?  How much money is being left on the table?  Knowing any additional revenue would have to feed more mouths, would it be enough make a difference?

To answer this, let’s take a look at the impact that March Madness, the NCAA Men’s basketball tournament has had on its respective basketball post-season, both in terms of ratings and revenue (2007-11 averages).

Average NCAA Men's Basketball TV Ratings (household ratings)

1.1    Regular season games (ave of 131 games on ESPN in 2011)

6.4    March Madness tournament (all games)

12.0  Championship game

The tournament represents a nearly a 6x bump over the regular season, with the championship about 2x that.  Here is how the NFL stacks up, with a similar ratio for the championship and playoffs, only with the regular season appearing much more significant (who says that a playoff would eliminate the value of the regular season?).

Average NFL TV Ratings (household ratings)

10.0   Regular season games

20.2   Playoffs

43.7   Super Bowl

So what does College Football look like?

Average NCAA College Football TV Ratings (household ratings)

1.7   Regular season games

4.0   All bowl games

15.7  BCS Championship Game

In comparison to college basketball and the NFL, the obvious outlier here is the post-season, where the bowls are only about 25% of the championship ratings, even though you would expect it to be closer to half.  And, considering that college football is more popular than college basketball (12% of American list it as their favorite sport and 53% consider themselves fans, compared to 4%/47% for college basketball, and 31%/63% for the NFL, per Gallup and Harris Interactive), you would expect that to potentially be even higher.

If you assume the same bump that college basketball gets, here are the projected college football playoff TV ratings:

Sport                        Reg Season      Playoffs        Championship

NCAA FB                    1.7                    4.0 (2.3x)      15.7 (9.0x)

Men’s BB                    1.1                    6.4 (6.1x)      12.0 (11.5x)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

NCAA FB (Proj)          1.7                   10.5 (6.1x)    19.9 (11.5x)

How would those increased ratings translate into dollars?  With its current TV ratings, the going ad rate is $1.14M for a 30 second commercial (2010).  With a project 27% increase in ratings, we would assume a corresponding average 27% increase in ad rates to $1.45M.

The current contract with ESPN pays out $125M/year for four games (BCS title game, Fiest, Orange, and Sugar Bowl), getting the ratings and ad revenue above.  A playoff would not only include a 27% increase in ad prices, but would also include several additional games.  Assuming the title game generates the most revenue and in proportion with its ratings, the value of a playoff is below:

Format                     Title Game   + Games      $/Game        Gross       Gain

BCS (current)           $51.3M              3             $24.6M       $125M       --

8 Team Playoff          $61.3M              6             $32.5M       $256M     $131M

16 Team Playoff        $61.3M            10             $32.5M       $386M     $261M

Moving to even an 8 team playoff would gross more than double the current take!!  And a 16 team playoff?  Triple!!!  

After netting out the current revenue from the games that would be sucked into a playoff (average of $6.25M per game), the money being left on the table is still mind-boggling:

Format                     + Games     Gross       Less ($ x gm)   Net Gain

BCS (current)             3             $125M         --                       --

8 Team Playoff            6             $256M       $18.8M              $112M

16 Team Playoff        10             $386M       $43.8M              $217M

Of course there are lots of other arguments for and against a playoff, but with dollars like these, it is only a matter of when—as we have seen, dollars are the only thing that matters (San Diego State in the Big East, anyone?).  A playoff will happen.

So why hasn’t it happened yet?  One can only believe that those in charge are able to see the $$$ writing on the wall, and are trying to figure out how to move toward a playoff AND keep the piggy bank.  A quick or radical change would likely involve splitting up the new revenue much more equally than will be required if they can do it slowly.

Laying Out the Holiday Options

During the offseason, Craig Thompson and the MWC brass had an opportunity to enhance the conference's bowl possibilities, as nearly all bowl contracts across the country expired last year, and negotiations were the order of the summer across the land.  With a number of higher payout bowls in the footprint available, we did a bowl primer and comprehensive review of the options and the best case scenario at the time http://www.byucougs.com/2009/08/and-bowl-frenzy-begins.html.  Given the possibilities, the outcome was somewhat disappointing, if not unexpected.

The MWC went from this (2009):
Las Vegas                       MWC #1 vs Pac 10 #4/5  $1.1M   Dec 22
Poinsettia (San Diego)      MWC #2 vs Pac 10 #6    $750K   Dec 23
Armed Forces (Ft Worth) MWC vs CUSA               $600K   Dec 31
Humanitarian (Boise)         MWC vs WAC               $750K   Dec 30
New Mexico (Albuq.)        MWC vs WAC                $750K   Dec 19

To this (2010):
Las Vegas                         MWC #1 vs Pac 10 #5    $1.1M   Dec 22
Poinsettia (San Diego)       MWC #2 vs Navy            $750K   Dec 23
Independence (Shreveport) MWC #3 vs ACC #7     $1.1M   Dec 27
Armed Forces (Ft Worth)  MWC vs CUSA              $600K   Dec 30
New Mexico (Albuq.)         MWC vs WAC                $750K   Dec 18

The replacement of the Humanitarian Bowl with the Independence bowl is definitely an upgrade, but given what was on the table (Holiday, Sun, Insight), overall it feels like a loss.  The Vegas bowl dropped from the PAC 10 #4/5 to #5 going forward.  The Poinestta Bowl dropped the PAC 10 and has a contract with Navy/WAC going forward.  The Independence Bowl is a nice pick up date-wise, payout wise, and opponent-wise, but is in a terrible location for fans to get there (except TCU).  Overall, the conference was not able to improve its slate in any meaningful way.

So, Projections...
BCS--TCU (only one game left... vs New Mexico)
Vegas--winner of BYU-Utah if Utah loses to SDSU (Vegas would love a ranked Utah, but wouldn't mind one last dance with BYU)
Poinsettia--San Diego State (dream matchup for city)
Independence--Air Force (base nearby)
Armed Forces--Loser of BYU-Utah if Utah loses to SDSU (already had Air Force last two years)
New Mexico--MWC will not fill slot

Interestingly, this weekend's Utah-SDSU game will not have any meaningful influence on SDSU's bowl destination, as the Aztecs seem essentially locked in at this point to the hometown bowl, and even if Utah loses this weekend, but beats BYU, they would likely be headed to Vegas.  And, should Utah win this weekend, but lose to BYU, it is possible the bowl would take one last crack at a 7-5 BYU on a 5 game winning streak and sell out the stadium, over a 9-3 Utah having lost 3 out of its last 4, including to its rival, and risk an empty stadium.  If it were down to a 7-5 BYU or an 8-4 Utah, Vegas takes the Cougs.

And the Bowl Frenzy Begins

It has finally started. The Pac-10 pushed over the first domino this week in the bowl game free-for-all by agreeing in principal with the Alamo Bowl to send its second place finisher there, bumping the Big 10. The Big 10 in turn is talking to the Gator Bowl bumping the Big East… and the frenzy begins.

For several years now, conferences and bowl games have quietly signed contracts ending with the 2009 season, knowing that it was the end of the current BCS contract, and wanting to not be left out when the dancing started. Well, the new BCS contract has been signed and the dancing has started. Early props go to the Pac-10 for being proactive.

So what are the implications for BYU and the rest of the MWC? If the conference wants to increase its national profile, then lining up higher profile post-season games for its teams should be high on the list. And, since an automatic bid to the BCS is off the table at least for a few more years, this might be the only structural change that can be made until then.

Currently, the conference has contracts with five bowl games for 2009, all of which are up for renegotiation after this season. They are:

Las Vegas                        MWC #1 vs Pac 10 #4/5  $1.1M     Dec 22
Poinsettia (San Diego)      MWC #2 vs Pac 10 #6     $750K     Dec 23
Armed Forces (Ft Worth) MWC vs CUSA               $600K     Dec 31
Humanitarian (Boise)         MWC vs WAC                $750K     Dec 30
New Mexico (Albuq.)       MWC vs WAC                $750K     Dec 19

While that doesn’t seem like much of a lineup—three games played before Christmas, paltry payouts by bowl standards (even BYU home gate receipt standards), and with the exception of Boise (at least right now) all games are played in league stadiums. However, at least that is improvement over the initial conference post-season. These were the bowl tie-ins in 1999:

Liberty (Memphis)      MWC #1 vs. CUSA #1     $1.3M     Dec 31
Motor City (Detroit)   MWC vs. MAC                $750K     Dec 27
Las Vegas                  MWC vs. WAC                $750K     Dec 18

The conference has improved its access (now with 5), geographic proximity to league fan bases, and to a lesser degree, matchups (reality is that it is nearly impossible to change the outside perception of the conference without playing teams from automatic qualifying BCS conferences).

Here is where the league needs to go from here (e.g. Craig Thompson’s marching orders):

• Improve the payouts to league teams—especially the conference champion
• Improve matchups, trying to get more teams from AQ BCS conferences and higher in the pecking order—in particular for the MWC conference champion
• Maintain five bowl tie-ins (MWC unlikely to ever qualify six teams)
• Maintain ties with bowls in the western US (unless prestige or payout justifies it), prioritizing destination cities (San Diego > Boise, for example)

With these criteria in mind, here are the potential options:

Cotton (Dallas)            Big 12 #2 vs SEC                $3.0M    Jan 1
Alamo (San Antonio)   Big 10 # 4/5 vs Big 12 #5    $2.2M    Jan 2
Holiday (San Diego)    Pac 10 #2 vs Big 12 #3       $2.1M    Dec 30
Sun (El Paso)              Pac 10 #3 vs Big 12 or BE   $1.9M    Dec 31
Insight (Phoenix)          Big 10 # 6 vs Big 12 # 6      $1.2M    Dec 31
Emerald (San Fran.)    ACC #5/6/7 vs Pac 10        $850K    Dec 26
Texas (Houston)          Big 12 #8 vs Navy              $600K    Dec 30
Hawaii (Honolulu)        WAC vs CUSA                 $400K    Dec 24

What are the chances for the MWC with each of these?

Cotton—This would be the dream scenario. But not going to happen.
Alamo—Good city with a nice date and matchup. It has been reported that they will up the payout to $3M starting next season and take the Pac 10 #2. With that in their back pocket, it looks likely that this bowl will also move up in the Big 12 pecking order. So, take this one off the table for the MWC.
Holiday—Looks like this bowl is going to be relegated to the PAC 10 #3 and possibly to Big 12 #4, which might open a door for the MWC champion. Good location, good payout, good matchup. Would be an ideal upgrade.
Sun—Nice payout, good New Years Eve game date, would be great to play a Big 12 team, warm weather location and proximity is good (although El Paso, isn’t really a destination city). Would be great to Probably getting bumped to Pac 10 #4, so could possibly open the door for MWC #1 or #2.
Insight—Similar to Sun Bowl (date, matchup, geography), only better city (closer to fans), less history, and reduced payout. The date for this is better than the Vegas bowl, payout about the same, city not as good, matchup about the same. All in, probably on par or just below Vegas bowl, a good option for MWC #2 or #3.
Emerald—A better city and date than a few of the MWC’s current bowls. Better potential matchup and slightly improved payout. Toss up with Poinsettia Bowl. Would be good for MWC #3 or #4.
Texas—Non-destination city would be a stretch for most MWC fans not from Texas, payout is poor, matchup is sub-par. MWC should pass on this one.
Hawaii—great location, but destination would have to be its own reward, since given the low payout the conference would probably lose money. Would likely be playing against Hawaii in most years or another WAC team. Still, much easier to get excited about than Humanitarian or New Mexico. A potentially good option for MWC #3 or #4 or #5, but would need to increase the payout to make it work for the conference.

Here is the best case scenario (without considering a BCS game):

• MWC #1—Holiday or Sun Bowl. Champion goes to Holiday Bowl to play Pac 10/Big 12 #3/4 team on Dec 30 with $2M+ payout. Sun Bowl paying $1.9M (playing either Pac 10 #4 or Big 12 #4/5) would be first alternate, should Holiday Bowl go another direction. MWC would not be able to get both of these, so it’s one or the other.
• MWC #2—Vegas Bowl. Great city. The date holds it back from becoming a great bowl game, as it will always be played before Christmas. The matchup is sub-par and looks to get worse as it will likely be the Pac 10 #5 going forward. Also, will be known as the Maaco Bowl starting this year. Seems like a definite downgrade for a conference champ, but still a destination that fans will travel to for a game, and should be kept in the MWC fold.
• MWC #3—Insight Bowl. Good conference matchup with Big 10 or Big 12 (although likely the #6 from those conferences) in warm location (but below Vegas) on Dec 31 (better than Vegas). Payout at $1.2M is similar to Vegas Bowl. If matchup could be upgraded to ACC #4, Big East #3, or Big 10/Big 12 #5, then this would a great spot for the MWC #2.
• MWC #4—Poinsettia Bowl or Emerald Bowl. Two bowls in the same city might be overkill. Take Poinsettia if we don’t already have Holiday, and Emerald if we do. Can’t go wrong with San Diego or San Francisco.
• MWC #5—Armed Forces Bowl. It’s good to have some presence in Texas for recruiting and media exposure. The New Year’s Eve date is also good for the conference profile.
• Alternates—Hawaii Bowl. If the payout were increased to $800-900K, then this bowl might be a nice option for the conference at #4 or #5.
• Drop-outs—Humanitarian and New Mexico Bowls. The Humanitarian Bowl is a one year contract for 2009 and likely won’t be continued. The New Mexico Bowl, although it is in a good position when New Mexico qualifies, has served the conference well for the last few years and should now be passed on to the Sun Belt and WAC.

The commissioner has his work cut out for him, but the options are out there. Things are going to happen fast, the conference better be ready.

[Nov 2010 Update: http://www.byucougs.com/2010/11/laying-out-holiday-options.html]