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.

Media Reaction to BYU and the Big East

Now that BYU's discussions with the Big East have been reported to be over, several media reports are trying to make sense of it and to place "blame".   First of all, blame would assume that there was a desired outcome to begin with, but then should it not materialize, it would point the finger of fault at the offending unmet stipulation. 

And in this case, I have read several times that BYU's offense was in seeking to maintain TV rights to its home games.  "No other college team in a conference has been able to get this," they mock.  Well, perhaps we should point out that it has probably never previously, in any conference realignment discussions been a point of negotiation.  BYU is one of only two schools that have ever had its own TV deal.  Ever.  The other being Notre Dame.  And you can be sure that if Notre Dame were to join a conference, they would look to keep their existing TV deal at as a guaranteed minimum and to top it off with the additional TV revenue from conference road games. 

In that context, it doesn't seem unreasonable that a team would want to at least maintain its current standard of living (revenue and exposure) as it joins a conference.  In that context, it also seems rather naive to use the argument that no other team in college football has kept their home TV rights within a conference... no other team has ever been in a position to even try.

Pulling Off the BYU Equivalent of Notre Dame's Scheduling

BYU to the Big12?
I have tried to avoid chiming in too much on the Big XII expansion circus thus far, for several reasons: 1) the information available is primarily rumor, 2) the situation is changing constantly, 3) the drivers of change are closer to hurt feelings and daytime drama than to dollars and analysis, and 4) there is little doubt that BYU would be the obvious choice for Big XII expansion if it goes that way, so the question is really whether BYU should accept or not if an offer comes--and again I believe that this decision is going to be based more on the hearts (of the board of trustees) than the mind (and associated byucougs.com analysis).


My preference actually would be for BYU to remain independent and be wildly successful as such (so much could go wrong… but so much could go right—the age-old risk/reward tradeoff). I love that nearly all of their games are on ESPN. I love BYUtv as a Cougar sports channel. I love that they can play in stadiums all over the country and the nation-wide fan access that this provides. (I realize that this isn't a high priority for the average Utah County Cougarboarder, but living in Northern CA, it would be great to see the Cougs play out here, and when traveling to a game, it is about the same cost to go to Austin as it is to go to Provo).

Clearly there are dozens of other factors that will play into this--TV rights, Sunday play, how to handle the WCC relationships, increased revenue, BCS access, conference championships, etc. But for me, its hard to get any more excited about playing Iowa State, Kansas, Missouri, and Kansas State (that is likely the division we'd be in) than it was to play New Mexico and Colorado State and Wyoming every year. In fact, give me San Diego State, UNLV, TCU, and Air Force over that alternative.

With all that in mind, however, there is one thing that could break independence for me: inability to schedule beyond Idaho State, Idaho, Weber State, New Mexico State and San Jose State during the latter part of the season. I think those are great games for this year and next, while we get this going, but if it were to go beyond that, the old MWC schedule would have been better, and a Big XII schedule would definitely be an upgrade.

So to consider this question, I took a look at Notre Dame's scheduling philosophy to see how they have managed to do it so successfully, and in particular, schedule games during the latter half of the season, to see if there is anything that BYU could learn from and/or imitate. We’ll break down Notre Dame’s approach, and try to map it to an equivalent one for BYU, and see if it appears reasonable.

Here are a few observations from reviewing Notre Dame's recent schedules (from the most recent 6 seasons and next year, 2006-2012):

Annual Games
• They play 8 teams consistently, nearly every year, on a home and away basis, leaving just four games to “schedule”. These include:
     o 1 religious rival (Boston College)
     o 4 regional rivals (Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue, and Pittsburg*)
     o 2 strategic West Coast schools (Stanford and USC), thus guaranteeing a game on the coast in recruiting rich, donor-dense, NorCal and SoCal in alternating years
     o 1 historical rival and independent (Navy) that is often played at a neutral site (NJ, NY, TX, Ireland)

“Scheduled” Games
• They generally play 2 games that are part of home and away series (one at home and one on road on average) with respected schools from either the ACC or PAC12, also strategically located on the highly populated West Coast or Middle Atlantic
• They play one of the other service academies almost every year (either Army or Air Force)—FWIW… 5 games over the 7 years analyzed
• They generally play 1 (or 2 if not playing Army or Navy) home game in a “one and done” against a team from the MWC, WAC, MAC, CUSA (no Sun Belt), and the Big East (excepting Pitt, who they play every year), with the Big East being the one turned to most often

Timing
• First game of the season is usually one of the “scheduled” games
• Michigan, Michigan State, and Purdue are always played in September in consecutive weeks, though rarely beginning with the first game of the season
• Home game vs. either USC or Stanford is nearly always played around the midpoint in October
• Boston College is always the second half of the season (Oct or Nov)
• USC or Stanford (whichever is on the road that season) is always the last game in November on Thanksgiving weekend
• …Leaving Pittsburgh, Navy, and 3 “scheduled games” to fill 5 slots in Oct/Nov
     o Navy and Pitt are annual partners, thus anticipating games during Oct and Nov
     o Of the “scheduled” games, one is often a service academy which can schedule flexibly during those months
     o Another is generally a “one and done” money game, from a league that would allow late-season scheduling exceptions (MWC, WAC, MAC, CUSA, BE)
     o Only one home/away “scheduled” game against the PAC12 or ACC would need to be scheduled during Oct/Nov (since the other could be done in Sept)

Other Interesting Observations
• No games against the SEC
• No games against Texas schools, although it would seem to be a strategic recruiting location. Only TX game was a neutral game.
• They are playing an international game against Navy in Ireland, which will be the first game of next season (for travel reasons, it is likely that any international game would have to be the first game)

So the summary for Notre Dame is that they have 8 annual games, leaving only 4 to “schedule” and of those, only one that would generally need to be scheduled during the hard-to-schedule months of October or November. That is doable. Quite a system—I sense a bit of envy coming from Tom Holmoe’s office these days.

Applied to BYU
Now for some analysis-influenced speculation…Could BYU successfully replicate that approach? If so, what would/should it look like?

Annual Games
• They would ideally play 6 annual games on a home/away basis
     o 1 arch-rival (Utah)
     o 2 regional schools (Utah State, Boise State)
     o 1 historical and strategic rival (Hawaii)
     o 1 religious peer and independent (Notre Dame)
     o 1 strategic regional annual game (UNLV), allowing for a game at BYU’s home away from home, every other year, perhaps late in the season

“Scheduled” Games
• 1 Service academy (Army, Navy, or Air Force), in home/away or neutral. This should be reasonable given history with Air Force, and the other two also being independent
• 2 games in the strategic states of California (or OR/WA) and Texas (or OK, AR, LA)—should be sure to play at least every other year. So many fans and potential recruits in both of these areas, that the team should try to travel to each of these places at least once per season. Options include CA (SDSU, USC, UCLA, Stanford, Cal, SJSU, Fresno, Oregon, Oregon St, Washington, Washington St, or neutral games in LA or SF) and TX (TCU, Texas, SMU, Texas A&M, Baylor, Rice, Houston, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, OSU, Arkansas, Louisiana Tech, Tulane, LSU, or neutral games in Dallas—BYU likely wouldn’t play in small stadiums like North Texas)
• 1-2 games as the back side of trips to CA and TX, since unless these were neutral or one-off, there would have to be home games alternating years.
• 1 “one and done” home game against an FCS school or lower FBS school such as Idaho
• 1-2 games with other national programs of significance, in locations of interest to BYU fans, football tradition, or the school’s mission.

Timing
• The real key to timing is which schools could BYU get to play them in October and November. Would they be able to get 8? Six would be easy--you could count on Utah State, Hawaii, Notre Dame, a service academy, the “one and done”, and UNLV. So, the Cougars would need to be able to schedule 2 of the others during either Oct or Nov—doesn’t seem to difficult—perhaps Boise and one of the Texas or CA schools.

Conclusion
After looking that over, surprisingly, it doesn’t seem like too much of a stretch—Utah, USU, and Hawaii are already on board. Extend contracts with Boise and Notre Dame. Set something up with UNLV. Get the service academies on board. The one and done will be easy. That leaves 4 games to schedule, several of which are already on the books, and only two of which need to be in Oct or November.

Although I haven’t yet dialed any numbers from the AD’s office, it’s enough for me to retain my hope in Independence.

Winners and Losers

With the dust now settling from the first volleys of conference realignment, its time to assess the winners and losers. 

Winners (in order)
1. University of Utah--the move to the PAC-10 improves the image of the school athletically and academically by association.  The athletic budget stands to gain $9-10M per year more than they currently get in the MWC.  Recruiting (especially in CA, OR, and WA) should improve as recruits want to go to a school that A) has a chance for a auto bid and national title, and B) play annually in front of home town friends and family.
2. Nebraska--moving to the Big Ten gives them conference stability, a meaningful financial increase (though not as much as Utah), and more prestige.
3. Boise State--although the financial windfall will not be as great as Utah or Nebraska, Boise will reap an additional $2-3M per year in the MWC over the WAC.  It also associates with universities of a higher caliber, which is incredible for a school that was a junior college just a generation or so ago.  Admissions and academics also stand to improve as much from this move as the level of competition.
4. Big East--Although there may still be moves to come from the Big Ten, at least for now the Big East is breathing a sigh of relief and shelving the survival plans as it has managed to avoid the doomsday scenarios that had it being cherry picked into oblivion.
5. Big Ten--Thanks to the PAC 10's public coup on the Big Ten's best, Nebraska turned to the open arms of the Big Ten for comfort and security.  The Big Ten in return gets an upgrade over the rumored alternative in Missouri, and now sits at a comfortable 12.
6. PAC 10--Although some insist that Larry Scott and the PAC 10 have some egg on the very public failure to lure Texas, et al., I believe that the conference knew it wanted at least Utah and Colorado and decided to make a run at something better, with the former as a comfortable backstop in case the plan didn't work.  No harm done and I say kudos to a bold and proactive approach.  The conference will now be able to stage a championship game and adjust scheduling somewhat to eliminate a few intra-conference losses that seem to sink any hopes of a second BCS bid year after year.  The conference also moves east and finally breaks beyond the scheduling limitations of the Pacific time zone.
7. Colorado--Colorado gets a nod here for finding the home that it wanted.  Otherwise, all in, I would say it is about a wash.  The PAC 10, financially, will not be much different than the Big 12 and the television visibility will be worse (although Colorado isn't on TV that much anyway); however, the university (both athletically and academically) will improve in prestige and will have more equal representation in a non-Texas dominated conference.
8. The state of Utah--with the state's flagship university now affiliated with the PAC 10, it is a validation of sorts for the community that it is accepted and respected on a national level.  The state will also see some budgetary savings due to the significant increases in television funding from the new conference affiliation.

Losers (in order)
1. BYU--Despite what anyone says, Cougar fans and administrators have been holding out hope for a PAC 10 invite for decades.  To see it go to your chief rival, and relative new kid on the block, while being left behind is a demoralizing blow.  And although yet to be fully understood, there may be detrimental effects on the program as Utah improves its recruiting base, funding, facilities, etc.  BYU knew that it would likely not end up in the PAC 10 but was hoping for a seat at the table somewhere when everything settled down.  That didn't happen.
2. WAC--The WAC loses Boise State, its only legitimate national player of the last several years.  The loss jeopardizes its TV contract with ESPN, its standing as the number 8 conference (just above CUSA), and at least one of its bowl games. 
3. Big 12--While the teams that remain managed to right the ship, and there are rumors of more lucrative television deals in the works, the conference took a major hit to is national perception, prestige, and stability.  The losses of Colorado and Nebraska will hurt television prospects, and at least with Nebraska, national relevance in football.  Dan Beebe (the conference commissioner) also comes out of this looking a bit inept, weak, and reactionary rather than proactive.
4. Fans of the BYU-Utah Rivalry--After more than 100 years of competing for the same conference championship each time these teams took the field, that will come to an end.  They will likely continue to play each other annually, probably in every sport, but it will be preseason, non-conference, and less on the line.  Thanksgiving weekend won't be quite the same without it.
5. MWC--With a BCS auto bid in sight and the addition of Boise, the MWC was poised to become a major player.  The great intermountain void (only states with D1 programs and no BCS bid) on the BCS map (Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, Nevada, New Mexico) seemed destined to be filled by the MWC.  With Utah (the most populous of those five states) now removed from that equation, the chances have to be diminished somewhat, even if still alive.
6. Utah State--With BYU and Utah now likely to be scheduling annual out of conference games, it is possible that Utah State may be the odd man out and see it without its annual tilts with its in-state rivals.  This would be unfortunate for everyone, and may relieve USU of its only guaranteed sellout of the season.

Realignment Preferences

If you are reading this then you have probably noticed the lack of articles over the last several weeks.  I'll probably continue to be off and on for a few more weeks until mid-summer. 

And, with conference realignment the only topic of the day (and a tired one at that), and having already said about all I have to say on that matter (see conference expansion topic at right), I am waiting with you to see how it will all play out.    If I could prioritize my preferences for Cougar football:

Enthusiasm
1.  PAC-10--The rivalries and BYU's fanbase footprint line up nicely with the PAC 10's current membership.  This would be a great scenario for BYU, although not going to happen.  1% chance.

Optimism
2.  MWC with AQ status--This is the best possible outcome from my perspective, with a probability that falls somewhere between very possible and likely.  75% chance.

Indifferent
3.  Big 12--Should BYU be a replacement for Nebraska or Missouri (possibly leaving for the Big 10) in the B12 as it is currently situated (with Texas, etc), it would be a good financial and social move for the Cougs, but bad for the fans.  Do I really want to see them play Iowa State?  Baylor?  Am I going to go to those road games?  Outside of the Texas areas, there are significantly fewer Cougar fans in B12 country than in P10.  And, the destinations aren't as good (imagine nostalgia for Las Vegas, San Diego, and Colorado Springs).  This is a real possibility--and one that many Cougar fans may even be hoping for.  25% chance.

Official BCS Conference Standings... Finally!

Something isn’t right. The BCS actually released the official calculation criteria for a conference to gain automatic qualification (Official BCS Qualification Criteria). My first reaction was that they cooked the books—waited to see how the conference rankings stacked up at the midway point and then offered up a target that would be out of reach for the MWC. However, Bill Hancock and company, maintain that these criteria have been clearly written for several years, but that only now they are releasing them publicly. I was skeptical. Then I ran the numbers. The MWC is clearly on track to gain AQ status. You read that right. If things continue on the field as they have for the last two years, the MWC should qualify for AQ status, even without Boise State.

Here is the long awaited, never expected, official criteria (all calculations will be based on membership at the end of the 2011 regular season):

Per the official press release, the evaluation includes the following for each conference:

(1) the ranking of the highest-ranked team in the final BCS Standings each year (if a conference does not place a team in the final BCS Standings, then its highest-ranked team is determined by the conference member that has the highest average ranking in the computer rankings used in the BCS Standings),

(2) the final regular-season rankings of all conference teams in the computer rankings used by the BCS each year, and

(3) the number of teams in the top 25 of the final BCS Standings each year, with adjustments to account for differences in the number of members of each conference.

A conference will become the seventh automatic qualifier if it finishes among the top six conferences in both No. 1 and No. 2 and if its ranking in No. 3 is equal to or greater than 50 percent of the conference with the highest ranking in No. 3.

[Further, a conference will be eligible to apply to the Presidential Oversight Committee for an exemption if it finishes among the top six in both No. 1 and No. 2 and if its ranking in No. 3 is equal to or greater than 33.3 percent of the conference with the highest ranking in No. 3,
OR
If it finishes among the top seven in either No. 1 or No. 2 and among the top five in the other and if its ranking in No. 3 is equal to or greater than 33.3 percent of the conference with the highest ranking in No. 3.]

No. 3 above, the "Top 25 Performance Rating," will be calculated as follows: Points will be awarded to the conferences based on their teams' finishes in the top 25 of the final BCS Standings each year. Points will be awarded as follows:

Teams finishing 1-6: 4 points for each team
Teams finishing 7-12: 3 points for each team
Teams finishing 13-18: 2 points for each team
Teams finishing 19-25: 1 point for each team

The point totals will be adjusted to account for the size of the conference, as follows:
Conference membership      Adjustment
12 or more members          no adjustment
10 or 11 members              points increased by 12.5 percent
9 or fewer members           points increased by 25 percent

In summary, a conference has to be ranked in the top six in Criteria 1 and Criteria 2, and be at least 50% of the top ranked team in Criteria 3. If it doesn’t quite meet these criteria, it can apply for an exemption as long as:
A) it finishes in the top six in Criteria 1 and 2, and at least 33.3% of the top team in Criteria 3, or
B) it finishes in the top seven in either Criteria 1 or Criteria 2 and in the top five the other and at least 33.3% of the top team in Criteria 3.

So, although my first assessment is only a few days old, it is already time to re-crunch the numbers without any of the ambiguity or assumptions required in the previous version. What follows are the two year averages. Hold on to your seats…

Criteria 1—Highest Ranked Team in the Conference
Rk Conf     Ave
1   SEC       1.5
1   B12       1.5
3   MWC     5.0
4   P10       6.0
5   BE         7.5
5   WAC      7.5
7   B10        8.0
8   ACC      11.5
9   MAC     26.3
10  CUSA   39.7
11  SB        55.3
      ND       57.5

Criteria 2—Average Final Regular Season Ranking for All Teams
Rk Conf       Ave
1   SEC       38.7
2   ACC      40.6
3   BE         43.1
4   B12       46.6
5   P10       48.7
6   B10       50.7
     ND        57.5
7   MWC    59.2
8   WAC     72.8
9   CUSA    81.1
10  MAC    86.6
11  SB        96.0

Criteria 3—Points for Teams Finishing in the BCS Top 25
Rk Conf      Pts     Adj     Total
1   SEC       22      0.0%    22.0
2   B10        18    12.5%    20.3
3   B12        20     0.0%     20.0
3   MWC     16    25.0%     20.0
5   P10        14    12.5%    15.8
6   BE          12   25.0%     15.0
7   ACC       12    0.0%      12.0
8   WAC        7   25.0%      8.8
9   MAC        1    0.0%       1.0
10t CUSA      0    0.0%       0.0
10t SB           0    25.0%     0.0
      ND          0    0.0%       0.0

To be clear, these criteria do not apply to the current AQ conferences. They are already guaranteed an AQ berth through 2013 by virtue of the 2004-2007 evaluation period (yes, that is six years of AQ for a four year evaluation period). So, all of this is only interesting to the MWC, WAC, MAC, CUSA and the Sun Belt. However, in reality, only the MWC and WAC could realistically still qualify, and the WAC would have to surpass the MWC in Criteria 2 to achieve at least a seven, while at the same time maintaining its ranking as fifth in Criteria 1, and then apply for an exemption—very unlikely, but technically possible.

The MWC on the other hand, needs to surpass at least one conference in Criteria 2, while maintaining position in the others in order to achieve guaranteed AQ status. Should it remain in seventh in Criteria 2, which is likely, it will need to remain at fifth or better in Criteria 1, while it is already essentially assured a sufficient rank in Criteria 3.

It will be very difficult for the MWC to achieve a rank of six or better in Criteria 2. In order to bump up the average by the requisite 8.5 to pass the sixth rated conference—the Big Ten, each team in the MWC would have to improve their average ranking by double that (17) since we are already halfway into the cycle. TCU, BYU, and Utah, cannot improve by that much (in fact, some slip can be expected), meaning that the other six schools would have to improve by an additional 8.5 each, or 25.5 total average improvement for the bottom six. This would be technically possible, but rather unlikely.

MWC Average Final Computer Rank and Future Requirement
Team    Actual   Req
TCU      7.8
Utah     14.3
BYU      16.8
AF        49.3     23.8
UNLV    80.3     54.8
Wyo     80.3     54.8
CSU      81.6     56.1
UNM    100.2    74.7
SDSU   102.7    77.2

So, given the probable seventh place finish in Criteria 2, the MWC will have to apply to the Presidential Oversight Committee for an exemption and make its case. The closer it is to sixth the better. And, if it can maintain its top three status in Criteria 1 and Criteria 3, it will be in good shape.

MWC Expansion Impact
As already covered earlier this week (http://www.byucougs.com/2010/04/mid-term-standings-in-mwc-quest-for-aq.html), Boise State is the only school that could improve the conference’s body of work through expansion. It would bump up Criteria 2 by an average of 5.2 spots and move the conference to number one overall in Criteria 3 (at least at the mid-point).

Criteria 1--with Boise
Remains the same (3rd) since an MWC school finished ranked higher than Boise in both years.

Criteria 2--with Boise
Rk  Conf       Ave
1    SEC       38.7
2    ACC      40.6
3    BE         43.1
4    B12       46.6
5    P10       48.7
6    B10       50.7
7    MWC     54.0
      ND        57.5
8    WAC     81.0
9    CUSA    81.1
10  MAC     86.6
11  SB        96.0

Criteria 3--with Boise
Rk  Conf      Pts  Adj       Total
1    MWC     23    12.5%   25.9
2    SEC       22     0.0%    22.0
3    B10       18    12.5%   20.3
4    B12       20     0.0%    20.0
5    P10       14    12.5%    15.8
6    BE         12    25.0%    15.0
7    ACC       12     0.0%    12.0
8    MAC       1      0.0%     1.0
9t   WAC       0    25.0%     0.0
9t   CUSA      0      0.0%     0.0
9t   SB           0    25.0%     0.0
      ND          0      0.0%     0.0

So, adding Boise, while impactful, still isn’t enough to guarantee an AQ berth, but it does strengthen the case significantly, and makes it somewhat more feasible for the bottom six schools to improve a more modest 11.0 in the average rankings, versus 25.5 without Boise, in order to overtake the next closest conference.

Conclusion
You never know what might happen between now and then (I imagine most of us never thought we’d see the day the criteria would be released), but it looks like the MWC, with its current membership, will almost certainly qualify under the exemption rule (and not automatically) and will need to make its case before the Presidential Oversight Committee, at which point, it still might be anyone’s guess what they would do. However, the strength of the conference’s ranking in 2 out of the 3 criteria, would make it hard to ignore. And, add Boise, and the MWC screams for admission.

MWC Mid-Term AQ Status Part 2

A couple of questions have been brought up in relation to the previous post. I have them in the comments section, but wanted to repost those here as well as show a bit more data.


Q: How much closer would the MWC be to an AQ BCS bid after adding other non AQ teams such as SMU?

A: Besides Boise State, there are no other teams west of the Mississippi that could meaningfully enhance the overall body of work by the current MWC membership, based on performance over the last two years. That is not to say that one or more of these teams could have breakout seasons over the next two years, but the MWC couldn’t plan on that, and therefore would not invite them in an effort to enhance the BCS appeal (there could be other reasons for adding them).

There are no other available schools that finished ranked in the final BCS rankings (which impacts two of the three criteria), so improving the conference overall average ranking is the only remaining way another school could contribute to an AQ bid. A quick look at the data shows that the only schools even in the running would be Houston, Nevada, and Fresno State as each average in the mid-50s over the last two years, which is basically right around where the current conference average rank already is, thus making each of them essentially only net neutral to the MWC BCS AQ bid, yet requiring a splitting of the revenue by more athletic departments—a difficult proposition. To provide even a one rank average bump (from 54 to 53 for example), a team would have to be 10 spots better than the average, or a 44 or better.

Two Year Average Final Season Computer Ranking
59.2 MWC current membership
54.0 MWC with Boise State
52.8 Houston
53.3 Nevada
54.8 Fresno State
70.4 Tulsa
71.5 Hawaii
77.3 Rice
92.2 SMU

The only other way to make any improvement over the current membership (without adding a team from a current AQ conf) is to improve by subtraction, which I am not advocating, but only offering to be comprehensive. It is San Diego State and New Mexico that have been the biggest anchors on the league over the last two seasons.

MWC Two Year Average Rank
7.8 TCU
14.3 Utah
16.8 BYU
49.3 Air Force
80.3 UNLV
80.3 Wyoming
81.6 CSU
100.2 UNM
102.7 SDSU

53.8 MWC without SDSU
54.1 MWC without UNM


Q: Why is there a four year evaluation period for a two year Auto Bid?

A: That is just another example of how the deck is stacked against the non-AQs. The most recent four year evaluation period from 2004-2007 guaranteed six years of auto qualification (2008 through 2013). The current four year evaluation period 2008-2011 only guarantees two years of AQ status. Another evaluation period runs from 2010-2013 leading to AQ status in 2014-2017.

What that means is that the next two years are doubly important since they will be counted twice. Hopefully the MWC (and anyone they may be inviting) will have a good showing these next two years, and it wouldn’t hurt if a couple of current AQ conferences had a down year or two.

Mid-Term Standings in MWC Quest for AQ BCS Bid

[Note: The BCS released the official AQ conference qualification criteria on April 22, 2010.  Updated standings are now available at this link.]

Now that spring football is in the books, next week’s NFL draft (see http://www.byucougs.com/2010/03/byu-pro-day-and-nfl-draft-projections.html) and a bit of recruiting news is all there really is for football fans to digest between now and the start of fall camp in August… which is exactly why it is a good time to dig into the numbers and take a closer look at where the Mountain West stands at half time in its quest for an AQ bid.

Criteria
If you are reading this, you are probably already up on your BCS criteria, but just in case, here is the scoop… The current BCS contract allows for a seventh conference to gain automatic qualifying status for the 2012 and 2013 regular seasons based on a four year performance window in the 2008-2011 regular seasons. There are three metrics by which conferences will be evaluated:

1) The ranking of the highest-ranked team in the final BCS standings each year
2) The final regular-season rankings of all conference teams in the computer rankings used by the BCS each year
3) The number of teams in the top 25 of the final BCS standings each year

Scorecard
So with that in mind, we are at the mid-point of the four year cycle, so where does the MWC stand in its effort to gain an automatic BCS bid and the validation that comes with it? Here is the scorecard (listed in order of television money):

             2008 Regular Season       2009 Regular Season
             Hi    Tm Ave   Top 25         Hi    Tm Ave    Top 25
SEC       2      45.1        4                   1      32.2         3
B10       8      49.1        4                   8      52.2         4
B12       1      41.4        5                   2      51.9         3
ACC     14     32.5        3                   9      48.6         3
P10       5      59.6        2                   7      37.8         5
BE        12     45.5        2                   3      40.7         3
MWC     6      55.5        3                   4      62.9         3
CUSA    --     84.0       --                    --     78.1         --
WAC     9      72.6        1                   6      72.9         1
MAC     22     82.6        1                   --     90.6         --
SB        --      98.4       --                   --     93.5         --
ND        --      59.7       --                  --     55.3         --

Not surprisingly, the BCS has not divulged exactly how this data will be used (criteria weightings, relative vs. absolute comparisons, qualitative or quantitative, etc.). And in the case of the second item, it isn’t even necessarily clear what data will be used—will it be the average ranking of the teams in each conference (as I have used), the median ranking, a pyramid weighted ranking (like Sagarin does), etc.?

Standings
Without any further guidance, we will equally weight each of the criteria, as well as score each based on the percent of the total possible (as the BCS does for its weekly rankings). For the middle score (average final computer rank of each team) we will use the best conference average as the numerator. Here are the relative scores and season/overall standings:

2008 Season Standings
                Hi        Tm Ave   Top 25     Total
1 B12       1.000    0.787      1.000      0.929
2 SEC       0.960    0.721      0.800      0.827
3 B10       0.720    0.662      0.800      0.727
4 ACC      0.480    1.000      0.600      0.693
5 MWC    0.800     0.586     0.600      0.662
6 P10       0.840    0.546      0.400      0.595
7 BE        0.560     0.716      0.400      0.559
8 WAC     0.680     0.449     0.200      0.443
9 MAC     0.160     0.394     0.200      0.251
10 ND      0.000     0.545     0.000      0.182
11 CUSA  0.000     0.387     0.000      0.129
12 SB       0.000     0.331     0.000      0.110

2009 Season Standings
                    Hi       TmAve    Top 25   Total
1 P10         0.760    0.851      1.000     0.870
2 SEC         1.000    1.000      0.600     0.867
3 BE           0.920    0.791      0.600     0.770
4 B12          0.960    0.620     0.600     0.727
5 B10          0.720    0.616     0.800     0.712
6 MWC       0.880    0.511     0.600     0.664
7 ACC         0.680    0.663     0.600     0.648
8 WAC        0.800    0.441     0.200     0.480
9 ND           0.000    0.582     0.000     0.194
10 CUSA     0.000    0.412     0.000     0.137
11 MAC       0.000    0.355     0.000    0.118
12 SB          0.000    0.344     0.000    0.115

Despite finishing 5th in year one and 6th in year two, the MWC is currently in 7th place overall, just .002 behind the Big East and .007 behind the ACC, although such a small margin means that the three conferences are essentially tied for 5th at the midway point.

Two Year/Midpoint Combined Standings
1   SEC        0.847
2   B12        0.828
3   P10        0.733
4   B10        0.720
5   ACC       0.670
6   BE          0.665
7   MWC      0.663
8   WAC      0.462
9   ND         0.188
10 MAC       0.185
11 CUSA      0.133
12 SB          0.112

It is apparent from this data, and assuming that there are no significant departures from these averages over the next two years, that no conference is going to have its AQ status stripped (a move that would require compellingly inferior data by one of the conferences over multiple years). It is also clear that only the MWC is in a position to be considered for AQ status, as the others have too much ground to make up in just two years. If the decision were made today, the MWC would be able to make a strong case for inclusion, but would still have to be considered on the bubble, because as long as it remains in seventh place, a case could be made to leave them out as well (and probably would given the amount of money that is involved). Should the conference move into a higher slot, say ahead of the Big East or ACC (the two most likely options), it would be much more difficult for the BCS commission to leave them out, and would likely guarantee the MWC an automatic seat at the table.

Going Forward
So what can the conference do over the next two years to strengthen its position? It is unlikely to be able to make any progress on the first criteria, as it has had a team finish sixth (Utah) and fourth (TCU) in the last two seasons, and that will be hard to top. It is also unlikely to place more than three teams in the final regular season top 25. In fact, if the conference is able to match either of these feats again in the next two years, it will be quite an accomplishment. However, the second criteria—final regular season computer ranking for all of the teams—is the conference’s primary weakness, and one that offers significant potential for improvement. All of the teams four through nine need to get better, but when it comes down to it, there are really only two ways to improve this score:

1) The first and most important is to win non-conference games. Period.
2) The second (primarily for perception reasons) is for no team in the conference to be ranked among the country’s worst, anything in the triple digits (e.g. New Mexico last year). Almost every conference has a team ranked in the high 80’s or 90’s, but only truly awful teams are ranked below 100, and that will kill a conference average.

Winning non-conference games begins with creating winning programs led by winning coaches (among other things). The conference has been able to keep its best tenured coaches (Patterson, Mendenhall, and Whittingham), and attract several promising ones (Troy Calhoun, Dave Christensen, Brady Hoke). The jury is still out on Steve Fairchild, Mike Locksley, and Bobby Hauck.

What about Boise?
Perhaps the biggest question of the summer for MWC fans will be whether or not Boise State is invited to join the conference. The BCS rules stipulate that the final evaluation will include all teams that play in the conference during the 2011 season. Boise would need to give a one year notice to leave the WAC. So, if Boise is going to get the invite, it is going to come this summer. And, it will only come if 1) the MWC feels that it may not be guaranteed AQ status on the basis of its current membership, and 2) adding Boise would guarantee that status.

Unfortunately, the MWC will need to make a decision based essentially on the data above, since it will not have the luxury of another season before making the decision. Given the above data the MWC is in good shape, but it not necessarily a shoo-in; despite incredible success over the previous two years, as the seventh conference they could still be left out when all is said and done. So how would things look if Boise were added? It becomes the mythical no-brainer. Here it is with Boise:

Two Year/Midpoint Standings with Boise in MWC
1   SEC       0.847
2   B12       0.828
3   MWC     0.747
4   P10       0.733
5   B10       0.720
6   ACC      0.670
7   BE         0.665
8   ND        0.188
9   MAC      0.185
10 CUSA     0.133
11 WAC      0.133
12 SB          0.112

Adding Boise, puts the AQ bid squarely in the cross hairs of the MWC, as it would be nearly impossible to argue that a conference ranking better than four current AQ conferences should be left out.

The MWC is in a tough spot without any clear guidance from the BCS on how exactly the data will be used. The conference would love to know exactly where the target is before it starts shooting. Also, with all of the conference realignment talk, the rules of the game may change at half time. In any case, it seems as if the MWC should be using this quiet period to recommit its wanderlust members (BYU, TCU, Utah) such that they shun the overtures from other conferences, and prepare to invite Boise sometime before mid-August. Because, unless things blow up (i.e. significant realignment), adding Boise is a guaranteed winning move. Then again, the rules may change before there is a chance to finish the game.

A Look at College Football TV Window Availability

If conference realignment actually happens in the next 12 months, it will be purely to increase revenue to the participating schools, and more specifically, revenue from TV contracts (see Comparison of Conference TV Contracts). The Pac 10 in particular is about to renegotiate its TV contract, and if expansion allows the conference to make the pie bigger for everyone, then it will likely expand.

We already looked at how much money new schools would need to generate to be considered viable (see Numbers Behind Pac 10 Expansion) from a financial perspective. The other question that must be considered is whether or not the broadcast windows or TV slots are available for the Pac 10 to gain a more favorable distribution package when its current contract expires after the 2010-11 basketball season. With recent contracts by the Big 10 and SEC locking in long term deals with ESPN for prime time spots, there isn’t much remaining.

Time Slot Arithmetic
There are a limited number of “windows” or time slots when games can be shown. In a best case scenario, a dedicated station (like ESPN) would have a maximum of 4 slots on a Saturday (Eastern times: 12 noon, 3:30pm, 7:00pm, and 10:30pm for Pacific starts only) and up to one slot on the other nights of the week. With 13 in a season (or up to 15, depending when you star t and end), the three ESPN channels (ESPN, ESPN2, and ESPNU) each have roughly 13*3=42 ideal Saturday slots, and an additional 13 late slots, for a total of 126 ideal slots and up to 39 late games (although this competes with Sports Center and is too late for most of the country). All of the ideal slots (noon to 7:00pm) are claimed, although only a handful of late games are played (3-5), nearly all by the Pac 10.

The other six national sports channels airing college football games (ABC, NBC, CBS, FSN, CBS College Sports, and Versus) have a similar number of slots. Of those, only FSN uses the late slot, showing about 5 late Pac 10 games per year. ABC and CBS CS have filled all of the first three slots, while NBC only airs 8 Notre Dame games in the afternoon and CBS only airs 14 SEC games also in the afternoon. FSN and Versus each only have about 20 of the potentially 39 ideal slots filled with football games.

Saturday Slate (12 noon, 3:30, 7:00)—About 39 Available Slots
ESPN: 39 (13 Big 10, 13 SEC, 7 B10, 5 SEC, 1 Pac 10)
ESPN 2: 42 (12 Big 10, 12 ACC, 2 CUSA, and 15 mirror games*--11 Big 10, 3 Big 12, 2 Big East)
ESPNU: 41 (13 SEC, 13 ACC, 6 Big East, 6 WAC, 2 MAC, 1 Sun Belt)
ABC: 66 games (16 Big 12, 15 Pac 10, 15 Big Ten, 14 ACC, and 6 Big East), many of which are only shown regionally.
CBS CS: 33-40 (13-15 CUSA, 11-16 MWC, 6 Navy, 3 Army)
FSN: 20 (13 Big 12, 7 Pac 10)
Versus: 18 (8 MWC, 5 Big 12, 5 Pac 10)
CBS: 15 (14 SEC, 1 Army vs Navy)
NBC: 8 (Notre Dame)
ESPN Classic: 2-3 (Option to pick up Big 10 and SEC if necessary)

Saturday Night Slots (10:30pm Eastern)—About 13 Available
ESPN: 3 (Pac 10)
FSN: 5 (Pac 10)

Other nights (ESPN/2)—About 13 Available
Fri: 15 (6 Big East, 6 WAC, 1 CUSA, 1 MAC, 1 Army)
Thur: 13 (4 Big East, 4 ACC, 2 SEC, 1 Pac 10, 1 CUSA, 1 WAC)
[Versus and CBS CS also show 2-3 Thur games each season]
Wed: 5 (2 CUSA, 2 MAC, 1 WAC)
Tue: 6 (3 MAC, 2 Sun Belt, 1 CUSA)
Monday: none, except on Labor Day
Sun: 6 (3 CUSA, 2 Big East, 1 WAC)

There are a couple of key insights from this:
• ESPN, ESPN 2, and ESPNU and ABC are all contractually full, with essentially no more room to add games

• CBS College Sports has contracts to fill its slate, but has opted thus far, not to take all of the games available to it, leaving potentially room to add additional games

• FSN and Versus both are only at about half capacity as far as showing college football games—they obviously must have other content that they are airing, but potentially have room to add additional football games

• CBS and NBC could both add an additional TV slot if they wanted to either at 12 noon or prime time 7pm, since both the SEC games and the Notre Dame games are at 3:30pm. It would not be feasible for the Pac 10 to play in the noon slot, but could potentially fill the evening slot.

• The night/late slots are nearly unanimously available, except where the Pac 10 already fills them, which is likely part of what that conference would like to get away from.

• ESPN only shows one game per night on Thursday and Friday (even with multiple channels available)

• The Pac 10 and Big East have decent deals with ABC, but are clearly the have-nots in the other ESPN programming

Expiring Contracts
Another option is to try to take some of the market share that another conference currently holds. But, given when contracts expire, that is really only possible for slots held by Conference USA and/or the ACC, since those are the only contracts that will come up before the Pac 10 deal does at the end of the 2010-11 season. Here is the rundown:

TV Contract Expiration (last season)
CUSA    2010 (football)
ACC      2010-11 (basketball)
Pac 10    2010-11 (basketball)
Big East  2012-13 (basketball)
ND        2015 (football)
Big Ten  2015-16 (basketball)
Big 12    2015-16 (basketball)
MWC    2016-17 (basketball)
WAC    2016-17 (basketball)
SEC      2023-24 (basketball)

Conclusion: Available Options
In order for the Pac 10 to get better distribution and/or money, there are really only a couple of options:

1. Pick up empty slots with Versus and FSN (where they already are anyway)—Possible but not very lucrative

2. Try to get CBS or NBC to add another window for college football—Difficult but lucrative

3. Convince ESPN to add another channel or start showing more games on ESPN Classic

4. Steal slots from the ACC (12 ESPN 2, 13 ESPNU) or Conference USA (2 ESPN 2, 14 CBS CS)—Possible but not without a fight from the ACC

5. Play on weeknights (either get ESPN to add another game on Thursday or Friday, or fill in on the other days)—Unlikely

6. Start (or partner with another conference) on their own TV station—Challenging but big upside

7. Try to convince FSN and ABC to pay significantly more for the same product--Unlikely

Numbers Behind Pac-10 Expansion: What It Means to the MWC, Big 12, WAC and CUSA

With the PAC 10’s confirmation earlier this week that it is exploring expansion possibilities, conference expansion rumors have been buzzing. Nearly every scenario eventually drags the Mountain West into it, either directly or indirectly, so it makes sense to take a closer look at what will drive the PAC-10 and whether expansion would involve members of the MWC.

As discussed previously (see www.byucougs.com/2009/10/updated-comparison-of-conference-tv.html) conference revenue, and specifically TV revenue, is the primary driver. With the SEC and Big Ten throwing down the gauntlet, other conferences are forced to scramble to keep up or risk getting left looking from the outside in.

The PAC-10 is likely dealing with a number of motivations right now—primarily a new (and more lucrative) television contract, but also increased relevancy on the national stage, an increased ability to gain a second BCS bid, and access to additional rich recruiting fields.

Increased relevancy and opportunity at a second BCS bid would both be helped by going to 12 schools. In two divisions, the schools would no longer have to play all 9 other schools, thus eliminating a number of guaranteed losses and improving the odds that more than one school is highly ranked. When all schools play each other, the conference guarantees at least six losses in conference to its top four teams, while the SEC and Big 12 routinely have two highly ranked, and even undefeated teams at the end of the season squaring off against each other. Easy to do when the teams in the conference don’t all play each other, and even better when the media gives a pass on the issue.

So, even without considering TV revenue, the conference would have to at least look at what it would take (and what it would cost) to get to 12, which is the minimum required in order to host a conference championship game.

But there is the revenue issue. It is unlikely that the conference will expand unless it at least maintains the current levels of revenue for each school. So that means that any new additions will have to add at least the current average revenue per team to the conference coffers. So here is a look at how much additional revenue a new conference member would have to generate:

Relevant Annual Conference Revenue
Current TV Contract                               $53.2M
BCS Payouts (3 yr ave)                           $18.2M
Other Bowl Games (excess of $750K)       $5.1M
NCAA Basketball Credits Payout              $13.4M
FB Conference Championship Game             $0M
Total                                                     $89.9M
Average per Team                                   $9.0M

Each new team added to the conference would have to at least contribute $9.0M to the conference coffers. There will be no expansion unless it gets the conference to 12 teams, so at a minimum there needs to be $18M of new revenue collectively created by the new teams. Here’s where it might come from:

Potential for Increased Revenue after Expansion
Improved footprint of TV contract                ?
1. Better shot at second BCS bid             $1.5M
2. Additional non-BCS bowl revenue        $0.5M
3. Additional NCAA bball bids                 $0.6M
4. Create a FB Championship game        $8-10M
Total                                           $10.3-12.3M
Remaining Gap ($18M min)            $5.7-7.7M

1. Should the conference get a second BCS bid once every three years, they would net an additional $4.5M for an average of $1.5M per year

2. If the conference were able to add one additional bowl game with a payout of at least $1.25M, after assumed expenses of $750K, the conference would have an additional $500K to split each year

3. The Pac-10 currently has 65 credits accumulated over the rolling 6 year period. In order to maintain status quo the conference would have to earn an additional 2 credits per year (one for each game appearance in the tourney). This is unlikely, however, if the conference were able to get one additional credit every other year (more than they already would anyway), they would accumulate three additional credits over the six year span meaning that pay out at roughly $200K each, for $600K total.

4. A football championship game would generate revenue from ticket sales and TV rights. The SEC game earns that league roughly $12-14M per year. The Big 12 is just below that. The ACC hasn’t done as well.   But, with USC playing in most years, a Pac-10 championship game would likely come in just below the current Big 12 and make $8-10M (70K seats at $50 each = $3.5M + $4.5-6.5M for TV rights and sponsorships).

So the million dollar question...
Are there two teams out there that could collectively add roughly $6-8M to the soon to be negotiated Pac-10 TV contract? The new TV deal will almost certainly be more than the current deal regardless of expansion, so any new teams need to be incremental to the already expected increases (which would increase the amount needed to break even, so we will compare with the current deal).

To consider this, we will assume that TV contract values are based on the number of households, and that all households are created equal (although viewer intensity is obviously higher in some markets).

Current Pac-10 Market Households
2. Los Angeles    5.6M 4.9%
6. Bay Area         2.5M 2.2%
12. Phoenix         1.9M 1.6%
13. Seattle           1.8M 1.6%
22. Portland        1.2M 1.0%
66. Tuscon           0.5M 0.4%
119. Eugene         0.2M 0.2%
Total                13.8M 12.0%

So with 13.8M households, and 12.0% of the US, the Pac-10 has a current contract of $53M per year. So for two teams to add an additional $6-8M to that total, together they would need to add roughly 10-15% more households to the footprint (about 1.5-2M), or 750K-1.0M each, just to break even. In order to increase the payout to the conference, it would have to be more.

These are the schools in markets west of the Mississippi that could meet that requirement:

School (Market Rank, City, Households)
Texas (5. Dallas, 2.5M; 37. San Antonio, 0.8M; 48. Austin, 0.7M)
Oklahoma (5. Dallas, 2.5M (some portion); 45. Oklahoma City, 0.7M)
Texas A&M (portions of Dallas and Houston)
TCU (5. Dallas, 2.5M)
SMU (5. Dallas, 2.5M)
Houston (10. Houston, 2.1M)
Missouri (21. St Louis, 1.2M; 32. Kansas City 0.9)
Colorado (16. Denver, 1.5M)
San Diego State (28. San Diego, 1.1M)
BYU (31. Salt Lake, 0.9M; US West/LDS, 1.0M)
Utah (31. Salt Lake, 0.9M)

Las Vegas (42, 720K), Albuquerque (44, 694K), Fresno (55, 579K), Honolulu (71, 433K), Omaha/Lincoln (76, 410K), Waco (89, 340K), Colorado Springs (92, 335K), El Paso (98, 311), Reno (108, 270K), Boise (112, 263K), Topeka (136, 180K), and Lubbock (143, 158K) are all markets too small to increase the value of the TV contract sufficiently.

The San Diego market is likely already covered by the inclusion of USC and UCLA. TCU and SMU are small private schools that have become victims of markets with too much noise for the size of their alumni base, and are not the primary driver of sports in those markets. Houston, although a large school with 37K students, suffers to a lesser degree from the same plight as the Metroplex schools—too much noise from pro sports and living in the shadow of Texas/Texas A&M. Missouri is focused on the Big Ten right now, and seems an unlikely candidate.

From this perspective BYU and Utah could not both be added, since together they do not bring any additional households. It would be one or the other or neither.

The only remaining options are Texas, Oklahoma, Texas A&M, Colorado, and BYU or Utah. The Dallas market is sufficiently large, that despite the overlap, any combination of the above would also work, except for BYU and Utah. Any discussion mentioning other schools is unrealistic, purely from a TV perspective before even getting to any other factors.

Would any of the Big 12 teams leave? Perhaps, if the money was right. The Big 12 includes a rather limited footprint, and a number of very small markets (see above). Outside of Texas, Missouri, and Denver, there isn’t much, and without the state of Texas in particular, the conference would fall apart financially. With that in mind, the upside of the Big 12, unless membership changes are made, is very limited. But still, for a team to leave behind its rivalries and tradition, it would have to make significantly more revenue than it does now—for our purposes, we will say 35% more. Colorado has fewer rivalries and traditions in the Big 12 than the Texas schools, and thus likely has a lower bar, maybe 25%. Here is an estimate of what these schools will receive this year from Big 12 revenue sources (using last year’s allocation % against this year’s projected $136.2M):

Current Big 12 Revenue (Departure Hurdle Value)
Texas            $13.6M (would need $18.4M)
Oklahoma     $13.0M (would need $17.6M)
Texas A&M  $11.0M (would need 14.9M)
Colorado      $10.7M (would need $13.4M)

The Pac-10 currently only brings in $90M or about $9.0M per team. Non-TV expansion benefits would add about $12M or $1.0M per team. A new TV contract without the additional schools could possibly bump up another $2M or so per school before the expansion consideration (assume $75M per year for 10 teams). That would put total revenue at $122, or $10M for each school before considering TV market increases. Enough for BYU or Utah. Not yet tempting for Colorado, and with a ways to go for the Texas schools. So it all comes down to the potential to increase TV value.

Increased TV Value
Texas adds about 4.0M households (29% increase of $21.8M)
Oklahoma adds 3.2M (23% increase of $17.4M alone, or 5% for $3.8M with Texas)
Texas A&M maybe 2.5M (18% increase of $13.6M, alone and 3% or $2.2M with Texas)
Colorado 1.5M (11% increase of $8.2M)
BYU would add 1.9M (14% for $10.4M)
Utah would add 0.9M (7% or $4.9M alone, $0 with BYU)

So which combinations work?

Utah and Colorado: 2.4M new HH (18%), $13.1M new TV dollars, $135M total and $11.3M/team
-This works for Utah, but Colorado would be unlikely (unless there were intangible reasons).

BYU and Colorado: 3.4M new HH (25%), $18.6M new TV dollars, $140.6M total and $11.7M/team
-Again, this works for BYU, but would be unlikely for Colorado.

Colorado and Texas: 5.5M new HH (40%), $30M new TV dollars, $152M total and $12.7M/team
-Likely works for Colorado (as Big 12 w/o Texas is much less), won’t work for Texas

Texas and Oklahoma: 4.7M new HH (34%), $25.6M new TV dollars, $147.6M total and $12.3M/team
-Would be unlikely to work for Texas or Oklahoma (unless there was a massive uneven revenue split)

Colorado and Texas A&M: 4.0M new HH (29%), $21.8M new TV dollars, $143.8M total and $12.0M/tm
-Could work for both Colorado and Texas A&M (more than they get now) but unlikely to be worth the effort unless there was unequal sharing in their favor or significant intangible reasons to do it, since it does not meet the hurdle.

BYU and Texas A&M: 4.4M new HH (32%), $24M new TV dollars, $146M total and $12.2M/team
-Works for BYU, is more than TAMU gets now, but as in the scenario above, unless A&M is unhappy in the current situation, this will likely not meet the hurdle rate for them.

BYU and Utah: 1.9M new HH (14%), $10.4M new TV dollars, $132.4M total and $11.0M/team
-Both BYU and Utah would do this. And, which surprisingly, at the end of the day, might be what it comes down to… which teams would be both qualified and willing. It would not be much of a revenue bump for the conference, but it would be revenue neutral and achieve the relevance and BCS goals.

Conclusions
• BYU, Utah, Texas, Oklahoma, Texas A&M, and Colorado are the only options for Pac-10 expansion that will maintain revenue neutrality or better

• Without making some kind of revenue concessions to the Texas schools, it is unlikely that any of them would come, but given the Texas recruiting grounds, the Pac-10 just might do it.

• Colorado is borderline, but is unlikely to move unless they are currently unhappy or the future alternative in the Big 12 (no Texas) was diminished

• BYU and Utah together (or BYU and a smaller market UNLV or TCU) would work and still maintain revenue neutrality.

• Utah combined with anyone above but BYU (and perhaps UNLV or TCU, not listed) does not increase the pie enough to entice the other partner to join them in the Pac-10

• Unless the Big 12 looks like it is going to fall apart, or the Pac 10 is able to get significantly more than $75M/year for its current lineup (it would have to be at least $100M/year for just the current 10 schools), then it is unlikely that any schools from the Big 12 would leave for the Pac 10

• No WAC teams are in large enough markets to be invited unless BYU is invited (which would be enough by itself and would need another school to get to 12)

• No Conference USA team is likely to be invited as Houston and SMU are the only "western" schools in large enough markets, but are not the primary draws in those markets.  If invited, they would have to be paired with either BYU or Utah, since they do not increase the TV value sufficienlty to get any Big 12 team to join them.

An Updated Comparison of Conference TV Contracts

[Note: This article was originally published on this site and philsteele.com on September 18, 2009 and this updated version (with regards to the Big East and Notre Dame) supersedes all that was written previously.]

Once again, the Mountain West is taking collateral damage from its TV partners in the standoff between Direct TV and Comcast over Versus, and has raised the issue of conference television contracts to the forefront. Of particular note is the fact that ESPN Game Day will be in Provo to catch the excitement of the BYU vs. TCU game, while Versus will actually be broadcasting the game, but just not into any homes with Direct TV (most college football fans, and especially out-of-footprint MWC fans).

However, it is not just the MWC that desires more from its TV partners. I wrote a piece comparing the TV contracts with each conference back in September prior to the Florida State game. That article has been one of the most widely cited, searched, and seen publications on this site. It was pointed out that Notre Dame had not been included and that I had not considered the basketball schools from the Big East. I have addressed both of those concerns in this updated view.

With that introduction, let’s take a closer look at the MWC TV contract relative to the other conferences’ contracts, including the pros and cons of each.

[I should note that I am a non-MWC footprint Direct TV subscriber, and a relatively happy one at that. This year and last year have offered great access to all of the BYU games as well as most other conference games—almost enough good times to help me forget the years of purgatory, when in 2006 and 2007 many of the games were not available to me at any price. It was during those lean times that I purchased a Slingbox, which has merely acted as my emergency backup during the recent fat times, but may be called upon to come through in the clutch this weekend due to the Versus contract disputes.]

Conf   Teams $/Year  $/Yr/Tm   TV Partners
SEC       12     $205.0     $17.1     CBS, ESPN
Big 10    11     $174.0     $15.8     BTN, ABC/ESPN, CBS*
ND          1      $11.0       $11.0    NBC, Big East*
Big 12    12     $79.5       $6.6      ABC/ESPN, FSN
ACC       12     $66.9       $5.6      ABC/ESPN, Raycom*
Pac 10    10     $53.2       $5.3     ABC/ESPN, FSN, ABC/ESPN*
Big East  8^     $45.3       $3.7     ABC/ESPN, CBS*
MWC      9      $12.0       $1.3     CBSC/Mtn.
CUSA     12     $11.3       $0.9     CBSC, ESPN
WAC       9       $4.0        $0.4     ESPN
MAC       13      $1.4        $0.1     ESPN
Sunbelt    9       $0.0       $0.0     ESPN, Cox/Charter

*Separate basketball contracts
^Big East has 16 schools, only 8 of which participate in football and receive $1.7M each for football only; All 16 schools receive an additional $2.0M per year for basketball

When it comes to taking a closer look at the contracts, there are essentially four tiers—The Haves, The Wannabe Haves, The Not-Quite Have-Nots, and the Have-Nots. It is interesting to note that every conference, with the exception of the MWC, has some sort of arrangement with ESPN.

Upon closer consideration (and in light of the SEC/ESPN domino), it appears that the trend is toward larger, longer contracts for the conferences with the biggest TV draws, which leaves fewer slots and dollars for the rest of the football world. The MWC and Big Ten have chosen to create their own networks in an effort to combat that trend. The Big 12, ACC, Pac 10 are exploring that option now. Notre Dame has watched helplessly as it relinquished its title as king of college football television, as all SEC teams now make more than it does, yes, even Vanderbilt. The Big East is hanging on to what it has (primarily stemming from legacy efforts and basketball prowess) and looking to improve its lineup for the next go-around. Conference USA is heading back down to the have-nots and the WAC is hoping to move up to the not-quite have-nots. Overall, the MWC package is better than any of the alternatives its non-AQ brethren have by a long shot.

The Haves
The SEC and Big 10 are a head and shoulders above everyone else. The bar has been set and other conferences that want to keep up are scrambling to find a way to match the TV revenue that they are going to bring in over the next 15 years.

1. SEC
The SEC has an $825M, 15 year contract with CBS, for an exclusive time slot and first pick of games (14 regular season and championship game). The league made headlines earlier this summer when it signed a second 15 year deal for $2.25B with ESPN. ESPN gets its pick of the rest of the games, some of which are sublicensed to regional carriers. It is hard to find any issues with these arrangements. This large investment by ESPN will ensure that college football fans continue to hear about the “dominance” of the SEC from the Sports Leader for years to come, and due to limited time slots, will also preclude other leagues from signing similarly valued deals with ESPN.

2. Big 10
The Big Ten Network launched last year and is projected to bring in $2.8B over the next 25 years; this also guarantees coverage for all of the leagues games. In addition, there is a $1.0B, 10 year contract with ABC/ESPN, and a $20M, 10 year basketball deal with CBS. When the SEC is essentially using ESPN as its own conference network, the Big 10 did the next best thing by starting its own, and has a high enough profile to generate more viewers and dollars than the Mtn.

3. Notre Dame
Notre Dame was once the king of the college football television world and it wasn’t even close. However, recently, it must find itself looking up at the Big 10 and SEC with envy and imagining the implications of being left behind. Despite this, it still brings in almost double the next closest school, and so remains one of the “haves” but could be quickly relegated to “wannabe have” status in the next 3-5 years. The school agreed to a 5 year contract extension with its football TV partner NBC this summer, and although terms have not been disclosed, they are believed to be in the same neighborhood as the previous contract, which would put it at about $9.0M per year. For basketball, the Irish are affiliated with the Big East and bring in another $2.0M per year or so. If Notre Dame ever decides to end its independent status, it will be because of its inability to remain relevant and draw viewers (and thus TV dollars) while being left out of the ongoing BCS and conference supremacy debate.

The Wannabe Haves
The Big 12, ACC, and Pac 10 feel an urgency to keep up with the Joneses. Rumors of creation of joint TV networks between Big 12 and ACC or Pac 10 and ACC have been flying. The Pac 10 brought in a new commissioner with the primary task of working out a more favorable TV arrangement (Pac 10 expansion may even be a possibility).

4. Big 12
There is a $480M, 8 year deal with ABC to show first pick of up to 19 games per season (and ESPN has rights to all basketball games). FSN has a 4 year, $78M deal to show the rest. Of those, FSN has sublicensed 7 games to ESPN and 5 to Versus. Overall good exposure, but significantly less compensation for the effort than the SEC or Big 10.

5. ACC
The addition of Miami, Virginia Tech, and Boston College has not quite played out in TV market land as was hoped. The ACC has a 7 year, $258M contract with ABC/ESPN that is expiring soon. In that deal, ABC gets first pick, then ESPN/ESPN2, then Raycom (as part of basketball deal), and lastly ESPNU. Raycom has a subordinate deal with them for 10 years for $300M for basketball. The ESPN contract requires a marquee game on Labor Day each year. It is obvious that the conference is exploring all avenues as it has been linked to nearly all of the mega conference TV network deal rumors.

6. Pac 10
The main contract here is $125M with ABC/ESPN for 20 games per year over 5 years ending in 2011. There is another contract with FSN for 5 years and $97M—5 of those games have been sublicensed to Versus, keeping 13 windows for games on FSN. The remainder of the games end up on a hodgepodge of Fox regional networks such as FSN Northwest, Fox Sports West, Fox Sports Arizona, Oregon Sports Netowrk, CSN Bay Area, etc. The prime gripe here is that most games are not readily available to a national audience. New conference commissioner Larry Scott was able to raise the profile of the Women’s Tennis Tour through savvy TV contracts and was hired to do the same with the Pac 10.

The Not-Quite Have-Nots
The Big East, Mountain West and Conference USA find themselves with real TV contracts that actually compensate them for the product (differentiating them from the WAC, MAC and Sunbelt), but for annual amounts and levels of exposure that don’t qualify them to be in the same grouping with the previous four conferences. It leaves them looking up with envy, but also looking down knowing it could be worse. The Big East is by far the best off of these three, and could be argued that it deserves to be with the group above based on total revenue, but since more than half of its money comes from basketball, leaving football only TV revenue of $1.7M (which is close to what the MWC makes), and the fact that it has been forced to play games at rather fringe start times, the Big East has been placed in this group. It is also unlikely that the Big East will be able to maintain that level of revenue in its next contract unless some significant changes are made.

7. Big East
The Big East has a 6 year, roughly $218M deal with ESPN ($80M for football split 8 ways and $138M for basketball split 16 ways) running through 2013, which appears to be a Mike Tranghese boondoggle. In any case, the league is getting paid and has 17 games guaranteed to be on ABC or ESPN, with at least 3 on ABC. In order to achieve that the conference had to agree to up to 4 games on Thursdays, 2 on Sundays and mutually agreeable Friday games. 5 additional games can appear on ESPNU. Given that this is only an 8 team league, there are not that many games to begin with, especially in conference, and only 37% of these televised games ended up being played on Saturdays, effectively ensuring no marquee Big East games on the sport’s biggest day. The conference also has a 6 year $54M contract with CBS that pays another $9M per year (but must be split 16 ways). So football schools make $3.7M per year ($1.7M from football and $2.0M from basketball), while the basketball only schools get roughly $2.0M each). This is the only conference that makes more from televising its basketball games than it does from its football games, and likely owes its status as an AQ-BCS football conference to its perception as the number one basketball conference. With the recent beating the conference has taken in the media and from fans, there are rumors that the Big East is again looking to expand (Memphis or an ACC reverse raid), in order to improve its profile and reputation and cling to its football TV revenue.

8. Mountain West
After leaving ESPN, for increased revenue and regular game times, the Mountain West television situation is finally settling down. What was originally a 12 year, $120M contract with CSTV, added Comcast the day after it was announced, and was since sold to CBS College Sports. The Mtn. was created and Versus (which is owned by Comcast) was given 8 games per year (as part of the contract 8 games per year must be distributed to a national audience of 70 million homes or more). CBSC has the rights to up to 24 games per year (and has selected 11 this year). Overall, the national footprint/access is improving as is the quality of the product; however, what suffers is the exposure on ESPN—both on TV and online, as the station does not have any vested interest in developing the leauge’s profile. There is also no web streaming available.

9. Conference USA
There is a legacy contract with ESPN/ESPN2 for 10 games per season paying $45.8M and another with CBSC for $22M over 6 years for its pick of the remainder of the games. Both contracts end at the end of the 2010 football season, and were originally set up pre-Big East raid of Cincinnati, Louisville, and South Florida, and pre-MWC raid of TCU. Many games required to be played on weeknights, in order to get on TV. When these contracts end, the conference will likely take a major hit on the revenue and exposure side of things.

The Have-Nots
10. WAC
The conference moves from its $1M per year contract with ESPN to one paying closer to $4M per year starting in 2010-11. The old deal allows ESPN/ESPN2 rights to a minimum of 8 games and the new deal requires a minimum of 10. The new deal also requires at least 6 games on ESPNU. Many of the games on ESPN/ESPN2 will be played on weeknights in order to find TV time. The silver lining in all of this is the online streaming and rights retained by schools for games not televised. This contract leaves a lot to be desired, but it is something and provides the exposure that is desperately needed by a conference trying to raise its profile. Should Boise no longer be a member of this conference during the next round of negotiations, look for the TV situation to take a step backwards.

11. MAC
The MAC will take what it can get. It has an 8 year, roughly $11M deal with ESPN to televise a minimum of 11 games—6 on ESPN/ESPN2 and 5 on ESPNU. Nearly all of these games will be played on weeknights. The bright spot for the MAC is that the creation of the Big Ten Network and the removal of Big Ten games from regional networks is that there is a demand for sports programming on many of the regional networks and many MAC games are being syndicated regionally.

12. Sunbelt
Its not easy being at the bottom of the college football food chain. The Sunbelt has a 3 year contract with ESPN to show at least 2 games per year. These games must be willing to allow for a 12 day advance scheduling window and play on weeknights. It isn’t clear if the league even receives any meaningful compensation for its product, but is looking for exposure however it can get it. Comcast/Charter Sports own the regional rights.

Note: Here are a few links to other sources covering TV contracts…
1. http://mattsarzsports.blogspot.com/2009/08/discussing-conferences-thyeir-tv.html
2. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/stewart_mandel/07/24/tv-deals/index.html
3. http://www.ncaabbs.com/printthread.php?tid=350645