berserkeley said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

sycasey said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

Quote:

---

The other place Cal loses out on is Media Market, surprisingly.

They use the same flawed rating metric that counts 0 viewers for any games on the pac12 network which obviously hurts things quite a bit. It also only accounts games from 2015-2021 (excluding 2020 season), so it doesn't account for any of Cal's success but does get some of Stanfords.

Most bizzarly on the list, they give the Bay Area media market a 4 out of 10. In comparison, it gives Oregon a 9 out of 10. I have no idea how they get that, but this is their description:

Quote:

---

Media market footprint (2x multiplier). This one's complicated, but the idea is to evaluate which media markets the school is the dominant college football brand in, using The New York Times's college football fandom map from 2014.11 However, I also gave credit to schools for their immediate metro areas even if they aren't the dominant football brand there, although with a penalty if the school is competing against other current Big Ten members.12 In doing so, I tried to replicate the Big Ten's thinking in adding Rutgers (its nominal presence in the New York media market, despite schools like Notre Dame having a bigger following in NYC).

---

And from that they got Oregon as a 9 and Cal/Stanford as 4 each...

---

So I am really confused. I thought maybe he divided up the Bay Area media market because Cal and Stanford share it. But he gave TCU and SMU a 9 in media market footprint and they share it with each other. Then I thought maybe he took away point because Cal and Stanford just don't draw as well in the Bay Area. But he gave TCU and SMU a 9 and they're not even in the top 2 college football draws in their media market. If Cal and Stanford had been given 8s (which seems more correct), then they would both rank ahead of Clemson in the overall list. In fact, Cal and Stanford would rank higher than half of the current B1G teams.

---

That's a great point about TCU and SMU. No way those schools have a better football "market" than Cal or Stanford. Rice also gets an 8. Rice!

I really doubt the B1G would value NorCal as badly as this analysis does, as a potential market for expansion.

---

I think the big difference is that people in Dallas watch college football whereas people in the bay area dont. I think that is a fair statement. Most people I know dont really watch college football unless they are with me and i make them.

---

Yes, but they watch Texas and Texas A&M not TCU, SMU, and Rice.

---

golden sloth said:

---

sycasey said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

Quote:

---

The other place Cal loses out on is Media Market, surprisingly.

They use the same flawed rating metric that counts 0 viewers for any games on the pac12 network which obviously hurts things quite a bit. It also only accounts games from 2015-2021 (excluding 2020 season), so it doesn't account for any of Cal's success but does get some of Stanfords.

Most bizzarly on the list, they give the Bay Area media market a 4 out of 10. In comparison, it gives Oregon a 9 out of 10. I have no idea how they get that, but this is their description:

Quote:

---

Media market footprint (2x multiplier). This one's complicated, but the idea is to evaluate which media markets the school is the dominant college football brand in, using The New York Times's college football fandom map from 2014.11 However, I also gave credit to schools for their immediate metro areas even if they aren't the dominant football brand there, although with a penalty if the school is competing against other current Big Ten members.12 In doing so, I tried to replicate the Big Ten's thinking in adding Rutgers (its nominal presence in the New York media market, despite schools like Notre Dame having a bigger following in NYC).

---

And from that they got Oregon as a 9 and Cal/Stanford as 4 each...

---

So I am really confused. I thought maybe he divided up the Bay Area media market because Cal and Stanford share it. But he gave TCU and SMU a 9 in media market footprint and they share it with each other. Then I thought maybe he took away point because Cal and Stanford just don't draw as well in the Bay Area. But he gave TCU and SMU a 9 and they're not even in the top 2 college football draws in their media market. If Cal and Stanford had been given 8s (which seems more correct), then they would both rank ahead of Clemson in the overall list. In fact, Cal and Stanford would rank higher than half of the current B1G teams.

---

That's a great point about TCU and SMU. No way those schools have a better football "market" than Cal or Stanford. Rice also gets an 8. Rice!

I really doubt the B1G would value NorCal as badly as this analysis does, as a potential market for expansion.

---

I think the big difference is that people in Dallas watch college football whereas people in the bay area dont. I think that is a fair statement. Most people I know dont really watch college football unless they are with me and i make them.

---

GMP said:

---

sycasey said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

sycasey said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

Quote:

---

The other place Cal loses out on is Media Market, surprisingly.

They use the same flawed rating metric that counts 0 viewers for any games on the pac12 network which obviously hurts things quite a bit. It also only accounts games from 2015-2021 (excluding 2020 season), so it doesn't account for any of Cal's success but does get some of Stanfords.

Most bizzarly on the list, they give the Bay Area media market a 4 out of 10. In comparison, it gives Oregon a 9 out of 10. I have no idea how they get that, but this is their description:

Quote:

---

Media market footprint (2x multiplier). This one's complicated, but the idea is to evaluate which media markets the school is the dominant college football brand in, using The New York Times's college football fandom map from 2014.11 However, I also gave credit to schools for their immediate metro areas even if they aren't the dominant football brand there, although with a penalty if the school is competing against other current Big Ten members.12 In doing so, I tried to replicate the Big Ten's thinking in adding Rutgers (its nominal presence in the New York media market, despite schools like Notre Dame having a bigger following in NYC).

---

And from that they got Oregon as a 9 and Cal/Stanford as 4 each...

---

So I am really confused. I thought maybe he divided up the Bay Area media market because Cal and Stanford share it. But he gave TCU and SMU a 9 in media market footprint and they share it with each other. Then I thought maybe he took away point because Cal and Stanford just don't draw as well in the Bay Area. But he gave TCU and SMU a 9 and they're not even in the top 2 college football draws in their media market. If Cal and Stanford had been given 8s (which seems more correct), then they would both rank ahead of Clemson in the overall list. In fact, Cal and Stanford would rank higher than half of the current B1G teams.

---

That's a great point about TCU and SMU. No way those schools have a better football "market" than Cal or Stanford. Rice also gets an 8. Rice!

I really doubt the B1G would value NorCal as badly as this analysis does, as a potential market for expansion.

---

I think the big difference is that people in Dallas watch college football whereas people in the bay area dont. I think that is a fair statement. Most people I know dont really watch college football unless they are with me and i make them.

---

Yes, but they watch Texas and Texas A&M not TCU, SMU, and Rice.

---

Maybe the 538 analysis is just trying to give credit for having college football viewers in the area PERIOD?

Still, I agree that it seems weird to assign that "credit" to SMU in making a case for B1G membership.

---

Nate Silver is a constant reminder of the dangers of telling a man he is good at something even once

— Julia Claire (@ohJuliatweets) August 26, 2022

---

GMP said:

---

sycasey said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

sycasey said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

Quote:

---

The other place Cal loses out on is Media Market, surprisingly.

They use the same flawed rating metric that counts 0 viewers for any games on the pac12 network which obviously hurts things quite a bit. It also only accounts games from 2015-2021 (excluding 2020 season), so it doesn't account for any of Cal's success but does get some of Stanfords.

Most bizzarly on the list, they give the Bay Area media market a 4 out of 10. In comparison, it gives Oregon a 9 out of 10. I have no idea how they get that, but this is their description:

Quote:

---

Media market footprint (2x multiplier). This one's complicated, but the idea is to evaluate which media markets the school is the dominant college football brand in, using The New York Times's college football fandom map from 2014.11 However, I also gave credit to schools for their immediate metro areas even if they aren't the dominant football brand there, although with a penalty if the school is competing against other current Big Ten members.12 In doing so, I tried to replicate the Big Ten's thinking in adding Rutgers (its nominal presence in the New York media market, despite schools like Notre Dame having a bigger following in NYC).

---

And from that they got Oregon as a 9 and Cal/Stanford as 4 each...

---

So I am really confused. I thought maybe he divided up the Bay Area media market because Cal and Stanford share it. But he gave TCU and SMU a 9 in media market footprint and they share it with each other. Then I thought maybe he took away point because Cal and Stanford just don't draw as well in the Bay Area. But he gave TCU and SMU a 9 and they're not even in the top 2 college football draws in their media market. If Cal and Stanford had been given 8s (which seems more correct), then they would both rank ahead of Clemson in the overall list. In fact, Cal and Stanford would rank higher than half of the current B1G teams.

---

That's a great point about TCU and SMU. No way those schools have a better football "market" than Cal or Stanford. Rice also gets an 8. Rice!

I really doubt the B1G would value NorCal as badly as this analysis does, as a potential market for expansion.

---

I think the big difference is that people in Dallas watch college football whereas people in the bay area dont. I think that is a fair statement. Most people I know dont really watch college football unless they are with me and i make them.

---

Yes, but they watch Texas and Texas A&M not TCU, SMU, and Rice.

---

Maybe the 538 analysis is just trying to give credit for having college football viewers in the area PERIOD?

Still, I agree that it seems weird to assign that "credit" to SMU in making a case for B1G membership.

---

Nate Silver is a constant reminder of the dangers of telling a man he is good at something even once

— Julia Claire (@ohJuliatweets) August 26, 2022

---

golden sloth said:

---

GMP said:

---

sycasey said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

sycasey said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

Quote:

---

The other place Cal loses out on is Media Market, surprisingly.

They use the same flawed rating metric that counts 0 viewers for any games on the pac12 network which obviously hurts things quite a bit. It also only accounts games from 2015-2021 (excluding 2020 season), so it doesn't account for any of Cal's success but does get some of Stanfords.

Most bizzarly on the list, they give the Bay Area media market a 4 out of 10. In comparison, it gives Oregon a 9 out of 10. I have no idea how they get that, but this is their description:

Quote:

---

Media market footprint (2x multiplier). This one's complicated, but the idea is to evaluate which media markets the school is the dominant college football brand in, using The New York Times's college football fandom map from 2014.11 However, I also gave credit to schools for their immediate metro areas even if they aren't the dominant football brand there, although with a penalty if the school is competing against other current Big Ten members.12 In doing so, I tried to replicate the Big Ten's thinking in adding Rutgers (its nominal presence in the New York media market, despite schools like Notre Dame having a bigger following in NYC).

---

And from that they got Oregon as a 9 and Cal/Stanford as 4 each...

---

So I am really confused. I thought maybe he divided up the Bay Area media market because Cal and Stanford share it. But he gave TCU and SMU a 9 in media market footprint and they share it with each other. Then I thought maybe he took away point because Cal and Stanford just don't draw as well in the Bay Area. But he gave TCU and SMU a 9 and they're not even in the top 2 college football draws in their media market. If Cal and Stanford had been given 8s (which seems more correct), then they would both rank ahead of Clemson in the overall list. In fact, Cal and Stanford would rank higher than half of the current B1G teams.

---

That's a great point about TCU and SMU. No way those schools have a better football "market" than Cal or Stanford. Rice also gets an 8. Rice!

I really doubt the B1G would value NorCal as badly as this analysis does, as a potential market for expansion.

---

I think the big difference is that people in Dallas watch college football whereas people in the bay area dont. I think that is a fair statement. Most people I know dont really watch college football unless they are with me and i make them.

---

Yes, but they watch Texas and Texas A&M not TCU, SMU, and Rice.

---

Maybe the 538 analysis is just trying to give credit for having college football viewers in the area PERIOD?

Still, I agree that it seems weird to assign that "credit" to SMU in making a case for B1G membership.

---

Nate Silver is a constant reminder of the dangers of telling a man he is good at something even once

— Julia Claire (@ohJuliatweets) August 26, 2022

---

This is the problem with twitter (which is why I hate it and refuse to join). All it takes is one snarky comment that people want to believe and people act like someone lost all credibility. Nevermind I have no idea who this person is, or what their credibility is.

Fyi, i did look up Julia Claire, she is a comedian and has no relevant expertise or credibility.

Also, my stance on the big hasn't changed. We are on the bubble and its wait and see.

---

golden sloth said:

---

I think the big difference is that people in Dallas watch college football whereas people in the bay area dont. I think that is a fair statement. Most people I know dont really watch college football unless they are with me and i make them.

---

MrGPAC said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

I think the big difference is that people in Dallas watch college football whereas people in the bay area dont. I think that is a fair statement. Most people I know dont really watch college football unless they are with me and i make them.

---

Exactly. Football is a religion in Texas. The Bay Area is just not that college football friendly. Just.......that........simple.

"Yes, but they watch Texas and Texas A&M not TCU, SMU, and Rice. "

Incorrect. They'd watch high school 5A vs Little Sister sof the Poor if that was the only game taht was on.

---

And that explains Oregon being a 9 how?

Also, they explicitly state trying to include why Rutgers got invited (i.e. tv market size). Bay area has nearly 2x the population of the state of Oregon...

Makes zero sense for Oregon to be a 9 and Cal/Stanford to be a 4.

---

Big Dog said:

---

MrGPAC said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

I think the big difference is that people in Dallas watch college football whereas people in the bay area dont. I think that is a fair statement. Most people I know dont really watch college football unless they are with me and i make them.

---

Exactly. Football is a religion in Texas. The Bay Area is just not that college football friendly. Just.......that........simple.

"Yes, but they watch Texas and Texas A&M not TCU, SMU, and Rice. "

Incorrect. They'd watch high school 5A vs Little Sister sof the Poor if that was the only game taht was on.

---

And that explains Oregon being a 9 how?

Also, they explicitly state trying to include why Rutgers got invited (i.e. tv market size). Bay area has nearly 2x the population of the state of Oregon...

Makes zero sense for Oregon to be a 9 and Cal/Stanford to be a 4.

---

Sorry, really can't help you with that. (To me, its just common market sense. I too put Oregon and U-Dub ahead of Cal/Stanford many posts ago. There are just not many eyeballs on the west coast interested in college sports (on a per capita). And this is why Larry's vision of the Pac12 Network never had a chance.)

---

MrGPAC said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

MrGPAC said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

I think the big difference is that people in Dallas watch college football whereas people in the bay area dont. I think that is a fair statement. Most people I know dont really watch college football unless they are with me and i make them.

---

Exactly. Football is a religion in Texas. The Bay Area is just not that college football friendly. Just.......that........simple.

"Yes, but they watch Texas and Texas A&M not TCU, SMU, and Rice. "

Incorrect. They'd watch high school 5A vs Little Sister sof the Poor if that was the only game taht was on.

---

And that explains Oregon being a 9 how?

Also, they explicitly state trying to include why Rutgers got invited (i.e. tv market size). Bay area has nearly 2x the population of the state of Oregon...

Makes zero sense for Oregon to be a 9 and Cal/Stanford to be a 4.

---

Sorry, really can't help you with that. (To me, its just common market sense. I too put Oregon and U-Dub ahead of Cal/Stanford many posts ago. There are just not many eyeballs on the west coast interested in college sports (on a per capita). And this is why Larry's vision of the Pac12 Network never had a chance.)

---

They explicitly stated that by including Market, they are trying to emphasize the reason Rutgers got into the B1G. That was due to the cable market size of New Jersey / New York, not Rutgers popularity within those markets. There is no way that the Oregon Media Market is bigger than the Bay Area when you are using raw number of people not fans.

Even if that's not what you are aiming at, you can put Oregon ahead of Cal/Stanford...but a 9 vs a 4?

---

sycasey said:

---

I'm not going to complain too much about Oregon having a better "market" score in this analysis. There are reasons to believe they have more fans in more markets right now.

I don't understand the TCU/SMU/Rice group being rated so much better than Cal/Stanford.

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I'm not going to complain too much about Oregon having a better "market" score in this analysis. There are reasons to believe they have more fans in more markets right now.

I don't understand the TCU/SMU/Rice group being rated so much better than Cal/Stanford.

---

People care about football in texas.

California high school team travels to texas

"In a $60-million stadium that seats 18,000 and was filled, St. John Bosco became the second consecutive top team from California to come to Texas and inflict a thorough beating on one of Texas' top 6A teams with a 52-14 victory Friday.
"It was amazing," St. John Bosco safety Ty Lee said when the downpour happened in the second quarter. "It's probably my best experience playing football. It was just fun."
The lead was 38-7 at halftime and the warm rain came down with such fury that it forced Allen's band of more than 800 members to cancel its halftime show. The loyal Allen students dressed in white T-shirts refused to budge from the student section, standing in their soaking shirts. Now that's school spirit."

---

sycasey said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I'm not going to complain too much about Oregon having a better "market" score in this analysis. There are reasons to believe they have more fans in more markets right now.

I don't understand the TCU/SMU/Rice group being rated so much better than Cal/Stanford.

---

People care about football in texas.

California high school team travels to texas

"In a $60-million stadium that seats 18,000 and was filled, St. John Bosco became the second consecutive top team from California to come to Texas and inflict a thorough beating on one of Texas' top 6A teams with a 52-14 victory Friday.
"It was amazing," St. John Bosco safety Ty Lee said when the downpour happened in the second quarter. "It's probably my best experience playing football. It was just fun."
The lead was 38-7 at halftime and the warm rain came down with such fury that it forced Allen's band of more than 800 members to cancel its halftime show. The loyal Allen students dressed in white T-shirts refused to budge from the student section, standing in their soaking shirts. Now that's school spirit."

---

Okay, but how does that show that SMU and Rice have a big media footprint?

Both schools draw about 20k per game in a good year (much worse than Cal). Their TV ratings don't come close. I think it's accurate to say that people in Texas are watching the Longhorns and Aggies and other major conference matchups before they're watching those teams.

---

bearsandgiants said:

---

Oregon football is a national brand. Oregon's geographic demographics mean less that Silver thinks, and I'd argue most of their fans aren't alumni anyway. Right now, there are way more valuable from a sports standpoint. If we had decent leadership, though, that would change quickly, and that's just for sports. We already rule rhe roost in academics

---

sycasey said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

Quote:

---

The other place Cal loses out on is Media Market, surprisingly.

They use the same flawed rating metric that counts 0 viewers for any games on the pac12 network which obviously hurts things quite a bit. It also only accounts games from 2015-2021 (excluding 2020 season), so it doesn't account for any of Cal's success but does get some of Stanfords.

Most bizzarly on the list, they give the Bay Area media market a 4 out of 10. In comparison, it gives Oregon a 9 out of 10. I have no idea how they get that, but this is their description:

Quote:

---

Media market footprint (2x multiplier). This one's complicated, but the idea is to evaluate which media markets the school is the dominant college football brand in, using The New York Times's college football fandom map from 2014.11 However, I also gave credit to schools for their immediate metro areas even if they aren't the dominant football brand there, although with a penalty if the school is competing against other current Big Ten members.12 In doing so, I tried to replicate the Big Ten's thinking in adding Rutgers (its nominal presence in the New York media market, despite schools like Notre Dame having a bigger following in NYC).

---

And from that they got Oregon as a 9 and Cal/Stanford as 4 each...

---

So I am really confused. I thought maybe he divided up the Bay Area media market because Cal and Stanford share it. But he gave TCU and SMU a 9 in media market footprint and they share it with each other. Then I thought maybe he took away point because Cal and Stanford just don't draw as well in the Bay Area. But he gave TCU and SMU a 9 and they're not even in the top 2 college football draws in their media market. If Cal and Stanford had been given 8s (which seems more correct), then they would both rank ahead of Clemson in the overall list. In fact, Cal and Stanford would rank higher than half of the current B1G teams.

---

That's a great point about TCU and SMU. No way those schools have a better football "market" than Cal or Stanford. Rice also gets an 8. Rice!

I really doubt the B1G would value NorCal as badly as this analysis does, as a potential market for expansion.

---

MrGPAC said:

---

bearsandgiants said:

---

Oregon football is a national brand. Oregon's geographic demographics mean less that Silver thinks, and I'd argue most of their fans aren't alumni anyway. Right now, there are way more valuable from a sports standpoint. If we had decent leadership, though, that would change quickly, and that's just for sports. We already rule rhe roost in academics

---

They have a separate metric for ratings.

This is about the value of the market the teams play in. Again...Rutgers got in because they brought the New York media market. Not because they were good, or had good ratings, or were popular. The rubrik used had separate metrics for those valuations.

The point of this metric was Rutgers is high on it, it was valuable enough to the b1g that they added them despite having very few fans and awful on field success. They wanted to assess that value and apply it to Oregon and smu and cal and rice and Stanford and somehow the two teams most closely resembling the value that Rutgers added got a 4/10, and the teams that least resemble it got a 9/10.

I'm not saying cal has a better brand than Oregon football or sporting wise by any means. I'm not saying cal has a more passionate fan base, or that bay area fans are more invested in college football than Texans or Oregon's. I'm saying that the raw size of the bay area media market dwarfs theirs. Just like Rutgers does.

---

sycasey said:

---

Right, the issue is that the "market" score seems inconsistently applied. If it's just about the size of the market the school is in, then the Bay Area should not be ranked so much lower than Dallas or Houston. The market size is comparable. If it's more about the team's popularity in and outside of the market, then that does not explain why Oregon and SMU get the same score. No way SMU has popularity extending all around the region.

It's just confusing how some of those numbers were reached.

---

• College football TV ratings (3x multiplier). As listed here and here from the diligent work of sports journalist Zach Miller, this reflects the school's average TV viewership between 2015 and 2021, skipping the COVID-19-affected year of 2020.10 This method may appear biased toward weak schools in strong conferences since they can piggyback off matchups against stronger rivals, but that's not really how it works. The SEC is not going to waste a prime-time slot on Vanderbilt, even if the Commodores are playing the Crimson Tide. So considering how much TV contracts drive revenue and everything else in college sports, this is one of the more robust categories.
• Media market footprint (2x multiplier). This one's complicated, but the idea is to evaluate which media markets the school is the dominant college football brand in, using The New York Times's college football fandom map from 2014.11 However, I also gave credit to schools for their immediate metro areas even if they aren't the dominant football brand there, although with a penalty if the school is competing against other current Big Ten members.12 In doing so, I tried to replicate the Big Ten's thinking in adding Rutgers (its nominal presence in the New York media market, despite schools like Notre Dame having a bigger following in NYC).

• All-sport revenues (2x multiplier). Using data from CollegeRaptor.com not related to our RAPTOR NBA projection system, so don't ask it about the Boston Celtics the university's earnings across all sports.13

• Popularity on Google Trends (3x multiplier). The combined number of searches for the school's football, men's basketball and women's basketball teams since 2015 using Google Trends topics data.14 Football tends to dominate here, although men's basketball moves the needle at schools like Duke and UNC, and women's basketball makes some difference for UConn.

mirabelle said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Right, the issue is that the "market" score seems inconsistently applied. If it's just about the size of the market the school is in, then the Bay Area should not be ranked so much lower than Dallas or Houston. The market size is comparable. If it's more about the team's popularity in and outside of the market, then that does not explain why Oregon and SMU get the same score. No way SMU has popularity extending all around the region.

It's just confusing how some of those numbers were reached.

---

• College football TV ratings (3x multiplier). As listed here and here from the diligent work of sports journalist Zach Miller, this reflects the school's average TV viewership between 2015 and 2021, skipping the COVID-19-affected year of 2020.10 This method may appear biased toward weak schools in strong conferences since they can piggyback off matchups against stronger rivals, but that's not really how it works. The SEC is not going to waste a prime-time slot on Vanderbilt, even if the Commodores are playing the Crimson Tide. So considering how much TV contracts drive revenue and everything else in college sports, this is one of the more robust categories.
• Media market footprint (2x multiplier). This one's complicated, but the idea is to evaluate which media markets the school is the dominant college football brand in, using The New York Times's college football fandom map from 2014.11 However, I also gave credit to schools for their immediate metro areas even if they aren't the dominant football brand there, although with a penalty if the school is competing against other current Big Ten members.12 In doing so, I tried to replicate the Big Ten's thinking in adding Rutgers (its nominal presence in the New York media market, despite schools like Notre Dame having a bigger following in NYC).

• All-sport revenues (2x multiplier). Using data from CollegeRaptor.com not related to our RAPTOR NBA projection system, so don't ask it about the Boston Celtics the university's earnings across all sports.13

• Popularity on Google Trends (3x multiplier). The combined number of searches for the school's football, men's basketball and women's basketball teams since 2015 using Google Trends topics data.14 Football tends to dominate here, although men's basketball moves the needle at schools like Duke and UNC, and women's basketball makes some difference for UConn.

---

calumnus said:

---

mirabelle said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Right, the issue is that the "market" score seems inconsistently applied. If it's just about the size of the market the school is in, then the Bay Area should not be ranked so much lower than Dallas or Houston. The market size is comparable. If it's more about the team's popularity in and outside of the market, then that does not explain why Oregon and SMU get the same score. No way SMU has popularity extending all around the region.

It's just confusing how some of those numbers were reached.

---

• College football TV ratings (3x multiplier). As listed here and here from the diligent work of sports journalist Zach Miller, this reflects the school's average TV viewership between 2015 and 2021, skipping the COVID-19-affected year of 2020.10 This method may appear biased toward weak schools in strong conferences since they can piggyback off matchups against stronger rivals, but that's not really how it works. The SEC is not going to waste a prime-time slot on Vanderbilt, even if the Commodores are playing the Crimson Tide. So considering how much TV contracts drive revenue and everything else in college sports, this is one of the more robust categories.
• Media market footprint (2x multiplier). This one's complicated, but the idea is to evaluate which media markets the school is the dominant college football brand in, using The New York Times's college football fandom map from 2014.11 However, I also gave credit to schools for their immediate metro areas even if they aren't the dominant football brand there, although with a penalty if the school is competing against other current Big Ten members.12 In doing so, I tried to replicate the Big Ten's thinking in adding Rutgers (its nominal presence in the New York media market, despite schools like Notre Dame having a bigger following in NYC).

• All-sport revenues (2x multiplier). Using data from CollegeRaptor.com not related to our RAPTOR NBA projection system, so don't ask it about the Boston Celtics the university's earnings across all sports.13

• Popularity on Google Trends (3x multiplier). The combined number of searches for the school's football, men's basketball and women's basketball teams since 2015 using Google Trends topics data.14 Football tends to dominate here, although men's basketball moves the needle at schools like Duke and UNC, and women's basketball makes some difference for UConn.

---

There are all kinds of reasons why those particular choices would severely undervalue Cal: (PAC-12 Network, 2014, and for Google search did they use "Cal, California, Berkeley, Berkely, Berkley, UCB…."?

---

mirabelle said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Right, the issue is that the "market" score seems inconsistently applied. If it's just about the size of the market the school is in, then the Bay Area should not be ranked so much lower than Dallas or Houston. The market size is comparable. If it's more about the team's popularity in and outside of the market, then that does not explain why Oregon and SMU get the same score. No way SMU has popularity extending all around the region.

It's just confusing how some of those numbers were reached.

---

• College football TV ratings (3x multiplier). As listed here and here from the diligent work of sports journalist Zach Miller, this reflects the school's average TV viewership between 2015 and 2021, skipping the COVID-19-affected year of 2020.10 This method may appear biased toward weak schools in strong conferences since they can piggyback off matchups against stronger rivals, but that's not really how it works. The SEC is not going to waste a prime-time slot on Vanderbilt, even if the Commodores are playing the Crimson Tide. So considering how much TV contracts drive revenue and everything else in college sports, this is one of the more robust categories.
• Media market footprint (2x multiplier). This one's complicated, but the idea is to evaluate which media markets the school is the dominant college football brand in, using The New York Times's college football fandom map from 2014.11 However, I also gave credit to schools for their immediate metro areas even if they aren't the dominant football brand there, although with a penalty if the school is competing against other current Big Ten members.12 In doing so, I tried to replicate the Big Ten's thinking in adding Rutgers (its nominal presence in the New York media market, despite schools like Notre Dame having a bigger following in NYC).

• All-sport revenues (2x multiplier). Using data from CollegeRaptor.com not related to our RAPTOR NBA projection system, so don't ask it about the Boston Celtics the university's earnings across all sports.13

• Popularity on Google Trends (3x multiplier). The combined number of searches for the school's football, men's basketball and women's basketball teams since 2015 using Google Trends topics data.14 Football tends to dominate here, although men's basketball moves the needle at schools like Duke and UNC, and women's basketball makes some difference for UConn.

---

sycasey said:

---

mirabelle said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Right, the issue is that the "market" score seems inconsistently applied. If it's just about the size of the market the school is in, then the Bay Area should not be ranked so much lower than Dallas or Houston. The market size is comparable. If it's more about the team's popularity in and outside of the market, then that does not explain why Oregon and SMU get the same score. No way SMU has popularity extending all around the region.

It's just confusing how some of those numbers were reached.

---

• College football TV ratings (3x multiplier). As listed here and here from the diligent work of sports journalist Zach Miller, this reflects the school's average TV viewership between 2015 and 2021, skipping the COVID-19-affected year of 2020.10 This method may appear biased toward weak schools in strong conferences since they can piggyback off matchups against stronger rivals, but that's not really how it works. The SEC is not going to waste a prime-time slot on Vanderbilt, even if the Commodores are playing the Crimson Tide. So considering how much TV contracts drive revenue and everything else in college sports, this is one of the more robust categories.
• Media market footprint (2x multiplier). This one's complicated, but the idea is to evaluate which media markets the school is the dominant college football brand in, using The New York Times's college football fandom map from 2014.11 However, I also gave credit to schools for their immediate metro areas even if they aren't the dominant football brand there, although with a penalty if the school is competing against other current Big Ten members.12 In doing so, I tried to replicate the Big Ten's thinking in adding Rutgers (its nominal presence in the New York media market, despite schools like Notre Dame having a bigger following in NYC).

• All-sport revenues (2x multiplier). Using data from CollegeRaptor.com not related to our RAPTOR NBA projection system, so don't ask it about the Boston Celtics the university's earnings across all sports.13

• Popularity on Google Trends (3x multiplier). The combined number of searches for the school's football, men's basketball and women's basketball teams since 2015 using Google Trends topics data.14 Football tends to dominate here, although men's basketball moves the needle at schools like Duke and UNC, and women's basketball makes some difference for UConn.

---

This doesn't help. The only real citation for "Media Market Footprint" is that NYT map, a map on which SMU and Rice have no visible territory. Why aren't they penalized for being non-dominant in a major market but Cal and Stanford are?

---

Big Dog said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

I think the big difference is that people in Dallas watch college football whereas people in the bay area dont. I think that is a fair statement. Most people I know dont really watch college football unless they are with me and i make them.

---

Exactly. Football is a religion in Texas. The Bay Area is just not that college football friendly. Just.......that........simple.

"Yes, but they watch Texas and Texas A&M not TCU, SMU, and Rice. "

Incorrect. They'd watch high school 5A vs Little Sister sof the Poor if that was the only game taht was on.

---

philly1121 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

Quote:

---

The other place Cal loses out on is Media Market, surprisingly.

They use the same flawed rating metric that counts 0 viewers for any games on the pac12 network which obviously hurts things quite a bit. It also only accounts games from 2015-2021 (excluding 2020 season), so it doesn't account for any of Cal's success but does get some of Stanfords.

Most bizzarly on the list, they give the Bay Area media market a 4 out of 10. In comparison, it gives Oregon a 9 out of 10. I have no idea how they get that, but this is their description:

Quote:

---

Media market footprint (2x multiplier). This one's complicated, but the idea is to evaluate which media markets the school is the dominant college football brand in, using The New York Times's college football fandom map from 2014.11 However, I also gave credit to schools for their immediate metro areas even if they aren't the dominant football brand there, although with a penalty if the school is competing against other current Big Ten members.12 In doing so, I tried to replicate the Big Ten's thinking in adding Rutgers (its nominal presence in the New York media market, despite schools like Notre Dame having a bigger following in NYC).

---

And from that they got Oregon as a 9 and Cal/Stanford as 4 each...

---

So I am really confused. I thought maybe he divided up the Bay Area media market because Cal and Stanford share it. But he gave TCU and SMU a 9 in media market footprint and they share it with each other. Then I thought maybe he took away point because Cal and Stanford just don't draw as well in the Bay Area. But he gave TCU and SMU a 9 and they're not even in the top 2 college football draws in their media market. If Cal and Stanford had been given 8s (which seems more correct), then they would both rank ahead of Clemson in the overall list. In fact, Cal and Stanford would rank higher than half of the current B1G teams.

---

That's a great point about TCU and SMU. No way those schools have a better football "market" than Cal or Stanford. Rice also gets an 8. Rice!

I really doubt the B1G would value NorCal as badly as this analysis does, as a potential market for expansion.

---

TCU is in Fort Worth and SMU is in Dallas. As you and many others have said on this board, it doesn't matter whether they watch TCU or SMU in the media market. its that they have ENTRY into the media market. Its the same rationale you gave Rutgers. They suck. No one watches. But that's not why the B1G wanted them in the conference.

Same rationale applies here. Dallas/Fort Worth are #5 media market. We are #6.

Nate extrapolates everything out. His take is that the schools in the Fort Worth/Dallas Metro market offer greater value than Bay Area because people simply watch more football there. And he's probably right. Also, TCU was last good (11-3) in 2017. We were that good (10-3) in 2003. Its the recency argument as well.

---

berserkeley said:

---

The only way his numbers make sense is that he gave Stanford credit only for San Jose metro and Cal only for SF-Oakland metro. While that would explain the otherwise inexplicable inconsistency, I'm not sure that's a reasonable way to rank that category.

---

berserkeley said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

I think the big difference is that people in Dallas watch college football whereas people in the bay area dont. I think that is a fair statement. Most people I know dont really watch college football unless they are with me and i make them.

---

Exactly. Football is a religion in Texas. The Bay Area is just not that college football friendly. Just.......that........simple.

"Yes, but they watch Texas and Texas A&M not TCU, SMU, and Rice. "

Incorrect. They'd watch high school 5A vs Little Sister sof the Poor if that was the only game taht was on.

---

False. No one watches Rice football. And they are not the dominant college football team in their media market. I cannot believe I had to state that.

---

berserkeley said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

Quote:

---

The other place Cal loses out on is Media Market, surprisingly.

They use the same flawed rating metric that counts 0 viewers for any games on the pac12 network which obviously hurts things quite a bit. It also only accounts games from 2015-2021 (excluding 2020 season), so it doesn't account for any of Cal's success but does get some of Stanfords.

Most bizzarly on the list, they give the Bay Area media market a 4 out of 10. In comparison, it gives Oregon a 9 out of 10. I have no idea how they get that, but this is their description:

Quote:

---

Media market footprint (2x multiplier). This one's complicated, but the idea is to evaluate which media markets the school is the dominant college football brand in, using The New York Times's college football fandom map from 2014.11 However, I also gave credit to schools for their immediate metro areas even if they aren't the dominant football brand there, although with a penalty if the school is competing against other current Big Ten members.12 In doing so, I tried to replicate the Big Ten's thinking in adding Rutgers (its nominal presence in the New York media market, despite schools like Notre Dame having a bigger following in NYC).

---

And from that they got Oregon as a 9 and Cal/Stanford as 4 each...

---

So I am really confused. I thought maybe he divided up the Bay Area media market because Cal and Stanford share it. But he gave TCU and SMU a 9 in media market footprint and they share it with each other. Then I thought maybe he took away point because Cal and Stanford just don't draw as well in the Bay Area. But he gave TCU and SMU a 9 and they're not even in the top 2 college football draws in their media market. If Cal and Stanford had been given 8s (which seems more correct), then they would both rank ahead of Clemson in the overall list. In fact, Cal and Stanford would rank higher than half of the current B1G teams.

---

That's a great point about TCU and SMU. No way those schools have a better football "market" than Cal or Stanford. Rice also gets an 8. Rice!

I really doubt the B1G would value NorCal as badly as this analysis does, as a potential market for expansion.

---

TCU is in Fort Worth and SMU is in Dallas. As you and many others have said on this board, it doesn't matter whether they watch TCU or SMU in the media market. its that they have ENTRY into the media market. Its the same rationale you gave Rutgers. They suck. No one watches. But that's not why the B1G wanted them in the conference.

Same rationale applies here. Dallas/Fort Worth are #5 media market. We are #6.

Nate extrapolates everything out. His take is that the schools in the Fort Worth/Dallas Metro market offer greater value than Bay Area because people simply watch more football there. And he's probably right. Also, TCU was last good (11-3) in 2017. We were that good (10-3) in 2003. Its the recency argument as well.

---

I read no where that Nate defined media market size as percent of the media market that watches football rather than as the total media market size. Leaving out that qualifier is gigantic and it would be wrong to assume the he didn't mean media market size as it is universally understood.

The only way his numbers make sense is that he gave Stanford credit only for San Jose metro and Cal only for SF-Oakland metro. While that would explain the otherwise inexplicable inconsistency, I'm not sure that's a reasonable way to rank that category.

---