That could be, but if so it seems like bad methodology to me. The overall "Market" rating already includes separate columns for TV ratings, revenues, and popularity (Google searches, etc.). Why essentially "double dip" those other measures in the "Media footprint" column as well? Seems like the media footprint should really just be measuring the total number of potential households where you can get your games on TV, if you enter the market. As has been noted, that was the whole point of adding Rutgers.philly1121 said:I suppose since none of us know his methodology or how he extrapolates data, we won't know how to make sense of it. I would only ask as to whether, in terms of media market, which area watches more football on television. The Bay Area and Dalas/Fort Worth metroplex seem to be similar in population size. So I guess it depends on what they're watching on TV.berserkeley said:philly1121 said: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.sycasey said:berserkeley said: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.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...
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.
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.
Anecdotal evidence and the fact that football is quite popular in Texas would suggest that, on average, they watch more football on television in the Metroplex area than the Bay Area. It doesn't matter what team they're watching, they're simply watching it. I think that's why he attaches more value to it. Just a thought.
The Latest Rumors
262,224 Views |
1901 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by Bobodeluxe
But as I said said, that wouldn't be "media market" as it is universally understood; that would be "the number of college football viewers within the media market." And I'm not sure that's a particularly valid or useful data point.philly1121 said:I suppose since none of us know his methodology or how he extrapolates data, we won't know how to make sense of it. I would only ask as to whether, in terms of media market, which area watches more football on television. The Bay Area and Dalas/Fort Worth metroplex seem to be similar in population size. So I guess it depends on what they're watching on TV.berserkeley said:philly1121 said: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.sycasey said:berserkeley said: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.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...
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.
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.
Anecdotal evidence and the fact that football is quite popular in Texas would suggest that, on average, they watch more football on television in the Metroplex area than the Bay Area. It doesn't matter what team they're watching, they're simply watching it. I think that's why he attaches more value to it. Just a thought.
The Rutgers comment is also confusing as we all know the "media market footprint" is the only reason that Rutgers was invited to the B1G. However, NYC is more like SF when it comes to college football viewership. While we don't know Rutgers's score in this category, if it was high, then Cal/Stanford should also be high. If it was middle ranged, then the data does not achieve its stated desire.
I mean, it's not particularly relevant to the Big Ten thought process. And, in the end, he does have the 4 Pac-12 North schools in his imagined future Big Ten. But I'm just surprised at the what can only be explained as bad data in a post by Nate Silver.
Personal opinion here. I think it is entirely possible that the Big 10 will add 4 teams before the new contract starts. It appears there may be some vetting of Oregon and Washington that has occurred and may be continuing to occur.
It would not surprise me to see them add just 2 teams in their next expansion move. They really want Notre Dame to join and IMO they could invite UW and Oregon soon in an effort to try and put pressure on Notre Dame. If Notre Dame bites IMO Cal is out. If Notre Dame indeed stays independent as most feel they will Cal is in a decent spot. But if I am the Big 10 I add 2 teams first and hold out as long as possible to add Notre Dame.
IMO those 2 would be UW and UO. But I do believe they add 4 more total before 2024.
It would not surprise me to see them add just 2 teams in their next expansion move. They really want Notre Dame to join and IMO they could invite UW and Oregon soon in an effort to try and put pressure on Notre Dame. If Notre Dame bites IMO Cal is out. If Notre Dame indeed stays independent as most feel they will Cal is in a decent spot. But if I am the Big 10 I add 2 teams first and hold out as long as possible to add Notre Dame.
IMO those 2 would be UW and UO. But I do believe they add 4 more total before 2024.
6956bear said:
Personal opinion here. I think it is entirely possible that the Big 10 will add 4 teams before the new contract starts. It appears there may be some vetting of Oregon and Washington that has occurred and may be continuing to occur.
It would not surprise me to see them add just 2 teams in their next expansion move. They really want Notre Dame to join and IMO they could invite UW and Oregon soon in an effort to try and put pressure on Notre Dame. If Notre Dame bites IMO Cal is out. If Notre Dame indeed stays independent as most feel they will Cal is in a decent spot. But if I am the Big 10 I add 2 teams first and hold out as long as possible to add Notre Dame.
IMO those 2 would be UW and UO. But I do believe they add 4 more total before 2024.
How would inviting UW and Oregon put pressure on ND?
I would think the data point would be extremely useful data point. But it is the same argument as Rutgers. Media market footprint. I mean, isn't it more than likely that the Metroplex watches more football than the Bay Area? Yeah, chances are these fans aren't watching TCU or SMU but - so what? B1G would have entry into the market.berserkeley said:But as I said said, that wouldn't be "media market" as it is universally understood; that would be "the number of college football viewers within the media market." And I'm not sure that's a particularly valid or useful data point.philly1121 said:I suppose since none of us know his methodology or how he extrapolates data, we won't know how to make sense of it. I would only ask as to whether, in terms of media market, which area watches more football on television. The Bay Area and Dalas/Fort Worth metroplex seem to be similar in population size. So I guess it depends on what they're watching on TV.berserkeley said:philly1121 said: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.sycasey said:berserkeley said: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.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...
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.
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.
Anecdotal evidence and the fact that football is quite popular in Texas would suggest that, on average, they watch more football on television in the Metroplex area than the Bay Area. It doesn't matter what team they're watching, they're simply watching it. I think that's why he attaches more value to it. Just a thought.
The Rutgers comment is also confusing as we all know the "media market footprint" is the only reason that Rutgers was invited to the B1G. However, NYC is more like SF when it comes to college football viewership. While we don't know Rutgers's score in this category, if it was high, then Cal/Stanford should also be high. If it was middle ranged, then the data does not achieve its stated desire.
I mean, it's not particularly relevant to the Big Ten thought process. And, in the end, he does have the 4 Pac-12 North schools in his imagined future Big Ten. But I'm just surprised at the what can only be explained as bad data in a post by Nate Silver.
I think what likely happens or is happening is this. B1G is evaluating Oregon and UW. Notre Dame values their independence above all else. If the ACC crumbles, then that's the only way ND seriously considers the B1G. If ND stays independent, as they are likely to, then the next two teams to go would be Oregon and UW.. And then I think the B1G either waits for what the ACC does or what the Big 12 does. Who knows.
I've staked out my position on this but I'll just say it again. Notre Dame is not joining the Big Ten. Not now and probably not ever. They value their independence and their unique role within college football. They are not giving that up almost under any circumstance. That is without taking into account the legal and contractual obligations they have to the ACC. I have yet to see a single analyst write anything explaining how Notre Dame could get out of that contract or the financial arrangement that could make that work. Probably because they can't.
So speculation as to what happens to Cal if Notre Dame join the Big Ten is IMHO not particularly relevant. Cal will join the Big Ten eventually - I just hope "eventually" is soon.
So speculation as to what happens to Cal if Notre Dame join the Big Ten is IMHO not particularly relevant. Cal will join the Big Ten eventually - I just hope "eventually" is soon.
Not too sure what you are objecting to, since I never, ever have speculated on Rice's tv audience.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.
I suppose that would be your assertion that it's incorrect that people in Houston watch Rice football. You said it.Big Dog said:Not too sure what you are objecting to, since I never, ever have speculated on Rice's tv audience.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.
ND is petrified of losing its uniqueness. If they joined any conference for fb, that uniqueness would be thrown away.Sebastabear said:
I've staked out my position on this but I'll just say it again. Notre Dame is not joining the Big Ten. Not now and probably not ever. They value their independence and their unique role within college football. They are not giving that up almost under any circumstance. That is without taking into account the legal and contractual obligations they have to the ACC. I have yet to see a single analyst write anything explaining how Notre Dame could get out of that contract or the financial arrangement that could make that work. Probably because they can't.
So speculation as to what happens to Cal if Notre Dame join the Big Ten is IMHO not particularly relevant. Cal will join the Big Ten eventually - I just hope "eventually" is soon.
All the teams that have joined the Big Ten lately (LA aside) have not done well, i.e. Nebraska, Maryland, Rutgers, etc. So why join? Money, which ND has plenty of and can get plenty more of independently.Rushinbear said:ND is petrified of losing its uniqueness. If they joined any conference for fb, that uniqueness would be thrown away.Sebastabear said:
I've staked out my position on this but I'll just say it again. Notre Dame is not joining the Big Ten. Not now and probably not ever. They value their independence and their unique role within college football. They are not giving that up almost under any circumstance. That is without taking into account the legal and contractual obligations they have to the ACC. I have yet to see a single analyst write anything explaining how Notre Dame could get out of that contract or the financial arrangement that could make that work. Probably because they can't.
So speculation as to what happens to Cal if Notre Dame join the Big Ten is IMHO not particularly relevant. Cal will join the Big Ten eventually - I just hope "eventually" is soon.
Really seems like Notre Dame will not be moving until they absolutely have to. Which probably means not until the Pac-12 and ACC are both picked apart by the B1G and SEC.
If we go to the B10, won't we just lose more? I don't think people would prefer this likely reality.
We need the money more than the wins, even if we crush the Mountain West how do we make up for $25+ million every year?burritos said:
If we go to the B10, won't we just lose more? I don't think people would prefer this likely reality.
Cal is 9-4 vs. B1G opponents over the last 20 years.burritos said:
If we go to the B10, won't we just lose more? I don't think people would prefer this likely reality.
https://bearinsider.com/forums/2/topics/109595/replies/2039530
You can go back a decade previous and we still don't have a losing record. There's no reason to think our record would be much worse over there.
philly1121 said:I would think the data point would be extremely useful data point. But it is the same argument as Rutgers. Media market footprint. I mean, isn't it more than likely that the Metroplex watches more football than the Bay Area? Yeah, chances are these fans aren't watching TCU or SMU but - so what? B1G would have entry into the market.berserkeley said:But as I said said, that wouldn't be "media market" as it is universally understood; that would be "the number of college football viewers within the media market." And I'm not sure that's a particularly valid or useful data point.philly1121 said:I suppose since none of us know his methodology or how he extrapolates data, we won't know how to make sense of it. I would only ask as to whether, in terms of media market, which area watches more football on television. The Bay Area and Dalas/Fort Worth metroplex seem to be similar in population size. So I guess it depends on what they're watching on TV.berserkeley said:philly1121 said: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.sycasey said:berserkeley said: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.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...
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.
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.
Anecdotal evidence and the fact that football is quite popular in Texas would suggest that, on average, they watch more football on television in the Metroplex area than the Bay Area. It doesn't matter what team they're watching, they're simply watching it. I think that's why he attaches more value to it. Just a thought.
The Rutgers comment is also confusing as we all know the "media market footprint" is the only reason that Rutgers was invited to the B1G. However, NYC is more like SF when it comes to college football viewership. While we don't know Rutgers's score in this category, if it was high, then Cal/Stanford should also be high. If it was middle ranged, then the data does not achieve its stated desire.
I mean, it's not particularly relevant to the Big Ten thought process. And, in the end, he does have the 4 Pac-12 North schools in his imagined future Big Ten. But I'm just surprised at the what can only be explained as bad data in a post by Nate Silver.
I think what likely happens or is happening is this. B1G is evaluating Oregon and UW. Notre Dame values their independence above all else. If the ACC crumbles, then that's the only way ND seriously considers the B1G. If ND stays independent, as they are likely to, then the next two teams to go would be Oregon and UW.. And then I think the B1G either waits for what the ACC does or what the Big 12 does. Who knows.
I don't think it's a particularly valid or useful data point because:
(a) "media market" was the driving factor for Rutgers, not "the number of people in the media market who watch college football." The Big Ten was able to collect more money from NYC subscribers whether or not they watched college football at all so the number of college football viewers in NYC was not relevant.
(b) it double dips into the TV ratings except it applies it to the wrong team. The people watching college football in Dallas are watching Texas or Texas A&M. If the Big Ten invites SMU, those people are not going to stop watching Texas or Texas A&M nor are they going to pick up SMU. It's the eyeballs not already captured by teams not in your conference that's the valid data point. And that's best represented by "media market" not "the number of people who watch college football within the media market."
By that rationale, we should already be in the B1G. Because you're basically saying that the Bay Area media market is better than the Metroplex. And aren't you contradicting yourself a bit? You're saying that the B1G got money from NYC subscribers whether or not they watched Rutgers or college football. Ok, fine. But wouldn't that also count for the Metroplex if they were to pick TCU? I think we know that most people in the Metroplex are watching A&M or UT. But that doesn't matter based on your analysis since taking TCU would bring the B1G subscribers in the Metroplex. Right?berserkeley said:philly1121 said:I would think the data point would be extremely useful data point. But it is the same argument as Rutgers. Media market footprint. I mean, isn't it more than likely that the Metroplex watches more football than the Bay Area? Yeah, chances are these fans aren't watching TCU or SMU but - so what? B1G would have entry into the market.berserkeley said:But as I said said, that wouldn't be "media market" as it is universally understood; that would be "the number of college football viewers within the media market." And I'm not sure that's a particularly valid or useful data point.philly1121 said:I suppose since none of us know his methodology or how he extrapolates data, we won't know how to make sense of it. I would only ask as to whether, in terms of media market, which area watches more football on television. The Bay Area and Dalas/Fort Worth metroplex seem to be similar in population size. So I guess it depends on what they're watching on TV.berserkeley said:philly1121 said: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.sycasey said:berserkeley said: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.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...
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.
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.
Anecdotal evidence and the fact that football is quite popular in Texas would suggest that, on average, they watch more football on television in the Metroplex area than the Bay Area. It doesn't matter what team they're watching, they're simply watching it. I think that's why he attaches more value to it. Just a thought.
The Rutgers comment is also confusing as we all know the "media market footprint" is the only reason that Rutgers was invited to the B1G. However, NYC is more like SF when it comes to college football viewership. While we don't know Rutgers's score in this category, if it was high, then Cal/Stanford should also be high. If it was middle ranged, then the data does not achieve its stated desire.
I mean, it's not particularly relevant to the Big Ten thought process. And, in the end, he does have the 4 Pac-12 North schools in his imagined future Big Ten. But I'm just surprised at the what can only be explained as bad data in a post by Nate Silver.
I think what likely happens or is happening is this. B1G is evaluating Oregon and UW. Notre Dame values their independence above all else. If the ACC crumbles, then that's the only way ND seriously considers the B1G. If ND stays independent, as they are likely to, then the next two teams to go would be Oregon and UW.. And then I think the B1G either waits for what the ACC does or what the Big 12 does. Who knows.
I don't think it's a particularly valid or useful data point because:
(a) "media market" was the driving factor for Rutgers, not "the number of people in the media market who watch college football." The Big Ten was able to collect more money from NYC subscribers whether or not they watched college football at all so the number of college football viewers in NYC was not relevant.
(b) it double dips into the TV ratings except it applies it to the wrong team. The people watching college football in Dallas are watching Texas or Texas A&M. If the Big Ten invites SMU, those people are not going to stop watching Texas or Texas A&M nor are they going to pick up SMU. It's the eyeballs not already captured by teams not in your conference that's the valid data point. And that's best represented by "media market" not "the number of people who watch college football within the media market."
Since we don't know Nate's methodology, then we have to assume that he is factoring in viewership. That may not be what the B1G is factoring in. But it would explain why he thinks TCU or SMU might be on the list.
The BigTen has plenty of teams that aren't much better than Cal,if at all.burritos said:
If we go to the B10, won't we just lose more? I don't think people would prefer this likely reality.
He's not saying the Bay Area is better than the Metroplex, he's saying it should be roughly equal to the Metroplex, and not result in SMU getting a 9 for their media footprint while Cal and Stanford get a 4. If you're just talking about households available to a conference that moves in there, Cal/Stanford should get a 9 or 8.philly1121 said:By that rationale, we should already be in the B1G. Because you're basically saying that the Bay Area media market is better than the Metroplex. And aren't you contradicting yourself a bit? You're saying that the B1G got money from NYC subscribers whether or not they watched Rutgers or college football. Ok, fine. But wouldn't that also count for the Metroplex if they were to pick TCU? I think we know that most people in the Metroplex are watching A&M or UT. But that doesn't matter based on your analysis since taking TCU would bring the B1G subscribers in the Metroplex. Right?berserkeley said:philly1121 said:I would think the data point would be extremely useful data point. But it is the same argument as Rutgers. Media market footprint. I mean, isn't it more than likely that the Metroplex watches more football than the Bay Area? Yeah, chances are these fans aren't watching TCU or SMU but - so what? B1G would have entry into the market.berserkeley said:But as I said said, that wouldn't be "media market" as it is universally understood; that would be "the number of college football viewers within the media market." And I'm not sure that's a particularly valid or useful data point.philly1121 said:I suppose since none of us know his methodology or how he extrapolates data, we won't know how to make sense of it. I would only ask as to whether, in terms of media market, which area watches more football on television. The Bay Area and Dalas/Fort Worth metroplex seem to be similar in population size. So I guess it depends on what they're watching on TV.berserkeley said:philly1121 said: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.sycasey said:berserkeley said: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.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...
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.
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.
Anecdotal evidence and the fact that football is quite popular in Texas would suggest that, on average, they watch more football on television in the Metroplex area than the Bay Area. It doesn't matter what team they're watching, they're simply watching it. I think that's why he attaches more value to it. Just a thought.
The Rutgers comment is also confusing as we all know the "media market footprint" is the only reason that Rutgers was invited to the B1G. However, NYC is more like SF when it comes to college football viewership. While we don't know Rutgers's score in this category, if it was high, then Cal/Stanford should also be high. If it was middle ranged, then the data does not achieve its stated desire.
I mean, it's not particularly relevant to the Big Ten thought process. And, in the end, he does have the 4 Pac-12 North schools in his imagined future Big Ten. But I'm just surprised at the what can only be explained as bad data in a post by Nate Silver.
I think what likely happens or is happening is this. B1G is evaluating Oregon and UW. Notre Dame values their independence above all else. If the ACC crumbles, then that's the only way ND seriously considers the B1G. If ND stays independent, as they are likely to, then the next two teams to go would be Oregon and UW.. And then I think the B1G either waits for what the ACC does or what the Big 12 does. Who knows.
I don't think it's a particularly valid or useful data point because:
(a) "media market" was the driving factor for Rutgers, not "the number of people in the media market who watch college football." The Big Ten was able to collect more money from NYC subscribers whether or not they watched college football at all so the number of college football viewers in NYC was not relevant.
(b) it double dips into the TV ratings except it applies it to the wrong team. The people watching college football in Dallas are watching Texas or Texas A&M. If the Big Ten invites SMU, those people are not going to stop watching Texas or Texas A&M nor are they going to pick up SMU. It's the eyeballs not already captured by teams not in your conference that's the valid data point. And that's best represented by "media market" not "the number of people who watch college football within the media market."
And if the argument is that having more engaged football fans in those regions should give some teams a boost, then I'd argue they would ALREADY get that boost from the other metrics like TV ratings, popularity, etc. It doesn't need to be folded into the media footprint as well. You don't need to give SMU extra credit for the Texas Longhorns' popularity.
burritos said:
If we go to the B10, won't we just lose more? I don't think people would prefer this likely reality.
More importantly, that move would guarantee Cal never wins another conference championship. Bears would have to have a better conf. record than not only the best of (old) Pac-* but also Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Wisconsin. All in the same season. The last time Cal accomplished such a feat was before WWII.
sycasey said:He's not saying the Bay Area is better than the Metroplex, he's saying it should be roughly equal to the Metroplex, and not result in SMU getting a 9 for their media footprint while Cal and Stanford get a 4. If you're just talking about households available to a conference that moves in there, Cal/Stanford should get a 9 or 8.philly1121 said:By that rationale, we should already be in the B1G. Because you're basically saying that the Bay Area media market is better than the Metroplex. And aren't you contradicting yourself a bit? You're saying that the B1G got money from NYC subscribers whether or not they watched Rutgers or college football. Ok, fine. But wouldn't that also count for the Metroplex if they were to pick TCU? I think we know that most people in the Metroplex are watching A&M or UT. But that doesn't matter based on your analysis since taking TCU would bring the B1G subscribers in the Metroplex. Right?berserkeley said:philly1121 said:I would think the data point would be extremely useful data point. But it is the same argument as Rutgers. Media market footprint. I mean, isn't it more than likely that the Metroplex watches more football than the Bay Area? Yeah, chances are these fans aren't watching TCU or SMU but - so what? B1G would have entry into the market.berserkeley said:But as I said said, that wouldn't be "media market" as it is universally understood; that would be "the number of college football viewers within the media market." And I'm not sure that's a particularly valid or useful data point.philly1121 said:I suppose since none of us know his methodology or how he extrapolates data, we won't know how to make sense of it. I would only ask as to whether, in terms of media market, which area watches more football on television. The Bay Area and Dalas/Fort Worth metroplex seem to be similar in population size. So I guess it depends on what they're watching on TV.berserkeley said:philly1121 said: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.sycasey said:berserkeley said: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.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...
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.
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.
Anecdotal evidence and the fact that football is quite popular in Texas would suggest that, on average, they watch more football on television in the Metroplex area than the Bay Area. It doesn't matter what team they're watching, they're simply watching it. I think that's why he attaches more value to it. Just a thought.
The Rutgers comment is also confusing as we all know the "media market footprint" is the only reason that Rutgers was invited to the B1G. However, NYC is more like SF when it comes to college football viewership. While we don't know Rutgers's score in this category, if it was high, then Cal/Stanford should also be high. If it was middle ranged, then the data does not achieve its stated desire.
I mean, it's not particularly relevant to the Big Ten thought process. And, in the end, he does have the 4 Pac-12 North schools in his imagined future Big Ten. But I'm just surprised at the what can only be explained as bad data in a post by Nate Silver.
I think what likely happens or is happening is this. B1G is evaluating Oregon and UW. Notre Dame values their independence above all else. If the ACC crumbles, then that's the only way ND seriously considers the B1G. If ND stays independent, as they are likely to, then the next two teams to go would be Oregon and UW.. And then I think the B1G either waits for what the ACC does or what the Big 12 does. Who knows.
I don't think it's a particularly valid or useful data point because:
(a) "media market" was the driving factor for Rutgers, not "the number of people in the media market who watch college football." The Big Ten was able to collect more money from NYC subscribers whether or not they watched college football at all so the number of college football viewers in NYC was not relevant.
(b) it double dips into the TV ratings except it applies it to the wrong team. The people watching college football in Dallas are watching Texas or Texas A&M. If the Big Ten invites SMU, those people are not going to stop watching Texas or Texas A&M nor are they going to pick up SMU. It's the eyeballs not already captured by teams not in your conference that's the valid data point. And that's best represented by "media market" not "the number of people who watch college football within the media market."
And if the argument is that having more engaged football fans in those regions should give some teams a boost, then I'd argue they would ALREADY get that boost from the other metrics like TV ratings, popularity, etc. It doesn't need to be folded into the media footprint as well. You don't need to give SMU extra credit for the Texas Longhorns' popularity.
I mostly agree with what you are saying, but should UCLA get credit for USC's popularity? Why did the Big10 take UCLA at all? Sure, it excels in other sports like basketball, but those don't bring in much money.
I would argue it is better to give your football teams exposure in Texas than it is in the SF Bay Area even though the market is the same size. Lots of people in Texas might watch a Penn State versus SMU game if it was on but I am not sure Penn State versus Stanford moves any needles anywhere.
Dude chill.
The big10 is overrated.
Northwestern won the big10 west in 2018 and 2020. Not exactly a football school…
Sure they have some really good teams, but they have plenty of horrible teams too.
The big10 is overrated.
Northwestern won the big10 west in 2018 and 2020. Not exactly a football school…
Sure they have some really good teams, but they have plenty of horrible teams too.
We are 9-3 against the Big 10 over the past 20 or so years.burritos said:
If we go to the B10, won't we just lose more? I don't think people would prefer this likely reality.
If we get the opportunity to join the big10 we will take it in a heartbeat.
We need more money and exposure. The big10 gives us that and more
We need more money and exposure. The big10 gives us that and more
Right!
We went like 3-9 in 2012 but almost beat Ohio st in Columbus.
We went like 3-9 in 2012 but almost beat Ohio st in Columbus.
Oski87 said:We are 9-3 against the Big 10 over the past 20 or so years.burritos said:
If we go to the B10, won't we just lose more? I don't think people would prefer this likely reality.
Also, the only way Cal gets in is if the Big goes to a full west coast pod, so we would mostly play all our local rivals. As for the other 4 games, it depends on the draw and how they work out the divisions and pods, but there are a lot of bad to average teams:
Illinois, Minnesota, northwestern, Nebraska, Purdue, Indiana, Maryland, and Rutgers are nothing to be too scared of.
Sebastabear said:
I've staked out my position on this but I'll just say it again. Notre Dame is not joining the Big Ten. Not now and probably not ever. They value their independence and their unique role within college football. They are not giving that up almost under any circumstance. That is without taking into account the legal and contractual obligations they have to the ACC. I have yet to see a single analyst write anything explaining how Notre Dame could get out of that contract or the financial arrangement that could make that work. Probably because they can't.
So speculation as to what happens to Cal if Notre Dame join the Big Ten is IMHO not particularly relevant. Cal will join the Big Ten eventually - I just hope "eventually" is soon.
There are only two ways that ND joins the B1G.
Path 1) This is by far the most likely path... Conference reallignment leaves us with 2 super conferences, the B1G and the SEC. Both conferences are 24+ teams in size, and have absorbed whats left of the ACC/Pac12/Big12. At this point the two conferences essentially make a new league with its own rules regarding paying athletes/NIL/etc. The playoffs/championship games end up including ONLY teams from these TWO conferences.
This would make the "playoffs" something along the lines of the 4 division champs in each conference is round 1 (8 teams), then a conference championship game between those winners (4 teams), and winner of SEC vs winner of B1G for the championship, with no room for an independent team to get in.
Path 2) The money difference becomes too large to ignore. If being in the B1G gets the Irish 200 million and not being in the B1G gets them 10 million, they may consider it.
I don't see 2 happening any time soon. There are realistic paths towards 1 happening.
When we play Oregon State, Arizona State, Arizona, Washington State - we do not drive crowds to memorial. When we play Oregon, USC, UCLA, Washington - the stadium is pretty full. When we played Michigan State, the stadium was full. Even Northwestern we had a good turnout. Same with Minnesota and Illinois.
The crowds at Memorial would likely be better if we were in the Big 10 - for almost every game. I think the money would drive a lot at Cal for athletics, and make it a net positive for the University - certainly over time we would have an athletics department which was cash positive. Which is all the University could ask for.
There are lots of football players in California who would like to go to school in Berkeley. When we have good teams - we recruit well. Going to the Big 10 is just as easy as winning the PAC 12 in my opinion. We were 7 points away from beating Ohio State the same way we were 7 points from beating USC in 2004.
And if there are pods - we have just as good a chance to win the west as we do now to win the north. Same teams, basically. Sure - we could struggle on and never get over the hump. But that is where we are now. I do not feel like a the travel for the teams would be significantly worse for football than it is now. We would most likely have west coast games in the pod (4 or 5) and then a few west coast pre-season games. Plus travel for half the non-pod games - that is only two or three trips back to the midwest.
For the rest of the sports programs, that is a lot. It would have to be though through. But for some of our sports, they are already doing that (Field Hockey, Lacrosse, etc).
Anyway, I think it would be great to be in the Big 10.
The crowds at Memorial would likely be better if we were in the Big 10 - for almost every game. I think the money would drive a lot at Cal for athletics, and make it a net positive for the University - certainly over time we would have an athletics department which was cash positive. Which is all the University could ask for.
There are lots of football players in California who would like to go to school in Berkeley. When we have good teams - we recruit well. Going to the Big 10 is just as easy as winning the PAC 12 in my opinion. We were 7 points away from beating Ohio State the same way we were 7 points from beating USC in 2004.
And if there are pods - we have just as good a chance to win the west as we do now to win the north. Same teams, basically. Sure - we could struggle on and never get over the hump. But that is where we are now. I do not feel like a the travel for the teams would be significantly worse for football than it is now. We would most likely have west coast games in the pod (4 or 5) and then a few west coast pre-season games. Plus travel for half the non-pod games - that is only two or three trips back to the midwest.
For the rest of the sports programs, that is a lot. It would have to be though through. But for some of our sports, they are already doing that (Field Hockey, Lacrosse, etc).
Anyway, I think it would be great to be in the Big 10.
The figure being kicked around for ND's next TV deal is in the $70 million range, roughly comparable to being a Big Ten member, they will always have a seat at the table, regardless of super conferences running the show or otherwise.MrGPAC said:Path 2) The money difference becomes too large to ignore. If being in the B1G gets the Irish 200 million and not being in the B1G gets them 10 million, they may consider it.Sebastabear said:
I've staked out my position on this but I'll just say it again. Notre Dame is not joining the Big Ten. Not now and probably not ever. They value their independence and their unique role within college football. They are not giving that up almost under any circumstance. That is without taking into account the legal and contractual obligations they have to the ACC. I have yet to see a single analyst write anything explaining how Notre Dame could get out of that contract or the financial arrangement that could make that work. Probably because they can't.
So speculation as to what happens to Cal if Notre Dame join the Big Ten is IMHO not particularly relevant. Cal will join the Big Ten eventually - I just hope "eventually" is soon.
I don't see 2 happening any time soon. There are realistic paths towards 1 happening.
Plus whatever ACC money they get for the other half of the football season, Hoops, etc. I bet their portion of ND branded gear is huge.Strykur said:The figure being kicked around for ND's next TV deal is in the $70 million range, roughly comparable to being a Big Ten member, they will always have a seat at the table, regardless of super conferences running the show or otherwise.MrGPAC said:Path 2) The money difference becomes too large to ignore. If being in the B1G gets the Irish 200 million and not being in the B1G gets them 10 million, they may consider it.Sebastabear said:
I've staked out my position on this but I'll just say it again. Notre Dame is not joining the Big Ten. Not now and probably not ever. They value their independence and their unique role within college football. They are not giving that up almost under any circumstance. That is without taking into account the legal and contractual obligations they have to the ACC. I have yet to see a single analyst write anything explaining how Notre Dame could get out of that contract or the financial arrangement that could make that work. Probably because they can't.
So speculation as to what happens to Cal if Notre Dame join the Big Ten is IMHO not particularly relevant. Cal will join the Big Ten eventually - I just hope "eventually" is soon.
I don't see 2 happening any time soon. There are realistic paths towards 1 happening.
Generally agree with two (probably substantive) quibbles. The first being that the path you have outlined in option 1 presupposes the disintegration of not only the Pac 12 but also the ACC. And the ACC at least is locked up through 2036 under the guarantee of rights. I still haven't seen anything substantive written that would explain how that goes away or gets annulled. There are constituencies in the ACC that will lose almost everything if the GOR is gone and their votes are required. So the ACC I believe is going to live well into the next decade, by which point the die will already have been cast on Cal and Notre Dame.MrGPAC said:Sebastabear said:
I've staked out my position on this but I'll just say it again. Notre Dame is not joining the Big Ten. Not now and probably not ever. They value their independence and their unique role within college football. They are not giving that up almost under any circumstance. That is without taking into account the legal and contractual obligations they have to the ACC. I have yet to see a single analyst write anything explaining how Notre Dame could get out of that contract or the financial arrangement that could make that work. Probably because they can't.
So speculation as to what happens to Cal if Notre Dame join the Big Ten is IMHO not particularly relevant. Cal will join the Big Ten eventually - I just hope "eventually" is soon.
There are only two ways that ND joins the B1G.
Path 1) This is by far the most likely path... Conference reallignment leaves us with 2 super conferences, the B1G and the SEC. Both conferences are 24+ teams in size, and have absorbed whats left of the ACC/Pac12/Big12. At this point the two conferences essentially make a new league with its own rules regarding paying athletes/NIL/etc. The playoffs/championship games end up including ONLY teams from these TWO conferences.
This would make the "playoffs" something along the lines of the 4 division champs in each conference is round 1 (8 teams), then a conference championship game between those winners (4 teams), and winner of SEC vs winner of B1G for the championship, with no room for an independent team to get in.
Path 2) The money difference becomes too large to ignore. If being in the B1G gets the Irish 200 million and not being in the B1G gets them 10 million, they may consider it.
I don't see 2 happening any time soon. There are realistic paths towards 1 happening.
The second quibble would be that even in a two super conference situation, the chance that a special accommodation would be made for Notre Dame is not zero. I mean just look at the Pac 12. We have tied ourselves in knots and blown up major traditions just to accommodate their scheduling desire around playing USC and Stanford. And that's just to have them play a couple of our teams, not participate in a playoff. Notre Dame gets away with murder and always has and as far as I can tell probably always will. They simply draw too many eyeballs to their games. Love them or hate them they have a huge and massive following and that equals money and money is driving all of this. Super conference or no people are going to let them do what they want to do. So I come back to just not seeing them giving up on their much valued independence. They simply love being "special" too much.
I do wonder:
I believe two super conferences are inevitable (based around the Big 10 and the SEC, Fox and ESPN, and totaling between 40 -50 schools). I do believe these conferences will break away from the NCAA for football and begin to write their own rules, and the money will pour in. I then wonder, can they write their own rules in such a way that players no longer have scholarships and don't count towards Title IX compliance?
I believe two super conferences are inevitable (based around the Big 10 and the SEC, Fox and ESPN, and totaling between 40 -50 schools). I do believe these conferences will break away from the NCAA for football and begin to write their own rules, and the money will pour in. I then wonder, can they write their own rules in such a way that players no longer have scholarships and don't count towards Title IX compliance?
Sebastabear said:Generally agree with two (probably substantive) quibbles. The first being that the path you have outlined in option 1 presupposes the disintegration of not only the Pac 12 but also the ACC. And the ACC at least is locked up through 2036 under the guarantee of rights. I still haven't seen anything substantive written that would explain how that goes away or gets annulled. There are constituencies in the ACC that will lose almost everything if the GOR is gone and their votes are required. So the ACC I believe is going to live well into the next decade, by which point the die will already have been cast on Cal and Notre Dame.MrGPAC said:Sebastabear said:
I've staked out my position on this but I'll just say it again. Notre Dame is not joining the Big Ten. Not now and probably not ever. They value their independence and their unique role within college football. They are not giving that up almost under any circumstance. That is without taking into account the legal and contractual obligations they have to the ACC. I have yet to see a single analyst write anything explaining how Notre Dame could get out of that contract or the financial arrangement that could make that work. Probably because they can't.
So speculation as to what happens to Cal if Notre Dame join the Big Ten is IMHO not particularly relevant. Cal will join the Big Ten eventually - I just hope "eventually" is soon.
There are only two ways that ND joins the B1G.
Path 1) This is by far the most likely path... Conference reallignment leaves us with 2 super conferences, the B1G and the SEC. Both conferences are 24+ teams in size, and have absorbed whats left of the ACC/Pac12/Big12. At this point the two conferences essentially make a new league with its own rules regarding paying athletes/NIL/etc. The playoffs/championship games end up including ONLY teams from these TWO conferences.
This would make the "playoffs" something along the lines of the 4 division champs in each conference is round 1 (8 teams), then a conference championship game between those winners (4 teams), and winner of SEC vs winner of B1G for the championship, with no room for an independent team to get in.
Path 2) The money difference becomes too large to ignore. If being in the B1G gets the Irish 200 million and not being in the B1G gets them 10 million, they may consider it.
I don't see 2 happening any time soon. There are realistic paths towards 1 happening.
The second quibble would be that even in a two super conference situation, the chance that a special accommodation would be made for Notre Dame is not zero. I mean just look at the Pac 12. We have tied ourselves in knots and blown up major traditions just to accommodate their scheduling desire around playing USC and Stanford. And that's just to have them play a couple of our teams, not participate in a playoff. Notre Dame gets away with murder and always has and as far as I can tell probably always will. They simply draw too many eyeballs to their games. Love them or hate them they have a huge and massive following and that equals money and money is driving all of this. Super conference or no people are going to let them do what they want to do. So I come back to just not seeing them giving up on their much valued independence. They simply love being "special" too much.
I don't think either scenario is particularly likely, but a 2 super conference league that plays for its own championship and the only way for ND to participate is to be in it is more likely than a money difference too large to ignore.
As noted, such a thing really requires the ACC to collapse. The SEC and B1G effectively took out the Big12 and Pac12 as legitimate competitors by taking Texas/Oklahoma/USC/UCLA, but the ACC contract makes things really difficult. If any school is able to get out of the ACC GoR contract, then it will be open season, with the B1G and SEC taking their pick of the Pac12/Big12/ACC, with the rest being left in what will effectively be a lesser league.
IF that happens, I see the paths to the championship shrinking (if not being eliminated) for teams outside the two super conferences. What's worse for a team like Notre Dame, I see the schools having more conference games. You can't have a conference with 24+ teams and have teams never play each other in conference. The conferences will adopt 10-11 conference game schedules. With more conference games happening, there will be fewer out of conference games to go around, making it harder for Notre Dame to get to a full schedule.
The Pac12 bends over backwards, for instance, to let USC/Stanford play Notre Dame outside the first 3 games of the season. No one else in the conference has an OOC game outside the first 3 games of the season in the Pac12. I don't know that a 24-30 team B1G makes such concessions (especially when they want ND to join them anyways).
Yeah, I think we're saying the same thing. I just don't see any of the super conference stuff being a near or even intermediate term possibility because of the ACC GOR. And that means Notre Dame almost certainly stays independent (and is irrelevant at worst or even a positive at best for the Cal to B10 calculus) in the relevant time frame.
Strykur said:The figure being kicked around for ND's next TV deal is in the $70 million range, roughly comparable to being a Big Ten member, they will always have a seat at the table, regardless of super conferences running the show or otherwise.MrGPAC said:Path 2) The money difference becomes too large to ignore. If being in the B1G gets the Irish 200 million and not being in the B1G gets them 10 million, they may consider it.Sebastabear said:
I've staked out my position on this but I'll just say it again. Notre Dame is not joining the Big Ten. Not now and probably not ever. They value their independence and their unique role within college football. They are not giving that up almost under any circumstance. That is without taking into account the legal and contractual obligations they have to the ACC. I have yet to see a single analyst write anything explaining how Notre Dame could get out of that contract or the financial arrangement that could make that work. Probably because they can't.
So speculation as to what happens to Cal if Notre Dame join the Big Ten is IMHO not particularly relevant. Cal will join the Big Ten eventually - I just hope "eventually" is soon.
I don't see 2 happening any time soon. There are realistic paths towards 1 happening.
Isn't Notre Dame's perceived value going to plummet after they lost to Cal next month? It will be like recruits who commit to Cal and automatically lose a star!
dimitrig said:sycasey said:He's not saying the Bay Area is better than the Metroplex, he's saying it should be roughly equal to the Metroplex, and not result in SMU getting a 9 for their media footprint while Cal and Stanford get a 4. If you're just talking about households available to a conference that moves in there, Cal/Stanford should get a 9 or 8.philly1121 said:By that rationale, we should already be in the B1G. Because you're basically saying that the Bay Area media market is better than the Metroplex. And aren't you contradicting yourself a bit? You're saying that the B1G got money from NYC subscribers whether or not they watched Rutgers or college football. Ok, fine. But wouldn't that also count for the Metroplex if they were to pick TCU? I think we know that most people in the Metroplex are watching A&M or UT. But that doesn't matter based on your analysis since taking TCU would bring the B1G subscribers in the Metroplex. Right?berserkeley said:philly1121 said:I would think the data point would be extremely useful data point. But it is the same argument as Rutgers. Media market footprint. I mean, isn't it more than likely that the Metroplex watches more football than the Bay Area? Yeah, chances are these fans aren't watching TCU or SMU but - so what? B1G would have entry into the market.berserkeley said:But as I said said, that wouldn't be "media market" as it is universally understood; that would be "the number of college football viewers within the media market." And I'm not sure that's a particularly valid or useful data point.philly1121 said:I suppose since none of us know his methodology or how he extrapolates data, we won't know how to make sense of it. I would only ask as to whether, in terms of media market, which area watches more football on television. The Bay Area and Dalas/Fort Worth metroplex seem to be similar in population size. So I guess it depends on what they're watching on TV.berserkeley said:philly1121 said: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.sycasey said:berserkeley said: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.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...
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.
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.
Anecdotal evidence and the fact that football is quite popular in Texas would suggest that, on average, they watch more football on television in the Metroplex area than the Bay Area. It doesn't matter what team they're watching, they're simply watching it. I think that's why he attaches more value to it. Just a thought.
The Rutgers comment is also confusing as we all know the "media market footprint" is the only reason that Rutgers was invited to the B1G. However, NYC is more like SF when it comes to college football viewership. While we don't know Rutgers's score in this category, if it was high, then Cal/Stanford should also be high. If it was middle ranged, then the data does not achieve its stated desire.
I mean, it's not particularly relevant to the Big Ten thought process. And, in the end, he does have the 4 Pac-12 North schools in his imagined future Big Ten. But I'm just surprised at the what can only be explained as bad data in a post by Nate Silver.
I think what likely happens or is happening is this. B1G is evaluating Oregon and UW. Notre Dame values their independence above all else. If the ACC crumbles, then that's the only way ND seriously considers the B1G. If ND stays independent, as they are likely to, then the next two teams to go would be Oregon and UW.. And then I think the B1G either waits for what the ACC does or what the Big 12 does. Who knows.
I don't think it's a particularly valid or useful data point because:
(a) "media market" was the driving factor for Rutgers, not "the number of people in the media market who watch college football." The Big Ten was able to collect more money from NYC subscribers whether or not they watched college football at all so the number of college football viewers in NYC was not relevant.
(b) it double dips into the TV ratings except it applies it to the wrong team. The people watching college football in Dallas are watching Texas or Texas A&M. If the Big Ten invites SMU, those people are not going to stop watching Texas or Texas A&M nor are they going to pick up SMU. It's the eyeballs not already captured by teams not in your conference that's the valid data point. And that's best represented by "media market" not "the number of people who watch college football within the media market."
And if the argument is that having more engaged football fans in those regions should give some teams a boost, then I'd argue they would ALREADY get that boost from the other metrics like TV ratings, popularity, etc. It doesn't need to be folded into the media footprint as well. You don't need to give SMU extra credit for the Texas Longhorns' popularity.
I mostly agree with what you are saying, but should UCLA get credit for USC's popularity? Why did the Big10 take UCLA at all? Sure, it excels in other sports like basketball, but those don't bring in much money.
I would argue it is better to give your football teams exposure in Texas than it is in the SF Bay Area even though the market is the same size. Lots of people in Texas might watch a Penn State versus SMU game if it was on but I am not sure Penn State versus Stanford moves any needles anywhere.
USC vs. UCLA is a good example. USC likely already gets more points in the "market" ranking by having better ratings, more revenues, Google search popularity, etc. Silver's rankings have SC higher in the rankings of existing B1G schools. There's no need to split hairs on the "media footprint" metric that probably applies the same for both LA schools.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/where-should-the-big-ten-expand-next-we-crunched-the-numbers/
It may be reasonable to have a TX market ahead of a similar sized CA market because of the local interest in football. I don't buy that it's worth a 9 vs a 4 though.
Featured Stories
See All
Bears Dealt First Loss Of Season
by Cal Athletics
Ultimate Insider Podcast E98: Wake Forest Wrap-up, Syracuse Preview
by Mike Pawlawski
Cal Signs Pair Of Prep Standouts
by Cal Athletics
Cal Women's Hoops Signs 4 To 2025 Class
by Cal Athletics
Cal Football Tuesday Weekly Presser
by Jim McGill