Sebastabear said:

---

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.

---

That's the most likely scenario. But I can envision another scenario that is not too remote:

The Big Ten expands, including UW, UO, Cal, Stanford. Maybe it also includes Notre Dame in football only, and maybe another team or two (Oklahoma State, West Virginia or Kansas?).

ESPN panics that their big investment (the SEC) is getting left behind. They agree to release Miami, FSU, Clemson, UNC, Duke, Virginia, and maybe Louisville and Virginia Tech from the Grant of Rights on the condition they join the SEC. That gives them a lot of top flight inventory, as they cut the fat out of the ACC, thereby reducing the number of games that people don't care about.

sycasey said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

sycasey said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

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.

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 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.

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?

---

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.

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/

---

Taking USC only would have split the LA market. Taking USC and UCLA together gives you the LA market.

GMP said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

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.

---

That's the most likely scenario. But I can envision another scenario that is not too remote:

The Big Ten expands, including UW, UO, Cal, Stanford. Maybe it also includes Notre Dame in football only, and maybe another team or two (Oklahoma State, West Virginia or Kansas?).

ESPN panics that their big investment (the SEC) is getting left behind. They agree to release Miami, FSU, Clemson, UNC, Duke, Virginia, and maybe Louisville and Virginia Tech from the Grant of Rights on the condition they join the SEC. That gives them a lot of top flight inventory, as they cut the fat out of the ACC, thereby reducing the number of games that people don't care about.

---

ESPN does not have their grant of rights - the ACC does.

Oski87 said:

---

GMP said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

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.

---

That's the most likely scenario. But I can envision another scenario that is not too remote:

The Big Ten expands, including UW, UO, Cal, Stanford. Maybe it also includes Notre Dame in football only, and maybe another team or two (Oklahoma State, West Virginia or Kansas?).

ESPN panics that their big investment (the SEC) is getting left behind. They agree to release Miami, FSU, Clemson, UNC, Duke, Virginia, and maybe Louisville and Virginia Tech from the Grant of Rights on the condition they join the SEC. That gives them a lot of top flight inventory, as they cut the fat out of the ACC, thereby reducing the number of games that people don't care about.

---

ESPN does not have their grant of rights - the ACC does.

---

Ahh, well nevermind then.

Totally agree.

My point is not to endorse this analysis but to be clear why we might question its assumptions.

Strykur said:

---

Rushinbear 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.

---

ND is petrified of losing its uniqueness. If they joined any conference for fb, that uniqueness would be thrown away.

---

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.

---

The only thing that will make ND move to a conference is if the playoff system becomes a bracket of conference champions only. As long as a panel can include ND in the champ playoff, they stay out.

I was hoping that it would be 8 conferences and 8 team bracket, but it looks like, if this is going to happen, it will be 4 conferences - Big, SEC, Big 12, and ACC. Therefore, it won't happen, in the foreseeable (whoops - foreseeable ).

philly1121 said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

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.

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 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.

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?

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.

---

What?

I did not say the Bay Area media market is better than the Metroplex. I said it doesn't make sense that TCU and SMU are rated 9s for media market and Cal/Stanford a 4. I never once suggested that Cal and Stanford should have a higher rating. I don't know how on earth you could possibly think I have made that point.

And, yes, the same rationale for Rutgers would apply to TCU and Cal equally. Equally being the operative word. TCU would not rate a 9 in that regard while Cal rated a 4 because 9 and 4 are not even remotely close to being equivalences, but the Bay Area and the Metroplex media markets are roughly equivalent.

And if he's favoring viewership, I said that I don't think that's a valid or useful data point because it captures the wrong data for the reasons I just explained. If the Metroplex has higher college football viewership because their audience is already captured by diehard fans of current and future SEC teams, picking up SMU won't move those numbers in the Big Ten's favor. It's how many potential viewers you have (media market) and not how many viewers you have no shot at (viewership in the market for other teams) that's the more valid and useful data point.

Also, and I cannot stress this enough, media market has a universally understood meaning and it's not a subset of viewership. He had two opportunities to clarify if he meant viewership and he did not. That would be exceedingly sloppy to use a commonly understood word to mean something other that how it is commonly understood.

Oski87 said:

---

GMP said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

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.

---

That's the most likely scenario. But I can envision another scenario that is not too remote:

The Big Ten expands, including UW, UO, Cal, Stanford. Maybe it also includes Notre Dame in football only, and maybe another team or two (Oklahoma State, West Virginia or Kansas?).

ESPN panics that their big investment (the SEC) is getting left behind. They agree to release Miami, FSU, Clemson, UNC, Duke, Virginia, and maybe Louisville and Virginia Tech from the Grant of Rights on the condition they join the SEC. That gives them a lot of top flight inventory, as they cut the fat out of the ACC, thereby reducing the number of games that people don't care about.

---

ESPN does not have their grant of rights - the ACC does.

---

I'm not sure that's entirely true. From what I've read, the conference owns the grant of rights only for the purpose of fulfilling the conference's contractual obligations to ESPN. No more contractual obligations to ESPN, no more grant of rights. So, it that sense, ESPN can terminate the grant of rights. Of course, they would only do so on terms that ESPN favors.
.

berserkeley said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

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.

---

Not too sure what you are objecting to, since I never, ever have speculated on Rice's tv audience.

---

I suppose that would be your assertion that it's incorrect that people in Houston watch Rice football. You said it.

---

hmm, your critical reading skill need some work.

Oski87 said:

---

GMP said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

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.

---

That's the most likely scenario. But I can envision another scenario that is not too remote:

The Big Ten expands, including UW, UO, Cal, Stanford. Maybe it also includes Notre Dame in football only, and maybe another team or two (Oklahoma State, West Virginia or Kansas?).

ESPN panics that their big investment (the SEC) is getting left behind. They agree to release Miami, FSU, Clemson, UNC, Duke, Virginia, and maybe Louisville and Virginia Tech from the Grant of Rights on the condition they join the SEC. That gives them a lot of top flight inventory, as they cut the fat out of the ACC, thereby reducing the number of games that people don't care about.

---

ESPN does not have their grant of rights - the ACC does.

---

Yes, and no. The GoR is only valuable to espn who pays for it.

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.

---

Looking back over this discussion, I now suspect that this is what Silver was doing. By some measures, SF-Oakland and San Jose are separate metro areas, and he may have been applying his metrics to a list that broke them out that way.

Of course, that makes no sense if you're trying to measure a media footprint, since those two areas get all the same TV channels on cable/satellite systems. But I can see how such a mistake might be made.

Big Dog said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

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.

---

Not too sure what you are objecting to, since I never, ever have speculated on Rice's tv audience.

---

I suppose that would be your assertion that it's incorrect that people in Houston watch Rice football. You said it.

---

hmm, your critical reading skill need some work.

---

You either made a comment on Rice's TV audience or whatever you were objecting to had nothing to do with the comment you were objecting to.

sycasey said:

---

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.

---

Looking back over this discussion, I now suspect that this is what Silver was doing. By some measures, SF-Oakland and San Jose are separate metro areas, and he may have been applying his metrics to a list that broke them out that way.

Of course, that makes no sense if you're trying to measure a media footprint, since those two areas get all the same TV channels on cable/satellite systems. But I can see how such a mistake might be made.

---

That still wouldn't explain Oregon getting a 9...

This was either a mistake, or done purposely to lower cal/Stanford on one of the things that is actually most appealing about them. Either way it makes no sense.

Whoops wrong thread.

MrGPAC said:

---

sycasey said:

---

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.

---

Looking back over this discussion, I now suspect that this is what Silver was doing. By some measures, SF-Oakland and San Jose are separate metro areas, and he may have been applying his metrics to a list that broke them out that way.

Of course, that makes no sense if you're trying to measure a media footprint, since those two areas get all the same TV channels on cable/satellite systems. But I can see how such a mistake might be made.

---

That still wouldn't explain Oregon getting a 9...

This was either a mistake, or done purposely to lower cal/Stanford on one of the things that is actually most appealing about them. Either way it makes no sense.

---

Well, he also references the NYT college football fandom map, in which Oregon dominates a wide swath of territory across the West Coast. He's likely giving credit for that.

But he also says he "gave credit to schools for their immediate metro areas" to replicate the Rutgers example, which would explain why TCU and SMU get the same "media footprint" score as Oregon. Cal and Stanford clearly didn't get full credit for the entire Bay Area market, even though by this process they should have. I suspect that's because Silver's working list had the Bay Area split in two.

sycasey said:

---

MrGPAC said:

---

sycasey said:

---

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.

---

Looking back over this discussion, I now suspect that this is what Silver was doing. By some measures, SF-Oakland and San Jose are separate metro areas, and he may have been applying his metrics to a list that broke them out that way.

Of course, that makes no sense if you're trying to measure a media footprint, since those two areas get all the same TV channels on cable/satellite systems. But I can see how such a mistake might be made.

---

That still wouldn't explain Oregon getting a 9...

This was either a mistake, or done purposely to lower cal/Stanford on one of the things that is actually most appealing about them. Either way it makes no sense.

---

Well, he also references the NYT college football fandom map, in which Oregon dominates a wide swath of territory across the West Coast. He's likely giving credit for that.

But he also says he "gave credit to schools for their immediate metro areas" to replicate the Rutgers example, which would explain why TCU and SMU get the same "media footprint" score as Oregon. Cal and Stanford clearly didn't get full credit for the entire Bay Area market, even though by this process they should have. I suspect that's because Silver's working list had the Bay Area split in two.

---

Actually, you know what? I think I figured out what it is. Check out the footnote number 12 that you can pop out in the middle of the article, in the section about media footprint:

Quote:

---

Specifically, the penalty is based on dividing the metro area population by the number of Big Ten schools that there would be in the state if the new school were added. For example, the University of Cincinnati only gets half-credit for Cincinnati's metro population because the Big Ten already features another Ohio team, Ohio State.

---

I bet Cal and Stanford are only getting half credit for the Bay Area footprint because the B1G will now already feature two California teams (USC and UCLA). Of course, for many reasons it's dumb to do this with a state as large as California, and in terms of culture and media anyone who lives here knows that Northern CA and Southern CA are very different and that you can't count L.A. fandom against a Bay Area team's market. But I think this is what he did.

MrGPAC said:

---

sycasey said:

---

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.

---

Looking back over this discussion, I now suspect that this is what Silver was doing. By some measures, SF-Oakland and San Jose are separate metro areas, and he may have been applying his metrics to a list that broke them out that way.

Of course, that makes no sense if you're trying to measure a media footprint, since those two areas get all the same TV channels on cable/satellite systems. But I can see how such a mistake might be made.

---

That still wouldn't explain Oregon getting a 9...

This was either a mistake, or done purposely to lower cal/Stanford on one of the things that is actually most appealing about them. Either way it makes no sense.

---

As sycasey said, Oregon gets credit for much of California.

But, you're right, it doesn't make because Cal only gets partial credit for the Bay Area since its the dominant team in part of the Bay Area, but Rice gets credit for all of Houston under the Rutgers theory because they are not the dominant team in any part of Houston. It's an easy mistake to make if you're just putting data into a table and spitting out numbers without thinking about it.

thanks Rushinbear for pointing out my mistake. Text deleted.

berserkeley said:

---

MrGPAC said:

---

sycasey said:

---

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.

---

Looking back over this discussion, I now suspect that this is what Silver was doing. By some measures, SF-Oakland and San Jose are separate metro areas, and he may have been applying his metrics to a list that broke them out that way.

Of course, that makes no sense if you're trying to measure a media footprint, since those two areas get all the same TV channels on cable/satellite systems. But I can see how such a mistake might be made.

---

That still wouldn't explain Oregon getting a 9...

This was either a mistake, or done purposely to lower cal/Stanford on one of the things that is actually most appealing about them. Either way it makes no sense.

---

As sycasey said, Oregon gets credit for much of California.

But, you're right, it doesn't make because Cal only gets partial credit for the Bay Area since its the dominant team in part of the Bay Area, but Rice gets credit for all of Houston under the Rutgers theory because they are not the dominant team in any part of Houston. It's an easy mistake to make if you're just putting data into a table and spitting out numbers without thinking about it.

---

As noted in my follow-up post, I think it's even dumber. Rice and SMU get full credit for their metros because the B1G doesn't have any teams in Texas yet. Cal and Stanford only get half credit for theirs because the B1G has already added California teams. Again, this does make sense for a school like Cincinnati that isn't adding much that Ohio State doesn't already add. It doesn't make sense to penalize the NorCal schools for a conference already having SoCal schools in it . . . if anything, in the real world we know it's actually an advantage for Cal and Stanford to be natural geographic rivals for USC and UCLA.

But as you note, it's an easy mistake to make if you're just putting data into a table.

sycasey said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

MrGPAC said:

---

sycasey said:

---

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.

---

Looking back over this discussion, I now suspect that this is what Silver was doing. By some measures, SF-Oakland and San Jose are separate metro areas, and he may have been applying his metrics to a list that broke them out that way.

Of course, that makes no sense if you're trying to measure a media footprint, since those two areas get all the same TV channels on cable/satellite systems. But I can see how such a mistake might be made.

---

That still wouldn't explain Oregon getting a 9...

This was either a mistake, or done purposely to lower cal/Stanford on one of the things that is actually most appealing about them. Either way it makes no sense.

---

As sycasey said, Oregon gets credit for much of California.

But, you're right, it doesn't make because Cal only gets partial credit for the Bay Area since its the dominant team in part of the Bay Area, but Rice gets credit for all of Houston under the Rutgers theory because they are not the dominant team in any part of Houston. It's an easy mistake to make if you're just putting data into a table and spitting out numbers without thinking about it.

---

As noted in my follow-up post, I think it's even dumber. Rice and SMU get full credit for their metros because the B1G doesn't have any teams in Texas yet. Cal and Stanford only get half credit for theirs because the B1G has already added California teams. Again, this does make sense for a school like Cincinnati that isn't adding much that Ohio State doesn't already add. It doesn't make sense to penalize the NorCal schools for a conference already having SoCal schools in it . . . if anything, in the real world we know it's actually an advantage for Cal and Stanford to be natural geographic rivals for USC and UCLA.

But as you note, it's an easy mistake to make if you're just putting data into a table.

---

That would also make sense. It was an 8 and the dropped to a 4. But while that rule makes sense for Cincy and Pitt, it's doesn't make sense for Cal and Stanford because while Ohio State and Penn State are dominant teams in their whole state, USC and UCLA are not.

Either way, it doesn't matter because Nate Silver isn't the Big Ten so it's not like these are the metrics the Big Ten will be using. And even if they were, Nate projects us to go to the Big Ten. But it is fun to pick apart bad data.

berserkeley said:

---

sycasey said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

MrGPAC said:

---

sycasey said:

---

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.

---

Looking back over this discussion, I now suspect that this is what Silver was doing. By some measures, SF-Oakland and San Jose are separate metro areas, and he may have been applying his metrics to a list that broke them out that way.

Of course, that makes no sense if you're trying to measure a media footprint, since those two areas get all the same TV channels on cable/satellite systems. But I can see how such a mistake might be made.

---

That still wouldn't explain Oregon getting a 9...

This was either a mistake, or done purposely to lower cal/Stanford on one of the things that is actually most appealing about them. Either way it makes no sense.

---

As sycasey said, Oregon gets credit for much of California.

But, you're right, it doesn't make because Cal only gets partial credit for the Bay Area since its the dominant team in part of the Bay Area, but Rice gets credit for all of Houston under the Rutgers theory because they are not the dominant team in any part of Houston. It's an easy mistake to make if you're just putting data into a table and spitting out numbers without thinking about it.

---

As noted in my follow-up post, I think it's even dumber. Rice and SMU get full credit for their metros because the B1G doesn't have any teams in Texas yet. Cal and Stanford only get half credit for theirs because the B1G has already added California teams. Again, this does make sense for a school like Cincinnati that isn't adding much that Ohio State doesn't already add. It doesn't make sense to penalize the NorCal schools for a conference already having SoCal schools in it . . . if anything, in the real world we know it's actually an advantage for Cal and Stanford to be natural geographic rivals for USC and UCLA.

But as you note, it's an easy mistake to make if you're just putting data into a table.

---

That would also make sense. It was an 8 and the dropped to a 4. But while that rule makes sense for Cincy and Pitt, it's doesn't make sense for Cal and Stanford because while Ohio State and Penn State are dominant teams in their whole state, USC and UCLA are not.

Either way, it doesn't matter because Nate Silver isn't the Big Ten so it's not like these are the metrics the Big Ten will be using. And even if they were, Nate projects us to go to the Big Ten. But it is fun to pick apart bad data.

---

Yeah, if anything correcting for this (moving the Bay Area schools to an 8 score for media footprint rather than 4) just moves Cal and Stanford closer to the top of Silver's "Tier 3" rather than near the bottom of the tier as he had them. Either way it's still a decent ballpark estimate of where the schools sit in the pecking order.

26,000 rabid fans this weekend will alter all perceptions. PAC? forever!

Big Dog said:

---

Oski87 said:

---

GMP said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

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.

---

That's the most likely scenario. But I can envision another scenario that is not too remote:

The Big Ten expands, including UW, UO, Cal, Stanford. Maybe it also includes Notre Dame in football only, and maybe another team or two (Oklahoma State, West Virginia or Kansas?).

ESPN panics that their big investment (the SEC) is getting left behind. They agree to release Miami, FSU, Clemson, UNC, Duke, Virginia, and maybe Louisville and Virginia Tech from the Grant of Rights on the condition they join the SEC. That gives them a lot of top flight inventory, as they cut the fat out of the ACC, thereby reducing the number of games that people don't care about.

---

ESPN does not have their grant of rights - the ACC does.

---

Yes, and no. The GoR is only valuable to espn who pays for it.

---

Actually my understanding of the ACC grant of rights is that the ACC conference owns them for the time period until 2036. So even if Clemson goes to the SEC - the ACC gets the cash for their TV deal. Which is why it is so difficult for anyone to move from the ACC. They put into place a 20 year deal so that no one could leave. The only way that people can leave - and get paid when they do - is if they get enough ACC teams to vote to eliminate the conference. However, there are way too many teams there who do not want to destroy the ACC - since they will be out in the cold.

Another way to look at it is that the ACC gets the revenue of the teams who would leave - and distributes those to the ones who are left. So if Clemson went to the SEC and made 70 million per year - while the ACC rights are only 35 million per year - they would have to pay the ACC the 70 million. They would then distribute that to the rest of the remaining ACC teams.

So the value of the GOR for the ACC is very strong.

This is all based on some reporting that I have seen via Stewart Mandel over the past few years. It may be that someone can figure out a way to get out of the GOR for the ACC - but that is what apparently is in their contracts at this point.

Oski87 said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

Oski87 said:

---

GMP said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

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.

---

That's the most likely scenario. But I can envision another scenario that is not too remote:

The Big Ten expands, including UW, UO, Cal, Stanford. Maybe it also includes Notre Dame in football only, and maybe another team or two (Oklahoma State, West Virginia or Kansas?).

ESPN panics that their big investment (the SEC) is getting left behind. They agree to release Miami, FSU, Clemson, UNC, Duke, Virginia, and maybe Louisville and Virginia Tech from the Grant of Rights on the condition they join the SEC. That gives them a lot of top flight inventory, as they cut the fat out of the ACC, thereby reducing the number of games that people don't care about.

---

ESPN does not have their grant of rights - the ACC does.

---

Yes, and no. The GoR is only valuable to espn who pays for it.

---

Actually my understanding of the ACC grant of rights is that the ACC conference owns them for the time period until 2036. So even if Clemson goes to the SEC - the ACC gets the cash for their TV deal. Which is why it is so difficult for anyone to move from the ACC. They put into place a 20 year deal so that no one could leave. The only way that people can leave - and get paid when they do - is if they get enough ACC teams to vote to eliminate the conference. However, there are way too many teams there who do not want to destroy the ACC - since they will be out in the cold.

Another way to look at it is that the ACC gets the revenue of the teams who would leave - and distributes those to the ones who are left. So if Clemson went to the SEC and made 70 million per year - while the ACC rights are only 35 million per year - they would have to pay the ACC the 70 million. They would then distribute that to the rest of the remaining ACC teams.

So the value of the GOR for the ACC is very strong.

This is all based on some reporting that I have seen via Stewart Mandel over the past few years. It may be that someone can figure out a way to get out of the GOR for the ACC - but that is what apparently is in their contracts at this point.

---

It's more complicated than that. The conference only holds the grant of rights to fulfill contractual obligations with ESPN. If ESPN releases those obligations, the ACC cannot enforce the grant of rights.

berserkeley said:

---

Oski87 said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

Oski87 said:

---

GMP said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

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.

---

That's the most likely scenario. But I can envision another scenario that is not too remote:

The Big Ten expands, including UW, UO, Cal, Stanford. Maybe it also includes Notre Dame in football only, and maybe another team or two (Oklahoma State, West Virginia or Kansas?).

ESPN panics that their big investment (the SEC) is getting left behind. They agree to release Miami, FSU, Clemson, UNC, Duke, Virginia, and maybe Louisville and Virginia Tech from the Grant of Rights on the condition they join the SEC. That gives them a lot of top flight inventory, as they cut the fat out of the ACC, thereby reducing the number of games that people don't care about.

---

ESPN does not have their grant of rights - the ACC does.

---

Yes, and no. The GoR is only valuable to espn who pays for it.

---

Actually my understanding of the ACC grant of rights is that the ACC conference owns them for the time period until 2036. So even if Clemson goes to the SEC - the ACC gets the cash for their TV deal. Which is why it is so difficult for anyone to move from the ACC. They put into place a 20 year deal so that no one could leave. The only way that people can leave - and get paid when they do - is if they get enough ACC teams to vote to eliminate the conference. However, there are way too many teams there who do not want to destroy the ACC - since they will be out in the cold.

Another way to look at it is that the ACC gets the revenue of the teams who would leave - and distributes those to the ones who are left. So if Clemson went to the SEC and made 70 million per year - while the ACC rights are only 35 million per year - they would have to pay the ACC the 70 million. They would then distribute that to the rest of the remaining ACC teams.

So the value of the GOR for the ACC is very strong.

This is all based on some reporting that I have seen via Stewart Mandel over the past few years. It may be that someone can figure out a way to get out of the GOR for the ACC - but that is what apparently is in their contracts at this point.

---

It's more complicated than that. The conference only holds the grant of rights to fulfill contractual obligations with ESPN. If ESPN releases those obligations, the ACC cannot enforce the grant of rights.

---

The question for ESPN is that they have such a cheap deal locked into 2036 for all of that content, that it doesn't seem to make sense for them to blow up the GOR (and therefore dissolution of the conference) to make Clemson and say Miami whole in moving to the SEC. The marginal gain for the SEC wouldn't be the risk of the ACC blowing up (this is more impactful on the Hoops side too).

Oski87 said:

---

burritos said:

---

If we go to the B10, won't we just lose more? I don't think people would prefer this likely reality.

---

We are 9-3 against the Big 10 over the past 20 or so years.

---

Eh I keep seeing this stat. We went against some pretty bad Minnesota and Illinois teams. We had some quality wins against MSU. We played Maryland in 2009 I think but they weren't part of the Big 10 back then.

philly1121 said:

---

Oski87 said:

---

burritos said:

---

If we go to the B10, won't we just lose more? I don't think people would prefer this likely reality.

---

We are 9-3 against the Big 10 over the past 20 or so years.

---

Eh I keep seeing this stat. We went against some pretty bad Minnesota and Illinois teams. We had some quality wins against MSU. We played Maryland in 2009 I think but they weren't part of the Big 10 back then.

---

Yeah, it's my stat.

https://bearinsider.com/forums/2/topics/109595/replies/2039530

The Illinois teams (2003, 2005) were bad, except for 2019 when we played them in a bowl game (they were .500).

The Minnesota teams were average (.500) in the years when we beat them.

MSU was bad in 2002 (but were thought to be good at the time) and a very good team in 2008 (9-4).

We lost twice to an obviously superior OSU team, but one game was closer than expected.

The loss to Northwestern was in our 1-11 season, so obviously we sucked that year. We beat them the next year. Both times they were 5-7.

With Maryland we lost to them in '08, a good year for the Terps (8-5). We destroyed them in '09, a bad year for the Terps (2-10).

I'd argue that these teams, taken in aggregate, are not much different than an "average" B1G slate. You have two top-tier opponents (OSU twice), two second-tier ones (MSU & Maryland 2008), five teams hovering around .500 (Minnesota 2x, Illinois 2019, Northwestern 2x), then four bottom-feeder types (everything else). Sure, it helps that most of these wins came during the good Tedford years, but that's the point: there's no reason to think Cal would be much worse in the B1G than we were in the Pac, assuming our level of play remains constant.

few thoughts:

1) anyone wanna back out 538's calculations if they were being done in, say... 2012?

granted their 20 year period definitely didn't hurt cal footballs standing (conveniently skipping 2001, i believe), and if i were to guess our athletic program overall was probably about the same over the 1991-2011 period as it was the last 20 years. basketball was definitely better. i am confident we drew more eyeballs, though how many more would be tough to guess

i wonder what our market #s were like when we were ranked every year and had guys like marshawn, desean and AR fresh in the NFL.

2) the analysis way overweights basketball. i like college basketball.. march madness is great and its fun when Cal is good. but money-wise its probably not even a tenth of football

3) the story-spinner in me would be hammering home that high 'fit' score to anyone in the big 10 who would listen. we are a (the) big, elite public university representing a big state. thats the big 10. that is how we get to the big 10, not anything we do on the field...

... though smacking ND upside the head and winning a rose bowl sure wouldn't hurt

https://athlonsports.com/college-football/report-big-ten-targeting-5-major-schools-for-conference-expansion

Quote:

---

The Big Ten is reportedly "targeting" five schools for expansion, including Notre Dame, Oregon, Washington and two more Pac-12 schools. Those final two programs likely include Cal and Stanford.

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

sycasey said:

---

https://athlonsports.com/college-football/report-big-ten-targeting-5-major-schools-for-conference-expansion

Quote:

---

The Big Ten is reportedly "targeting" five schools for expansion, including Notre Dame, Oregon, Washington and two more Pac-12 schools. Those final two programs likely include Cal and Stanford.

---

---

inb4 BigDaddy tells us the final two schools are actually both Stanford. Or Oregon State and Arizona.

---

Probably Wazoo

sycasey said:

---

https://athlonsports.com/college-football/report-big-ten-targeting-5-major-schools-for-conference-expansion

Quote:

---

The Big Ten is reportedly "targeting" five schools for expansion, including Notre Dame, Oregon, Washington and two more Pac-12 schools. Those final two programs likely include Cal and Stanford.

---

---

I would say Cal has a 2 in 3 chance of being the last one in at this point. My only concern is what the terms would be. How much of a discount would Cal have to accept to be included.

I'm also still pegging 2035 as the year College Football becomes completely independent from the NCAA and has two conferences which agree to have 10 game conference schedules, with one cross-conference game and one game to preserve traditional rivalries like Washington and Washington State or Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.

There would also be an expanded College football playoff.

golden sloth said:

---

sycasey said:

---

https://athlonsports.com/college-football/report-big-ten-targeting-5-major-schools-for-conference-expansion

Quote:

---

The Big Ten is reportedly "targeting" five schools for expansion, including Notre Dame, Oregon, Washington and two more Pac-12 schools. Those final two programs likely include Cal and Stanford.

---

---

There would also be an expanded College football playoff.

---

It just did.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/34509443/board-managers-decide-12-team-college-football-playoff-sources-say