NCAA Conference Realignment

[minnesotacubsfan]

Basically, Silver concludes that the only way further expansion makes sense for the Big Ten is if they were to add Notre Dame and/or Texas. Along with one or both of them, adding Missouri or Rutgers makes sense to add those markets, or possibly Kansas/UConn if the conference were concerned with a basketball following. No other schools would be worth it.

 

He also mentions that it makes sense for Notre Dame to remain independent while they can, since they have such a national following at this point.

 

 

I guess Rutgers makes sense market-wise, but man it just seems weird to me. ND, Texas, Mizzou, sure. Kansas and UConn I'm so-so on.

[Tracer Bullet]

Here is an interesting article by Nate Silver about the geography of college football fans, and why Rutgers is a more attractive school than Kansas.

 

Interesting article though I think it's a touch flawed. The conclusion - that the Big Ten and SEC are in their prime positions due to selectivity in expansion - is bordering on dumb. You take two conferences in the areas of the country where cfb is the most important (outside Texas) and full of several big schools and then you give one a contract with cbs and one it's own tv network. Which conferences will be most stable in an era where colleges have lost their minds chasing cfb $?

[minnesotacubsfan]

Here is an interesting article by Nate Silver about the geography of college football fans, and why Rutgers is a more attractive school than Kansas.

 

Interesting article though I think it's a touch flawed. The conclusion - that the Big Ten and SEC are in their prime positions due to selectivity in expansion - is bordering on dumb. You take two conferences in the areas of the country where cfb is the most important (outside Texas) and full of several big schools and then you give one a contract with cbs and one it's own tv network. Which conferences will be most stable in an era where colleges have lost their minds chasing cfb $?

 

the one with its own network.

[snoodmonger]

Here is an interesting article by Nate Silver about the geography of college football fans, and why Rutgers is a more attractive school than Kansas.

 

Yeah, that's the same article that was posted early this morn. Always love Silver's stuff though.

 

Very interesting article. There is quite a bit of guesswork and I think it fails to emphasize the importance of access to markets even if a particular school isn't great, but interesting either way.

 

http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/the-geography-of-college-football-fans-and-realignment-chaos/?hp

 

Kansas football is actually rated way higher than I expected. Only a few spots behind FSU. Ahead of Okie State and most of the PAC 10. Ahead of BYU, which always gets thrown around for having this massive fanbase. Neck and neck with Syracuse.

[minnesotacubsfan]

BYU's fanbase is overrated, I'd agree with that.

[Tracer Bullet]

I really question his numbers and the conclusions he's drawing from them.

[bukie]

Here is an interesting article by Nate Silver about the geography of college football fans, and why Rutgers is a more attractive school than Kansas.

 

Interesting article though I think it's a touch flawed. The conclusion - that the Big Ten and SEC are in their prime positions due to selectivity in expansion - is bordering on dumb. You take two conferences in the areas of the country where cfb is the most important (outside Texas) and full of several big schools and then you give one a contract with cbs and one it's own tv network. Which conferences will be most stable in an era where colleges have lost their minds chasing cfb $?

The ACC and Big 12 are in just as much CFB-dominated areas of the country as the Big Ten and SEC. The Pac-10 expanded with two teams that really don't pull in much market share. They're really only in good shape if they land Texas and Oklahoma. After the Big East got raided for Miami and Virginia Tech, there just isn't much left there for football markets.

[bukie]

I really question his numbers and the conclusions he's drawing from them.

I'm not sure there's a better way to get data on college football interest across the country than what he's getting. Why do you question the numbers so much, because somehow Notre Dame isn't #1? They look pretty reasonable across the board to me.

 

Silver is simply recognizing that the SEC and Big Ten are in good shape market-wise right now, so the only expansions that make sense for them would be to increase the average market, which adding PSU, Nebraska, and A&M do. Whereas the ACC adding Pitt and Syracuse, and the Pac-10 adding Colorado and Utah, do not.

[minnesotacubsfan]

Here is an interesting article by Nate Silver about the geography of college football fans, and why Rutgers is a more attractive school than Kansas.

 

Interesting article though I think it's a touch flawed. The conclusion - that the Big Ten and SEC are in their prime positions due to selectivity in expansion - is bordering on dumb. You take two conferences in the areas of the country where cfb is the most important (outside Texas) and full of several big schools and then you give one a contract with cbs and one it's own tv network. Which conferences will be most stable in an era where colleges have lost their minds chasing cfb $?

The ACC and Big 12 are in just as much CFB-dominated areas of the country as the Big Ten and SEC. The Pac-10 expanded with two teams that really don't pull in much market share. They're really only in good shape if they land Texas and Oklahoma. After the Big East got raided for Miami and Virginia Tech, there just isn't much left there for football markets.

 

oh, his V Tech idea for the Big Ten was the one I was most surprised by, and maybe makes some sense.

One outside-the-box target: Virginia Tech. In addition to its natural (and quite avid) fan base in western Virginia, it also has some reach into Washington, D.C. and other relatively populous markets — enough for it to rank 13th in the country with 1.3 million fans.

[bukie]

Here is an interesting article by Nate Silver about the geography of college football fans, and why Rutgers is a more attractive school than Kansas.

 

Interesting article though I think it's a touch flawed. The conclusion - that the Big Ten and SEC are in their prime positions due to selectivity in expansion - is bordering on dumb. You take two conferences in the areas of the country where cfb is the most important (outside Texas) and full of several big schools and then you give one a contract with cbs and one it's own tv network. Which conferences will be most stable in an era where colleges have lost their minds chasing cfb $?

The ACC and Big 12 are in just as much CFB-dominated areas of the country as the Big Ten and SEC. The Pac-10 expanded with two teams that really don't pull in much market share. They're really only in good shape if they land Texas and Oklahoma. After the Big East got raided for Miami and Virginia Tech, there just isn't much left there for football markets.

 

oh, his V Tech idea for the Big Ten was the one I was most surprised by, and maybe makes some sense.

One outside-the-box target: Virginia Tech. In addition to its natural (and quite avid) fan base in western Virginia, it also has some reach into Washington, D.C. and other relatively populous markets — enough for it to rank 13th in the country with 1.3 million fans.

Of course, the huge sticking point now to grabbing an ACC team is the huge buyout.

[Tracer Bullet]

Here is an interesting article by Nate Silver about the geography of college football fans, and why Rutgers is a more attractive school than Kansas.

 

Interesting article though I think it's a touch flawed. The conclusion - that the Big Ten and SEC are in their prime positions due to selectivity in expansion - is bordering on dumb. You take two conferences in the areas of the country where cfb is the most important (outside Texas) and full of several big schools and then you give one a contract with cbs and one it's own tv network. Which conferences will be most stable in an era where colleges have lost their minds chasing cfb $?

The ACC and Big 12 are in just as much CFB-dominated areas of the country as the Big Ten and SEC. The Pac-10 expanded with two teams that really don't pull in much market share. They're really only in good shape if they land Texas and Oklahoma. After the Big East got raided for Miami and Virginia Tech, there just isn't much left there for football markets.

 

Why is the ACC adding Pitt and Cuse and in a position to turn away WVU? Bc they made smart additions. Not bc they sat around. The Pac 12 was just looking to get to 12. They also look like the place most likely to add OU and Texas, if they move. How solid will they look then?

 

And no, outside Texas, Big 12 country is not as cfb crazy as Big 10 country. The Big 12 is unstable due in large part to being dominated by 1 school. No school in the big 10 or sec will ever have that much power.

[Tracer Bullet]

I really question his numbers and the conclusions he's drawing from them.

I'm not sure there's a better way to get data on college football interest across the country than what he's getting. Why do you question the numbers so much, because somehow Notre Dame isn't #1? They look pretty reasonable across the board to me.

 

Silver is simply recognizing that the SEC and Big Ten are in good shape market-wise right now, so the only expansions that make sense for them would be to increase the average market, which adding PSU, Nebraska, and A&M do. Whereas the ACC adding Pitt and Syracuse, and the Pac-10 adding Colorado and Utah, do not.

 

Thank you for assuming bias.

[minnesotacubsfan]

Of course, the huge sticking point now to grabbing an ACC team is the huge buyout.

 

its only money...

[bukie]

Why is the ACC adding Pitt and Cuse and in a position to turn away WVU? Bc they made smart additions. Not bc they sat around. The Pac 12 was just looking to get to 12. They also look like the place most likely to add OU and Texas, if they move. How solid will they look then?

 

And no, outside Texas, Big 12 country is not as cfb crazy as Big 10 country. The Big 12 is unstable due in large part to being dominated by 1 school. No school in the big 10 or sec will ever have that much power.

 

Why are Pitt and Cuse smart additions? Middling additions, at best.

 

And of course the conference that adds Texas and Oklahoma is going to look a lot better. Until the Pac-12 does that, though, their additions were a little baffling from a market perspective.

[bukie]

I really question his numbers and the conclusions he's drawing from them.

I'm not sure there's a better way to get data on college football interest across the country than what he's getting. Why do you question the numbers so much, because somehow Notre Dame isn't #1? They look pretty reasonable across the board to me.

 

Silver is simply recognizing that the SEC and Big Ten are in good shape market-wise right now, so the only expansions that make sense for them would be to increase the average market, which adding PSU, Nebraska, and A&M do. Whereas the ACC adding Pitt and Syracuse, and the Pac-10 adding Colorado and Utah, do not.

 

Thank you for assuming bias.

More like I don't understand where you're coming from on the numbers to the point where the most reasonable explanation is bias.

[minnesotacubsfan]

I really question his numbers and the conclusions he's drawing from them.

I'm not sure there's a better way to get data on college football interest across the country than what he's getting. Why do you question the numbers so much, because somehow Notre Dame isn't #1? They look pretty reasonable across the board to me.

 

Silver is simply recognizing that the SEC and Big Ten are in good shape market-wise right now, so the only expansions that make sense for them would be to increase the average market, which adding PSU, Nebraska, and A&M do. Whereas the ACC adding Pitt and Syracuse, and the Pac-10 adding Colorado and Utah, do not.

 

Thank you for assuming bias.

bukie does make a good point, tho. Silver essentially takes numbers in relationship to a schools marketability that makes sense: fan base. What else, other then a schools willingness to pay top dollar and buy into a market, makes sense?

[Tracer Bullet]

I don't necessarily disagree that there isn't a better way to get numbers. But the answer then is maybe you can't draw the conclusions he wants to draw bc the data is flawed.

 

It's less a question of who you route for than what teams buy tickets and grab eyeballs. I think it's interesting but I think it's too flawed to be more than that.

 

To your bias question: I'd have picked those 5 teams for the top 5. I haven't thought about, nor do I care, about the order (I would guess Texas is too low at 5). But the key for this discussion seems to be in the teams in the 60s and 70s.

[minnesotacubsfan]

I don't necessarily disagree that there isn't a better way to get numbers. But the answer then is maybe you can't draw the conclusions he wants to draw bc the data is flawed.

 

It's less a question of who you route for than what teams buy tickets and grab eyeballs. I think it's interesting but I think it's too flawed to be more than that.

 

To your bias question: I'd have picked those 5 teams for the top 5. I haven't thought about, nor do I care, about the order (I would guess Texas is too low at 5). But the key for this discussion seems to be in the teams in the 60s and 70s.

 

 

I dont route for any team really. ;)

[snoodmonger]

Here is an interesting article by Nate Silver about the geography of college football fans, and why Rutgers is a more attractive school than Kansas.

 

Interesting article though I think it's a touch flawed. The conclusion - that the Big Ten and SEC are in their prime positions due to selectivity in expansion - is bordering on dumb. You take two conferences in the areas of the country where cfb is the most important (outside Texas) and full of several big schools and then you give one a contract with cbs and one it's own tv network. Which conferences will be most stable in an era where colleges have lost their minds chasing cfb $?

The ACC and Big 12 are in just as much CFB-dominated areas of the country as the Big Ten and SEC. The Pac-10 expanded with two teams that really don't pull in much market share. They're really only in good shape if they land Texas and Oklahoma. After the Big East got raided for Miami and Virginia Tech, there just isn't much left there for football markets.

 

Why is the ACC adding Pitt and Cuse and in a position to turn away WVU? Bc they made smart additions. Not bc they sat around. The Pac 12 was just looking to get to 12. They also look like the place most likely to add OU and Texas, if they move. How solid will they look then?

 

And no, outside Texas, Big 12 country is not as cfb crazy as Big 10 country. The Big 12 is unstable due in large part to being dominated by 1 school. No school in the big 10 or sec will ever have that much power.

 

I don't think it's that far off. The states of Texas and Oklahoma provided half of the original Big 12, and while they may not have the population numbers, they're very football crazy states. Nebraska is all football. Iowa St. is in a football state.

 

Kansas really isn't a football state. I don't know what colorado is. Missouri either. But in general, the Big 12 was a football crazy footprint. It just doesn't have population numbers.

[Tracer Bullet]

Why is the ACC adding Pitt and Cuse and in a position to turn away WVU? Bc they made smart additions. Not bc they sat around. The Pac 12 was just looking to get to 12. They also look like the place most likely to add OU and Texas, if they move. How solid will they look then?

 

And no, outside Texas, Big 12 country is not as cfb crazy as Big 10 country. The Big 12 is unstable due in large part to being dominated by 1 school. No school in the big 10 or sec will ever have that much power.

 

Why are Pitt and Cuse smart additions? Middling additions, at best.

 

And of course the conference that adds Texas and Oklahoma is going to look a lot better. Until the Pac-12 does that, though, their additions were a little baffling from a market perspective.

 

I didn't say Pitt and Cuse were smart additions. I said they're in a position to raid instead of being raided bc of smart additions (namely Miami and BC). They're still not safe, but I'd rather be the ACC than the Big 12 right now.

 

I'm not sure the Pac 10 made great additions and maybe there were better ones to add. But their options are limited by geography.

[minnesotacubsfan]

 

And no, outside Texas, Big 12 country is not as cfb crazy as Big 10 country. The Big 12 is unstable due in large part to being dominated by 1 school. No school in the big 10 or sec will ever have that much power.

 

I don't think it's that far off. The states of Texas and Oklahoma provided half of the original Big 12, and while they may not have the population numbers, they're very football crazy states. Nebraska is all football. Iowa St. is in a football state.

 

Kansas really isn't a football state. I don't know what colorado is. Missouri either. But in general, the Big 12 was a football crazy footprint. It just doesn't have population numbers.

 

Silver's numbers seem to indicate what MR s saying. While the Big 12 has some cfb-centric areas, they are not as cfb-centric as a whole compared to the Big Ten, and not at the top 3-4 teams either.

[minnesotacubsfan]

I mean, Silver's numbers place Minnesota at 28, which is higher then any other Pac school other then USC (17) or UCLA (25). Granted, U of MN is one of the largest schools int he country (65k when I was there), that says a lot for a program that has had maybe 3 winning seasons in the last 15 years.

 

eta: we've had 6 winning seasons in the last 15. I cant believe it.

Edited September 20, 2011 by minnesotacubsfan

[Tracer Bullet]

Here is an interesting article by Nate Silver about the geography of college football fans, and why Rutgers is a more attractive school than Kansas.

 

Interesting article though I think it's a touch flawed. The conclusion - that the Big Ten and SEC are in their prime positions due to selectivity in expansion - is bordering on dumb. You take two conferences in the areas of the country where cfb is the most important (outside Texas) and full of several big schools and then you give one a contract with cbs and one it's own tv network. Which conferences will be most stable in an era where colleges have lost their minds chasing cfb $?

The ACC and Big 12 are in just as much CFB-dominated areas of the country as the Big Ten and SEC. The Pac-10 expanded with two teams that really don't pull in much market share. They're really only in good shape if they land Texas and Oklahoma. After the Big East got raided for Miami and Virginia Tech, there just isn't much left there for football markets.

 

Why is the ACC adding Pitt and Cuse and in a position to turn away WVU? Bc they made smart additions. Not bc they sat around. The Pac 12 was just looking to get to 12. They also look like the place most likely to add OU and Texas, if they move. How solid will they look then?

 

And no, outside Texas, Big 12 country is not as cfb crazy as Big 10 country. The Big 12 is unstable due in large part to being dominated by 1 school. No school in the big 10 or sec will ever have that much power.

 

I don't think it's that far off. The states of Texas and Oklahoma provided half of the original Big 12, and while they may not have the population numbers, they're very football crazy states. Nebraska is all football. Iowa St. is in a football state.

 

Kansas really isn't a football state. I don't know what colorado is. Missouri either. But in general, the Big 12 was a football crazy footprint. It just doesn't have population numbers.

 

Ohio, MI, Iowa, a lot of Pennsylvania, parts of Illinois and all of Wisconsin are football states. Maybe even football crazy. After adding PSU, you have 3 huge football schools in one conference. The Big 12/8 (and I don't even remember the 8) have a dominant program in Texas. Nebraska is a football state, to the extent it's a state, but their team jumped at the chance to join the big 10. Iowa St is in a football state dominated by another team's fans. I don't know what Colorado is, but they seem to have the W Coast mentality in that they aren't avid fans of any sport.

 

The Big 10's advantage came from UM/OSU and having huge schools with avid fans (iowa is not highly populated but hawkeye fans travel, e.g.) and/or populated areas. Again, outside Texas, there aren't a lot of big markets in Big 12 country. Big 10 has Chicago, Detroit, Cincy, even Milwaukee, Indianapolis. Adding PSU was a no-brainer.

 

You said yourself that the Big 12 allowed one program to run the show. That wasn't possible in the Big 10 bc there were too many other programs with big fan bases.

[Tracer Bullet]

I mean, Silver's numbers place Minnesota at 28, which is higher then any other Pac school other then USC (17) or UCLA (25). Granted, U of MN is one of the largest schools int he country (65k when I was there), that says a lot for a program that has had maybe 3 winning seasons in the last 15 years.

 

MN was one that jumped out at me. Other than you, I've never met a MN fan outside the state. Even if they have that many fans, how many are watching cfb (or the gophers)?

[bukie]

I mean, Silver's numbers place Minnesota at 28, which is higher then any other Pac school other then USC (17) or UCLA (25). Granted, U of MN is one of the largest schools int he country (65k when I was there), that says a lot for a program that has had maybe 3 winning seasons in the last 15 years.

 

MN was one that jumped out at me. Other than you, I've never met a MN fan outside the state. Even if they have that many fans, how many are watching cfb (or the gophers)?

The Minneapolis/St. Paul area is a good sized market on its own merit, though, and the fans there are largely hockey/football fans. The Vikings are probably the primary draw, but U of Minnesota is the only decent game in town as colleges go.