Some interesting examples once again that your game time and channel drive 90%+ of "how good of a draw you are" ... not some inherent brand.
Indiana at 6:30 pm on NBC? 1.3 million viewers.
Indiana at 7:00 pm on a Friday on BTN? 142k viewers...
Penn State at 11:00 am on FOX? 3.0 million viewers.
Penn State at 2:30 pm on BTN? 434k viewers.
Do the teams make a difference? I mean, yeah. Illinois/Nebraska significantly outdrew a "better-on-paper" Arizona/KSU matchup the week before because there are probably just (A) more combined fans from Illinois and Nebraska's fan bases and (B) more "observer" Big Ten fans than "observer" Big XII fans. But both time slots drew well, and both teams would draw poorly on FS1. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy or circular equation or whatever for us to decide certain teams have this massive, static TV following because they get to play in these prime time slots.
Because of this, I feel like I am the only person that doesn't buy that the next round of conference expansion is some crude calculation of average viewers per team. These networks (who practically own the conferences) get to choose who fills those slots, and with only a few exceptions, they fill them with the most exciting matchup possible. And guess what? That changes, as whatever teams are currently good decide that ... and ANY program can theoretically become good at any given time. Are there certain teams like Alabama and Michigan that have been good for long enough that they're a very safe bet for every network? Sure. But pretty much every team like that except for Notre Dame is already in the Power 2.
Thus, I still maintain that things like markets matter (though not for the old reasons like cable fees). Oklahoma State might look like they draw 1.5 million fans per game one year and then look like they draw 400k fans per game the next year just based off of (A) what channel the networks throw them on and (B) what other teams they are playing on that year's schedule. To cut to the point, I don't think there are any programs besides Notre Dame left outside of the Power 2 that literally bring a built-in TV audience that is marginally more essential than your average program, and I am skeptical these executives are going to pull the trigger on a team based on a small sample size with a lot of noise because "they get good ratings." This is probably a bit "overboard" in many people's eyes, but I think this is roughly the thought process for the next Big Ten and SEC targets:
1. Do they at least have a large "built-in" fan base? Big state schools in big states (e.g., North Carolina or Florida State) or schools that might have developed a "bandwagon" fan base in varied geographical areas (e.g., Clemson or Oregon). Small private schools or VERY clear "little brother" programs that do not engage a large fan base beyond their immediate alumni even when they are good (e.g., Wake Forest or Oregon State) are likely SOL. The former schools might only bring, say, 400k extra viewers per game or something, but that is the difference between a crappy 300k on BTN and an impressive 700k on BTN, as well as pushing a decent 2.6 million rating on FOX over that 3.0 million mark.
2. How high is the ceiling, and thus how many "untapped fans" does this school naturally have? Rutgers might not draw well normally, but it takes dumb luck of one coach being THAT GUY to pull a Scott-Drew-and-Baylor-Basketball transformation, and all of a sudden you have them rolling. The difference here is that if THAT GUY goes to Iowa State, the number of fans he gets to hop on the bandwagon is very minimal ... ISU already has great support, and they play second fiddle to a very significant degree to Iowa in an already-small state. Compare that to Rutgers, who still holds the all-time record for TV ratings for a college football game in the New York market. There are just simply a lot of people who do not tune into college football games today that very legitimately might casually hop on the RU bandwagon if they got good ... and I DO think that matters to these executives, as it is no different than an investor choosing to back a high risk/high reward investment.
TL;DR
I don't pretend to have all of the information the decision makers have, but I will guarantee you that they are smart enough to know that if Program A draws well on FOX, it's probably not because of Program A vs. Program B ... because Program B would also draw well on FOX. I think the incremental advantage one school has over another in TV ratings value is VERY small among current targets for the next round of realignment, and I think TV executives are going to start looking at this more long-term, using things like population and demographics by market to analyze what schools might have a higher viewer ceiling in the future and what schools are "tapped out," even if the difference between those two schools might be only about 400k ... and that requires caring about things like markets.
www.espn.com
