Sports TV: New Pac 10 vs. New Big 12

[buster2]

Much has been made of the TV implications of the proposed "Pac-16" that would have folded several TX and OK universities into the current Pac-10. Had the Pac-16 been created, the conference would have added the Dallas, Houston, Oklahoma City and San Antonio TV markets to the already-desirable LA, SF-Oak-SJ, Phoenix markets (among others).

But since this won't happen, the conventional wisdom has been that the Big 12 is in a better position than the Pac -10 (which will instead add Colorado and Utah in a few years.) From an athletics standpoint, the Big 12 is arguably superior, but I'm not so sure if that's true from a TV perspective. Let's see if you agree.

When the dust settles in a year or two, the Pac-10 (actually will have 12 members) will include these top-50 TV markets: LA, SF, Seattle, Phoenix, Denver, Sacramento, Portland and Salt Lake City. That represents about 9% of all TV households in the U.S. I didn't add San Diego since there's no Pac-10 team there, but presumably there are USC and UCLA fans in that market. If you added SD, the total households would rise to 10%.

By contrast, the Big 12 (actually will have 10 members; you can't make up this stuff) will include these top-50 markets: Dallas, Houston, St. Louis, Kansas City, San Antonio and Oklahoma City. That adds up to 7% of total U.S. TV households.

The Pac 10 should do just fine.

 

[dhett]

Much has been made of the TV implications of the proposed "Pac-16" that would have folded several TX and OK universities into the current Pac-10. Had the Pac-16 been created, the conference would have added the Dallas, Houston, Oklahoma City and San Antonio TV markets to the already-desirable LA, SF-Oak-SJ, Phoenix markets (among others).

But since this won't happen, the conventional wisdom has been that the Big 12 is in a better position than the Pac -10 (which will instead add Colorado and Utah in a few years.) From an athletics standpoint, the Big 12 is arguably superior, but I'm not so sure if that's true from a TV perspective. Let's see if you agree.

When the dust settles in a year or two, the Pac-10 (actually will have 12 members) will include these top-50 TV markets: LA, SF, Seattle, Phoenix, Denver, Sacramento, Portland and Salt Lake City. That represents about 9% of all TV households in the U.S. I didn't add San Diego since there's no Pac-10 team there, but presumably there are USC and UCLA fans in that market. If you added SD, the total households would rise to 10%.

By contrast, the Big 12 (actually will have 10 members; you can't make up this stuff) will include these top-50 markets: Dallas, Houston, St. Louis, Kansas City, San Antonio and Oklahoma City. That adds up to 7% of total U.S. TV households.

The Pac 10 should do just fine.

I agree that the Pac-101112 should be fine, but the advantage still goes to the Big-121110. Although the Pac has a larger potential audience, actual support is, at best, tepid. Meanwhile, support for the Big is rabid.

Let's say that the Pac has a potential viewership of 10% of the nation as you say, or ~30 million but gets about 35% of the viewers in the markets. A total of 10.5 million viewers.

Meanwhile, the Big has a potential viewership of 7%, or ~21 million, but gets 60% of viewers in their markets. A total of 12.6 million viewers.

Those aren't actual numbers, but I think they represent a realistic guess-timate.

 

[KeithE4]

I agree that the Pac-101112 should be fine, but the advantage still goes to the Big-121110. Although the Pac has a larger potential audience, actual support is, at best, tepid. Meanwhile, support for the Big is rabid.

Let's say that the Pac has a potential viewership of 10% of the nation as you say, or ~30 million but gets about 35% of the viewers in the markets. A total of 10.5 million viewers.

Meanwhile, the Big has a potential viewership of 7%, or ~21 million, but gets 60% of viewers in their markets. A total of 12.6 million viewers.

Those aren't actual numbers, but I think they represent a realistic guess-timate.

The Pac-10 is a non-entity east of the Rockies (other than with the schools' alumni, of course), with the lone exception of USC, who is pretty much dead for the next two years anyway. The important markets for college sports, especially football, are all in the Eastern and Central time zones. Five of the six BCS conferences are all in the Eastern and Central time zones.

There's also the omnipresent ESPN factor. With many Pac-10 night games ending after 11 PM ET, they get very little chance to have their highlights on SportsCenter. That coverage is imperative since ESPN pretty much calls the shots in college football (The SEC being an exception since they're on CBS).

The Pac-10 was desperate to get the Texas and Oklahoma schools since they're in the Central time zone, hence earlier games and more exposure. Those schools don't need the Pac-10, but they used the conference to get more money from Fox Sports Net.

In college football, LA doesn't matter as much as any ET/CT market in the Top 50 with a college football presence. Neither does New York City for that matter since college football is almost invisible north and east of Philly (Rutgers being a recent exception in the Big East, but they are a non-factor in NYC, despite what the Big Ten says). I'm not saying there's zero interest, but how much do folks in the northeast pay attention to, say, Syracuse or UConn football once basketball season starts?

 

[dhett]

I'm not saying there's zero interest, but how much do folks in the northeast pay attention to, say, Syracuse or UConn football once basketball season starts?

I can't speak for UConn fans, but having grown up 90 miles west of Syracuse, I can say that interest in the Orangemen remains strong even after the start of basketball season, especially if they're winning. However, interest in Syracuse football is comparable to interest in Arizona St. football; it doesn't even begin to compare with interest in Texas or Oklahoma, where college football is a religion.