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.

 

[searadiofreak]

I agree with your assessment. The only wildcard may be that teams like Oklahoma and Texas may get more neutral viewers.

The nice thing about the new Pac-12 will be the addition of a natural rivalry, Utah-Colorado. The natural split would be the Pac-12 North (WA, WSU, OR, OSU, Stanford and CA. Pac-12 South USC, UCLA, AZ, ASU, UT, CO.

 

[KeithE4]

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.

Nope, the Pac-10 absolutely was desperate to get into the Central time zone - especially into Texas, a far more important market for college football than any western market. This has been known for years. Many of their games end after 11 PM ET. That means no SportsCenter coverage until the next day. It's all about getting on ESPN, folks, and having more Pac-10 games available when the folks at The Northeast-Wide Leader in Sports - and their advertisers - can see them.

College sports broadcasting isn't like the rest of TV, where viewers in the Pacific time zone's major markets are becoming more important (I'm counting Phoenix here, since we're on de-facto Pacific time until early November). The only team west of the Rockies that has a national following (other than the schools' own alumni, of course) is USC, and they're pretty much dead for the next two years. Everything else is about the Eastern and Central time zones, where the schools in five of the six BCS conferences are located.

It doesn't matter as much if a college game is seen in LA, Phoenix, or SLC. It has to be seen at a reasonable hour in Chicago, Dallas, Miami, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, and other Top-50 eastern/midwestern/southern markets with top college football programs.

The bottom line is that the Pac-10 needed the Texas and Oklahoma schools much more than those schools need the Pac-10. Because they don't need the Pac-10.

 

[searadiofreak]

Of course the Pac-10 would have liked to get Texas & Oklahoma, etc., and I agree the Pac-10 needed them more than they needed the Pac-10. However, the Pac-10 is improved with the addition of Utah and Colorado, adding two good-sized television markets, and giving them the ability to add revenue with a conference championship.

 

[BRNout]

The nice thing about the new Pac-12 will be the addition of a natural rivalry, Utah-Colorado.

That rivalry will take time to develop, actually. The real rival for Utah has been - and probably will always be - BYU. Not sure how they were passed up for the Pac-12, but the state of Utah is rabidly divided between the two...not unlike Texas-Texas A&M or Arizona-AZ State.

 

[searadiofreak]

The nice thing about the new Pac-12 will be the addition of a natural rivalry, Utah-Colorado.

That rivalry will take time to develop, actually. The real rival for Utah has been - and probably will always be - BYU. Not sure how they were passed up for the Pac-12, but the state of Utah is rabidly divided between the two...not unlike Texas-Texas A&M or Arizona-AZ State.

True, and I believe there is actually a law in Utah that states the Utes must play BYU every year. So that stays. New rivalries are always fun, and the two states are neighbors so I see this one developing quickly. On a smaller scale, Boise State now will play BYU on a regular basis, but could play Idaho less with BSU's move to the Mountain West. Somehow, though, I think many of these old rivalries will survive, perhaps not every year, but most.