As I write this, BYU is holding the news conference to discuss the move to independence in football and to the WCC in some of their olympic sports.
Further proof that the mtn., a television network for the Mountain West Conference, was a big mistake.
Let me clarify that: It wasn't a mistake to create a television network for the conference, as the Big Ten has proved that a television network dedicated to one conference can be successful.
The debacle with regards to the mtn. is that it was poorly thought out and executed, and the inflexibility of either Comcast/CBS Sports or MWC commissioner Craig Thompson to renegotiate the deal or try to change parameters of coverage and exposure has led Utah to the Pac-10 (12) and BYU out the door as well.
Not that the people who actually broadcast game aren't good or don't work hard; this has nothing to do with on-camera or off-camera talent.
This is focused on the management, plain and simple.
It took well over a year for the mtn. to become available here in the Las Vegas Valley and in parts of San Diego (because the mtn. was not available on Cox). Hell, if you are in a place that carries Time Warner Cable (parts of San Diego County, for example), you still can't get the mtn.
TCU has emerged as a crown jewel of the conference in football, receiving a BCS bowl bid last season, but it's hard to find them in Dallas-Fort Worth on Versus and CBS College Sports. the mtn. also isn't available in Dallas-Forth Worth and it doesn't look like it will be anytime soon.
Heck, in 2007 BYU and Utah even went so far as to retain lawyers to look at the contract to see what could be done because they were not getting the exposure promised.
So is it any wonder that those two school and their rabid fan bases decided to leave for greener pastures?
Utah found a suitor in the Pac-10.
BYU is going it alone for football, although they found a partner in ESPN, who agreed to an eight year deal to broadcast BYU home games and also is allowing BYU-TV to rebroadcast the games on the same day as the initial airing.
That is a significant deal.
And while the WAC is crippled by the machinations of the Mountain West a couple of weeks ago when this story first started to evolve, WAC schools are giving BYU five games in 2011 and four games in 2012.
Is it a gamble? It sure is. Do I think it's going to fail? I don't think it will fail. But it's also too soon to call it a success for sure.
Pencil it in as a win, and let's reexamine it in four years.
Showing posts with label BYU Cougars. Show all posts
Showing posts with label BYU Cougars. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Pac-10 Expansion Sidebar: The realistic choices
After we highlighted Teddy Greenstein's Chicago Tribune piece about Big Ten expansion possibilities the other day, I came across this piece by the San Jose Mercury News' Jon Wilner looking at Pac-10 expansion.
Some interesting notes from Wilner's blog (which is a must read):
* Voting on expansion will have to be unanimous. All of the schools are going to have to agree to this or it's not going to work.
* Like most things in sports, this all comes down to money. The Pac-10 wants to increase their revenues, since they are outpaced significantly by the Big Ten and the SEC. They don't need to match those two conferences, but they need to get closer.
* An interesting point that Wilner highlights is that one of the ways to get more money is to, for lack of a better term, expose the conference more. That would mean playing games on off days and nights. More football games on Thursdays, for example, or basketball games on Monday.
* A television network could be formed, perhaps by partnering with the Big 12 or the ACC.
Of course, if the conference were to expand by potentially poaching Colorado (considered the best fit among western schools), I don't know how excited the Big 12 would be about partnering with the Pac-10.
However, we all know that expansion is the way to get new markets and new exposure. I'll let Wilner explain the field:
Well, Missouri would be available, but not for the Pac-10. Mizzou would rather join the Big Ten if they're going to jump ship.
And while BYU/Utah makes sense if you look at the rest of the Pac-10 and the natural pairings that occur because of geography, if your goal is to make more money, you need two distinct television markets to maximize eyeballs.
And in this scenario, with the finalists being BYU, Utah and Colorado, I would take Colorado and Utah as being the newest members of the Pac-10 (Pac-12? Pacific Coast Conference?).
Why not BYU? Well, that's another post.
Some interesting notes from Wilner's blog (which is a must read):
* Voting on expansion will have to be unanimous. All of the schools are going to have to agree to this or it's not going to work.
* Like most things in sports, this all comes down to money. The Pac-10 wants to increase their revenues, since they are outpaced significantly by the Big Ten and the SEC. They don't need to match those two conferences, but they need to get closer.
* An interesting point that Wilner highlights is that one of the ways to get more money is to, for lack of a better term, expose the conference more. That would mean playing games on off days and nights. More football games on Thursdays, for example, or basketball games on Monday.
* A television network could be formed, perhaps by partnering with the Big 12 or the ACC.
Of course, if the conference were to expand by potentially poaching Colorado (considered the best fit among western schools), I don't know how excited the Big 12 would be about partnering with the Pac-10.
However, we all know that expansion is the way to get new markets and new exposure. I'll let Wilner explain the field:
San Diego State, Fresno State, UNLV, Nevada and Boise State are not part of the equation, multiple sources told me. No way, no how. They don’t work academically and they don’t work in the TV homes/revenue equation.
Unless Missouri or Texas (presumably with Texas A&M) are available — and at this point there’s no substantive reason to believe they are — then only three options exist for the conference: Utah, BYU and Colorado.
And for all practical purposes, there are only two options: Colorado and BYU, or Colorado and Utah.
Utah and BYU together simply will not work.
As I speculated a few weeks ago (and have since gotten confirmation on), you cannot add two mouths and only one trough, especially when that trough is the Salt Lake City market, which is not exactly Dallas-Ft. Worth.
Well, Missouri would be available, but not for the Pac-10. Mizzou would rather join the Big Ten if they're going to jump ship.
And while BYU/Utah makes sense if you look at the rest of the Pac-10 and the natural pairings that occur because of geography, if your goal is to make more money, you need two distinct television markets to maximize eyeballs.
And in this scenario, with the finalists being BYU, Utah and Colorado, I would take Colorado and Utah as being the newest members of the Pac-10 (Pac-12? Pacific Coast Conference?).
Why not BYU? Well, that's another post.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Pac-10 Expansion Round 3: C.R.E.A.M.
(For previous installments on Pac-10 Expansion, visit here and here.)
Round three of Pac-10 expansion talk has us looking at some financial information about the current membership of the conference and the contenders.
The information looked at in this exercise is taken from reports that the colleges and universities across this land submitted to the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Postsecondary Education. The site "Equity in Athletics Data Analysis" has all of the nasty bits about how much schools spend on athletics.
Time to make some more sausage.
The factors we are examining today for the schools are:
1) Number of players on the football team
2) Operating expenses per player
3) Expenses by the football program
4) Revenue brought in by the football program
5) Profit/loss by the football program
6) Athletic department revenue
7) Athletic department expenses
8) Profit/loss by the athletic department
The numbers are from the last fiscal year for higher education (July 1, 2008-June 30, 2009). Before we go any further, let me post the cautionary note from the OPE:
Everyone got that? Okay?
Great. Here we go:
Pac-10 Financial Analysis
Once again, it appears that the best fit for the Pac-10 if it were to expand would include some combination of Colorado, BYU and Utah. While their spending habits (especially for BYU and Utah) are more in line fiscally with Washington State than with, say, USC, they are definitely ahead of Fresno State or Boise State with regards to the funds available and funds expended.
Round three of Pac-10 expansion talk has us looking at some financial information about the current membership of the conference and the contenders.
The information looked at in this exercise is taken from reports that the colleges and universities across this land submitted to the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Postsecondary Education. The site "Equity in Athletics Data Analysis" has all of the nasty bits about how much schools spend on athletics.
Time to make some more sausage.
The factors we are examining today for the schools are:
1) Number of players on the football team
2) Operating expenses per player
3) Expenses by the football program
4) Revenue brought in by the football program
5) Profit/loss by the football program
6) Athletic department revenue
7) Athletic department expenses
8) Profit/loss by the athletic department
The numbers are from the last fiscal year for higher education (July 1, 2008-June 30, 2009). Before we go any further, let me post the cautionary note from the OPE:
"Please note that valid comparisons of athletics data are possible only with study and analysis of the conditions affecting each institution"
Everyone got that? Okay?
Great. Here we go:
Pac-10 Financial Analysis
Once again, it appears that the best fit for the Pac-10 if it were to expand would include some combination of Colorado, BYU and Utah. While their spending habits (especially for BYU and Utah) are more in line fiscally with Washington State than with, say, USC, they are definitely ahead of Fresno State or Boise State with regards to the funds available and funds expended.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Pac-10 Expansion Round 2: Television Market Share
In the first round of Pac-10 expansion talks, I posted the reputational academic bonafides of the current Pac-10 Schools and their potential new brethern.
In this round, we will look at the television markets that are currently being utilized and what a newcomer would have to offer.
Now, when talking markets, we are going to refer to the specific regional markets for these teams. The market sizes are done based off of data from Nielsen Media Research.
So, while Oregon games might be shown in Portland, the designated market for Oregon is Eugene.
It's important to note that the Pac-10 has six schools in the top fifteen markets, including two teams in the number two market of Los Angeles, CA. So, obviously, the Pac-10 would probably want to bring in a market with a pretty significant reach.
Also note that some markets encompass more than one city.
First, the Pac-10 schools. Home market in parentheses:
Arizona (Tucson): 66
Arizona State (Phoenix): 12
California (San Francisco/Oakland/San Jose): 6
Oregon (Eugene): 119
Oregon State (Eugene): 119
Stanford (San Francisco/Oakland/San Jose): 6
UCLA (Los Angeles): 2
USC (Los Angeles): 2
Washington (Seattle/Tacoma): 13
Washington State (Spokane): 75
And the potential contenders that I have identified for ascencion to the Pac-10:
Boise State (Boise): 112
Brigham Young (Salt Lake City): 31
Colorado (Denver): 16
Fresno State (Fresno/Visalia): 55
Utah (Salt Lake City): 31
As in round one, it looks like Colorado, Utah and BYU are the front runners after round two, as the Denver and Salt Lake City markets outpace Fresno and Boise.
In this round, we will look at the television markets that are currently being utilized and what a newcomer would have to offer.
Now, when talking markets, we are going to refer to the specific regional markets for these teams. The market sizes are done based off of data from Nielsen Media Research.
So, while Oregon games might be shown in Portland, the designated market for Oregon is Eugene.
It's important to note that the Pac-10 has six schools in the top fifteen markets, including two teams in the number two market of Los Angeles, CA. So, obviously, the Pac-10 would probably want to bring in a market with a pretty significant reach.
Also note that some markets encompass more than one city.
First, the Pac-10 schools. Home market in parentheses:
Arizona (Tucson): 66
Arizona State (Phoenix): 12
California (San Francisco/Oakland/San Jose): 6
Oregon (Eugene): 119
Oregon State (Eugene): 119
Stanford (San Francisco/Oakland/San Jose): 6
UCLA (Los Angeles): 2
USC (Los Angeles): 2
Washington (Seattle/Tacoma): 13
Washington State (Spokane): 75
And the potential contenders that I have identified for ascencion to the Pac-10:
Boise State (Boise): 112
Brigham Young (Salt Lake City): 31
Colorado (Denver): 16
Fresno State (Fresno/Visalia): 55
Utah (Salt Lake City): 31
As in round one, it looks like Colorado, Utah and BYU are the front runners after round two, as the Denver and Salt Lake City markets outpace Fresno and Boise.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Pac-10 Expansion Round 1: Academics
So now that the call has gone out from Pac-10 commish Larry Scott that the Pac-10 will be looking into expansion by two members over the next 12 months or so, I thought it would be fitting to jump on the bandwagon and see who the most likely candidates are.
Immediately, because this is football driven, the most likely candidates that came to mind for most folks were BYU and Utah. Boise State, Colorado and even Fresno State have been mentioned in some circles as potential targets as well.
Since the Big Ten is also mulling expansion (as I wrote about here), I thought it would be a good time to do some in-depth analysis of the situations.
We'll get to the Big Ten soon. Let's start with some Pac-10 comparisons.
Expansion at this point is being driven by the almighty dollar and by football; conference championship games are viewed as cash cows by the leagues, and as a way to stay relevant and potentially get two teams into the BCS.
Now, I have made no secret of my disdain for the BCS. I even advocated for radical realignment at one point, but that's another column.
The question, for me, that arises outside of the on-the-field impact has to be off-the-field as well. Namely, when the Pac-10 and Big Ten expand, I think that they are going to look for schools that are in the same neighborhood academically.
Remember, the conferences are not only who you play on the field; often, they are the people you collaborate with and compete with off the field and in the classroom, too.
The Pac-10 has a reputation as being one of the stronger conferences academically, so that part of the profile is what we will examine first for these schools.
While the metrics I am about to use are by no means perfect, they can provide us with a portrait of what candidates may fit best for the Pac-10.
I am keeping the list of potential members to the five schools mentioned at the top of this piece; while other schools may get floated out there for consideration, I think that the final applicant pool for these two open positions will come down to these five.
The four things we will look at as we compare the candidates to the current Pac-10 are:
So, for the Pac-10:
Arizona:
AAU member: Yes
Carnegie Classification: Research University/Very High Research Activity (RU/VH)
US News National Ranking: 102 (highest ranking number assigned—128)
Enrollment: 36,932
Arizona State:
AAU member: No
Carnegie Classification: Research University/Very High Research Activity (RU/VH)
US News National Ranking: 121
Enrollment: 49,171
California (University of California-Berkeley):
AAU member: Yes
Carnegie Classification: Research University/Very High Research Activity (RU/VH)
US News National Ranking: 21
Enrollment: 32803
Oregon:
AAU member: Yes
Carnegie Classification: Research University/High Research Activity (RU/H)
US News National Ranking: 115
Enrollment: 20,296
Oregon State:
AAU member: NO
Carnegie Classification: Research University/Very High Research Activity (RU/VH)
US News National Ranking: Tier 3
Enrollment: 19,193
Stanford:
AAU member: Yes
Carnegie Classification: Research University/Very High Research Activity (RU/VH)
US News National Ranking: 4
Enrollment: 18,836
UCLA (University of California-Los Angeles):
AAU member: Yes
Carnegie Classification: Research University/Very High Research Activity (RU/VH)
US News National Ranking: 24
Enrollment: 35,966
USC (University of Southern California):
AAU member: Yes
Carnegie Classification: Research University/Very High Research Activity (RU/VH)
US News National Ranking: 26
Enrollment: 32,160
Washington:
AAU member: Yes
Carnegie Classification: Research University/Very High Research Activity (RU/VH)
US News National Ranking: 42
Enrollment: 39,199
Washington State:
AAU member: No
Carnegie Classification: Research University/Very High Research Activity (RU/VH)
US News National Ranking: 106
Enrollment: 23,241
Average ranking for the Pac-10: 62.3 (for the 9 ranked schools)
Average enrollment: 30,780
And now, the contenders:
Boise State:
AAU member: No
Carnegie Classification: Master's Colleges and Universities: Larger Programs
US News National Ranking: n/a
Enrollment: 18,332
BYU (Brigham Young University):
AAU member: No
Carnegie Classification: Research University/High Research Activity (RU/H)
US News National Ranking: 71
Enrollment: 34,347
Colorado:
AAU member: Yes
Carnegie Classification: Research University/Very High Research Activity (RU/VH)
US News National Ranking: 77
Enrollment: 32,362
Fresno State (California State University-Fresno):
AAU member: No
Carnegie Classification: Master's Colleges and Universities: Larger Programs
US News National Ranking: n/a
Enrollment: 19,781
Utah:
AAU member: Yes
Carnegie Classification: Research University/Very High Research Activity (RU/VH)
US News National Ranking: 106
Enrollment: 28,933
So while AAU membership is not a total barrier to being a member of the Pac-10, I do think that it becomes clear, from looking at some of this information, that BYU, Colorado and Utah are the top three contenders for expansion from an academic standpoint.
But fear not, for we will also look at other factors in the coming days that may influences things in other directions.
Immediately, because this is football driven, the most likely candidates that came to mind for most folks were BYU and Utah. Boise State, Colorado and even Fresno State have been mentioned in some circles as potential targets as well.
Since the Big Ten is also mulling expansion (as I wrote about here), I thought it would be a good time to do some in-depth analysis of the situations.
We'll get to the Big Ten soon. Let's start with some Pac-10 comparisons.
Expansion at this point is being driven by the almighty dollar and by football; conference championship games are viewed as cash cows by the leagues, and as a way to stay relevant and potentially get two teams into the BCS.
Now, I have made no secret of my disdain for the BCS. I even advocated for radical realignment at one point, but that's another column.
The question, for me, that arises outside of the on-the-field impact has to be off-the-field as well. Namely, when the Pac-10 and Big Ten expand, I think that they are going to look for schools that are in the same neighborhood academically.
Remember, the conferences are not only who you play on the field; often, they are the people you collaborate with and compete with off the field and in the classroom, too.
The Pac-10 has a reputation as being one of the stronger conferences academically, so that part of the profile is what we will examine first for these schools.
While the metrics I am about to use are by no means perfect, they can provide us with a portrait of what candidates may fit best for the Pac-10.
I am keeping the list of potential members to the five schools mentioned at the top of this piece; while other schools may get floated out there for consideration, I think that the final applicant pool for these two open positions will come down to these five.
The four things we will look at as we compare the candidates to the current Pac-10 are:
- Is the school a member of the Association of American Universities?
- How is the school basically classified by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (aka "Carnegie Classification", or "What kind of school are you?")
- What is the school's US News and World Report National University Ranking?
- What is the overall enrollment of the institution? That includes all students, undergraduate and graduate.
So, for the Pac-10:
Arizona:
AAU member: Yes
Carnegie Classification: Research University/Very High Research Activity (RU/VH)
US News National Ranking: 102 (highest ranking number assigned—128)
Enrollment: 36,932
Arizona State:
AAU member: No
Carnegie Classification: Research University/Very High Research Activity (RU/VH)
US News National Ranking: 121
Enrollment: 49,171
California (University of California-Berkeley):
AAU member: Yes
Carnegie Classification: Research University/Very High Research Activity (RU/VH)
US News National Ranking: 21
Enrollment: 32803
Oregon:
AAU member: Yes
Carnegie Classification: Research University/High Research Activity (RU/H)
US News National Ranking: 115
Enrollment: 20,296
Oregon State:
AAU member: NO
Carnegie Classification: Research University/Very High Research Activity (RU/VH)
US News National Ranking: Tier 3
Enrollment: 19,193
Stanford:
AAU member: Yes
Carnegie Classification: Research University/Very High Research Activity (RU/VH)
US News National Ranking: 4
Enrollment: 18,836
UCLA (University of California-Los Angeles):
AAU member: Yes
Carnegie Classification: Research University/Very High Research Activity (RU/VH)
US News National Ranking: 24
Enrollment: 35,966
USC (University of Southern California):
AAU member: Yes
Carnegie Classification: Research University/Very High Research Activity (RU/VH)
US News National Ranking: 26
Enrollment: 32,160
Washington:
AAU member: Yes
Carnegie Classification: Research University/Very High Research Activity (RU/VH)
US News National Ranking: 42
Enrollment: 39,199
Washington State:
AAU member: No
Carnegie Classification: Research University/Very High Research Activity (RU/VH)
US News National Ranking: 106
Enrollment: 23,241
Average ranking for the Pac-10: 62.3 (for the 9 ranked schools)
Average enrollment: 30,780
And now, the contenders:
Boise State:
AAU member: No
Carnegie Classification: Master's Colleges and Universities: Larger Programs
US News National Ranking: n/a
Enrollment: 18,332
BYU (Brigham Young University):
AAU member: No
Carnegie Classification: Research University/High Research Activity (RU/H)
US News National Ranking: 71
Enrollment: 34,347
Colorado:
AAU member: Yes
Carnegie Classification: Research University/Very High Research Activity (RU/VH)
US News National Ranking: 77
Enrollment: 32,362
Fresno State (California State University-Fresno):
AAU member: No
Carnegie Classification: Master's Colleges and Universities: Larger Programs
US News National Ranking: n/a
Enrollment: 19,781
Utah:
AAU member: Yes
Carnegie Classification: Research University/Very High Research Activity (RU/VH)
US News National Ranking: 106
Enrollment: 28,933
So while AAU membership is not a total barrier to being a member of the Pac-10, I do think that it becomes clear, from looking at some of this information, that BYU, Colorado and Utah are the top three contenders for expansion from an academic standpoint.
But fear not, for we will also look at other factors in the coming days that may influences things in other directions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)