Big 12 Expansion - Looking at Numbers

NO I do not have a link...I was reading an article re the Texas Senate Committee investigating the Texas OU move to the SEC...When this was stated that the Three Schools could not gain admittance to the Pac 12... (The statement from the Pac 12 was...."We are not expanding").....I really think that the Texas Pols are worried that the only big time school in Texas has just screwed the rest of the IN STATE SCHOOLS!

The quotes I've read said that "they don't have to expand"
 
If the other conferences turn their noses up at the Big 12 leftovers, we're still a better conference than the Mountain West or AAC.

Add BYU as a football-only member and change the name back to the Big 8 so we can be rid of this curse.
 
First time, long time...

Last week I was thinking about actual eyeballs on games last year, not just a convenient narrative. Did some digging and found the TV data from 2020 and parsed out the b12/b10 data from within the aggregate.

Granted last year was a COVID year so one could argue the data as a one-year snapshot is less accurate. On the other hand, one could argue COVID may had driven viewership as people hungered for sports especially in the B10 where schools were allowed VERY limited attendance.

It jumps off the page that the B10 does not have a TV contract; Ohio State has a TV contract that Michigan and WISC participate in and the rest of the conference has a parasitic relationship. The highest rated B10 game not involving one of the big 3 was Iowa vs Nebraska; but that game lagged the highest viewed B12 game that did not involve TX or OU, was ISU vs Ok State.

Can’t argue that ISU had three absolute TV dogs (Baylor, TCU and KU) but not a hard stretch to imagine ISU performing very well when compared to the B10 teams outside of their big three.

Sheet 3 - For some reason there is no data on the Iowa vs PSU game on 21 November so the data set is not absolute.

If you remove ISU’s most watched game (Fiesta) ISU’s average number of viewers was 500,000 HIGHER than Iowa’s. In fact, ISU had three REGULAR season games with more viewers than Iowa’s highest viewed game, Black Friday against Neb.

Can't attach a spreadsheet but here is where the data is found: https://www.statista.com/statistics/748033/college-football-tv-ratings/

A screenshot of ISU compared to iowa
The Iowa/Nebraska game was also on Black Friday, on national TV, which helps explain the ratings bump. Put that same game on a typical Saturday and the numbers drop.

People and the media are making too much out of the TV study showing OU and UT were carrying the league, it was released for the purpose of allowing ESPN to either try to cut the money they owned the league after the two schools leave or force the remaining schools to merge with the AAC which they also carry. Either way was a win for ESPN.

Each league has a few schools that carry the weight for the conference TV wise, the networks put their games on the national platform most often so they tend to have better ratings. Put ISU or Iowa and many other teams on a national broadcast every week and their ratings will go up, but not many people are going to watch them as say ND, Alabama, Clemson and a few other teams. Those other teams just have more fans, that does not mean that ISU does not carry its weight, but we bring in less than OU and UT, but more than Baylor, TT, and others in the league football wise.
 
The Iowa/Nebraska game was also on Black Friday, on national TV, which helps explain the ratings bump. Put that same game on a typical Saturday and the numbers drop.

People and the media are making too much out of the TV study showing OU and UT were carrying the league, it was released for the purpose of allowing ESPN to either try to cut the money they owned the league after the two schools leave or force the remaining schools to merge with the AAC which they also carry. Either way was a win for ESPN.

Each league has a few schools that carry the weight for the conference TV wise, the networks put their games on the national platform most often so they tend to have better ratings. Put ISU or Iowa and many other teams on a national broadcast every week and their ratings will go up, but not many people are going to watch them as say ND, Alabama, Clemson and a few other teams. Those other teams just have more fans, that does not mean that ISU does not carry its weight, but we bring in less than OU and UT, but more than Baylor, TT, and others in the league football wise.
I'd argue 'more' fans is a byproduct of more marketing. Thus 'tavern' fans. If my premise is true, then it's all about how we market ourselves or, more importantly, how we swing the balance of our media rights.
 
I'd argue 'more' fans is a byproduct of more marketing. Thus 'tavern' fans. If my premise is true, then it's all about how we market ourselves or, more importantly, how we swing the balance of our media rights.
Yes and no, look at ISU, how many fans did we make from say 1982 till 1997, few if any. The football teams during those years was not pretty to look at and EIU was going to Rose Bowl games. Kids growing up then, naturally aligned with EIU, and we lost them forever.

Once we started wining, enlarged the stadium and Jami started recruiting Des Moines more, we saw an increase in people showing up at the games. The little cyclone club has been a great marketing tool for ISU. Give new families a cheaper way to go to games, and after a few years they become full season ticket holders. There kids grow up to be Cyclone fans and so on.

But it takes winning or at least be completive on the field to achieve that, the more wins you get and better bowl games the more of the uncommitted fan base you are going to get to come over to your side. We need to continue to keep going to the Alamo and Fiesta types of bowl games and less the smaller Texas bowl that few care about. But to do that we have to keep winning on the field, do that and the rest takes care of itself.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Cy4Lifer
Yes and no, look at ISU, how many fans did we make from say 1982 till 1997, few if any. The football teams during those years was not pretty to look at and EIU was going to Rose Bowl games. Kids going up then, naturally aligned with EIU, and we lost them forever.

Once we started wining, enlarged the stadium and Jami started recruiting Des Moines more, we saw an increase in people showing up at the games. The little cyclone club has been a great marketing tool for ISU. Give new families a cheaper way to go to games, and after a few years they become full season ticket holders. There kids grow up to be Cyclone fans and so on.

But it takes winning or at least be completive on the field to achieve that, the more wins you get and better bowl games the more of the uncommitted fan base you are going to get to come over to your side. We need to continue to keep going to the Alamo and Fiesta types of bowl games and less the smaller Texas bowl that few care about. But to do that we have to keep winning on the field, do that and the rest takes care of itself.
I'm guessing that's the 'no' part of my statement. If so, exploiting the current state of athletics is what I'm referring to.
 
Just read on 247 site that the Purple Kitties AD just replaced the Texas AD (del Conte) on the playoff selection committee. I guess the 8 schools that are left might be flexing some muscle, LOL ought to be an interesting season! :oops: :D
 
  • Informative
Reactions: drmwevr08
Guess Iowa is going to have heavy representation on the committee, Barta is chair, and Taylor (kitties AD) was a former associate AD at Iowa. Taylor was nominated by Big12, removing Texas AD del Conte :) He has 3 year term! Seat was previously occupied by Castiglion SP (OU AD) for the last 3 years, and was replaced by Del Conte initially, Big12 Board thought it was a conflict of interest with Texas going to SEC, so they replaced with Taylor, without Del Conte yet to attend meeting LOL :rolleyes::p. I hate to speculate, but I think there are some that are pissed off.:p:p
 
Last edited:
I just realized that Iowa State is going ot be the Savior of the Big Xii!

Starting out highly ranked and should be top 5-ish when they go to @ Oklahoma in November. Weekly highlights of this team kicking butt is going to be the best advertising out there! Big Xii will be saved, and Iowa State will be the Face of the conference going forward!

Let's Go State!
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: CYCLNST8
The Iowa/Nebraska game was also on Black Friday, on national TV, which helps explain the ratings bump. Put that same game on a typical Saturday and the numbers drop.

People and the media are making too much out of the TV study showing OU and UT were carrying the league, it was released for the purpose of allowing ESPN to either try to cut the money they owned the league after the two schools leave or force the remaining schools to merge with the AAC which they also carry. Either way was a win for ESPN.

Each league has a few schools that carry the weight for the conference TV wise, the networks put their games on the national platform most often so they tend to have better ratings. Put ISU or Iowa and many other teams on a national broadcast every week and their ratings will go up, but not many people are going to watch them as say ND, Alabama, Clemson and a few other teams. Those other teams just have more fans, that does not mean that ISU does not carry its weight, but we bring in less than OU and UT, but more than Baylor, TT, and others in the league football wise.
This is EXACTLY why football should stay regional. KU and ISU to the B1G makes way too much sense. Regional football keeps people in that region much more interested. People on the coasts do not care about central time zone football.... and Visa Versa.
 

Latest posts

Help Support Us

Become a patron