So we’ve seen how Utah is doing in recruiting, on the field and on TV. But what does that all add up to in terms of value. If we’re talking value (and/or conference realignment), those are two important factors – as well as market size
So here’s an image of possible expansion candidates (every ACC, Big 12, PAC school and a few G5s), considering market size, on-field success (over the last decade) and viewership scores (over the last 5 years)
*note that Clemson isn’t included since they’d be so far above the rest that it makes the image jumbled in the main group*
(Or for a higher quality, interactive version, click here)
Considering all three metrics
So considering all three of those factors – Utah is on the periphery, and has a stronger case than might have been expected… but there’s also a reason that Utah isn’t being mentioned as one of the top candidates right now – not like Washington, Oregon, Florida St, Miami, Clemson, UNC, Stanford, maybe a few others.
The key here is to maintain that strongest argument (on-field success) since it should drive higher viewership. Right now, Utah’s viewership is a bit low compared to the win rate (you’d probably expect closer to 23.5% than the current 19.7%), but if that trends up and the state grows (as it has been) then Utah could become a strong candidate for any conference (I think it’s clear from everything we’ve looked at that Utah would already be a strong addition for the Big 12, but I think it’s also clear that isn’t the goal)
As long as we’re here though, let’s also take a look at possible PAC12 expansion possibilities. Say what you will about BYU, Cincy, Houston and UCF to the Big 12, but they were the clear strongest expansion candidates. San Diego St (based on geography and market is a strong add for the PAC, but the second choice is difficult.
Makes for a legitimately difficult decision and I wouldn’t be surprised to see only SDSU invited if the PAC can’t poach a P5 from elsewhere
This analysis is interesting. Great work. One side note, Army and Navy’s high viewership score make me wonder if the formula needs a small tweak. I can’t recall many big televised games outside of the army-navy game, and perhaps a matchup with ND, where numbers would be driven by the opponent. Do they really get strong viewership on other games?
The issue is how absolutely huge that game is. This year (in a down year) it brought in 7M viewers. Most years it’s at 7.5M or more.
I’ve thought about categorizing it as postseason play (like bowls and CCGs) and therefore exlcuding it from my analysis, but it’s predictable, repeatable, dependent on the specific teams and therefore extremely valuable. So it definitely has to be recognized.
For example, last year Navy had a total year-viewership of 12.5M. And yeah, 7.6M of that came from the Army/Navy game, with another 3M from Notre Dame and Navy/Air Force, but that 12.5M is still impressive.
For context here’s the total regular season viewership for PAC teams in 2021
Now, last year was a bit of a down year for the PAC (this year Navy would be behind Oregon, USC, UCLA, Washington and Utah) but it can’t be overstated how huge that game is.
This year is actually the ONLY year in the last 5 that Utah has had more total regular season viewers than Navy. Over the past 5 regular seasons, 54.5M have watched them play (across 25 games). By comparison, Utah has had a total of 47.7M viewers (spread across 33 games).
Given that, the reality is that Navy and Army really DO draw that much and probably deserve the viewership score they get. At this point, it wouldn’t surprise me if Navy was worth nearly as much (or even more) to a TV executive as Utah – based almost entirely on that one game (the regular Notre Dame game obviously helps too).
Of course, it’s also important to note that Navy’s viewership absolutely won’t scale as well (which is important if you’re considering the future and conference memberships) and that Army/Navy actually bids that single game out separately anyway (not included in the AAC contract)…but the reality is that it draws viewership in line with a non-playoff NY6 game (non-Rose-Bowl variety).
So I’ve tinkered with formulae some and tested, and added multiple steps to scale down the effect… but it’s so huge that it still shows up in a big way. Ultimately I think it’s best to just give Army/Navy their credit, while making a note/caveat of how uniquely driven and non-representative it is and pointing out issues with scaling.
B1G won’t expand again unless Notre Dame is included. With the expansion of the playoffs I doubt it’s in the best interest for some Universities to chase a paycheck. UCLA is going to struggle with travel and the LA fickel fanbase when they could be a consistent top program in the Pac.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Welcome to Ute Hub › Forums › Utah Utes Sports › Football › The (Statistical) State of Utah’s Program – Part 4/4: Expansion Possibilities
Rate your excitement level for Utah Men's Basketball playing in the NIT
Total Voters: 101
© Copyright 2015-2024
Website and Mobile App by Tony Korologos