NEWSFLASH: ***EXPANSION EXCLUSIVE***

14 appears to be the magic number for the Big10.

All the talk about conference expansion these past few months has finally started to turn into action - I've just received word that the Big10 has just made offers to Missouri, Nebraska, and LeBron James.

Though the schools haven't officially confirmed their acceptance yet, it is widely believed that both will say yes to the Big10. But the real coup is the partnership with James, one of the NBA's biggest stars in the last few years.

"We're really excited about what Nebraska and Missouri bring to the table," said conference commissioner Jim Delaney. "But to be able to bring LeBron into the fold - that's just golden. We're sure he'll immediately impact the conference in a very positive way, both internally and with our national reputation."

There is no doubt that James has the athletic pedigree, and his lack of a championship should serve to keep him hungry. And it's believed that he'll bring at least another $40-50 million per season to the conference, which the other schools are thrilled with.

Fans in Ohio were thrilled with the merger too.

"This more than makes up for him losing to the Celtics!" Joe Milovic of Cleveland said.

James himself was positive about the transition. "You know, it's the best of both worlds really. I get to stay in Ohio, but I'm kinda distancing myself from all the heartache the city's professional sports teams have suffered since like, forever."

John Marinatto, commissioner of the BigEast, said, "Whew. That's all I can say right now. We dodged a bullet there." When asked about his own conferences expansion plans, he said, "Well, we didn't know we could ask LeBron or we would have years ago. But that just goes to show why the Big10 is the Big10 - they're pioneers."

So what does this mean for the rest of the conferences? Well, this is the one domino that could start the chain reaction we've all been waiting for. According to sources, the Big12 is looking at adding Texas Christian University and the Denver Broncos to replace Missouri and Nebraska. The Mountain West, just starting to gain some respectability, is expected to replace TCU with Boise State, as well as bring in Fresno State, Hawaii, and the whole city of Las Vegas to get to their 12 members. What happens after that is anybody's guess.

The Effect of the NFL Draft on College Teams

Alrighty, what we're talking about here is the seemingly logical and oft-cited idea that the more players a college team loses in the draft, the worse they'll do the next season. Phil Steele posted in March that from his analysis, "7 out of every 10 teams that rank among the top in the NCAA in players drafted struggle the next year and have a weaker record". On the surface it makes sense, but as you'll see it's not as simple as team - good players = more losses. Let's start at the beginning.

No, there's not a concrete direct correlation between number of draftees and how much a team falls the next year. If there was, they wouldn't need to play the games. But at the same time, it's pretty logical that the better a team performs, the more players it'll have drafted, the more talent they'll have to replace. So all of these things are related, but very loosely. Another thing that we have to take into account are all the players who graduate or end their college careers without being drafted. The average FBS team has 1.95 players drafted each year, but loses anywhere between 18-26 players annually due to graduation or used-up eligibility. So of the players that a team must replace, probably less than 10% of those are drafted. Does that mean the other 90% aren't any good? No, it just means they weren't in the upper echelon at their position. Here's some other things to know about the draft for context:

In any given year, draftees usually come from around 100 different schools, 80% of those being DI-A (FBS) schools, the other 20% being DI-AA, DII & DIII. But since the BCS began, only 28 teams have had at least one player drafted every year. The average number of players drafted per team per year comes out to about 1.95 for the FBS schools - for the non-FBS schools, the average is .18.

So now with that settled, let me explain my process a bit more. I'm only going back 11 years here, starting with 1999 NFL draft, mainly because it covers the whole BCS era and should help us zero in on more recent trends. The main stat I'm using is losses, not wins or winning percentage or any other "winning" measurement. But negative numbers signal more losses, so if you see -2, it means that a team had 2 more losses the following season, not that their total number of losses went down 2.

The first thing I set out to do was double-check Steele's 7 of 10 stat, not only because he doesn't provide any explanation of how he crunched the numbers but also because I like seeing the data for myself. Roughly, when he's talking about the teams that "rank among the top in the NCAA in players drafted", I'm going to take that to mean teams that had 6 or more players drafted in any given year. It's basically a Top 10, if you average it out.

Draftees 1999-2009
Year	# of team's with 6+ draftees	Teams
1999	12	8: Ohio St, Florida, Nebraska 7: Notre Dame 6: Georgia, Tennessee, Virginia, Texas A&M, Kansas St, North Carolina, Clemson, West Virginia
2000	8	9: Tennessee 7: Arkansas, Florida St, Michigan St 6: Ohio St, Texas A&M, Michigan, Arizona St, Florida
2001	9	9: Florida St 8: Miami (FL), Wisconsin 7: Nebraska 6: Ohio St, Kansas St, Georgia, Notre Dame, TCU
2002	12	11: Miami (FL) 10: Tennessee 8: Ohio St, Georgia, Florida, Virginia Tech 6: Kansas St, Notre Dame, North Carolina
2003	10	8: Miami (FL), Tennessee, Florida 7: Georgia, Notre Dame 6: Colorado, Michigan, Florida St, Texas A&M
2004	7	14: Ohio St 9: Miami (FL), Purdue 7: LSU 6: Nebraska, Pittsburgh, Arkansas
2005	7	11: Oklahoma 9: Florida St 7: Wisconsin, Virginia 6: Georgia, Stanford, Louisville
2006	11	11: USC 9: Miami (FL), Ohio St, Virginia Tech 8: Florida St 7: Georgia, LSU 6: Oklahoma, Texas
2007	6	9: Florida 8: Ohio St 7: Michigan, Texas, Notre Dame 6: Tennessee
2008	7	10: USC 8: Texas, Virginia Tech 7: LSU 6: Michigan, California, Arkansas
2009	9	11: USC 7: Ohio St, Oregon St, South Carolina 6: LSU, Georgia, Oregon, Cincinnati, Missouri

If we examine how each of these teams did the following season, here's what we get (along with the other categories of teams, just to be complete).

Losses the Following Season, 1998-2009 DI-A: by draftees
Draftees	# of team-seasons	More L's following	Same L's following	Fewer L's following	% more	% fewer	avg # of losses the following season
6+	98	65	12	21	66.3%	21.4%	-1.2
2-5	494	225	83	186	45.5%	37.7%	-0.3
1	290	120	45	125	41.4%	43.1%	0.0
0	404	135	67	202	33.4%	50.0%	0.5

It appears that this method pretty much confirms Steele's 7 of 10 assertion.

But as I said, that's not the whole story. I can go along with the 7 of 10 statistic, but there's a few caveats that we definitely have to add on.

The first is that even though there might be better than a 66% chance that a team with 6+ draft picks will lose more games next year, that number is made up of teams that have a penchant for staying on top. Of those 98 teams-seasons in the table above with 6 or more players drafted in a single year since 1999, there are 39 teams represented. Of those 39, 24 of them had at least one season where they had 6 or more players drafted but lost the same or fewer games the next season. (7 of those 24 had multiple season like that, including an amazing 4 such seasons from Ohio State.) So if your team is good enough to have 6+ players drafted, they're also probably good enough to overcome it.

And you've got to remember too, we're dealing with the cream of the crop here. That means that even if they technically have more losses the following season, it is most likely a drop from going 12-1 or 11-2 to 10-3 or 9-4. The vast majority (86%) of those 98 teams that lost 6+ draftees lost 6 games or less the following season, and the majority (56%) lost 4 games or less.

Overall, of the 117 DI-A teams that have had players drafted since 1999, 107 of them have had at least one year in which they did better (fewer losses) after having 2 or more players taken in the draft. Remember the average is 1.95 players per draft, so even after losing more talent than average, they still won more. (For clarification, just because 107 teams have done it doesn't mean it's really frequent - just that it's possible for any team. Adding up some of the above numbers, teams do better after losing 2+ draftees about 35% of the time.)

My second caveat to the 7 of 10 stat is this - there are a lot of other stats to look at that correlate better with the next season's losses than draftees does.

I looked at nearly 200 different seasonal variables, tracking their correlation with number of losses the following season. And as I said at the beginning, the correlations aren't significantly strong, but they're stronger with some stats than with others. I pared down the list due to a lot of overlap (for instance, if we're looking at # of TD's scored, we don't really need to look at # of extra points attempted as well). So here are the results of the relevant stats:

*blue = offensive stats, red = defensive stats, green = draft stats
*O/D Pairing refers to which stat's variable, offense or defense, has the higher correlation

Correlations with Losses the Following Season
Rank	Variable	Correlation	O/D Pairing
1	Losses	.462
2	Win%	-.447
3	Wins	-.427
4	avg Margin of Victory	-.330
5	Points per game	-.299	off
6	Points per Play	-.295	off
7	Points	-.292	off
8	TO+/-	-.287
9	avg spread +/-	.284
10	Total TD's	-.271	off
11	Yards per Pass	-.255	off
12	Spreads covered	-.245
13	Opp. Points per Play	.241	off
14	Opp. Points per game	.239	off
15	Yards per Play	-.231	off
16	Total Yards	-.231	off
17	Spread cover %	-.227
18	Opp. Total TD's	.224	off
19	Opp. Interceptions	-.221	def
20	Opp. Points	.219	off
21	Opp. Rushes	.213	def
22	Opp. Yards per Pass	.213	off
23	Rush TD's	-.212	off
24	Total First Downs	-.206	off
25	Opp. Rush-Net	.205	def
26	Opp. Rush-Gain	.202	def
27	drafted by position	-.201
28	draft multiplier	-.199
29	Opp. Rush TD's	.198	off
30	drafted by weight	-.193
31	# drafted	-.193
32	Spreads not covered	.193
33	Interceptions	.193	def
34	Opp. Yards per Play	.184	off
35	Opp. Total Yards	.178	off
36	Punts	.175	off
37	Punt Yards	.168	off
38	Opp. Pass Attempts	-.162*	def
39	Opp. Yards per Rush	.161	def
40	Rush-Net	-.152	def
41	Yards per Rush	-.150	def
42	Rush-Gain	-.145	def
43	Opp. Punts	-.142	off
44	Opp. Punt Yards	-.138*	off
45	Opp. Total First Downs	.132	off
46	Rushes	-.113	def
47	Fumbles Lost	.105	off
48	Fumbles	.084	off
49	Opp. Fumbles Lost	-.067	off
50	Penalty Yards	-.059*	off
51	Opp. Pass Completions	-.044	def
52	Opp. Penalty Yards	.043*	off
53	Opp. Fumbles	-.042	off
54	Pass Attempts	.035	def
55	Pass Completions	-.035	def
56	Penalties	-.030*	off
57	Opp. Penalties	.019*	off

Right off the bat you can see that there's a whole lot of variables that correlate with the next season's losses a lot better than # drafted. Losses, Wins, and Winning% are all above .4, right at the top, then there's a pretty big drop down to Avg. MoV, the only other variable above .3.

In addition to the simple # drafted, I've also added the variables of drafted by position, drafted by weight, and draft multiplier. (For drafted by position, I assigned each position a number of importance 10-1, based on their average draft spot. For drafted by weight, the #1 pick scored a 100, then on down exponentially to the low teens for the last players taken. For the multiplier, I just multiplied the position number and the weight number.) Interestingly, of those four variables, straight # drafted had the lowest correlation.

Even more interstingly, all of the top-ranked variables have the opposite correlation you might expect. For instance, since Points per game (-.299) is negative, that means the more points per game a team scored this year, the more losses they're likely to have next year. Or since Opp. Total TD's (.224) is positive, that means the more TD's a teams' opponents scored, the fewer losses they're likely to have next year. The only relevant stats that correlate the other way, (pass attempts, penalties, and penalty yards), have asterisks. So not too generally, the better you do this year, the worse you're likely to do next year. (But again, these correlations aren't too strong overall.)

Let's look at that most relevant correlation, between losses this year and losses next year, a bit more in depth. We know that it's hard to stay at the top season after season, and that's in part because the natural pull for all teams is .500. Here's the proof:

Losses the Following Season, 1998-2009 DI-A: by previous season losses
L's per season	# of team-seasons	More L's following	Same L's following	Fewer L's following	% more	% fewer	avg # of losses the following season
undefeated (0)	13	13	0	0	100%	0%	-3.2
1 loss	40	30	5	5	75.0%	12.5%	-2.0
2 losses	73	51	12	10	69.9%	13.7%	-1.7
3 losses	107	62	21	24	57.9%	22.4%	-1.3
4 losses	150	98	18	34	65.3%	22.7%	-0.9
5 losses	205	87	47	71	42.4%	34.6%	-0.2
6 losses	196	80	37	79	40.8%	40.3%	0.0
7 losses	170	48	33	90	28.2%	52.9%	0.5
8 losses	131	43	10	78	32.8%	59.5%	0.8
9 losses	104	24	14	66	23.1%	63.5%	1.2
10 losses	58	8	6	44	13.8%	75.9%	1.9
11 losses	32	1	5	26	3.1%	81.3%	2.8
12 losses	6	0	0	6	0%	100%	3.8
13 losses	1	0	0	1	0%	100%	4.0

1) The number of seasons when a team loses between 4-8 games are the majority (852 of 1,286, or 66%), and the seasons when a team loses 2 or fewer or more than 10 games are exceedingly rare (165 of 1,286, or 13%).
2) the fewer losses you have in a year the better your chances of having more losses the next season, and vice versa. (Meaning that in a 12-game season, if you lose 5 or fewer games, you're more likely to lose more than that the next season, and if you lose 7 or more games, you're more likely to lose fewer than that the next season.)
3) the number of losses you'll incur goes higher or lower as you get further away from 6, as seen in the last column.
4) all of this makes sense when you realize that a teams that wins 0 or 1 game(s) has little chance to do worse, and teams that win 12 or 13 games have little chance to do better - that's just pure probability.

So my point is that you can't really use number of players drafted as an accurate barometer of how well your team is going to do next season, but if you insist on some sort of measurement, just know that there are a lot of options that are better than that one.

(And if you're wondering, here's the table with teams, draft picks, each year, and whether or not they did better (blue) or worse (red) the following season.)

1998-2009 DI-A: draftees / # losses following season
Conf	Team	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	total draftees	avg per year
Big10	Ohio St	8	6	6	8	5	14	3	9	8	3	7	77	7.0
ACC	Miami (FL)	3	5	8	11	8	9	5	9	5	3	1	67	6.1
Pac10	USC	5	5	3	2	5	4	5	11	5	10	11	66	6.0
SEC	Georgia	6	3	6	8	7	4	6	7	4	4	6	61	5.5
SEC	Tennessee	6	9	5	10	8	4	3	5	6	3	1	60	5.5
ACC	Florida St	4	7	9	2	6	5	9	8	5	3	1	59	5.4
SEC	Florida	8	5	4	8	8	5	3	3	9	2	3	58	5.3
SEC	LSU	3	2	3	5	4	7	4	7	5	7	6	53	4.8
Big10	Michigan	4	6	5	4	6	4	3	4	7	6	2	51	4.6
Big12	Texas	3	4	4	2	4	5	3	6	7	8	4	50	4.5
Big12	Nebraska	8	3	7	4	4	6	4	4	4	3	3	50	4.5
Big10	Wisconsin	4	4	8	4	4	3	7	5	2	4	4	49	4.5
ACC	Virginia Tech	2	5	3	8	2	5	3	9	3	8	1	49	4.5
Indy	Notre Dame	7	1	6	6	7	5	2	3	7	4	1	49	4.5
Big12	Oklahoma	3	2	2	2	4	3	11	6	3	4	5	45	4.1
Big10	Penn St	2	4	4	2	6	4	0	6	5	2	5	40	3.6
Pac10	California	5	4	2	2	4	2	5	3	4	6	3	40	3.6
SEC	Alabama	2	4	4	4	5	4	4	5	3	0	4	39	3.5
ACC	Virginia	6	4	1	3	2	1	7	5	2	3	4	38	3.5
Big12	Texas A&M	6	6	5	2	6	1	3	2	0	5	2	38	3.5
SEC	Auburn	2	4	3	3	0	4	5	4	5	5	3	38	3.5
Pac10	Oregon	3	2	1	6	3	4	2	4	3	3	6	37	3.4
Big12	Kansas St	6	5	6	6	4	2	1	1	3	2	1	37	3.4
SEC	Arkansas	5	7	2	1	1	6	2	1	4	6	1	36	3.3
Pac10	Arizona St	2	6	4	4	3	2	3	2	2	5	2	35	3.2
Big10	Purdue	2	2	5	2	1	9	1	4	3	3	2	34	3.1
Big10	Iowa	2	2	1	3	5	5	4	2	3	3	4	34	3.1
Big10	Michigan St	2	7	3	5	1	2	4	2	3	3	1	33	3.0
ACC	North Carolina	6	1	4	6	1	3	3	1	0	2	5	32	2.9
Pac10	Oregon St	3	0	4	1	3	4	3	2	2	2	7	31	2.8
Pac10	Stanford	0	2	2	6	4	3	6	4	3	0	0	30	2.7
ACC	Clemson	6	0	3	0	2	2	3	3	5	2	4	30	2.7
ACC	NC State	2	2	2	2	2	3	3	6	3	2	2	29	2.6
Big12	Colorado	3	4	0	5	6	2	0	4	2	2	1	29	2.6
BigEast	Louisville	0	2	1	1	4	0	6	4	4	5	2	29	2.6
SEC	South Carolina	0	2	0	5	3	3	3	2	2	1	7	28	2.5
Pac10	UCLA	3	1	1	6	2	4	4	3	1	3	0	28	2.5
ACC	Maryland	2	2	2	3	1	5	2	3	2	1	5	28	2.5
BigEast	Pittsburgh	0	1	1	3	3	6	1	2	3	3	4	27	2.5
BigEast	Syracuse	3	2	4	2	2	3	1	4	2	0	2	25	2.3
ACC	Boston College	3	3	1	2	3	2	0	3	2	3	2	24	2.2
ACC	Georgia Tech	3	3	0	2	0	4	0	3	2	3	4	24	2.2
Pac10	Arizona	4	5	1	0	3	0	0	1	4	4	2	24	2.2
MtnWest	Brigham Young	3	3	2	5	2	1	3	1	1	1	2	24	2.2
MtnWest	Utah	1	3	2	2	3	0	5	2	2	0	4	24	2.2
BigEast	West Virginia	6	4	0	0	2	1	3	1	0	3	3	23	2.1
MtnWest	TCU	0	0	6	1	2	1	1	3	2	0	5	21	1.9
Big12	Texas Tech	2	2	1	1	2	2	3	1	3	0	4	21	1.9
SEC	Mississippi	0	3	3	1	1	4	3	0	2	0	4	21	1.9
Pac10	Washington	2	2	5	3	0	4	2	1	2	0	0	21	1.9
SEC	Mississippi St	4	4	4	1	3	0	2	2	1	0	0	21	1.9
BigEast	Cincinnati	1	0	1	1	3	0	4	0	2	2	6	20	1.8
WAC	Hawaii	0	3	1	1	3	2	1	0	5	1	3	20	1.8
Big10	Illinois	1	2	2	1	5	2	2	0	1	1	3	20	1.8
CUSA	Southern Miss	1	4	4	2	1	3	2	0	0	1	2	20	1.8
WAC	Fresno St	1	0	1	4	1	1	2	3	4	1	2	20	1.8
Big12	Missouri	1	1	1	0	2	0	3	2	1	2	6	19	1.7
MtnWest	San Diego St	0	3	0	3	1	1	3	2	0	5	1	19	1.7
Big10	Minnesota	0	2	4	3	1	1	1	4	1	1	0	18	1.6
ACC	Wake Forest	1	3	0	0	3	0	1	1	2	3	4	18	1.6
Big10	Northwestern	3	1	2	3	1	0	3	3	0	0	0	16	1.5
MtnWest	Colorado St	4	2	2	0	0	3	1	1	1	0	1	15	1.4
SEC	Kentucky	2	1	2	1	2	1	1	0	0	4	1	15	1.4
CUSA	UCF	2	1	0	1	4	1	0	1	1	3	1	15	1.4
Pac10	Washington St	1	1	1	2	2	1	3	1	1	1	1	15	1.4
BigEast	Rutgers	0	0	1	0	1	2	0	0	3	2	5	14	1.3
Big12	Oklahoma St	0	2	0	0	1	3	3	1	2	0	1	13	1.2
SEC	Vanderbilt	1	0	4	0	1	0	2	1	0	3	1	13	1.2
MtnWest	UNLV	1	1	0	4	0	1	2	0	1	1	1	12	1.1
WAC	Boise St	0	1	1	2	1	0	0	1	4	2	0	12	1.1
MtnWest	New Mexico	0	2	1	1	0	0	2	2	1	1	2	12	1.1
CUSA	Marshall	0	4	1	1	3	1	1	0	1	0	0	12	1.1
CUSA	Memphis	1	0	3	0	2	1	0	2	1	0	1	11	1.0
WAC	San Jose St	2	0	1	0	1	1	0	0	2	1	3	11	1.0
BigEast	Connecticut	0	0	0	0	0	0	2	0	1	2	4	9	1.0
BigEast	South Florida	0	0	0	0	3	1	0	0	1	2	1	8	1.0
Big12	Iowa St	0	0	3	1	1	0	1	1	1	2	0	10	0.9
MAC	Miami (OH)	2	2	0	0	0	2	1	1	1	0	1	10	0.9
CUSA	Tulane	1	1	1	1	0	2	1	0	0	1	1	9	0.8
Big12	Kansas	0	0	1	2	0	1	1	0	0	4	0	9	0.8
Big12	Baylor	2	0	1	0	1	0	1	1	2	0	1	9	0.8
CUSA	East Carolina	2	0	0	2	0	1	0	1	1	1	1	9	0.8
SunBelt	Troy	0	0	0	0	2	0	1	0	1	1	1	6	0.8
WAC	Louisiana Tech	1	2	0	1	0	2	0	0	1	0	0	7	0.6
CUSA	Houston	0	1	0	0	1	1	1	0	1	1	1	7	0.6
MAC	Northern Illinois	0	0	2	1	0	1	0	0	2	0	1	7	0.6
Big10	Indiana	0	0	0	1	1	0	1	2	0	2	0	7	0.6
CUSA	UTEP	0	0	1	1	0	0	1	1	2	0	0	6	0.5
MAC	Akron	0	0	1	1	0	0	1	1	1	1	0	6	0.5
WAC	Idaho	0	1	2	0	0	1	0	0	0	1	1	6	0.5
MAC	Toledo	0	0	0	1	1	0	1	1	0	2	0	6	0.5
MAC	Temple	0	0	1	1	2	0	1	0	0	0	1	6	0.5
SunBelt	Florida Intl	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	2	0	0	2	0.5
MAC	Ball St	0	0	0	0	0	0	3	0	0	0	2	5	0.5
CUSA	SMU	2	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	1	0	1	5	0.5
MAC	Kent St	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	1	5	0.5
CUSA	Tulsa	0	1	0	1	0	0	1	1	0	1	0	5	0.5
MAC	Central Michigan	0	0	0	0	0	0	2	0	3	0	0	5	0.5
SunBelt	LA-Lafayette	1	0	0	1	2	0	1	0	0	0	0	5	0.5
WAC	Nevada	0	0	0	0	0	2	0	1	1	0	1	5	0.5
WAC	Utah St	1	0	0	0	1	1	0	0	0	2	0	5	0.5
MAC	Western Michigan	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	2	0	0	2	5	0.5
MAC	Eastern Michigan	1	0	0	0	1	0	1	0	0	1	1	5	0.5
CUSA	Rice	0	0	0	0	2	0	0	0	0	0	2	4	0.4
MAC	Bowling Green	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	1	0	1	0	4	0.4
MtnWest	Wyoming	0	0	1	0	0	1	0	1	1	0	0	4	0.4
SunBelt	Arkansas St	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1	1	1	4	0.4
CUSA	UAB	0	0	1	2	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	4	0.4
SunBelt	Mid Tenn St	0	0	0	1	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	3	0.3
MAC	Buffalo	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	2	0	3	0.3
SunBelt	LA-Monroe	0	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	0	0	3	0.3
MAC	Ohio	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	3	0.3
ACC	Duke	1	1	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	3	0.3
SunBelt	New Mexico St	0	0	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	2	0.2
WAC	Air Force	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0.1
Indy	Army	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	0.1
SunBelt	North Texas	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0.1

Dominoes to a New College Football Landscape...

You've heard all of the rumblings about conference expansion these last few weeks - the Big10 is looking for a 12th member, the Pac10 might be looking for two more, etc. So it's time to reevaluate the conferences as I did a few seasons back. I'll have a bigger post later this off-season with a lot more details about the current state of the conferences, so consider this a bit of an appetizer.

We're not going to look at all the individual players involved here, but examine the trigger spots, where the big dominoes are that could have a ripple effect on the whole of the college football landscape. One of the main things to remember is that this isn't just about football - it's about each school's entire athletic department as well as the institution as a whole. Academics, geography, tradition, and the ubiquitous "fit" all play a role too. In a way, all the big teams and conferences want the same thing when considering expansion: an increase in revenue and TV footprint combined with as little risk and disruption to their current money and members as possible. So with that in mind, let's start with two of the most talked about situations.

Dominoes #1 & 2 - The Big10 adding #12 & the Pac10 becoming the Pac12.

These two have been stable for a long time, so they're in no big rush to add more teams. They're more concerned with quality and getting top-notch schools than anything else. They can afford to do that because they're two of the top conferences in terms of history, academics, geographic stability, revenue, and a host of other things.

Of the two, the Big10 is much more likely to add #12 because
1) they only have to add one more,
2) they have a lot of solid candidates for consideration, and
3) a conference championship game in football would bring in gobbs of money for everyone.
(There are other reasons too, of course, but these seem to be the biggest.)

The same can't really be said about the Pac10. They'd have to add two, probably from a the small list of Utah, BYU, Colorado, and the extreme long(horn)shot Texas, and a conference championship wouldn't be a guaranteed money machine like it would in the Midwest.

Right now, the Pac10's exploration timetable is a lot quicker than the Big10's though - the west coast guys are thinking of examining it over the next 6-12 months before they have to sign a new TV contract, while the Big10 is planning on taking about twice as long. Of course these conferences know what's going on within the conference ranks, and whatever one does is going to affect the other. One of them expanding will put major pressure on the other to get to 12 as well. I'd say that the odds that the Pac10 expands go up a good 30-40% if the Big10 expands first, and that the Big10 is pretty much guaranteed to expand if the Pac10 does so first. That's partly because neither wants to get left behind. If either one goes to 12, that puts them on par with the SEC, Big12, and ACC, leaving the other and the BigEast as the only BCS conferences at an "uneven" number. Even if they don't want to expand, they might feel they have to in order to stay viable.

Here's the thing: while the Big10 is the more likely of the two to expand, the Pac10 is the key because they're the more likely of the two to be able to resist going along with everyone else. Do they want to expand? Not really. The main thing to understand about the Pac10 is that if they don't expand now (soon), they're not going to. The conference hasn't really examined expansion in a long time, so the fact that they're even thinking about it right now is huge. But if they look at the situation and decide that they want to stay at ten, that's gonna be set in stone for decades. No matter what else happens, how the BCS changes, what other conferences do - if the Pac10 says "no" now, that's gonna be final. If they decide to buck the trend and stay at ten, it'll be kinda awkward, sure, but nothing earth shattering. They'll still have the Rose Bowl as a partner, which is a big stabilizer.

If both of these dominoes fall and the Pac10 & Big10 go to 12, things will start to happen fast. Here's what else will go down:

Domino #3 - The Big12 will probably have to add at least one more school.

That's mainly because some of their schools are major candidates for other conferences, Missouri to the Big10 and/or Colorado to the Pac10. But this really isn't such a big deal, since they could just add TCU and/or Houston and stay relatively strong. The whopper would be if Texas jumped ship - extremely unlikely, but the Big12 would definitely drop a few notches on the conference standing list if it happened.

Domino #4 - The BigEast will be scrambling and their BCS status will be in jeopardy.

This is not only because there's a decent chance that it will be one of their teams that joins the Big10, but also because whatever makeup their conference ends up having it's assured of being seen as much weaker than the other BCS conferences. They'll have pressure to expand, just like the Big10 & Pac10, but they'll have to add a whopping 4 (or even 5) teams to get to 12. And even if they added the consensus best 4 or 5 non-BCS teams available, it's still going to water down the conference as a whole and keep them at the bottom of the BCS totem. Not to mention what it would do to teams' relationships with the BigEast members that don't play football... It'd be a really messy situation that I'm sure they're praying they don't have to deal with.

The only way it could work out for them is if Notre Dame football joined the BigEast. Another longshot, but if they don't join the Big10...

Domino #5 - Notre Dame would be in a really tough spot.

Here the thing: at some point in the near future, Notre Dame is going to have to join a conference. They don't want to, mainly because independence is a big part of their identity, but conferences as a whole are becoming too powerful and make too much revenue to take on as a single independent school - even one with Notre Dame's pedigree. They're very much in danger of being left behind.

But the Irish are playing a dangerous game of chicken here. Right now, any conference would be thrilled to have them for what they'd bring to the table - but the reality is that once a conference is at 12, they're pretty much full. Would the ACC, Big12, or SEC let Notre Dame join right now? I'd have to say probably not (though the ACC would give it serious consideration), because 1) they're not going to give any current conference members the boot and 2) adding a 13th team is really risky. So that leaves the Big10, Pac10, and BigEast as the only viable options right now. But as soon as the Big10 and Pac10 get to 12, where else is there for the Irish to go? Sure they're already in the BigEast for all non-football sports, but it would be a huge blow to the Irish ego to have to join them on the gridiron. They might just decide to go down with the ship - who knows. It would certainly give the BigEast conference a huge boost and help them keep their BCS status though.

Could the Irish join the Big10 right now and save themselves the heartache? Definitely - the Big10 would have them and their following. But that would mean the Irish blinked first... Unless Notre Dame goes on a tear and wins 10 games a season for the foreseeable future, their special BCS status will continue to erode.

Domino #6 - The MtnWest's dreams of BCS membership will come crashing down.

If the previous dominoes have fallen, the chances are slim that the MtnWest has survived unscathed and unplundered. It would be good for Utah or TCU if they got to move up to a BCS conference, but bad for the rest of the schools and the conference as a whole. They'd be down to 7 or less schools and in the same position as the BigEast in needing to replentish their ranks with lesser-qualified choices. Could they join up with the best of the CUSA and/or WAC schools to make a solid 12-member conference? Sure, but again, like the BigEast it wouldn't be seen as nearly as strong as the top 5 BCS conferences.

The Final Result - A college football playoff would be all but inevitable.

As soon as both the Pac10 and Big10 get to 12, book it - it's done. A lot of people think that's the case right now, but a playoff becomes a exponentially a lot more likely if the Big10 or Pac10 expand, partly because they are part of the Rose Bowl trifecta that are so against a playoff right now. Any change in the status quo would get the ball rolling. (A quick aside - if the other BCS conferences were pro-playoff, and the only things standing in the way were these three, it would seem that the best solution would be to offer the Rose Bowl the national championship every year. They've been pushed far enough from their beloved Big10-Pac10 matchup over the last decade that they'd probably accept it and the status it would bring. Of course that assumes that the other BCS conferences really are pro-playoff...)

These completely rearranged super-conferences that people bandy about - those aren't gonna happen, sorry. But if the SEC, Big12, Big10, ACC, and Pac10 are all at 12 schools with a conference championship game... that naturally leads to a playoff. Probably 8 team, guaranteeing conference champions as well as a few at-larges reserved for the best non-BCS team & highest ranked BCS non-champions. (Even if the Pac10 stays at 10, a while all the others have championship games, it wouldn't be that bad since the Pac10 is the only conference with a true round-robin.)

Sure they bowls will have to be changed/absorbed somehow. And it will leave all the other conferences (BigEast included) scrambling for a piece of the action, but it would happen. And there'll be more moaning and complaining from the "little guys" that they don't have a shot. And teams will still play cupcakes in order to pad their resumes. And people will complain about the system and their team getting screwed. And competition will often take a back seat to money.

So... not much will change really.

the Bowls & Television Ratings: Three Ways

This'll be the last post for a while, since the 2009 season is in the bag. But check back mid-April... thanks for reading.

Alright, let's take a quick look at the television ratings for all these bowls and see if we can't make something of them. The first area we'll look at are the BCS bowls and how they've fared over the years. The chart below shows the five BCS bowls - the Rose, Orange, Fiesta, Sugar, and National Championship. For the first 8 years when one of those bowls doubled as the national championship, the blue of the championship game is marked with the color of the game that hosted it.

The National Championship game, whichever bowl it's been, has held pretty steady for the last few years, staying well over a 15 share for the last four seasons. Same with the Rose Bowl, usually pulling between a 12 & 14 share. The Fiesta, Sugar, and Orange are slowly losing ground though - only the Fiesta has cracked double-digits since 2006, and none of them are near their height of the late 90's - early 2000's. But they've always performed better than the non-BCS bowls - up until 2007, that is.

The only non-BCS bowl that has outperformed a BCS bowl in the ratings is the Capital One Bowl. In 2007, it's matchup of Michigan and Florida pulled a 9.1, higher than the Sugar, Orange, and Fiesta Bowls. In 2008, the Capital One bowl with Georgia & Michigan State pulled a 6.4 rating while the Orange Bowl only garnered a 5.4. In fact, of the non-BCS bowls, the Capital One is far and away the most popular. It's the only non-BCS bowl to have a rating share over 5 each of the last eight years, and has been the highest-rated non-BCS bowl 5 of those 8 years, coming in second the other three years.

What about the beloved Cotton Bowl, who everybody thinks should be the next BCS bowl? Well, it's hasn't been performing very well. In terms of ratings over the last four years, the Capital One, Alamo, Chick-Fil-A, Emerald, and Holiday all have better average ratings. It hasn't had a share greater than 5 in any of the last eight years. I suppose if they wanted to inject some interest into it, making it a BCS game might do that. But as far as it being the most deserving of bowls for BCS status, that perception is coming from its storied history much more than actual numbers.

The table below lists all of the bowls from 2002-2009, their ratings each year, their average over the last BCS cycle (2006-09), and whether or not they were above (blue) or below (red) the non-BCS average of a 2.9 rating for each of those years. At a glance, the Emerald Bowl is skyrocketing in popularity, while the New Orleans is tanking.

Bowl Ratings 2002-2009 (by share)
Bowl	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	06-09 Avg
Capital One	5.9	8	5.5	5.18	5.81	9.13	6.4	6.8	7.04
Alamo	4.4	4.21	4.2	5.41	5.99	2.67	4.6	4.8	4.52
Chick-fil-A / Peach	4	4.02	5	5.22	4.78	5.09	3.9	4.2	4.49
San Francisco / Emerald	1.6	1.23	2	2.16	4.48	3.59	4.6	4.6	4.32
Holiday	4.2	4.86	4	5.06	4.11	4.38	4.6	3.7	4.20
Cotton	4.2	4.5	2.6	3.7	3.7	3.5	4.4	4.5	4.03
Continental Tire / Meineke Car Care	2	2.23	1.8	1.52	3.87	3.74	4.5	3.9	4.00
Tangerine / Champs Sports	1.6	2.09	1.9	2.2	2.99	3.69	5.2	3.9	3.95
Gator	6.2	4.2	4	3.93	3.87	2.6	4.1	4	3.64
Outback	4.2	4.53	3.6	2.38	4.36	3.37	3.1	3.5	3.58
Liberty	1.7	2.44	4.6	3.31	3.24	4.14	2.7	3.8	3.47
Music City	2.3	2.44	3.1	2.13	2.23	4.02	2.8	1.7	2.69
Sun	3.6	3.5	2.8	2.61	2.38	2.3	2.2	3.3	2.55
Motor City	1.9	2.33	1.7	2.17	2.11	2.68	2.5	2.6	2.47
Poinsettia				0.89	1.45	2	3.7	2.4	2.39
Las Vegas	2.9	1.76	1.9	2.4	1.97	2.48	2.5	2.2	2.29
New Mexico					1.81	1.96	2.6	2.4	2.19
Hawaii	2.4	2.19	2.2	2.2	2.53	1.47	3	1.7	2.18
Independence	3.6	3.66	2.8	2.8	2.97	1.9	1	2.4	2.07
Papajohns.com					1.67	2.26	2	1.6	1.88
Fort Worth / Armed Forces		2.81	1.6	2.28	2.03	1.99	1.7	1.6	1.83
GMAC	2.3	1.48	2.1	1.98	1.58	1.13	2.2	2.4	1.83
Humanitarian	1.8	2.09	1.7	2.33	1.63	0.77	2.4	2.1	1.73
International					1.31	1.59	2.1	1.1	1.53
New Orleans	1.4	1.54	1.4	1.71	1.32	1.63	0.8	0.7	1.11
Texas					1.42	0.3	0.3	2.1	1.03
Insight	3.4	3.08	2.9	3.33	0.93	0.4	1.2	0.4	0.73
Little Caesars								2.6
EagleBank							2.2	1.9
St. Petersburg							1.3	1.6
Houston	2.6	2.46	2.0	2.15
Seattle	2.4
Silicon Valley	0.8	0.91	0.6

So how much of these bowls' ratings have to do with what teams they select? A decent amount, no doubt. As we all know, bowls don't choose participants based on their records - they choose them based on how many seats they'll fill and how many eyes they'll draw to the TV screen.

The final big table below lists how each team's bowl ratings have fared against those bowls when they haven't participated. For instance, in looking at Florida State, in 2004 the Seminoles were in the Gator Bowl, which garnered a 4.0 rating share. In the other years between 2002-2009 when Florida State wasn't participating, the Gator Bowl averaged a 4.14 share. (That doesn't include 2009 when the Seminoles participated, since it would skew the "without the Seminoles" average.) That means that in 2004, the Seminoles drew -.14 less than the Gator Bowl average. Most other years though, bowls benefited from inviting the Seminoles, earning a total of 11.05 share points more than their average without Florida State. Make sense?

Ratings Shares Compared to Bowl's Average, 2002-2009
Conf	Team	Bowls	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	Total	Avg
ACC	Florida St	8	-0.14	1.52	-0.15	4.12	1.65	1.63	2.58	-0.15	11.05	1.38
Big12	Texas	8	0.36	0.58	-0.61	5.46	1.66	0.10	0.98	0.96	9.50	1.19
Indy	Notre Dame	5	2.39		1.08	3.95	-0.04		0.90		8.27	1.65
Big10	Michigan	6	0.65	1.73	-0.27	1.00	1.27	2.90			7.28	1.21
Big10	Ohio St	8	0.61	-0.33	-0.38	3.87	0.81	0.81	1.37	0.28	7.05	0.88
ACC	Miami (FL)	7	0.18	1.06	0.67	0.89	-0.25		1.79	1.09	5.42	0.77
Pac10	USC	8	1.06	1.35	-2.89	5.11	0.89	-1.94	-1.35	1.79	4.02	0.50
SEC	Mississippi	4	1.10	0.96					0.86	0.96	3.88	0.97
Big10	Purdue	5	0.89	1.61	0.09		0.05	0.49			3.12	0.62
SEC	Florida	8	0.61	0.94	0.54	-1.21	0.59	2.90	-1.01	-0.49	2.89	0.36
Pac10	California	7		1.29	-0.47	0.16	-0.36	-0.01	1.79	0.39	2.79	0.40
BigEast	Rutgers	5				1.57	0.52	0.09	0.16	0.30	2.63	0.53
ACC	North Carolina	3			-0.87				1.83	1.23	2.18	0.73
Big12	Missouri	6		1.22		0.36	-0.52	-0.44	0.07	1.43	2.11	0.35
Pac10	UCLA	7	0.73	0.21	-0.27	-0.26	1.65	0.31		-0.30	2.09	0.30
Pac10	Arizona St	5	-0.19		-0.04	1.57	0.36	-0.01			1.70	0.34
Pac10	Oregon St	7	1.84	-0.60	1.34		-0.64	0.64	-0.82	-0.16	1.61	0.23
MAC	C Michigan	4					-0.03	0.54	0.36	0.58	1.45	0.36
Pac10	Oregon	7	0.00	0.69		0.85	-0.34	-0.52	0.39	0.28	1.36	0.19
CUSA	UCF	3				-0.01		1.03		0.30	1.31	0.44
WAC	Boise St	8	0.02	0.94	1.55	0.55	-1.43	-0.85	2.02	-1.63	1.18	0.15
SEC	Mississippi State	1						1.03			1.03	1.03
Pac10	Washington	1	0.87								0.87	0.87
Big12	Nebraska	6	1.10	-0.23		0.97	-0.21		-0.01	-0.76	0.84	0.14
ACC	Maryland	5	-0.60	0.10			0.05	0.64	0.63		0.81	0.16
WAC	Hawaii	6	0.61	0.40	0.41		0.74	-2.59	1.21		0.78	0.13
MAC	Buffalo	1							0.77		0.77	0.77
BigEast	Connecticut	4			-0.63			0.91	0.77	-0.38	0.67	0.17
SunBelt	Florida Atl	2						0.36	0.29		0.65	0.33
Big10	Wisconsin	8	-0.15	-0.17	-0.08	-1.78	-1.15	-0.31	2.79	1.49	0.64	0.08
SunBelt	North Texas	3	0.17	0.31	0.17						0.64	0.21
ACC	Boston College	8	-0.40	-1.84	-1.18	0.55	0.89	0.85	0.24	1.53	0.63	0.08
Big10	Penn St	6	-0.77			3.95	0.83	-2.13	-1.38	0.13	0.63	0.10
MtnWest	BYU	5				0.21	-0.22	0.29	0.31	0.01	0.62	0.12
CUSA	Memphis	5		0.32	0.23	-0.09		0.41	-0.30		0.57	0.11
Big10	Michigan St	4		-0.34				0.85	-0.22	0.25	0.55	0.14
Pac10	Stanford	1								0.53	0.53	0.53
Big12	Oklahoma St	7	0.40	0.82	-0.38		0.38	-1.78	0.27	0.82	0.52	0.07
SunBelt	Arkansas St	1				0.45					0.45	0.45
MAC	Ball St	2						0.09	0.35		0.43	0.22
CUSA	Marshall	3	0.46		-0.47					0.40	0.39	0.13
WAC	Idaho	1								0.28	0.28	0.28
SEC	Vanderbilt	1							0.24		0.24	0.24
CUSA	Tulane	1	0.22								0.22	0.22
WAC	Fresno St	7	0.20	0.31	-0.36	0.08		-1.29	0.72	0.52	0.17	0.02
SEC	Arkansas	5	-0.33	1.16			-0.89	-0.44		0.64	0.14	0.03
MAC	Ohio	2					-0.36			0.40	0.04	0.02
CUSA	UAB	1			-0.01						-0.01	-0.01
ACC	NC State	4	2.39	-0.98		-1.63			0.16		-0.06	-0.02
MAC	Akron	1				-0.09					-0.09	-0.09
MtnWest	Wyoming	2			-0.42					0.28	-0.14	-0.07
CUSA	Tulsa	5		0.27		0.08	0.03	-0.84	0.23		-0.23	-0.05
Big10	Northwestern	4		0.09		-0.26			0.07	-0.15	-0.24	-0.06
MAC	Miami (OH)	2		-0.48	0.18						-0.29	-0.15
MAC	Temple	1								-0.30	-0.30	-0.30
CUSA	UTEP	2			-0.40	0.10					-0.31	-0.15
Indy	Navy	7		0.21	-1.18	-1.63	1.06	-0.52	0.30	1.43	-0.33	-0.05
SEC	Kentucky	4					-0.32	1.47	-0.62	-0.85	-0.33	-0.08
SunBelt	Troy	4			-0.26		-0.08		-0.60	0.58	-0.35	-0.09
MAC	Bowling Green	4		0.09	0.11			-0.86		0.28	-0.37	-0.09
Pac10	Arizona	2							0.27	-0.76	-0.49	-0.24
WAC	San Jose St	1					-0.51				-0.51	-0.51
WAC	Nevada	5				-0.10	-0.17	-0.31	0.60	-0.60	-0.57	-0.11
Big12	Kansas St	3	-0.19	-0.91			0.52				-0.58	-0.19
CUSA	SMU	1								-0.58	-0.58	-0.58
BigEast	Louisville	5	0.40	-0.42	1.55	-0.21	-1.96				-0.64	-0.13
ACC	Wake Forest	4	0.00				-1.96	0.91	0.30		-0.76	-0.19
SEC	South Carolina	4				0.18	0.00		-0.61	-0.38	-0.80	-0.20
SunBelt	Middle Tenn St	2					-0.16			-0.70	-0.86	-0.43
CUSA	Rice	2					0.01		-0.97		-0.96	-0.48
MAC	Toledo	3	-0.50		-0.70	0.10					-1.10	-0.37
CUSA	East Carolina	4					-0.28	-0.85	-0.54	0.56	-1.11	-0.28
BigEast	Pittsburgh	5	1.65	-0.68	-2.36				-0.73	1.00	-1.11	-0.22
BigEast	Syracuse	1			-1.20						-1.20	-1.20
MAC	W Michigan	2					-0.29		-0.97		-1.26	-0.63
Pac10	Washington St	2	-1.83	0.57							-1.26	-0.63
SEC	Alabama	6			0.58	-0.21	0.26	-0.81	-1.70	0.46	-1.42	-0.24
CUSA	Southern Miss	8	0.40	-0.92	-0.07	0.24	-0.36	0.50	-0.67	-0.77	-1.66	-0.21
CUSA	Houston	6		-0.02		0.17	0.00	-0.97	-0.41	-0.51	-1.74	-0.29
Big10	Indiana	1						-1.78			-1.78	-1.78
MtnWest	TCU	7	-1.76	0.94		-0.20	-0.31	-0.97	1.94	-1.47	-1.84	-0.26
Big12	Iowa St	4	-0.06		0.18	-0.20				-1.78	-1.86	-0.46
WAC	Louisiana Tech	1							-1.88		-1.88	-1.88
Big10	Illinois	1						-2.04			-2.04	-2.04
MtnWest	New Mexico	5	0.66	-0.48	-1.18		-0.69	-0.54			-2.23	-0.45
Big10	Iowa	7	0.83	0.72	-1.25	-1.43	1.66		-0.71	-2.07	-2.24	-0.32
Big12	Colorado	4	-0.15		-0.40	-0.85		-0.85			-2.26	-0.56
BigEast	West Virginia	8	-0.84	-0.01	-0.21	-0.37	-0.34	-2.02	1.66	-0.21	-2.33	-0.29
SEC	Georgia	8	-0.53	1.61	-0.03	-0.73	0.29	-2.73	0.01	-0.28	-2.37	-0.30
SEC	Auburn	7	-1.04	-0.17	0.19	-1.76	-0.21	0.64		-0.15	-2.50	-0.36
SEC	LSU	8	0.36	-2.44	-1.24	0.70	-0.14	0.46	-0.62	0.06	-2.84	-0.36
MtnWest	Air Force	4	-1.64					-0.19	-0.48	-0.58	-2.89	-0.72
Big12	Kansas	4		-0.98		0.33		-1.50	-0.86		-3.01	-0.75
SEC	Tennessee	6	-0.80	-0.78	-1.47		0.81	-0.18		-0.60	-3.02	-0.50
BigEast	South Florida	5				-1.63	-0.28	-0.61	-0.30	-0.57	-3.39	-0.68
MAC	N Illinois	4			-0.26		-0.80		-1.88	-0.57	-3.49	-0.87
Big12	Texas Tech	8	-1.54	0.21	-0.42	-0.13	-1.17	-1.73	0.57	0.30	-3.91	-0.49
Big12	Texas A&M	4			-1.47		-0.29	-2.13		-0.28	-4.17	-1.04
ACC	Clemson	7	-1.70	-0.50		-1.10	-0.57	0.57	-0.01	-1.10	-4.39	-0.63
ACC	Virginia	5	-1.22	-0.99	-0.17	-0.53		-1.73			-4.64	-0.93
MtnWest	Colorado St	4	-1.76	-2.06		-1.50			0.54		-4.78	-1.19
BigEast	Cincinnati	6	0.10		-0.47		-0.29	0.50	-3.72	-0.92	-4.79	-0.80
Big10	Minnesota	7	-0.34	0.76	0.46	-0.51	-1.69		-1.42	-2.22	-4.96	-0.71
MtnWest	Utah	7		-0.92	-2.36	-1.00	0.03	-0.01	-1.70	0.39	-5.56	-0.79
ACC	Virginia Tech	8	-1.64	1.29	0.19	-0.21	0.24	-1.94	-3.94	-0.34	-6.34	-0.79
ACC	Georgia Tech	8	0.04	0.10	-1.20	-1.00	-0.28	-1.22	-0.72	-2.16	-6.43	-0.80
Big12	Oklahoma	8	-1.83	-2.94	-3.74	0.80	-1.49	-2.19	-1.64	0.53	-12.49	-1.56

As you could guess, some of the biggies are the best at maximizing TV ratings for bowls - Florida State, Texas, Notre Dame, Michigan, and Ohio State are the top 5. Below that though, we see something a bit unexpected - Pac10 teams hold down 7 of the top 23 spots. For a conference that has been know to have a hard time putting fans in the stands, that's pretty damn good. Overall, eight of their teams have been a ratings boost, and the total conference positive share is at about 13.2

The Big10 is solid too, with six teams on the positive side and bolstered by Ohio State and Michigan. Their total boost is about 8.0 ratings points. After that, the SunBelt and WAC are about even. The ACC totals -2.5, the CUSA and MAC are at -4.1 & -4.2. Then the SEC - surprisingly, only 5 of their 12 teams performed better than the bowls' average overall, and their total as a conference was a -5.1. Rounding up the bottom was the BigEast at -10.1, the Big12 at -15.3, and the MtnWest at -16.8. Oklahoma was by far the worst as far as individual teams go, bringing in nearly a share and a half less than the bowls' usually did without them. Extremely surprising considering how many championship games the Sooners have made in that stretch.

Overall, the bowls are still a boon in the ratings for college football. I know people have talked about how because there's so many of them that they're all watered down a bit, and that's true. But it's also true that the combined television share of all bowl games keeps going up, to a record high of 138.4 this year. That's up 27% from the 109.1 just five years ago in 2004. So while each of the bowls might be viewed by fewer fans, all together they're attracting more of a TV audience.