Doesn't format well. But what it shows is that people really watch good teams and watch name brands more. FSU-Clemson is #1. Notre Dame-Miami, both with multiple losses, is way down the list. Washington-Utah is further down the list as they just aren't brands (and played on FS1). OU playing a hapless Kansas is even further down the list. The bottom two-Texas A&M-New Mexico St. and Houston-UCF.
http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-...v-ratings/


Thursday, October 27
1.2
1.848M
—
Va. Tech
Pittsburgh
ACC
7:00 PM
ESPN
0.8
1.107M
—
Cal
USC
Pac-12
10:34 PM
ESPN
—
105K
—
App. State
Ga. Southern
Sun Belt
7:30 PM
ESPNU
Friday, October 28
—
556K
—
Navy
USF
American
7:00 PM
ESPN2
—
435K
—
Air Force
Fresno St.
MWC
10:37 PM
ESPN2



Saturday, October 29
3.2
5.380M
—
Clemson
FSU
ACC
8:07 PM
ABC
2.9
4.647M
—
Michigan
Michigan St.
Big Ten
12:00 PM
ESPN
2.6
4.454M
—
Florida
Georgia
SEC
3:30 PM
CBS
2.15
3.770M
—
Nebraska
Wisconsin
Big Ten
7:06 PM
ESPN
2.2
3.657M
—
Northwestern
Ohio State
Big Ten
3:50 PM
ESPN
2.2
3.513M
—
Baylor
Texas
Big 12
3:40 PM
ABC
1.95
2.920M
—
LOU/UVA
PSU/PUR
ACC
Big Ten
12:01 PM
ABC
1.7
2.634M
—
Miami
Notre Dame
ACC
Ind.
3:41 PM
NBC
1.3
1.963M
—
West Virginia
Oklahoma St.
Big 12
12:06 PM
FOX
—
1.772M
—
College Gameday
Live from Utah
9:00 AM
ESPN
0.9
1.519M
—
Tennessee
S. Carolina
SEC
7:20 PM
ESPN2
0.9
1.376M
—
Washington
Utah
Pac-12
3:30 PM
FS1
0.5
815K
—
Wash. St.
Oregon St.
Pac-12
10:58 PM
ESPN2
0.4
636K
—
Kansas
Oklahoma
Big 12
7:04 PM
FS1
0.3
505K
—
Texas Tech
TCU
Big 12
3:41 PM
ESPN2
0.3
486K
—
ABC reverse mirror
12:00 PM
ESPN2
0.2
370K
—
Stanford
Arizona
Pac-12
10:59 PM
FS1
—
236K
—
Maryland
Indiana
Big Ten
3:30 PM
ESPNU
—
193K
—
N. Mexico St.
Texas A&M
Sun Belt
SEC
7:30 PM
ESPNU
—
192K
—
UCF
Houston
American
12:00 PM
ESPNU

(11-08-2016 12:17 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  I would say take Kansas. Gives you Mizzou-Kansas, KC market, and strong bball. And the state (political) culture matches the SEC.

Can't wait for those Alabama-Kansas nail biters.

(11-08-2016 08:33 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-07-2016 10:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-07-2016 10:23 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  I should add that these ratings become MORE important as ESPN loses subscribers and has to rely more and more on advertising dollars to buy content.

Advertisers pay for eyeballs. Period.

This board needs to get one thing straight. ESPN will simply acquire and morph into whatever format becomes the next thing. That's what large corporations do. They'll use whatever market justification they need to raise or lower the payouts to the product they desire. And when college football looses it's market appeal they'll get into whatever the new darling is.

There's a trend here that nobody is discussing because it is not a pretty one. But all of the top programs are having to recruit the Southeast & Southwest because we are the only part of America that still cares about football at the grass roots level. Sure there are pockets of the same in Ohio, Michigan & Pennsylvania, but the concentration of talent is down here.

What that tells me is that football is becoming a regional sport. Right now it is still played everywhere, but the high schools that once fed the programs nationwide have experienced a decline in participation in the West, along the Atlantic and in the Northeast. Midwestern boys and Southwestern boys still play, but just not in the numbers they do in the South. But mind this, 30 years ago the participation levels were much higher percentage wise in the South than they are today. And 30 years ago they were less % wise than when I played.

I'll be gone before it ends but the trends are in place and this generation is less enamored of the sport than any in my lifetime. College football belonged to several generations the way Horse Racing and Boxing belonged to my Grandparents and their parents.

It will be slow, and may not completely disappear, but it is in decline already, just a levels too low to receive as much attention as they will in 20 years.

ESPN will morph and become the next big thing just like IBM did?

IBM may not be as visible, but it's much more powerful and controls more of your life than ever before. It already is the next big thing and continues to grow.

(11-08-2016 08:58 AM)westwolf Wrote:  

(11-08-2016 12:17 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  I would say take Kansas. Gives you Mizzou-Kansas, KC market, and strong bball. And the state (political) culture matches the SEC.

Can't wait for those Alabama-Kansas nail biters.

You don't take Kansas for FB (other than giving a breather game for your FB schools) You take them because they are a bluest of the blue blood AAU basketball school with a national following and so you can have Kansas vs Kentucky every year.

(11-08-2016 12:07 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-07-2016 11:58 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  JR,

Adding Oklahoma would just make the SEC West even more impossible (except for Alabama, of course).

Alabama-Auburn-Ole Miss-Miss St-LSU-Arkansas-TA&M-Oklahoma

That's a ridiculous division.

Bison, they wouldn't be in the same division:

East: Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

West: Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M

Oklahoma, L.S.U., and Texas A&M would assume the position of Kings in the West while Arkansas, Mississippi, Oklahoma State contend, and sometimes Missouri, and Mississippi State rise to challenge.

Sure we might take somebody instead of OSU, but odds are OU requires it.

Alabama and Auburn revitalize the East and no permanent rivals are required because they are all now divisional foes.

It would restore balance.

Ahhh.....the Alabama schools to the SEC East(where they belong) idea.

Cheers!

(11-08-2016 04:27 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(11-08-2016 12:07 AM)JRsec Wrote:  East: Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

West: Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M

One of, if not the, best outcomes for Oklahoma State after the impending implosion of the Big 12, as the SEC has never duplicated a market since it started expanding in 1990.

With OU a Fox property, seems to me Fox won't let them go SEC (instead of Big 10) without a fight.

Would the SEC still take Oklahoma St if OU went Big 10? Maybe in tandem with West Virginia? Something like:

Current East + West Va
Current West + Oklahoma St

Or is Oklahoma St's only shot at the SEC political (on the coattails of OU)?

The buyout of the FOX T3 deal which is up way before the Big 12 GOR is minor and equals ESPN's deal with Kansas in money. It's for 7 million a year and nets OU about 5. So FOX's hold over the Sooners is nebulous at best.

As for the Eer's they have twice applied and have never come to a formal vote by the SEC. Their first application was tabled and their second one merited a prospectus on what they would have to do to be considered.

But for the unenlightened they wouldn't net the SEC the 40 million we are projected to make by the end of this year.

OSU is a top 30 Athletic Department in terms of revenue. They have some depth and breadth to their athletics and while the popular message board notion says the SEC won't double dip, the question remains how much does OU bring? Is it enough to cover the Cowboys? Possibly.

OU has a problem however. They have to move with either Texas or OSU if they are to keep both games. In an expanded conference of 16 or more it will be really really difficult to schedule both as OOC games when any expansion will undoubtedly include 9 conference games at the insistence of the networks.

I concede that the SEC may not take the pair, but I wouldn't rule it out either. I think Bison and 10th are correct in that a pairing with Kansas would be well received. But there is another interested travel partner besides Kansas or OSU. So we'll see.

I thought this thread was going to be about hegemony, inept leadership, and doublespeak.

(11-08-2016 12:20 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-08-2016 12:17 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  I would say take Kansas. Gives you Mizzou-Kansas, KC market, and strong bball. And the state (political) culture matches the SEC.

Otherwise, looks good!

I'm sure we would like that approach, but I'm not sure the politics will play out that way.

Isn't the prevailing thought that OK is too small a market to add 2 teams to SEC? I am aware of a possible political issue.

You want high Big XII ratings in Houston? It's easy. Have Texas win and win big, be ranked in the top 10, be in the CFP discussion or at least make it to a NY6 bowl. As it is right now with Bevo being a mediocre program, you can't rely on TCU and Baylor to carry the conference and make folks in Houston be interested. When Texas wins, the entire state not just Houston starts to care which equals to more casual viewers tuning in to the games. I just don't understand why some people keep repeating the same old myth that having X school in the conference then all it's going to change. The Big XII's problems start and end with Texas being what they were in the mid 00's. Until that happens not much is going to change regardless if Houston or Rice are in the Big XII or not. .

(11-08-2016 03:05 PM)Scoochpooch Wrote:  

(11-08-2016 12:20 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-08-2016 12:17 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  I would say take Kansas. Gives you Mizzou-Kansas, KC market, and strong bball. And the state (political) culture matches the SEC.

Otherwise, looks good!

I'm sure we would like that approach, but I'm not sure the politics will play out that way.

Isn't the prevailing thought that OK is too small a market to add 2 teams to SEC? I am aware of a possible political issue.

It is a consideration. But, if the only possible expansion candidates are from the Big 12 and if you consider as some do that Kansas and Iowa State are not cultural fits, and if you exclude Texas Tech due to A&M, and if you consider the gross incompatibility of WVU with SEC travel ease and that they would be absolutely dead last in academics in our conference and that they have a tiny fan base, and if you consider that Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas have the three greatest athletic revenue numbers in the Big 12 and that OSU is 4th then you have to ask the question, "If the next set of expansion candidates are going to be about branding and the ability to compete athletically then who are the clear #2 & #3 picks from the Big 12?"

That answer is Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. If a greater slice of DFW is what you are after Oklahoma delivers better than anyone not named Texas. So is OU worth OSU? Maybe. Finebaum thinks so. About three different sportswriters (two who cover the Big 12) seem to think so. But truly who knows? I think the Cowboys have as good of a shot as anybody as the second school if we move to 16.

(11-08-2016 06:10 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-07-2016 10:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-07-2016 10:23 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  I should add that these ratings become MORE important as ESPN loses subscribers and has to rely more and more on advertising dollars to buy content.

Advertisers pay for eyeballs. Period.

This board needs to get one thing straight. ESPN will simply acquire and morph into whatever format becomes the next thing. That's what large corporations do. They'll use whatever market justification they need to raise or lower the payouts to the product they desire. And when college football looses it's market appeal they'll get into whatever the new darling is.

There's a trend here that nobody is discussing because it is not a pretty one. But all of the top programs are having to recruit the Southeast & Southwest because we are the only part of America that still cares about football at the grass roots level. Sure there are pockets of the same in Ohio, Michigan & Pennsylvania, but the concentration of talent is down here.

What that tells me is that football is becoming a regional sport. Right now it is still played everywhere, but the high schools that once fed the programs nationwide have experienced a decline in participation in the West, along the Atlantic and in the Northeast. Midwestern boys and Southwestern boys still play, but just not in the numbers they do in the South. But mind this, 30 years ago the participation levels were much higher percentage wise in the South than they are today. And 30 years ago they were less % wise than when I played.

I'll be gone before it ends but the trends are in place and this generation is less enamored of the sport than any in my lifetime. College football belonged to several generations the way Horse Racing and Boxing belonged to my Grandparents and their parents.

It will be slow, and may not completely disappear, but it is in decline already, just a levels too low to receive as much attention as they will in 20 years.

Some conferences have taken a broad sports approach to replace football.
At this point one would have to say that the PAC has taken the lead. Even though the PACN seems to be lacking in football penetration, the PAC as a conference has an extremely broad range of athletics. While their football viewership may not be at other conference levels, they have more participation in a wider variety of sports than any other conference.
The ACC is in the process of positioning Lacrosse as a football replacement. The numbers of kids playing lacrosse in North Carolina and Virginia high schools exceeds football participation in many communities.

That is why these deluded cougars (the Houston not BYU variety) don't understand that their addition by subtraction (eliminating their international Olympians teams) really doesn't make anyone more likely to support their overrated football team. And their crosstown Ivy wanna-be (Rice) is just as bad, offering the minimum number of D-1 sports to remain in the BCS division (with their football team on life support) instead of expanding offerings.

In some parts of the country, there are no pro-sports teams. The only entertainment are college and high schools sports. That is why some G5 and FCS schools are doing well with fan support than schools who are in the same town as a pro team.

(11-07-2016 10:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-07-2016 10:23 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  I should add that these ratings become MORE important as ESPN loses subscribers and has to rely more and more on advertising dollars to buy content.

Advertisers pay for eyeballs. Period.

There's a trend here that nobody is discussing because it is not a pretty one. But all of the top programs are having to recruit the Southeast & Southwest because we are the only part of America that still cares about football at the grass roots level. Sure there are pockets of the same in Ohio, Michigan & Pennsylvania, but the concentration of talent is down here.

What that tells me is that football is becoming a regional sport. Right now it is still played everywhere, but the high schools that once fed the programs nationwide have experienced a decline in participation in the West, along the Atlantic and in the Northeast.

What data helped you come to that conclusion. Football is very popular in Washington, California, Texas, and Colorado. You are mixing up why Northern states recruit in the South.

And that's crazy talk to say it's becoming regional.

(11-09-2016 04:27 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(11-07-2016 10:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-07-2016 10:23 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  I should add that these ratings become MORE important as ESPN loses subscribers and has to rely more and more on advertising dollars to buy content.

Advertisers pay for eyeballs. Period.

There's a trend here that nobody is discussing because it is not a pretty one. But all of the top programs are having to recruit the Southeast & Southwest because we are the only part of America that still cares about football at the grass roots level. Sure there are pockets of the same in Ohio, Michigan & Pennsylvania, but the concentration of talent is down here.

What that tells me is that football is becoming a regional sport. Right now it is still played everywhere, but the high schools that once fed the programs nationwide have experienced a decline in participation in the West, along the Atlantic and in the Northeast.

What data helped you come to that conclusion. Football is very popular in Washington, California, Texas, and Colorado. You are mixing up why Northern states recruit in the South.

And that's crazy talk to say it's becoming regional.

No, I'm not. Viewing numbers, attendance records for High School and College, contributions to athletic departments, athletic department revenues, all indicate that in spite of its wealth the West coast is not nearly as supportive of football as the Southeast and Southwest.

And it's not crazy to say what is already regional is becoming regional.

There is greater population and wealth on the West Coast. Yet the Southeast and Southwest are unassailable in their numbers with regard to their support of football. It is already a regional sport that may still be followed nationally, but in no way close to the level of support it has in the Southeast, Southwest, and still some Northern Midwestern states.

(11-09-2016 05:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  And it's not crazy to say what is already regional is becoming regional.

If that's so, then it's a threat to the long-term popularity of CFB. You don't want half the country having little or no local connection in your sport. If it becomes a regional sport that by and large is followed only from afar in certain regions of the country, then its national appeal will have a low ceiling, like the NHL.

(11-09-2016 06:36 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-09-2016 05:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  And it's not crazy to say what is already regional is becoming regional.

If that's so, then it's a threat to the long-term popularity of CFB. You don't want half the country having little or no local connection in your sport. If it becomes a regional sport that by and large is followed only from afar in certain regions of the country, then its national appeal will have a low ceiling, like the NHL.

That's true, and it is beginning to happen. I'm not making a deliberate connection here, or intending it to be political, but if you looked at the election map football is most beloved in the red areas. While that is not completely accurate it is a good visual representation. I do believe the Mid-Atlantic Coastal states North, and the West Coast in general, acknowledge football, but don't have the passion for it in the same way as the Northern Midwest, the Southwest, and the Southeast. There is another reason that the SEC and Big 10 have been so strong outside of geography, passion. Passion coupled with tradition has kept the Big 12 alive much longer than many would have thought.

The SEC produces strong basketball talent. But they either leave for a region where the sport is adored, or they convert to football or baseball because of their athletic ability and because both of those sports are more revered within the region than is basketball.

But to be perfectly fair all three of the Big 3 sports are in trouble. Kids grow into adults who like to keep in touch with what they enjoyed as kids. We have oodles of kids coming along within the last 20 years who have never played any of the Big 3 beyond pee wee level, if then.

The sports choices of this generation are changing. They don't hunt, or fish like we did and they don't play the Big 3 team sports. Many of them can't afford the equipment required for football or baseball, and basketball may be outside of their peer group.

I just see a cultural shift underway and the end of it will probably not come in the remaining span of my natural life, but I do believe it's coming.

(11-09-2016 09:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-09-2016 06:36 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-09-2016 05:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  And it's not crazy to say what is already regional is becoming regional.

If that's so, then it's a threat to the long-term popularity of CFB. You don't want half the country having little or no local connection in your sport. If it becomes a regional sport that by and large is followed only from afar in certain regions of the country, then its national appeal will have a low ceiling, like the NHL.

That's true, and it is beginning to happen. I'm not making a deliberate connection here, or intending it to be political, but if you looked at the election map football is most beloved in the red areas. While that is not completely accurate it is a good visual representation. I do believe the Mid-Atlantic Coastal states North, and the West Coast in general, acknowledge football, but don't have the passion for it in the same way as the Northern Midwest, the Southwest, and the Southeast. There is another reason that the SEC and Big 10 have been so strong outside of geography, passion. Passion coupled with tradition has kept the Big 12 alive much longer than many would have thought.

The SEC produces strong basketball talent. But they either leave for a region where the sport is adored, or they convert to football or baseball because of their athletic ability and because both of those sports are more revered within the region than is basketball.

But to be perfectly fair all three of the Big 3 sports are in trouble. Kids grow into adults who like to keep in touch with what they enjoyed as kids. We have oodles of kids coming along within the last 20 years who have never played any of the Big 3 beyond pee wee level, if then.

The sports choices of this generation are changing. They don't hunt, or fish like we did and they don't play the Big 3 team sports. Many of them can't afford the equipment required for football or baseball, and basketball may be outside of their peer group.

I just see a cultural shift underway and the end of it will probably not come in the remaining span of my natural life, but I do believe it's coming.

Yeah, one issue with the pay-to-play nature of organized kid sports is that many kids either never start participating or drop out at a young age. They don't play hoops in the driveway or football in the backyard like we did when I was that age. (AFAIK, no one in my suburban neighborhood today even has a basketball hoop in the driveway.) Longterm effect will be that many in their 20s-30s will only know these sports from video games if at all.

(11-09-2016 10:34 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-09-2016 09:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-09-2016 06:36 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-09-2016 05:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  And it's not crazy to say what is already regional is becoming regional.

If that's so, then it's a threat to the long-term popularity of CFB. You don't want half the country having little or no local connection in your sport. If it becomes a regional sport that by and large is followed only from afar in certain regions of the country, then its national appeal will have a low ceiling, like the NHL.

That's true, and it is beginning to happen. I'm not making a deliberate connection here, or intending it to be political, but if you looked at the election map football is most beloved in the red areas. While that is not completely accurate it is a good visual representation. I do believe the Mid-Atlantic Coastal states North, and the West Coast in general, acknowledge football, but don't have the passion for it in the same way as the Northern Midwest, the Southwest, and the Southeast. There is another reason that the SEC and Big 10 have been so strong outside of geography, passion. Passion coupled with tradition has kept the Big 12 alive much longer than many would have thought.

The SEC produces strong basketball talent. But they either leave for a region where the sport is adored, or they convert to football or baseball because of their athletic ability and because both of those sports are more revered within the region than is basketball.

But to be perfectly fair all three of the Big 3 sports are in trouble. Kids grow into adults who like to keep in touch with what they enjoyed as kids. We have oodles of kids coming along within the last 20 years who have never played any of the Big 3 beyond pee wee level, if then.

The sports choices of this generation are changing. They don't hunt, or fish like we did and they don't play the Big 3 team sports. Many of them can't afford the equipment required for football or baseball, and basketball may be outside of their peer group.

I just see a cultural shift underway and the end of it will probably not come in the remaining span of my natural life, but I do believe it's coming.

Yeah, one issue with the pay-to-play nature of organized kid sports is that many kids either never start participating or drop out at a young age. They don't play hoops in the driveway or football in the backyard like we did when I was that age. (AFAIK, no one in my suburban neighborhood today even has a basketball hoop in the driveway.) Longterm effect will be that many in their 20s-30s will only know these sports from video games if at all.

The great thing about being a boomer was that at any point in my childhood there were enough kids on my block and the one in front of me and behind me that we could play a full baseball, football, or basketball game any time we wanted to play one, which was every Saturday and after homework and before dark on any day. We would have at least 4 basketball teams between the three blocks and would play a mini double elimination tournament as shirts and skins. What we didn't do was watch TV, unless it was storming outside and then I was as likely to read a book.

Truly a different age Wedge!

(11-09-2016 09:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-09-2016 06:36 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-09-2016 05:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  And it's not crazy to say what is already regional is becoming regional.

If that's so, then it's a threat to the long-term popularity of CFB. You don't want half the country having little or no local connection in your sport. If it becomes a regional sport that by and large is followed only from afar in certain regions of the country, then its national appeal will have a low ceiling, like the NHL.

That's true, and it is beginning to happen. I'm not making a deliberate connection here, or intending it to be political, but if you looked at the election map football is most beloved in the red areas. While that is not completely accurate it is a good visual representation. I do believe the Mid-Atlantic Coastal states North, and the West Coast in general, acknowledge football, but don't have the passion for it in the same way as the Northern Midwest, the Southwest, and the Southeast. There is another reason that the SEC and Big 10 have been so strong outside of geography, passion. Passion coupled with tradition has kept the Big 12 alive much longer than many would have thought.

The SEC produces strong basketball talent. But they either leave for a region where the sport is adored, or they convert to football or baseball because of their athletic ability and because both of those sports are more revered within the region than is basketball.

But to be perfectly fair all three of the Big 3 sports are in trouble. Kids grow into adults who like to keep in touch with what they enjoyed as kids. We have oodles of kids coming along within the last 20 years who have never played any of the Big 3 beyond pee wee level, if then.

The sports choices of this generation are changing. They don't hunt, or fish like we did and they don't play the Big 3 team sports. Many of them can't afford the equipment required for football or baseball, and basketball may be outside of their peer group.

I just see a cultural shift underway and the end of it will probably not come in the remaining span of my natural life, but I do believe it's coming.

There seems to be some exceptions to the rules like Boise State, North Dakota State, Montana and Montana State. They draw better fan support than some schools in the southeast and all that. They draw better than the schools in Texas except for some of the big name schools.

(11-09-2016 10:34 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-09-2016 09:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-09-2016 06:36 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-09-2016 05:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  And it's not crazy to say what is already regional is becoming regional.

If that's so, then it's a threat to the long-term popularity of CFB. You don't want half the country having little or no local connection in your sport. If it becomes a regional sport that by and large is followed only from afar in certain regions of the country, then its national appeal will have a low ceiling, like the NHL.

That's true, and it is beginning to happen. I'm not making a deliberate connection here, or intending it to be political, but if you looked at the election map football is most beloved in the red areas. While that is not completely accurate it is a good visual representation. I do believe the Mid-Atlantic Coastal states North, and the West Coast in general, acknowledge football, but don't have the passion for it in the same way as the Northern Midwest, the Southwest, and the Southeast. There is another reason that the SEC and Big 10 have been so strong outside of geography, passion. Passion coupled with tradition has kept the Big 12 alive much longer than many would have thought.

The SEC produces strong basketball talent. But they either leave for a region where the sport is adored, or they convert to football or baseball because of their athletic ability and because both of those sports are more revered within the region than is basketball.

But to be perfectly fair all three of the Big 3 sports are in trouble. Kids grow into adults who like to keep in touch with what they enjoyed as kids. We have oodles of kids coming along within the last 20 years who have never played any of the Big 3 beyond pee wee level, if then.

The sports choices of this generation are changing. They don't hunt, or fish like we did and they don't play the Big 3 team sports. Many of them can't afford the equipment required for football or baseball, and basketball may be outside of their peer group.

I just see a cultural shift underway and the end of it will probably not come in the remaining span of my natural life, but I do believe it's coming.

Yeah, one issue with the pay-to-play nature of organized kid sports is that many kids either never start participating or drop out at a young age. They don't play hoops in the driveway or football in the backyard like we did when I was that age. (AFAIK, no one in my suburban neighborhood today even has a basketball hoop in the driveway.) Longterm effect will be that many in their 20s-30s will only know these sports from video games if at all.

I don't think you can link competitive burnout at a young age to explaining why you don't see baskets in driveways anymore. Where I used to live a few years ago, there weren't many hoops in the residences, but there were thriving park courts, church gyms, school gyms, and nearby YMCA's. All of those options (including the courts at the park) had far superior equipment and facilities to foster the game. People went there because it could be more economical and beneficial. Not terribly unlike spending good money on a pro-grade instrument to teach a beginner or hobbyist...a better instrument helps to keep the discipline.

I think it's just that we have more structure and organized play than that of when we were growing up. For football and basketball. I'm not sure we can fully interpret those shifts on the future of the sports yet.