(07-29-2017 10:38 AM)Section 200 Wrote:  Markets work very well for the NFL, where folks in Pittsburgh watch the Steelers and folks in Chicago watch the Bears, and most large cities overwhelming support 1 local team. There are too many college teams to use market as an accurate metrics.

They don't really use "market". NFL games are distributed by region. No one would consider Little Rock to be a market for any Texas college program but it is now deemed a Cowboys market because the backlash was so severe when the Cowboys sucked and CBS quit feeding the Cowboys to Little Rock for some games.

In the past in determining distribution to non-obvious markets (ie. figuring out which southern markets get the Falcons and which get the Saints) the network would talk to station managers, local newspaper editors and rely on ratings data. I would bet they now have good enough ratings data to not require other input.

(07-30-2017 12:08 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-29-2017 07:15 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(07-29-2017 01:32 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  There are two ways I look at a team's market: base and incremental support. Base is the number of fans you'd have if the team turned into cellar dwellers, had no star players or coaches, removed promotional and marketing activity, etc. and were basically left with die-hards, parents, the band, and people who show up just to get drunk. Incremental is what happens when you win and do all those things, draw abnormally good home opponents (e.g. P5 teams for the G5), get alumni and students who don't like sports a ton to show up because it's 'the event' to go to, and so on. Yet incremental isn't equal across schools due to size, history, and competition, someone like Rice couldn't fill their stadium even if they won ten games a year for example.

Usually when people say a team has a good market they're saying their base is high and they're taking advantage of their incremental potential. It's interesting since most schools that struggle with support had a 'golden age' at some point where they took advantage of both to some extent by winning a bunch and it resulted in a bit of a local following for a while. Take Miami, we averaged over 25K butts in the seats in 2003 and were 'the team' of the Miami Valley (far north Cincy suburbs through Dayton) outside of OSU's general pull of course. Fast forward over a decade later and we're basically at our base with only devoted alumni and Oxford townies showing up, though it looks like that's turning around.

This makes sense. I think "market size" is a proxy for the team's ceiling. In other words, how big can the bandwagon get?

If Rutgers and West Virginia both go 7-5, West Virginia will sell more bowl tickets and bring more TV viewers. That's the base.

But if Rutgers and West Virginia both go 12-0, Rutgers will sell more bowl tickets and bring more TV viewers. That's the bandwagoners. Rutgers has more potential for bandwagon fans due to their bigger market.

My knee-jerk reaction was "wait a minute, no ...", then I thought about it and it changed to "in this case, he could be right, good point".

But then I thought about a blue blood like Alabama. Rutgers is in a bigger market than Alabama, but no way on earth will a 12-0 Rutgers ever bring more fans, or draw more TV viewers, than a 12-0 Alabama.

That tells us that the sheer population of the city a school is in doesn't define their ceiling. Alabama has over the years established itself as a brand name that draws attention nationally, it transcends the limits of the population of Tuscaloosa, or even of the state of Alabama.

So while I think you are partially correct, there's also more at work here.

It's more about tradition and regional preferences. Alabama would draw lots of eyeballs locally and nationally but Rutgers would have a HUGE regional following if they ever got good and no shortage of national eyeballs either. Alabama benefits because of the regional love for all things football.

(07-29-2017 11:26 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  That's because Penn State is a state flagship. As we saw with Miami, who nearly dropped football before selling out the Orange Bowl regularly shortly thereafter, if you win in a major metro, you can attract fans at the snap of a finger. Temple plays in a big stadium, there's no reason they can't draw big crowds if they win every season.

C2, if you had lived back in 1892, you would have said that Penn State wouldn't even draw flies to its stadium, I promise you. Being a state flagship meant squat during the late nineteenth century; back then, drive, determination, and coaching meant something. In the early years of UGa football, the stadium only had a 30,000 seating capacity; now it has a 92, 746 capacity. What happened between then & now? UGa's coaches took UGa on the road. They played in Atlanta (destination city), Columbus(Ga, somewhat of a destination city back then), Jacksonville (FL), and I want to say they played in Savannah & Macon too, but I'm not sure. What was the point in playing in all of these cities, even giving up valuable home games in the process? To get the people of Georgia interested with in watching the Bulldogs, and it worked too. Just about everyone in the state of Georgia knows about the Bulldogs. Some are fans, some are not, but a lot of people know who UGa is. So, nmzorange is right: fans matter, not what city you're located in.

You act like you lived in 1892. You're probably not all that much older than me. Without rehashing too much, as long as you are in a major market, you have the potential to attract a number of casual fans. But once the winning stops, so too do fans stop going to the games except for state flagships/land grants and maybe a couple of other exceptions.

(07-30-2017 03:04 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  You act like you lived in 1892. You're probably not all that much older than me. Without rehashing too much, as long as you are in a major market, you have the potential to attract a number of casual fans. But once the winning stops, so too do fans stop going to the games except for state flagships/land grants and maybe a couple of other exceptions.

So I am correct, and you are wrong. Thank you. I'm looking at what made state flagships popular to begin with, because historically, they were NOT popular and the Ivy League schools and certain private schools were POPULAR.

(07-29-2017 11:26 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  That's because Penn State is a state flagship. As we saw with Miami, who nearly dropped football before selling out the Orange Bowl regularly shortly thereafter, if you win in a major metro, you can attract fans at the snap of a finger. Temple plays in a big stadium, there's no reason they can't draw big crowds if they win every season.

The median Penn State fan lives on a farm. What do they care about flagship designation?

And Pitt is on roughly equal ground vis-a-vis PSU in the eyes of the state AND is located in a major city AND has a rich history (arguably richer - 9 NC's), and yet PSU's football program probably makes 2x Pitt's and is accordingly worth way more in TV money.

Fans matter, not arbitrary geography.

(07-30-2017 02:21 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(07-30-2017 12:08 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-29-2017 07:15 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(07-29-2017 01:32 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  There are two ways I look at a team's market: base and incremental support. Base is the number of fans you'd have if the team turned into cellar dwellers, had no star players or coaches, removed promotional and marketing activity, etc. and were basically left with die-hards, parents, the band, and people who show up just to get drunk. Incremental is what happens when you win and do all those things, draw abnormally good home opponents (e.g. P5 teams for the G5), get alumni and students who don't like sports a ton to show up because it's 'the event' to go to, and so on. Yet incremental isn't equal across schools due to size, history, and competition, someone like Rice couldn't fill their stadium even if they won ten games a year for example.

Usually when people say a team has a good market they're saying their base is high and they're taking advantage of their incremental potential. It's interesting since most schools that struggle with support had a 'golden age' at some point where they took advantage of both to some extent by winning a bunch and it resulted in a bit of a local following for a while. Take Miami, we averaged over 25K butts in the seats in 2003 and were 'the team' of the Miami Valley (far north Cincy suburbs through Dayton) outside of OSU's general pull of course. Fast forward over a decade later and we're basically at our base with only devoted alumni and Oxford townies showing up, though it looks like that's turning around.

This makes sense. I think "market size" is a proxy for the team's ceiling. In other words, how big can the bandwagon get?

If Rutgers and West Virginia both go 7-5, West Virginia will sell more bowl tickets and bring more TV viewers. That's the base.

But if Rutgers and West Virginia both go 12-0, Rutgers will sell more bowl tickets and bring more TV viewers. That's the bandwagoners. Rutgers has more potential for bandwagon fans due to their bigger market.

My knee-jerk reaction was "wait a minute, no ...", then I thought about it and it changed to "in this case, he could be right, good point".

But then I thought about a blue blood like Alabama. Rutgers is in a bigger market than Alabama, but no way on earth will a 12-0 Rutgers ever bring more fans, or draw more TV viewers, than a 12-0 Alabama.

That tells us that the sheer population of the city a school is in doesn't define their ceiling. Alabama has over the years established itself as a brand name that draws attention nationally, it transcends the limits of the population of Tuscaloosa, or even of the state of Alabama.

So while I think you are partially correct, there's also more at work here.

It's more about tradition and regional preferences. Alabama would draw lots of eyeballs locally and nationally but Rutgers would have a HUGE regional following if they ever got good and no shortage of national eyeballs either. Alabama benefits because of the regional love for all things football.

There's truth in what you say, but there's just no getting around the big fact that Alabama is a Big Name in college football nationally, and Rutgers isn't, no matter how good their record is. I mean, I have never lived west of the Mississippi river or north of the Mason-Dixon line, but if it's a Saturday afternoon and I'm surfing for a game, and i see "USC" or "Michigan", that grabs my attention and I'm likely to check them out, because those are big college football national names. Because like most fans, I'm more than just a fan of my school or my school's region, I follow college football on a national basis.

Rutgers doesn't register anything like that.

Just like in college hoops, Kentucky and Duke draw interest everywhere just because they are Kentucky and Duke, are established national brand names in that sport.

(07-30-2017 08:22 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-30-2017 02:21 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(07-30-2017 12:08 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-29-2017 07:15 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(07-29-2017 01:32 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  There are two ways I look at a team's market: base and incremental support. Base is the number of fans you'd have if the team turned into cellar dwellers, had no star players or coaches, removed promotional and marketing activity, etc. and were basically left with die-hards, parents, the band, and people who show up just to get drunk. Incremental is what happens when you win and do all those things, draw abnormally good home opponents (e.g. P5 teams for the G5), get alumni and students who don't like sports a ton to show up because it's 'the event' to go to, and so on. Yet incremental isn't equal across schools due to size, history, and competition, someone like Rice couldn't fill their stadium even if they won ten games a year for example.

Usually when people say a team has a good market they're saying their base is high and they're taking advantage of their incremental potential. It's interesting since most schools that struggle with support had a 'golden age' at some point where they took advantage of both to some extent by winning a bunch and it resulted in a bit of a local following for a while. Take Miami, we averaged over 25K butts in the seats in 2003 and were 'the team' of the Miami Valley (far north Cincy suburbs through Dayton) outside of OSU's general pull of course. Fast forward over a decade later and we're basically at our base with only devoted alumni and Oxford townies showing up, though it looks like that's turning around.

This makes sense. I think "market size" is a proxy for the team's ceiling. In other words, how big can the bandwagon get?

If Rutgers and West Virginia both go 7-5, West Virginia will sell more bowl tickets and bring more TV viewers. That's the base.

But if Rutgers and West Virginia both go 12-0, Rutgers will sell more bowl tickets and bring more TV viewers. That's the bandwagoners. Rutgers has more potential for bandwagon fans due to their bigger market.

My knee-jerk reaction was "wait a minute, no ...", then I thought about it and it changed to "in this case, he could be right, good point".

But then I thought about a blue blood like Alabama. Rutgers is in a bigger market than Alabama, but no way on earth will a 12-0 Rutgers ever bring more fans, or draw more TV viewers, than a 12-0 Alabama.

That tells us that the sheer population of the city a school is in doesn't define their ceiling. Alabama has over the years established itself as a brand name that draws attention nationally, it transcends the limits of the population of Tuscaloosa, or even of the state of Alabama.

So while I think you are partially correct, there's also more at work here.

It's more about tradition and regional preferences. Alabama would draw lots of eyeballs locally and nationally but Rutgers would have a HUGE regional following if they ever got good and no shortage of national eyeballs either. Alabama benefits because of the regional love for all things football.

There's truth in what you say, but there's just no getting around the big fact that Alabama is a Big Name in college football nationally, and Rutgers isn't, no matter how good their record is. I mean, I have never lived west of the Mississippi river or north of the Mason-Dixon line, but if it's a Saturday afternoon and I'm surfing for a game, and i see "USC" or "Michigan", that grabs my attention and I'm likely to check them out, because those are big college football national names. Because like most fans, I'm more than just a fan of my school or my school's region, I follow college football on a national basis.

Rutgers doesn't register anything like that.

Just like in college hoops, Kentucky and Duke draw interest everywhere just because they are Kentucky and Duke, are established national brand names in that sport.

It all goes back to base and incremental market; on a scale of 1 to 10, Bama is probably 10 for base and 6 for incremental because even when they were just okay in the decade before Saban they'd still sell out most games. Becoming the Bama of today just means that the demand for tickets, merchandise, etc. is higher and raises a lot more money compared to when they were losing to Louisiana-Monroe. Rutgers would be something like 4 base and 8 incremental, it's just that they're realizing very little of that 8 today and haven't really ever done so in full.

Both metrics can grow or shrink over time, after all you had Memphis drawing flies not too long ago but their winning has probably expanded their base while they're finally capturing some of their incremental. On the flip side, Tulane was once a big player in New Orleans but went from filling their pre-Superdome stadium to becoming essentially irrelevant. A lot of it probably has to do with competition, Tennessee has no major football team besides them west of Nashville so there are gaps left by the SEC they can take advantage of; Tulane has the Saints there and LSU 90 miles away. By the same token, one wouldn't be too surprised if San Diego State blew up if they start winning like crazy with the Chargers gone (if they figure out their stadium issues); no one is expecting Georgia State to be 'the team' of Atlanta with the Falcons and Georgia Tech just down the road and UGA already strong.

(07-30-2017 07:52 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(07-29-2017 11:26 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  That's because Penn State is a state flagship. As we saw with Miami, who nearly dropped football before selling out the Orange Bowl regularly shortly thereafter, if you win in a major metro, you can attract fans at the snap of a finger. Temple plays in a big stadium, there's no reason they can't draw big crowds if they win every season.

The median Penn State fan lives on a farm. What do they care about flagship designation?

And Pitt is on roughly equal ground vis-a-vis PSU in the eyes of the state AND is located in a major city AND has a rich history (arguably richer - 9 NC's), and yet PSU's football program probably makes 2x Pitt's and is accordingly worth way more in TV money.

Fans matter, not arbitrary geography.

Doi, when did I say it didn't? I just said that schools in major markets can attract lots casual fans.

(07-30-2017 12:03 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(07-30-2017 07:52 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(07-29-2017 11:26 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  That's because Penn State is a state flagship. As we saw with Miami, who nearly dropped football before selling out the Orange Bowl regularly shortly thereafter, if you win in a major metro, you can attract fans at the snap of a finger. Temple plays in a big stadium, there's no reason they can't draw big crowds if they win every season.

The median Penn State fan lives on a farm. What do they care about flagship designation?

And Pitt is on roughly equal ground vis-a-vis PSU in the eyes of the state AND is located in a major city AND has a rich history (arguably richer - 9 NC's), and yet PSU's football program probably makes 2x Pitt's and is accordingly worth way more in TV money.

Fans matter, not arbitrary geography.

Doi, when did I say it didn't? I just said that schools in major markets can attract lots casual fans.

And so can schools in rural markets. There is no correlation, let alone causation.

But someone like Louisiana-Monroe or Appalachian State is a million times less likely to immediately grab new fans as opposed to Temple.

This is obviously just my opinion but if Temple was named Philly U and Rutgers named NJU they would have an easier time attracting non-alum fans.

(07-30-2017 02:43 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  But someone like Louisiana-Monroe or Appalachian State is a million times less likely to immediately grab new fans as opposed to Temple.

1. This isn't true.
2. You're creating a proxy to measure something that's easier to measure than the proxy. Markets are meaningless. Fans matter. There is no positive correlation between media value and the size of the local market.

A big market can actually be a bad thing, particularly if competition from pro sports comes with it. Quite a few programs have to deal with being in the NFL's shadow:

NE Patriots: BC (and to an extent UConn & UMass)
NY Jets/Giants: Rutgers
Buffalo Bills: Syracuse (could have more regional appeal)
Philadelphia Eagles: Temple
Pittsburgh Steelers: Pitt
Washington Redskins: Maryland
Cincinnati Bengals: Cincinnati (Bearcats, that is)
Chicago: Northwestern
Carolina Panthers: Charlotte 49ers and probably has some impact on all the Carolina teams
Atlanta Falcons: GT, GA St
Tennessee Titans: Vanderbilt
Tampa Bay Buccaneers: USF
Miami Dolphins: U of Miami, FAU, FIU
NO Saints: Tulane
Houston Texans: Houston Cougars, Rice
Dallas Cowboys: SMU, TCU, UNT
Minnesota Vikings: Minnesota Golden Gophers
Arizona Cardinals: Ariz St
Seattle Seahawks: Washington
SF 49ers/Oakland Raiders: Cal, Stanford

I left off the LA teams because I feel like they have done just fine even when they shared the market with the NFL but I with its return I think the brand names of USC and UCLA will remain strong.

Many of those programs were much better supported within their cities before the NFL grew in popularity and expanded through the 60s and 70s.

(07-30-2017 04:39 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  A big market can actually be a bad thing, particularly if competition from pro sports comes with it. Quite a few programs have to deal with being in the NFL's shadow:

NE Patriots: BC (and to an extent UConn & UMass)
NY Jets/Giants: Rutgers
Buffalo Bills: Syracuse (could have more regional appeal)
Philadelphia Eagles: Temple
Pittsburgh Steelers: Pitt
Washington Redskins: Maryland
Cincinnati Bengals: Cincinnati (Bearcats, that is)
Chicago: Northwestern
Carolina Panthers: Charlotte 49ers and probably has some impact on all the Carolina teams
Atlanta Falcons: GT, GA St
Tennessee Titans: Vanderbilt
Tampa Bay Buccaneers: USF
Miami Dolphins: U of Miami, FAU, FIU
NO Saints: Tulane
Houston Texans: Houston Cougars, Rice
Dallas Cowboys: SMU, TCU, UNT
Minnesota Vikings: Minnesota Golden Gophers
Arizona Cardinals: Ariz St
Seattle Seahawks: Washington
SF 49ers/Oakland Raiders: Cal, Stanford

I left off the LA teams because I feel like they have done just fine even when they shared the market with the NFL but I with its return I think the brand names of USC and UCLA will remain strong.

Many of those programs were much better supported within their cities before the NFL grew in popularity and expanded through the 60s and 70s.

Talking about market, the Panthers really have no impact on SC teams. Clemson and South Carolina, even in their worst years, still draw 60-65K a game. That is their base. U-Dub in Seattle is a very big draw. The others you listed I agree with. College sports is in the shadow of the NFL in many of the largest metro areas.

Let's Try This Again

New England Patriots: Effect Boston College, UConn, and UMass as region is more pro oriented
NY Jets/Giants: Rutgers
Buffalo Bills: Buffalo Bulls
Philadelphia Eagles: Temple & Rutgers
Pittsburgh Steelers: Pitt
Washington Redskins: Maryland, Navy, and Virginia
Cleveland: Doesn't help Akron
Detroit: I would say EMU but I doubt it does
Cincinnati Bengals: Cincinnati Bearcats
Chicago: Northwestern and NIU
Carolina Panthers: Charlotte 49ers
Atlanta Falcons: Georgia Tech (Ga State still would have fan support issue with NFL gone. GT and UGA take up a lot of fans on Saturdays)
Tennessee Titans: Vanderbilt
Tampa Bay Buccaneers: USF
Miami Dolphins: Miami Hurricanes (FIU/FAU no one cares about even if NFL left)
New Orleans Saints: Tulane
Houston Texans: Houston Cougars, Rice
Dallas Cowboys: SMU, TCU, UNT
Minnesota Vikings: Minnesota Golden Gophers
Arizona Cardinals: Arizona State
Seattle Seahawks: Washington (not much since stadium renovation)
SF 49ers/Oakland Raiders: Cal, Stanford
LA Rams/Chargers: UCLA/USC (Both had lower attendance when the NFL was in town, we shall see hoe they are effected)

(07-29-2017 10:03 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(07-29-2017 09:06 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(07-29-2017 02:10 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  It's not like almost all of these schools haven't been televised for decades.

Temple's value would be the same if they were located in Altoona. A large population of indifferent people who happen to live near a school doesn't add any value.

Wrong, it only need be kept in perspective. If a team starts winning big, it activates a legion of casual fans, who in time could become die-hards to some extent if they win enough. Look at Miami.

If Temple, wins enough, they could carve a niche in Philadelphia. They'll never fill the Linc, perhaps not even if the Eagles move away but they could draw 50-60k fans if they stay in the polls yearly.

And if Temple won a lot and was located in the middle of a cow field, they'd be Penn State and have a football program that makes $100 million a year.

If's and but's are nice, but they aren't reality. Fans matter, not markets.

The school itself matters more than the market. Most of the fans in the stands, even at Penn State or Notre Dame or Texas, are alums. Temple has a large alumni population (about 300,000) but it's still less than half the size of Penn State (the largest in the country at 658,000).

This is why newer schools (like Liberty and UCF) and smaller schools (like Tulsa, Notre Dame, and Syracuse) could win like Alabama and they'd still never sell as many tickets as Michigan (which has the 2nd biggest alumni population of any school in the country).

For fans in the stands, Alumni matter most, and to seed that Students in the stands matter most. The notable exceptions for the vast majority of fans being alumni are USC, Stanford and Miami (FL) -- I wont explain each (they have their own stories)

For fans in the stands starts with students. Students who go to games are far more likely to be alumni who go to games (dunno the actual ratio but it's gotta be >10:1). Obviously schools with more student pride and high residential rates do far better. Commuter schools will struggle (exception Boise State, again like Miami and USC it's place identification).

Where metro locations matter is when your schools is too great a distance from the alumni. This is a major reason why Washington State, which has every other ingredient to be successful (stands full of students, residential, and invested student body) struggles. The successful alumni are the ones who pay $300 a ticket+donation per game. For Washington State, the bulk of their alumni being in Seattle (then LA and SF) is a huge problem. They simply cannot raise the money they need due to remote location.

TV audience the location is less an issue than the level of the league you play in. If you are in a power conference you will get decent ratings.

There are other factors. Carrying the identity of the state is huge, especially for the casual TV fan and selling merchandise. Alabama, Ohio State, Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Georgia, and so on, carry the identity of their states. Notre Dame carries a large Catholic audience, BYU the Mormons (much smaller base). These are less likely to be butts in seats, but often include folks who never miss a game.

Demographics factor. A larger African-American community is strong indicator of higher support for football (it's an indicator, as it also means a very similar and larger white demographics is drawn upon in the area). The cosmopolitan the cities (e.g, Bos-Wash, LA Basin, SF Bay) the weaker the support for college sports. Living in a packed urban metro makes college football seem small potatoes. A related factor is not having an NFL team in the primary city. No question Ohio State, Alabama, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Oregon, and others benefit from that.

(07-30-2017 04:39 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  A big market can actually be a bad thing, particularly if competition from pro sports comes with it. Quite a few programs have to deal with being in the NFL's shadow:

NE Patriots: BC (and to an extent UConn & UMass)
NY Jets/Giants: Syracuse, Rutgers, Army?
Buffalo Bills: Syracuse? (could have more regional appeal), U of Buffalo
Philadelphia Eagles: Temple,
Pittsburgh Steelers: Pitt
Washington Redskins: Maryland, Navy, Virginia?
Cincinnati Bengals: Cincinnati (Bearcats, that is), Miami, OH, & Kentucky
Chicago: Northwestern
Carolina Panthers: Charlotte 49ers and probably has some impact on all the Carolina teams
Atlanta Falcons: GT, GA St,
Tennessee Titans: Vanderbilt, Middle Tennessee,
Tampa Bay Buccaneers: USF, UCF?
Miami Dolphins: U of Miami, FAU, FIU
NO Saints: Tulane, Louisiana,
Houston Texans: Houston Cougars, Rice,
Dallas Cowboys: SMU, TCU, UNT,
Minnesota Vikings: Minnesota Golden Gophers
Arizona Cardinals: Ariz St, Arizona
SF 49ers/Oakland Raiders: Cal, Stanford, SJSU
Cleveland Browns: Akron, Kent State,
Detroit Lions: EMU

I left off the LA teams because I feel like they have done just fine even when they shared the market with the NFL but I with its return I think the brand names of USC and UCLA will remain strong.

Many of those programs were much better supported within their cities before the NFL grew in popularity and expanded through the 60s and 70s.

I added question marks by some teams because it's unclear how much of an effect the NFL has on them, if any, as well as adding some additional teams.
I took out Seattle Seahawks: Washington because the Huskies aren't really in the Seahawks shadow anymore than UGa is in the Falcons shadow, or LSU is in the Saints shadow, etc.

Unless a state or market is too devoid of population to support a program, the "market" does not really matter.
1.8 million is sufficient to support a very credible P5 and a G5.
1.9 million is sufficient to support one of the biggest names in football, Nebraska.
585,000 is sufficient to support a high level G5 in Wyoming.

Number of people isn't nearly as important as number of people interested in college football and willing to attend a school's games. It has been reported that college football draws roughly the same number of eyeballs in the Birmingham television market as the New York television market.