Realignment talk not going away

[DFW Horn 6506]

1 minute ago, closetohumping said:

1.  Say what?  I thought we he big 12 schools have been crushing the pac schools?

2. Is that mhver guy aka dude of West Virginia?

3. academics may be overrated here.   Vanderbilt is well thought of and they’re in the same conference as MSU , ole miss and aggy

1. Stewie's "analysis" is slapshod at best

2. No, @MHver3 is a different hillbilly. Same ilk, though

3. Academics shouldn't factor into athletic realignment decisions, but the Pac schools just may let it cloud their judgment. 

[closetohumping 17547]

23 minutes ago, LTtxfan said:

Fyi... 

 

We need to talk Eddie!  Good luck with rev sharing outside of the big 2 conferences

[DFW Horn 6506]

 

[LTbear 4172]

1 hour ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

Mandel's latest:

https://theathletic.com/3444339/2022/07/25/pac12-big12-tv-viewership/

 

 

 

 

 

  Hide contents

Losing USC and UCLA is not as catastrophic as losing Oklahoma and Texas

It’s absolutely still a gut punch, but neither USC or UCLA have been as big a draw recently as Oklahoma or Texas. Over six seasons, the Sooners averaged 3.26 million viewers per game, the Longhorns 2.7 million. Over the same period, the Trojans averaged 2.17 million per game, the Bruins 1.55 million. While Oklahoma and Texas were the Big 12’s clear-cut top two, USC was not significantly higher than Oregon (2.02 million), while UCLA ranked sixth in the Pac-12.

Of course, this period coincided with Clay Helton’s underwhelming tenure at USC, in which the Trojans went 46-32 and won one Pac-12 title. The TV networks would know much better how well USC rates when it’s winning big, like it did during the Pete Carroll era.

That said, Texas was 40-36 during the same stretch and averaged a half-million more viewers than the Trojans.

There’s an obvious reason for that, though. The conferences’ two media partners generally put their best games every week on over-the-air networks ABC or Fox, where games usually draw higher ratings than on cable. Oklahoma and Texas appeared on 46 and 33 such broadcasts, respectively, compared with 28 for USC and 16 for UCLA.

In total, 73 percent of Fox and ABC’s Big 12 selections included the two departing members, versus 53 percent for the Pac-12. In fact, Oregon was chosen for the top spot 18 times, two more than UCLA.

Why, then, isn’t the Big Ten taking Oregon instead of or along with UCLA? Because the Los Angeles television market is much more valuable.

It currently comprises nearly 5.5 million households. Getting the Big Ten Network (which is majority owned by Fox) onto basic cable tiers there is expected to generate tens of millions annually in new subscriber fees — whether or not those subscribers watch a single UCLA game.

Oregon and Washington draw well — but don’t forget Stanford

Oregon, which went to the College Football Playoff the year before this period began, won a Rose Bowl in 2019 and finished in the AP Top 25 two other seasons, averaged 1.96 million viewers, even with its USC and UCLA games removed. For perspective, the top remaining Big 12 program, Oklahoma State, averaged 1.28 million.

The next-highest performer was a mild surprise: Stanford (1.83 million), which edged out Washington (1.73 million). While the Cardinal have been dreadful the past few seasons, they were notable ratings draws in the days of Christian McCaffrey and Bryce Love. In 2016, a Friday night ESPN game between No. 7 Stanford and No. 10 Washington drew 3.3 million viewers, third-highest of any Pac-12 game that season.

Stanford also gets significant mileage out of its every-other-year home games against Notre Dame. The two have played every year (save 2020) since 1997. The four installments during this period averaged 4.8 million. While there is no guarantee the series continues forever, an ESPN or Fox might pay handsomely just for the rights in the event it does.

Everyone but Arizona and Oregon State averaged at least 1.2 million viewers

Below is a chart of the remaining Pac-12 and Big 12 schools’ average TV ratings, from 2015-19 and 2021. (Games against Oklahoma/Texas and USC/UCLA are excluded.)

TEAM VIEWERS

Oregon	1.96 million
Stanford	1.83 million
Washington	1.73 million
Washington State	1.59 million
Colorado	1.49 million
Utah	1.44 million
Oklahoma State	1.28 million
California	1.27 million
TCU	1.22 million
Arizona State	1.19 million
West Virginia	1.10 million
Baylor	1.07 million
Iowa State	1.04 million
Texas Tech	866,000
Arizona	815,000
Kansas State	748,000
Oregon State	723,000
Kansas	409,000

That 1.2 million number would get laughed at in the Big Ten or SEC. As Staples recently wrote, Auburn, even with marquee games against Alabama and Georgia excluded, has a median audience that’s twice as high (2.4 million).

But it may be of relevance given the current Big 12/Pac-12 jostling taking place farther down the track.

That 1.2 million average is more than all but two of the eight Big 12 holdovers (Oklahoma State and TCU). Even Oklahoma State (1.28 million) would only rank seventh among the remaining Pac-12 schools. On the surface, that seems preposterous, given the Cowboys, who went 12-2 last season and 57-22 over those six seasons, are light years better on the field than the forlorn Buffaloes (33-42).

But I think I know the answer.

Pac-12 After Dark is a sneaky-big advantage

As much as Pac-12 coaches and fans loathe those late games, they may be the league’s saving grace in its next deal.

While the Big 12 and Pac-12 have the same two TV partners, their deals are structured differently. The Big 12’s leftover eight had far more of their games relegated to the ratings graveyard that is FS1 than the Pac-12’s, while the Pac-12 got more pickups by main ESPN. And that’s entirely because the league is able to place games at 10:30 p.m. ET, when no other Power 5 leagues are playing.

In 2021, Pac-12 teams appeared on 12 ESPN games that kicked off at 10 p.m. ET or later. Those games averaged 1.34 million viewers, and all but two broke 1 million.

Because ESPN reserves its earlier time slots almost entirely for the Big Ten, SEC and ACC, the Big 12’s best cable windows are usually daytime on ESPN2. Ratings-wise, it’s still better to be on main ESPN, regardless of kickoff time.

For example, on Nov. 20 last season, Arizona State and Oregon State — two of the Pac-12’s lowest-drawing teams — played a 10:30 p.m. ET ESPN game that garnered 1.11 million viewers. In doing so, they narrowly beat a Noon ESPN2 game that included Texas (against West Virginia). It sounds crazy, but the latter, which reached 1 million viewers, went up against both No. 4 Ohio State vs. No. 7 Michigan State on ABC (5.3 million) and Clemson vs. No. 10 Wake Forest on ESPN (1.6 million), whereas the Sun Devils and Beavers were the only Power 5 teams still in action.

The Pac-12 might be OK if…

In conclusion, the Pac-12 may be in better shape than one would have assumed three weeks ago — provided it can keep the remaining 10 schools together.

The league won’t come anywhere close to the SEC or Big Ten in its next TV deal, but a consensus has developed recently among TV experts that ESPN will likely offer something enticing enough to calm the waters. (Fox, now that it has the existing Big Ten and USC and UCLA, is likely out of the picture.) Keep in mind, that new deal will likely include the rights to 30-plus additional games a year that currently air on the soon-to-go-dark Pac-12 Network. ESPN would likely place on them on its budding ESPN+ streaming service.

Of course, if at any point the Big Ten changes its mind about Oregon and Washington, then the remains of the Pac-12 would be no better off than the remains of the Big 12. But that does not appear to be imminent. In the meantime, commissioner George Kliavkoff should urge those 10 schools to welcome a couple of new members (San Diego State would surely be one), embrace 10:30 p.m. ET kickoffs and look forward to a new era with more streaming (hello, ESPN+) and possibly no FS1 or Pac-12 Network dumps.

The money won’t be $80 million a year like the Big Ten’s 2024 projections, but should be within shouting distance of the ACC, which got $36.1 million last year.

Like the Pac-12, the rebuilt Big 12 is to be determined. But based on the ratings numbers in this story, it’s hard to see why the Pac-12 would be in a weaker position.

 

Good summary, but I'm curious about one aspect of the way he sets up the analysis. He always throws out 2020, if I remember correctly, which is the right call. He also says he doesn't include ESPN+ that started carrying a few lousy Big XII games in 2019 and 2021, but he's not including PACN games for any of the years studied, which carried a good number of lousy Pac games. As such I wonder if his numbers are biased towards including more of the "upper" Pac 12 games while mostly including all of the Big XII "lower" games, because 1) The PACN carries more games throughout the study period due to better setup and more teams/ inventory, and 2) ESPN+ carried fewer game and didn't begin until the last two years of the study period. 

/nerd data rant over

[JFKFC 4942]

2 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

seeing how poorly programs like Oklahoma State and Baylor fare in the Nielsen ratings when not facing the Sooners or the Longhorns.

[nunna yo bizness 1687]

51 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

What’s the context of that? Is it taken from all games or conference games? I’d be interested see conference games average  of both not including UCLA, USC, Texas, or Oklahoma. 

Based on the numbers quoted in the article it apparently includes both conference and ooc games.

"But it’s still a relatively similar amount of inventory — after removing the departing members’ games, about 52 per year from the Big 12 and 48 from the Pac-12."

[cochamps 1879]

On 7/23/2022 at 6:25 PM, camel at sea said:

Yeah.  WVU won BCS games in '05, '07, and '11 from a power conference (admittedly the weakest one) and played for national titles after the '88 and '93 seasons.  TCU won the Rose Bowl after the 2010 season and finished with a Top 10 team in '05, '08, '09, and '10.  The Frogs were in a major conference for about 70-80 years prior to the end of the SWC.

Neither SDSU nor Fresno have ever done anything remotely on par.    

Tbf, Fresno did win Reggie Bush the Heisman in '05. 😂

[LTbear 4172]

8 minutes ago, nunna yo bizness said:

Based on the numbers quoted in the article it apparently includes both conference and ooc games.

"But it’s still a relatively similar amount of inventory — after removing the departing members’ games, about 52 per year from the Big 12 and 48 from the Pac-12."

Ah I missed this. It might get roughly at what I was wondering about. Like it would roughly be considering the top 38% or so of PAC games and the top 55% or so of Big XII games. 

[ButtFumble 5188]

I think there can be an issue with those numbers based on the fact that he is tossing out two games for 100% of the Big 12 members because of the fuck all stupid "errwon play errbodi" and "won truu campion" bullshit

playing 9 conference games (which was always stupid as fuck) in a 10 team conference means that every other team in the conference will have Texas and OU every year thus lose two of their games to be rated in that analysis

in the PAC 12 (still playing 9 conference games like idiots) with 12 teams that means some years some of the members will possibly have none of their games tossed out of the analysis or maybe only one instead of guarantying to have two tossed out

one can also look at the Big 12 CCG where the ratings were have been massively in favor of the Big 12 to gauge some overall interest

 

there is ZERO chance that Stanford ever comes to the Big 12 and fuck Colorado this is an excellent chance to send them to a graveyard forever and UW and Oregon (if the Big 12 even had a chance) are not worth the complaining and instability plus they would certainly want to drag along shit bags like Colorado, Cal, and not shit bags, but financial disasters like WSU and Oregon State.......which they would run away from and leave behind for the Big 12 to be stuck with at the first chance

pass on that this is a great chance for the Big 12 to leave a lot of west coast programs in the dumpster together.....Stanford looks to be on a not so smooth glide path back to winning 3 games a year for the next decade and a half, UW has major issues, and who knows with Oregon even

Edited July 25, 2022 by ButtFumble

[LTbear 4172]

5 minutes ago, ButtFumble said:

I think there can be an issue with those numbers based on the fact that he is tossing out two games for 100% of the Big 12 members because of the fuck all stupid "errwon play errbodi" and "won truu campion" bullshit

playing 9 conference games (which was always stupid as fuck) in a 10 team conference means that every other team in the conference will have Texas and OU every year thus lose two of their games to be rated in that analysis

in the PAC 12 (still playing 9 conference games like idiots) with 12 teams that means some years some of the members will possibly have none of their games tossed out of the analysis or maybe only one instead of guarantying to have two tossed out

one can also look at the Big 12 CCG where the ratings were have been massively in favor of the Big 12 to gauge some overall interest

 

there is ZERO chance that Stanford ever comes to the Big 12 and fuck Colorado this is an excellent chance to send them to a graveyard forever and UW and Oregon (if the Big 12 even had a chance) are not worth the complaining and instability plus they would certainly want to drag along shit bags like Colorado, Cal, and not shit bags, but financial disasters like WSU and Oregon State.......which they would run away from and leave behind for the Big 12 to be stuck with at the first chance

pass on that this is a great chance for the Big 12 to leave a lot of west coast programs in the dumpster together.....Stanford looks to be on a not so smooth glide path back to winning 3 games a year for the next decade and a half, UW has major issues, and who knows with Oregon even

No idea why now, but for years I had thought you were a Colorado fan. 

[Al_4_ISU 12526]

Stewart Mandel's numbers are really slanted to make the Pac 12 look better.  He's a Pac homer.  There's a reason nearly everyone has estimated the Big 12's share to be a fair bit larger than the Pac's, outside of Pac 12 homers.

[66BUFF 2574]

5 minutes ago, LTbear said:

No idea why now, but for years I had thought you were a Colorado fan. 

He is a rabid anti-Buffite

['stache 21900]

5 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Stewart Mandel's numbers are really slanted to make the Pac 12 look better.  He's a Pac homer.  There's a reason nearly everyone has estimated the Big 12's share to be a fair bit larger than the Pac's, outside of Pac 12 homers.

Literally every other ratings analysis removing the departing programs has shown the complete opposite. There was one that even kept USC and UCLA and the remaining Big XII did better. The BIG XII title game without blue bloods doubled the PAC-12 title game in ratings that featured Oregon. He’s making shit up to save the PAC. 

Edited July 25, 2022 by 'stache

[statsman 5497]

What are the numbers that show the B12 schools (less Texas and OU) better than the PAC (less USC and UCLA)?

[Vertigo 20365]

2 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Literally every other ratings analysis removing the departing programs has shown the complete opposite. There was one that even kept USC and UCLA and the remaining Big XII did better. The BIG XII title game without blue bloods doubled the PAC-12 title game in ratings that featured Oregon. He’s making shit up to save the PAC. 

They keep hammering on P12 after dark as this big advantage, yet the reason so many people say the PAC is dead is because nobody watches their games because they start too late. 

[mdmost 43294]

3 minutes ago, statsman said:

What are the numbers that show the B12 schools (less Texas and OU) better than the PAC (less USC and UCLA)?

Ones from lay people as far as I've seen. I keep seeing people take shots at Mandel and Wilner as Pac 12 shills. I don't know, maybe they have access to more accurate numbers than some guy on the internet. 

Lot of desperation on both sides. 

[ButtFumble 5188]

7 minutes ago, Vertigo said:

They keep hammering on P12 after dark as this big advantage, yet the reason so many people say the PAC is dead is because nobody watches their games because they start too late. 

the one thing about that is....it is not like The Big 12 can't just have games start later if they wanted some of that "after dark" action

if you have a game starting at 5pm it is hot as fuck in half the places in the conference for most of the year and the game will end at 8:30 or 9

if you move it to 6:30 or 7 Central you are over by 11 at the latest....that might still be an hour sooner than a west coast 6pm start (8 Central) that well end at 11:30 to midnight, but if you have a good Big 12 game going at the finish people will probably stay tuned in and then just go to bed

[closetohumping 17547]

14 minutes ago, statsman said:

What are the numbers that show the B12 schools (less Texas and OU) better than the PAC (less USC and UCLA)?

They're in Geraldo Rivera's vault

[mdleast 8388]

Doesn't The Athletic's numbers make initial sense from just a TV market perspective? Generally speaking, aren't most of those remaining PAC schools in bigger TV markets than those remaining Big 12?  I listen to a lot of CFB podcasts and seem to recall a discussion last week of this same point.

Edited July 25, 2022 by mdleast

[Huckleberry 33519]

That analysis really is garbage. You'd need to control for opponents better than that as well as network and time slot. It wouldn't be easy and the sample size would hurt. 

For example, Stanford is helped because they play Notre Dame every year. 

[LTbear 4172]

3 minutes ago, mdmost said:

Ones from lay people as far as I've seen. I keep seeing people take shots at Mandel and Wilner as Pac 12 shills. I don't know, maybe they have access to more accurate numbers than some guy on the internet. 

Lot of desperation on both sides. 

To be fair, Wilner and Mandel are absolutely homers. Wilner makes a career covering PAC sports, and Mandel does the same in large part. Other writers, including others from The Athletic, are much more unbiased. Like I said, Mandel's quick "analyses" are a good starting point, but someone like me who just happens to have dealt with stats a good bit immediately recognized some sources of bias in his breakdown. Taking out UT, OU, USC and UCLA is obviously a good move, but you also have to compare the same quality and depth of game across both conferences to have an apples to apples comparison. You could take other data like this and quickly calculate that the Big 12 - OU/ UT gets more views than the PAC - USC/ UCLA. (No, that's not a great analysis at all, but just as an example).

[Laxtonto 12635]

How many of those numbers that the article is based on actually balances what time slot the games were aired and who they were up against.

What surprises me is that Oregon doesn't have better numbers, considering the success they have had over the years in question. 

These numbers are probably the best rosy approximation they can find, just like many of the B12 versions we have seen.

 

The issue is that 1, without USC and UCL the P12N may lose all of its carriage deals again without the big boys anchoring LA and 2, neither of these sets of schools makes it worthwhile for the big players to overpay for the TV deal, when instead they can just expand to include one more major SEC and B10 games a week instead. I got a bad feeling that both groups will be underwhelmed with the offered TV deals by the major networks and we will see both explore more digital-only or hodgepodge deals instead. 

[LTbear 4172]

4 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

That analysis really is garbage. You'd need to control for opponents better than that as well as network and time slot. It wouldn't be easy and the sample size would hurt. 

For example, Stanford is helped because they play Notre Dame every year. 

This exactly. Doing a true apples to apples comparison is possible, and I actually have no idea how it might come out, but it definitely takes a lot more work than what Mandel put in. He did only the most basic, shallow-level "correction;" enough to make the general reader say "oh gee golly this is really well thought out" but not nearly enough for anyone with a mind towards stats and potential statistical biases. 

Edited July 25, 2022 by LTbear

[General Specific 3342]

Everyone.

I think everyone misunderstood, it should read as Fuck Notre Dame! Or FND for short.

ps.

Fuck Notre Dame

[statsman 5497]

10 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

 

For example, Stanford is helped because they play Notre Dame every year. 

Can’t you also say ISU is hurt because they play Northern Iowa every year? Which is part of the point- the left behinds have been free riders on a conference media value that they have not done much to contribute to. 
 

Checking Phil Steele, Stanford’s worst (least competitive) non-conference  matchup since 2017 was hosting UC-Davis in 2018. Their second worst was hosting Rice in 2017. Their third worst was hosting Vanderbilt last year. IOW, they schedule better matchups in non-conference than any of the remaining B12 schools. (They do have Colgate this year). 

Edited July 25, 2022 by statsman

[LTbear 4172]

10 minutes ago, statsman said:

Can’t you also say ISU is hurt because they play Northern Iowa every year?

Seeing as Mandel's numbers only use half of Big XII games, then for this "analysis"/ the convo at hand that you're replying to, likely no. 

[DCLonghorn 244]

On 7/21/2022 at 7:38 PM, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

Edited July 25, 2022 by DCLonghorn

[LTbear 4172]

24 minutes ago, LTbear said:

This exactly. Doing a true apples to apples comparison is possible, and I actually have no idea how it might come out, but it definitely takes a lot more work than what Mandel put in. He did only the most basic, shallow-level "correction;" enough to make the general reader say "oh gee golly this is really well thought out" but not nearly enough for anyone with a mind towards stats and potential statistical biases. 

Man, I just realized one other obvious bias that Mandel admits himself: the PAC's late-night game skews their average because they're up against no competition. So his numbers are already including many more (by %) low-rating Big XII games than Pac games, but he's also skewing Pac numbers with an uncontested timeslot that would (obviously) go to the Big XII if the Big XII were to absorb some Pac members.

And:

45% or so of the Big 12's games he sampled were on FS1 or ESPNU. 28% for the PAC.
49% of the PAC was on ABC/ESPN/FOX. 22% for the Big 12.

(last bit from external source, not my math)

Edited July 25, 2022 by LTbear

[DCLonghorn 244]

16 minutes ago, DCLonghorn said:

 

Web site is glitching a bit trying to respond. Probably user error!

The Athletic article makes it clear the surprising disparity is because they get the late time slot to themselves on the bigger/better cable channel while Big 12 usually gets earlier slot but on less watched ESPN channels or worse, FS1. Big 12 games on earlier slots compete with SEC or B1G games and split the eye balls.  Makes perfect sense and we've all known this. The perennial back handed compliment to Thursday or Friday night games. You get all the eye balls but you aren't a big dog if you are playing at that time.

IMHO: The Pac will survive as it is at 10 and *might add a couple in their footprint. The Big 12 will stay put and do just fine. Nothing bigger shakes loose until we are closer to ACC deal being up a *long time form now...an eternity in CFB. The long ass GOR in ACC land is having the exact result it was designed for. Stability and slow the emotional roll. ND will stay independent and combine new NBC deal with streaming deal to stay as is. CBS will bid for that and Domers get better deal than expected. UT and OU don't join SEC early or if we do, just one year early.  B1G responded to SEC move...didn't open the floodgates. Now we wait. This thread goes on for years and years and years. 

Edited July 25, 2022 by DCLonghorn

[nineliveslost 2888]

8 minutes ago, DCLonghorn said:

This thread goes on for years and years and years. 

[LTbear 4172]

1 hour ago, LTbear said:

Good summary, but I'm curious about one aspect of the way he sets up the analysis. He always throws out 2020, if I remember correctly, which is the right call. He also says he doesn't include ESPN+ that started carrying a few lousy Big XII games in 2019 and 2021, but he's not including PACN games for any of the years studied, which carried a good number of lousy Pac games. As such I wonder if his numbers are biased towards including more of the "upper" Pac 12 games while mostly including all of the Big XII "lower" games, because 1) The PACN carries more games throughout the study period due to better setup and more teams/ inventory, and 2) ESPN+ carried fewer game and didn't begin until the last two years of the study period. 

/nerd data rant over

Adding to this, I think the B12 puts one game per team per year (usually the crappiest non-con) on ESPN+ or LHN, the P12 airs 35 games on the P12 network out of their 144 total game inventory, so he's discarding the bottom 25% of the lowest ratings from their averages. 

[Mitch Cumsteen 18655]

31 minutes ago, LTbear said:

Man, I just realized one other obvious bias that Mandel admits himself: the PAC's late-night game skews their average because they're up against no competition. So his numbers are already including many more (by %) low-rating Big XII games than Pac games, but he's also skewing Pac numbers with an uncontested timeslot that would (obviously) go to the Big XII if the Big XII were to absorb some Pac members.

And:

45% or so of the Big 12's games he sampled were on FS1 or ESPNU. 28% for the PAC.
49% of the PAC was on ABC/ESPN/FOX. 22% for the Big 12.

(last bit from external source, not my math)

I think that's kind of the point. The Pac has that late night time zone all to itself. That's the value, I suppose.

I wonder if the Big 10 starts scheduling some late night home games for USC and UCLA to compete for that time slot. Think how fired up the 12 people who give a shit about Rutgers are going to be when their game ends at 2:00 am. 

Edited July 25, 2022 by Mitch Cumsteen

[billfromlaketravis 11601]

Mandel dragging the Big 12's TV numbers get a bit tiresome, but if Tech can't constantly draw 1 million viewers for conference games, that's a bit concerning. I think Big 12 fans need to recalibrate their expectations. Pray for an expanded playoff, and get ready to watch a majority of games on ESPN+. 

Rinse and repeat for the Pac 10. ESPN will almost certainly jam Friday night "showcase" games down their throats. 

 

[LTbear 4172]

1 minute ago, Mitch Cumsteen said:

I think that's kind of the point. The Pac has that late night time zone all to itself. That's the value, I suppose.

I wonder if the Big 10 starts scheduling some late night home games for USC and UCLA to compete for that time slot. Think how fired up the 12 people who give a shit about Rutgers are going to be when their game ends at 2:00 am. 

I think the point is how well do PAC and Big XII teams do when all is equal. Because if, in theory, the PAC is just advantaged by having some late timeslots while the Big XII does better otherwise, then adding a few PAC teams to the Big XII would consolidate some of those uncontested timeslots with overall better ratings. 

[LTtxfan 49404]

2 hours ago, LTtxfan said:

 

 

Edited July 25, 2022 by LTtxfan

[MAUFRAIS 6675]

What do we want?

No more slap slap slapping sounds!

When do we want it?

Now!

[closetohumping 17547]

1 hour ago, LTbear said:

Man, I just realized one other obvious bias that Mandel admits himself: the PAC's late-night game skews their average because they're up against no competition. So his numbers are already including many more (by %) low-rating Big XII games than Pac games, but he's also skewing Pac numbers with an uncontested timeslot that would (obviously) go to the Big XII if the Big XII were to absorb some Pac members.

And:

45% or so of the Big 12's games he sampled were on FS1 or ESPNU. 28% for the PAC.
49% of the PAC was on ABC/ESPN/FOX. 22% for the Big 12.

(last bit from external source, not my math)

Maybe but aren't fewer people awake?  Some of their starts are like at 11 EST and there's certainly MWC games.

 

Also I don't think scheduling is as big a factor as some would think.  Both conferences have scheduled scrubs and elite teams.  Up thread, someone said they're surprised Oregon's ratings aren't higher.  I'm not really.  Portland is a smallish market and have they really been that great since Kelly left?

 

 

Edited July 25, 2022 by closetohumping

[Jabberwocky 1666]

Stewart Mandel went to Stanford, I think his daughter swims at Stanford, and he is a huge Pac homer. Just stop. Nobody is going to watch that nonsense.

Edited July 25, 2022 by Jabberwocky

[billfromlaketravis 11601]

Mandel went to Northwestern. I think you might be thinking of Pat Forde. His daughter was an Olympic swimmer and graduated from Stanford. 

 

[mdmost 43294]

2 minutes ago, billfromlaketravis said:

Mandel went to Northwestern. I think you might be thinking of Pat Forde. His daughter was an Olympic swimmer and graduated from Stanford. 

 

Yeah but Northwestern is like the Stanford of the Midwest. Obvious Pac homer!

Edited July 25, 2022 by mdmost

[bullet 1605]

14 hours ago, XOVERX said:

The CU administration reminds me of the Texas administration under DeLoss Dodds.

Dodds dissed the SEC from the beginning of the modern day realignment catalyst, which is to say, after Oklahoma v. NCAA in 1984.

First, Dodds refused to follow AR into the SEC, instead choosing the B10, over the protestations of aggy, who wanted the SEC. After getting dissed by the B10, Dodds insisted on the B12, ignoring that all but three of the major TV markets were in Texas. Then, after those three TV markets ran off, then aggy ran off to the SEC, still no SEC for Texas, Dodds gave us a dozen more years in the new B12 + LHN + WVU + TCU. Oh goodie. Then, mercifully, Dodds retired.

After Dodds left, it didn’t take too awfully long for the Texas admin to finally settle on CDC and figure out the obvious move: SEC. Thank goodness the wanderlust is over.

The presidents were driving the moves.  Big 10 and Pac 10 weren't interested and President Cunningham had no interest in the SEC.  SEC was still recruiting illiterates at that point in time and Cunningham didn't want to compete with that.

[bullet 1605]

14 hours ago, DFW Horn said:

I did.

@MHver3 is the master of postulating multiple scenarios to fit a narrative that he'll use later as proof of his "sources". Throw enough shit up against the wall and eventually something stick. It's just speculation and fun to debate, which is why we're here.

How does an anonymous hillbilly have high-level sources in the Big 12 and Pac?

I think Cal and Stanford are the least likely to join the Big 12.  They will only do it when there is no other choice.

['stache 21900]

1 hour ago, LTbear said:

Adding to this, I think the B12 puts one game per team per year (usually the crappiest non-con) on ESPN+ or LHN, the P12 airs 35 games on the P12 network out of their 144 total game inventory, so he's discarding the bottom 25% of the lowest ratings from their averages. 

They put KSU v. OSU on ESPN+ a few years ago when both teams were ranked in the top 20 and when ESPN+ had just started and didn't have the Hulu-Disney + package that has driven far more sign-ups in recent years. It seems like all of ISU's games v. UT were on the LHN. Remember that ESPN tried very recently to say the remaining Big XII was equal to the AAC. They intentionally tried to devalue the product because the PAC's relationship was with Fox and there was talk at the time of the Pac adding XII teams. With the landscape wide open again, ESPN is looking at real numbers and the XII is superior and can do much better with some PAC teams, the reverse of what they tried to do before the PAC lost a huge chunk of its value losing its only blueblood.

[Vermin 3095]

2 minutes ago, bullet said:

The presidents were driving the moves.  Big 10 and Pac 10 weren't interested and President Cunningham had no interest in the SEC.  SEC was still recruiting illiterates at that point in time and Cunningham didn't want to compete with that.

[bullet 1605]

3 hours ago, mdleast said:

Per the article:

Below is a chart of the remaining Pac-12 and Big 12 schools’ average TV ratings, from 2015-19 and 2021. (Games against Oklahoma/Texas and USC/UCLA are excluded.)

Which means they include games against the Pac 12 champ 4 out of 5 years but exclude games against the Big 12 champ 4 out of 5 years.

Teams in contention draw better regardless of the name on the jersey.  Baylor-Oklahoma St. ccg not only swamped Oregon-Utah ccg, but beat Oregon-Utah and Pitt-WF ACC ccg game combined.

[DFW Horn 6506]

Spoiler

Stewart Mandel’s Assessment of TV Ratings

Kudo’s to Stewart Mandel for realizing he needed a larger sample of TV ratings to properly make an assessment. 

Mr. Mandel’s latest assessment is still inaccurate. Raw TV ratings do not tell the truth. A good start is to adjust the ratings to account for the reach of the network. 

The Big 12’s average viewership is artificially lowered by one important factor Mr. Mandel failed to consider. Mandel used TV ratings from 2015 to 2021 to calculate his averages, but during that period some Big 12 tier 3 games were broadcast on FS1 and FS2. 

The Pac 12’s tier 3 football games were broadcast on the Pac 12 network. Ratings are unavailable for those games. 

Including tier 3 games in the Big 12’s calculations but omitting the same type of games for the Pac 12 skews the numbers and artificially lowers the Big 12’s results. 

FS1 and FS2 are the channels ratings go to die. We know that because the deviation is extreme. 

WVU, during the same period sampled by Mr. Mandel, appeared on ABC 7 times. The Mountaineers average TV rating was 1.8, their average viewership 2.9 million. WVU’s numbers on ESPN are equally strong. 13 appearances, average rating 1.3, average viewership 2.2 million. 

But on FS1 the results are jarringly bad. In 9 games WVU’s average rating was 0.38 with an average viewership of 712k.  The deviation is extreme. WVU’s average TV rating on FS1 was 1.17 points below its combined average of 1.55 on ABC/ESPN. The Combined average viewership on ABC/ESPN of  2.5 million was reduced by approximately 1.7 million viewers on FS1. 

What are tier 3 games and why did they hurt Big 12 ratings so much? Tier 3 games are the games that ESPN and Fox declined to broadcast on national TV. Normally the rights to those games revert back to the school to distribute locally. But Fox had a separate agreement with the Big 12 to pick-up and televise any games passed over for national broadcast. 

Mandel’s calculations for the Pac 12 did not include tier 3 games. 

 

[bullet 1605]

https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-delusion-aside-the-big-12

 

This is from John Conzano, an Oregon journalist and Pac 12 homer.

 

"...The Pac-12 Conference’s top universities get better television ratings than Big 12 counterparts. The Pac-12 has bigger TV markets, superior brands, stronger broad-based athletic programs, better academics, and higher-profile members.

The Pac-12 also includes the Pacific and Mountain Time Zones that media partners covet. The notion that the Big 12 is somehow stronger than the Pac-12 is delusional from any quantitative standpoint. 

Still, some in Big 12 country insist it’s true.

Stewart Mandel of The Athletic published an interesting study that compared the television impact of the Big 12 vs. Pac-12. He looked at TV ratings from 2015-2019 and 2021 for the remaining universities in each conference.

The Pac-12 won by knockout...."

[Jabberwocky 1666]

17 minutes ago, mdmost said:

Yeah but Northwestern is like the Stanford of the Midwest. Obvious Pac homer!

Sorry, they are the same guy in my mind, and I stopped following them both a long time ago.

[bullet 1605]

3 hours ago, nunna yo bizness said:

Based on the numbers quoted in the article it apparently includes both conference and ooc games.

"But it’s still a relatively similar amount of inventory — after removing the departing members’ games, about 52 per year from the Big 12 and 48 from the Pac-12."

So that's 6.5/year from the R8 and 4.8/year from the Pac 12.  So you do get more of the bottom rung games in the Big 12 average numbers.

[closetohumping 17547]

8 minutes ago, DFW Horn said:

  Hide contents

Stewart Mandel’s Assessment of TV Ratings

Kudo’s to Stewart Mandel for realizing he needed a larger sample of TV ratings to properly make an assessment. 

Mr. Mandel’s latest assessment is still inaccurate. Raw TV ratings do not tell the truth. A good start is to adjust the ratings to account for the reach of the network. 

The Big 12’s average viewership is artificially lowered by one important factor Mr. Mandel failed to consider. Mandel used TV ratings from 2015 to 2021 to calculate his averages, but during that period some Big 12 tier 3 games were broadcast on FS1 and FS2. 

The Pac 12’s tier 3 football games were broadcast on the Pac 12 network. Ratings are unavailable for those games. 

Including tier 3 games in the Big 12’s calculations but omitting the same type of games for the Pac 12 skews the numbers and artificially lowers the Big 12’s results. 

FS1 and FS2 are the channels ratings go to die. We know that because the deviation is extreme. 

WVU, during the same period sampled by Mr. Mandel, appeared on ABC 7 times. The Mountaineers average TV rating was 1.8, their average viewership 2.9 million. WVU’s numbers on ESPN are equally strong. 13 appearances, average rating 1.3, average viewership 2.2 million. 

But on FS1 the results are jarringly bad. In 9 games WVU’s average rating was 0.38 with an average viewership of 712k.  The deviation is extreme. WVU’s average TV rating on FS1 was 1.17 points below its combined average of 1.55 on ABC/ESPN. The Combined average viewership on ABC/ESPN of  2.5 million was reduced by approximately 1.7 million viewers on FS1. 

What are tier 3 games and why did they hurt Big 12 ratings so much? Tier 3 games are the games that ESPN and Fox declined to broadcast on national TV. Normally the rights to those games revert back to the school to distribute locally. But Fox had a separate agreement with the Big 12 to pick-up and televise any games passed over for national broadcast. 

Mandel’s calculations for the Pac 12 did not include tier 3 games. 

 

Good rebuttal by the dude but he’s still an asshat