Realignment talk not going away

[statsman 5456]

I don’t really get the argument that Madel’s data is screwed up because he counts so many more Big 12 games on lighter available networks. When this all shakes out, Oregon will still be playing Oregon State, Baylor will still be playing TCU and Texas will still be playing conference games against somebody. Does anyone think that ABC and Fox are more likely to put the B12 matchups on their major channels in the future than they are doing now? Why? Will there be new major channels produced?

Texas is the biggest B12 market. Texas and TAMu SEC games will be on the major channels. TT/ISU will be on minor channels. I don’t see that changing. ISU/KSU will be on ABC in a small local area of the country. 

Edited July 25, 2022 by statsman

[bullet 1596]

2 hours 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.

When Dennis Dodds, who hates the Big 12, talks about the Big 12 numbers being better, it has some credibility.  When Wilner, a good Pac 12 source but also a homer, talks about schools perhaps leaving, it has some credibility.  Mandel is a Pac 12 homer.  He has some numbers that favor the Pac 12, but they seem to fly in the face of every other analysis I've ever seen.

[BurntOrange&White 39930]

2 hours 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. 

That's why I wanted to see just conference games in that comparison.

[bullet 1596]

2 hours 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. 

Yes.  The 10:30 games are worth very little.  Nobody in the eastern time zone watches them.  For that matter, most people in the west are out doing something else.

I bet the Big 10 doesn't do any 10;30 games.  The Pac schools hate them and have been trying to do less of them.

[ButtFumble 5165]

I was just looking at some PAC 12 football season histories

I had forgotten what a massive amount of disarray they are in

UW firing their coach in the middle of year two for being "mean"

WSU firing theirs in year two because he would not take the vaccine (bet they feel dumb for that now)

Firm for Herm going flaccid (Herm has been causing trouble with recruiting and stuff too)

Stanford going back to sucking FAST

Cal is maintaining irrelevance and who knows what they can afford to hire

Arizona still passed out from Sumlin (could have alcohol poisoning)

Oregon has had their coach stolen twice in a row by ACC dumpster fires

Colorado had their coach taken and went with a failed PAC 12 retread Carl Dorrell...that is like recapping a chinese trailer tire (what was Ricky Neuheisel)...oh wait been there done that

Utah is solid there in coaching

Oregon State is the only one that is remotely "solid" after Utah and that is because they allowed their guy to work 3 seasons before getting 7 wins and a bowl loss in year 4

USC made a "big hire", but we will see

UCLA well they are still competing with aggy for the annual under-performance trophy

and the last two are leaving on a jet plane and know they will never be back again

 

that is a lot of programs working through a lot of shit right there

Edited July 25, 2022 by ButtFumble

[bullet 1596]

2 hours ago, mdleast said:

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.

It isn't just TV market.  Its whether people watch.  The most valuable TV market for college football in the country might be Atlanta!  In places like Columbus, OH, Atlanta and Austin, ratings are huge.  In LA, they are pretty small.  All of the west doesn't watch college football the way the southeast and parts of the midwest do.

[utee94 15810]

Basically every PAC game appearing on the PAC Network needs to be averaged in as a 0.0, and then the numbers would be repesentative.

Edited July 25, 2022 by utee94

[Vermin 3043]

2 minutes ago, bullet said:

It isn't just TV market.  Its whether people watch.  The most valuable TV market for college football in the country might be Atlanta!  In places like Columbus, OH, Atlanta and Austin, ratings are huge.  In LA, they are pretty small.  All of the west doesn't watch college football the way the southeast and parts of the midwest do.

It's a pipe dream that the LA metro area is going to be beating down the doors of Comcast demanding Rutgers - Maryland volleyball on basic cable.

[bullet 1596]

2 hours 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)

That's a huge difference.

[ButtFumble 5165]

3 minutes ago, utee94 said:

Basically every PAC game appearing on the PAC Network needs to be averaged in as a 0.0, and then the numbers would be repesentative.

 

[mdleast 8289]

6 minutes ago, bullet said:

It isn't just TV market.  Its whether people watch.  The most valuable TV market for college football in the country might be Atlanta!  In places like Columbus, OH, Atlanta and Austin, ratings are huge.  In LA, they are pretty small.  All of the west doesn't watch college football the way the southeast and parts of the midwest do.

Except as that chart shows to the contrary.  I don't have any real vested interest in which conference (without UT) draws more viewers or what any stats (dubious to some or not) reflect but i find it interesting that so many on here appear to have SUCH a vested interest.

Edited July 25, 2022 by mdleast

[derpyhorndog 2557]

1 minute ago, statsman said:

I don’t really get the argument that Madel’s data is screwed up because he counts so many more Big 12 games on lighter available networks. When this all shakes out, Oregon will still be playing Oregon State, Baylor will still be playing TCU and Texas will still be playing conference games against somebody. Does anyone think that ABC and Fox are more likely to put the B12 matchups on their major channels in the future than they are doing now? Why? Will there be new major channels produced?

Not nearly as versed on realignment and the machinations of TV networks as many, but seems to me that "any new major channels" could stem from the streaming services not affiliated with the traditional giants (ESPN, Fox, NBC, etc.).

For instance, wouldn't shock me to see Amazon swoop in at some point and add CFB to the Prime Video like they've done with the NFL. So many people already have (though seldom use) Prime Video just by virtue of getting Prime for regular Amazon purchases --  150MM+ estimated members in America (roughly 6 of 10 American households), per quick Google search. Compare that to roughly 75MM domestic subscribers to ESPN's "big two" (ESPN and ESPN2). 

Add CFB to the mix of Amazon's live video offerings, and have to imagine that drives incremental subscriptions purely for that offering. End result being what I would consider a "new major channel" for CFB. 

[bullet 1596]

16 minutes ago, statsman said:

I don’t really get the argument that Madel’s data is screwed up because he counts so many more Big 12 games on lighter available networks. When this all shakes out, Oregon will still be playing Oregon State, Baylor will still be playing TCU and Texas will still be playing conference games against somebody. Does anyone think that ABC and Fox are more likely to put the B12 matchups on their major channels in the future than they are doing now? Why? Will there be new major channels produced?

Texas is the biggest B12 market. Texas and TAMu SEC games will be on the major channels. TT/ISU will be on minor channels. I don’t see that changing. ISU/KSU will be on ABC in a small local area of the country. 

You are missing the point.  The Pac's equivalent games are not in their numbers.  So a better comparison would be to drop off the bottom couple of games for each Big 12 team.  For example, the Pac may have five 1.0s.  The Big 12 would have five 1.0s and 2 0.2s, so even though they were equal, the Big 12 average is lower.

[bullet 1596]

6 minutes ago, mdleast said:

Except as that chart shows to the contrary.  I don't have any real vested interest in which conference (without UT) draws more viewers or what any stats (dubious to some or not) reflect but i find it interesting that so many on here appear to have SUCH a vested interest.

Well the Baylor and Okie St. fans do.

Personally, the arrogance from the left coast is kind of tiresome.  And I don't like garbage stats that fly in the face of everything else that came before.

[BurntOrange&White 39930]

9 minutes ago, mdleast said:

Except as that chart shows to the contrary.  I don't have any real vested interest in which conference (without UT) draws more viewers or what any stats (dubious to some or not) reflect but i find it interesting that so many on here appear to have SUCH a vested interest.

That chart doesn't show shit really....

[closetohumping 17437]

22 minutes ago, ButtFumble said:

I was just looking at some PAC 12 football season histories

I had forgotten what a massive amount of disarray they are in

UW firing their coach in the middle of year two for being "mean"

WSU firing theirs in year two because he would not take the vaccine (bet they feel dumb for that now)

Firm for Herm going flaccid (Herm has been causing trouble with recruiting and stuff too)

Stanford going back to sucking FAST

Cal is maintaining irrelevance and who knows what they can afford to hire

Arizona still passed out from Sumlin (could have alcohol poisoning)

Oregon has had their coach stolen twice in a row by ACC dumpster fires

Colorado had their coach taken and went with a failed PAC 12 retread Carl Dorrell...that is like recapping a chinese trailer tire (what was Ricky Neuheisel)...oh wait been there done that

Utah is solid there in coaching

Oregon State is the only one that is remotely "solid" after Utah and that is because they allowed their guy to work 3 seasons before getting 7 wins and a bowl loss in year 4

USC made a "big hire", but we will see

UCLA well they are still competing with aggy for the annual under-performance trophy

and the last two are leaving on a jet plane and know they will never be back again

 

that is a lot of programs working through a lot of shit right there

Can we do this with the big 12 schools?

[camel at sea 589]

This is from March 2022 - and it was put together by a company (Navigate) that evaluates media deals as part of their job.  The Big 12 hired them back in 2015-2016 when we did the expansion discussion that went nowhere.  https://nvgt.com/blog/p5-payout-estimates-12-team-cfp-expansion/

Navigate said in March of 2022 that the PAC, with SC and UCLA still in the fold, was only very slightly more valuable than the new Big 12.  

We know that SC and UCLA were a hugely valuable addition to the Big Ten.  That means that they were a huge loss to the PAC.

So either the professional media valuation guys from last March were very wrong, or Mandel and all of these PAC defenders in the media are now very wrong.  

 

[bullet 1596]

2 minutes ago, camel at sea said:

This is from March 2022 - and it was put together by a company (Navigate) that evaluates media deals as part of their job.  The Big 12 hired them back in 2015-2016 when we did the expansion discussion that went nowhere.  https://nvgt.com/blog/p5-payout-estimates-12-team-cfp-expansion/

Navigate said in March of 2022 that the PAC, with SC and UCLA still in the fold, was only very slightly more valuable than the new Big 12.  

We know that SC and UCLA were a hugely valuable addition to the Big Ten.  That means that they were a huge loss to the PAC.

So either the professional media valuation guys from last March were very wrong, or Mandel and all of these PAC defenders in the media are now very wrong.  

 

Thanks.  I wondered where Navigate came from.  Didn't know who they were.

[Texas Wahoo 3391]

4 minutes ago, camel at sea said:

This is from March 2022 - and it was put together by a company (Navigate) that evaluates media deals as part of their job.  The Big 12 hired them back in 2015-2016 when we did the expansion discussion that went nowhere.  https://nvgt.com/blog/p5-payout-estimates-12-team-cfp-expansion/

Navigate said in March of 2022 that the PAC, with SC and UCLA still in the fold, was only very slightly more valuable than the new Big 12.  

We know that SC and UCLA were a hugely valuable addition to the Big Ten.  That means that they were a huge loss to the PAC.

So either the professional media valuation guys from last March were very wrong, or Mandel and all of these PAC defenders in the media are now very wrong.  

 

I'm not sure you can necessarily say that because they were a hugely valuable addition to the Big Ten, they must be a huge loss to the PAC 12, at least not on the same scale.  USC/UCLA were a huge addition to the Big Ten because it means they can charge a lot more for the Big Ten Network in California (in state vs. out of state).  It is the same reason why Rutgers and Maryland were hugely valuable additions to the Big Ten, even though they were not hugely valuable to the conferences they were previously in.

[DFW Horn 6123]

 

[closetohumping 17437]

2 minutes ago, Texas Wahoo said:

I'm not sure you can necessarily say that because they were a hugely valuable addition to the Big Ten, they must be a huge loss to the PAC 12, at least not on the same scale.  USC/UCLA were a huge addition to the Big Ten because it means they can charge a lot more for the Big Ten Network in California (in state vs. out of state).  It is the same reason why Rutgers and Maryland were hugely valuable additions to the Big Ten, even though they were not hugely valuable to the conferences they were previously in.

Right.  While it's a huge loss,  LA can still be considered a part of the Pac footprint though maybe not quite as strong.  Both Texas and Aggy deliver the Texas markets right?  There are a lot of residents in LA who live in the PAC schools.

[camel at sea 589]

2 minutes ago, Texas Wahoo said:

I'm not sure you can necessarily say that because they were a hugely valuable addition to the Big Ten, they must be a huge loss to the PAC 12, at least not on the same scale.  USC/UCLA were a huge addition to the Big Ten because it means they can charge a lot more for the Big Ten Network in California (in state vs. out of state).  It is the same reason why Rutgers and Maryland were hugely valuable additions to the Big Ten, even though they were not hugely valuable to the conferences they were previously in.

Having Stanford and Cal remaining in the conference doesn't mean you can charge adequate sub rates (or get cable deals at all) in Los Angeles after the Trojans and Bruins leave.  That's like adding Rice and UH and expecting full cable carriage throughout Texas.  Beyond that, SC is the biggest Tier 1 brand in the conference.  So it's a media rights gut shot on that front, too.

The media guys are trying to have this both ways.  If gaining cable subs in L.A. is huge for the Big Ten, then the risk/reality of injury to the PAC is catastrophic.  

[closetohumping 17437]

4 minutes ago, camel at sea said:

Having Stanford and Cal remaining in the conference doesn't mean you can charge adequate sub rates (or get cable deals at all) in Los Angeles after the Trojans and Bruins leave.  That's like adding Rice and UH and expecting full cable carriage throughout Texas.  Beyond that, SC is the biggest Tier 1 brand in the conference.  So it's a media rights gut shot on that front, too.

The media guys are trying to have this both ways.  If gaining cable subs in L.A. is huge for the Big Ten, then the risk/reality of injury to the PAC is catastrophic.  

No.  Sec gaining the Texas market doesn’t mean the big 12 lost the Texas market when aggy left

[camel at sea 589]

2 minutes ago, closetohumping said:

No.  Sec gaining the Texas market doesn’t mean the big 12 lost the Texas market when aggy left

The PAC is negotiating new media rights deals.  Stanford and Cal are not equivalent, in California, to UT in Texas.  

If I'm a rights partner with the PAC, or a cable company they're asking to carry inventory, I'm looking at them and telling them they don't have L.A. and that I won't pay for L.A. as though they do.

[Texas Wahoo 3391]

10 minutes ago, camel at sea said:

Having Stanford and Cal remaining in the conference doesn't mean you can charge adequate sub rates (or get cable deals at all) in Los Angeles after the Trojans and Bruins leave.  That's like adding Rice and UH and expecting full cable carriage throughout Texas.  Beyond that, SC is the biggest Tier 1 brand in the conference.  So it's a media rights gut shot on that front, too.

The media guys are trying to have this both ways.  If gaining cable subs in L.A. is huge for the Big Ten, then the risk/reality of injury to the PAC is catastrophic.  

Except the Pac 12 does not make money from their conference network in the same way as the Big Ten does (no one does).  Obviously USC is a big loss because, as was shown in Mandel's numbers, they are the biggest draw in the conference (although not nearly as big a gap as Texas/OU in the Big Ten).  But the Big Ten will get at least 17.9 million a year more just by being able to charge the in-footprint rates for the Big Ten network that they are already charging in the states that have Big Ten schools.  The Pac 12 Network is already charging in-footprint rates in California (to the extent the network is available for each service provider).

 

Again, this is why adding Rutgers to the Big Ten was a huge money-maker for them, when no other conference wanted them - including the ACC.

Edited July 25, 2022 by Texas Wahoo

[Texas Wahoo 3391]

2 minutes ago, Texas Wahoo said:

Except the Pac 12 does not make money from their conference network in the same way as the Big Ten does (no one does).  Obviously USC is a big loss because, as was shown in Mandel's numbers, they are the biggest draw in the conference (although not nearly as big a gap as Texas/OU in the Big Ten).  But the Big Ten will get at least 17.9 million a year more just by being able to charge the in-footprint rates for the Big Ten network that they are already charging in the states that have Big Ten schools.  The Pac 12 Network is already charging in-footprint rates in California (to the extent the network is available for each service provider).

 

Again, this is why adding Rutgers to the Big Ten was a huge money-maker for them, when no other conference wanted them - including the ACC.

And to be clear, losing USC/UCLA is obviously a huge loss for the Pac 12.  I am just noting that (1) it is not as big a loss as the Big 12 losing Texas/OU and (2) it is not inconsistent to suggest that the Big Ten's monetary gain from adding them is much greater than the Pac 12's loss from losing them.

[ButtFumble 5165]

10 minutes ago, closetohumping said:

Can we do this with the big 12 schools?

well we know Texas and OU and they are leaving in a big fancy coach buss and will never be back again

Tech new first year coach

Baylor 3rd year coach (that has done massively better than any new PAC 12 coach)

KU...well yea

KSU had a legend retire and new guy going into his 4th season with two 8 wins seasons and the 2020 losing season

TCU new first year coach after pushing out what should be a legend for them (time will tell how that goes)

WVU coach going into his 4th year and needing to win or he is probably gone.....at least they got paid a cool million to "lose their coach" that they were going to fire anyway

ISU pretty stable

OkState.....more stable and better results than top PAC 12 coaching standout Utah

 

not going to count the new ones, but if one did Cincy is solid

Houston has a drinking buddy for Sumlin that will fall apart probably this year

BYU is solid

UCF Gus Bus looks like it is tuned up and ready to recover from the dough boy

 

that was a good question from you I would give the advantage to the Big 12 I think pretty clearly because they (with the exception of OU that is leaving) have not had a coach just taken from them especially one of their "top" programs and that is not because of lack of desire to hire Campbell or Patterson it was those teams held him

I think OkState and ISU seal it for the Big 12 and even with KSU there was a lot to work through there and they do not have the fuckery of ASU and Herm (like Herm, but yea they have issues), Arizona should never be Kansas, but they are now and TCU made a change after a long time not after 1.5 seasons

Baylor did lose a coach to the NFL, but that is different than losing one to Miami is Back or post Jimbo FSU and Baylor seems to have recovered and has moved on from a lot of their other coaching wild changes

Tech is at least recruiting well for once and they did win a bowl game after firing a coach half way in the season

TCU puts a bit of unknown that removes clear favor towards the Big 12 because Patterson has bounced back from bad seasons several times before and Sonny has showed a tendency to fade late in the season while at SMU

plus I don't think the coaches that Arizona, Colorado, WSU, and UW have now show any real promise to get anything done that is at all meaningful where as I think Tech and KSU show a lot more of a chance to build on something and Baylor looks solid now too

Oregon is a lot like TCU in a way there is some wait and see could go well could go meh.....could be a disaster, but results will probably be needed fast

Kansas was the only one recently that lost a coach because of real stupidity in the Big 12 with horny Lester Grass Eater......while the PAC 12....shit

[closetohumping 17437]

Just now, ButtFumble said:

well we know Texas and OU and they are leaving in a big fancy coach buss and will never be back again

Tech new first year coach

Baylor 3rd year coach (that has done massively better than any new PAC 12 coach)

KU...well yea

KSU had a legend retire and new guy going into his 4th season with two 8 wins seasons and the 2020 losing season

TCU new first year coach after pushing out what should be a legend for them (time will tell how that goes)

WVU coach going into his 4th year and needing to win or he is probably gone.....at least they got paid a cool million to "lose their coach" that they were going to fire anyway

ISU pretty stable

OkState.....more stable and better results than top PAC 12 coaching standout Utah

 

not going to count the new ones, but if one did Cincy is solid

Houston has a drinking buddy for Sumlin that will fall apart probably this year

BYU is solid

UCF Gus Bus looks like it is tuned up and ready to recover from the dough boy

 

that was a good question from you I would give the advantage to the Big 12 I think pretty clearly because they (with the exception of OU that is leaving) have not had a coach just taken from them especially one of their "top" programs and that is not because of lack of desire to hire Campbell or Patterson it was those teams held him

I think OkState and ISU seal it for the Big 12 and even with KSU there was a lot to work through there and they do not have the fuckery of ASU and Herm (like Herm, but yea they have issues), Arizona should never be Kansas, but they are now and TCU made a change after a long time not after 1.5 seasons

Baylor did lose a coach to the NFL, but that is different than losing one to Miami is Back or post Jimbo FSU and Baylor seems to have recovered and has moved on from a lot of their other coaching wild changes

Tech is at least recruiting well for once and they did win a bowl game after firing a coach half way in the season

TCU puts a bit of unknown that removes clear favor towards the Big 12 because Patterson has bounced back from bad seasons several times before and Sonny has showed a tendency to fade late in the season while at SMU

plus I don't think the coaches that Arizona, Colorado, WSU, and UW have now show any real promise to get anything done that is at all meaningful where as I think Tech and KSU show a lot more of a chance to build on something and Baylor looks solid now too

Oregon is a lot like TCU in a way there is some wait and see could go well could go meh.....could be a disaster, but results will probably be needed fast

Kansas was the only one recently that lost a coach because of real stupidity in the Big 12 with horny Lester Grass Eater......while the PAC 12....shit

Don't count out Houston just yet.

[ButtFumble 5165]

22 minutes ago, Texas Wahoo said:

I'm not sure you can necessarily say that because they were a hugely valuable addition to the Big Ten, they must be a huge loss to the PAC 12, at least not on the same scale.  USC/UCLA were a huge addition to the Big Ten because it means they can charge a lot more for the Big Ten Network in California (in state vs. out of state).  It is the same reason why Rutgers and Maryland were hugely valuable additions to the Big Ten, even though they were not hugely valuable to the conferences they were previously in.

as of now cable companies are pushing back on the cramming of channels and they have specifically done so with the BTN even in Big 10 markets

Fox does not have the total mass of channles (and really I think the will) to cram the BTN the way that ESPN did with the SEC SEC SEC network and thus there have been cable MSOs that pushed the BTN out of the first tier packages and into sports packages or stopped paying "in market" and just paid "a rate"

that model is quickly dying with 4 million plus cable subs cancelling yearly and growing

[Texas Wahoo 3391]

3 hours 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. 

I am not sure I understand why you would control for Notre Dame playing Stanford every year, unless you think that is not likely to continue.  Obviously that helps Stanford and the Pac 12's TV numbers, but it will also presumably help them in their negotiations with TV providers.  If you are trying to compare the TV value of football program inventories between conferences, playing ND every year would seem to be something that the TV providers will pay more for.

[statsman 5456]

The way to look at this is to prepare pro-forma analyses for a B12 and PAC schedule. What games will be shown where, on which channels and at what times? There is 11:00 AM, 3:00 PM Ann’s 7 PM. There is ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox and ESPN. There are various sub-channels. I’m sure the networks are doing something like this before making contract offers. 

['stache 21801]

Last year's CCG ratings are itself enough to tell anyone with a brain that Mandell is full of shit and used some enron math. OSU-BU doubled the ratings of UO-Utah. So we're supposed to believe that fans care so much more about PAC teams, but just decided to randomly sit out watching the CCG which featured by his own analysis the strongest program of the remaining PAC? Please. The analysis above that he used Tier 3 Big XII and left out Tier 3 from the PAC Network makes sense to find a way to be the only person to calculate the PAC as having better ratings. Like someone said above, give the Tier 3 PAC Network games a rating of 0.0 and you'd get just about the real numbers.

Edited July 25, 2022 by 'stache

[hawkfan 60]

Apparently the conference is involved with these discussions

 

[mdmost 43001]

9 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Last year's CCG ratings are itself enough to tell anyone with a brain that Mandell is full of shit and used some enron math. OSU-BU doubled the ratings of UO-Utah. So we're supposed to believe that fans care so much more about PAC teams, but just decided to randomly sit out watching the CCG which featured by his own analysis the strongest program of the remaining PAC? Please. The analysis above that he used Tier 3 Big XII and left out Tier 3 from the PAC Network makes sense to find a way to be the only person to calculate the PAC as having better ratings. Like someone said above, give the Tier 3 PAC Network games a rating of 0.0 and you'd get just about the real numbers.

I would think Pac 12 CCG being on a Friday night versus Big 12 being on Saturday with all the other CCGs would be a little bit of a factor in that disparity. Plus, the Pac CCG was out of the playoff hunt. oSu still had a shot if Alabama had lost the SEC game. Not the entire factor but a factor.

Edited July 25, 2022 by mdmost

[mdmost 43001]

23 minutes ago, Texas Wahoo said:

I am not sure I understand why you would control for Notre Dame playing Stanford every year, unless you think that is not likely to continue.  Obviously that helps Stanford and the Pac 12's TV numbers, but it will also presumably help them in their negotiations with TV providers.  If you are trying to compare the TV value of football program inventories between conferences, playing ND every year would seem to be something that the TV providers will pay more for.

You could argue Iowa State is helped by playing Iowa each year. Not on the same level but if the Big 10 is the conference that's so desirous to deserve the most money, a Big 10 team that's decent should be a rating draw. 

[bullet 1596]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaafb/tv-ratings-suggest-the-pac-12-has-an-advantage-over-the-big-12-but-will-the-conference-come-out-swinging-this-week/ar-AAZWNro

Wilner's comments.  He trumpets Mandel's numbers, but you wonder if he really believes it when he ends like this:

"...Where do things stand?

Our sense is that Pac-12 presidents and chancellors would like a compelling reason to stick together and are waiting (perhaps weeks, maybe months) to determine whether that reason exists.

Based on media markets, football brands and TV ratings, it’s not obvious that the new Big 12 holds a significant enough strategic advantage over the new Pac-12 to spark a mass migration.

USC and UCLA will double their revenue in the Big Ten.

But would Oregon agree to send its teams to play UCF in Orlando for a few extra million dollars per year?

Would Arizona trek to West Virginia for money that won’t transform its budget?

More than three weeks into this storm, we don’t have enough clarity to draw conclusions.

Perhaps the Pac-12 will provide some this week...."

['stache 21801]

1 minute ago, bullet said:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaafb/tv-ratings-suggest-the-pac-12-has-an-advantage-over-the-big-12-but-will-the-conference-come-out-swinging-this-week/ar-AAZWNro

Wilner's comments.  He trumpets Mandel's numbers, but you wonder if he really believes it when he ends like this:

"...Where do things stand?

Our sense is that Pac-12 presidents and chancellors would like a compelling reason to stick together and are waiting (perhaps weeks, maybe months) to determine whether that reason exists.

Based on media markets, football brands and TV ratings, it’s not obvious that the new Big 12 holds a significant enough strategic advantage over the new Pac-12 to spark a mass migration.

USC and UCLA will double their revenue in the Big Ten.

But would Oregon agree to send its teams to play UCF in Orlando for a few extra million dollars per year?

Would Arizona trek to West Virginia for money that won’t transform its budget?

More than three weeks into this storm, we don’t have enough clarity to draw conclusions.

Perhaps the Pac-12 will provide some this week...."

It depends on how many more millions. I think it will be significantly more than "a few."

[billfromlaketravis 11448]

50 minutes ago, closetohumping said:

Don't count out Houston just yet.

They're an interesting program. Holgo is finally happy, and he can just coach and not worry about the other BS. 

[clapclapclap 9000]

Surprised our B12 fans haven't leaked some sweet, sweet Perryman Group numbers....

['stache 21801]

20 minutes ago, mdmost said:

I would think Pac 12 CCG being on a Friday night versus Big 12 being on Saturday with all the other CCGs would be a little bit of a factor in that disparity. Plus, the Pac CCG was out of the playoff hunt. oSu still had a shot if Alabama had lost the SEC game. Not the entire factor but a factor.

A Friday night without competition. And doesn't the PAC's irrelevance in the playoff just underscore that it's a damaged league? Regardless, taking all of your qualifications into account, it wasn't close. OSU-BU doubled the PAC, that's 4 million extra viewers. That can't be explained away by the day of the week and what may have been on the line. Not to mention, again, that the Big XII title game featured two teams that supposedly don't matter while the PAC game still had one of its "marquee" programs participating. One might forgive the ACC's poor rating based on its strange participants, but not the PAC.

Edited July 25, 2022 by 'stache

[billfromlaketravis 11448]

1 minute ago, clapclapclap said:

Surprised our B12 fans haven't leaked some sweet, sweet Perryman Group numbers....

They have to run the numbers again now that they're trying to attract Pac 12 members. 

[clapclapclap 9000]

1 minute ago, 'stache said:

A Friday night without competition.

That's a mandatory take the wife out night, cuz ur demanding to watch football uninterrupted all day Conf Champ Saturday and probably noon to bedtime Sunday.

[Royale with cheese 1466]

1 hour ago, derpyhorndog said:

Not nearly as versed on realignment and the machinations of TV networks as many, but seems to me that "any new major channels" could stem from the streaming services not affiliated with the traditional giants (ESPN, Fox, NBC, etc.).

For instance, wouldn't shock me to see Amazon swoop in at some point and add CFB to the Prime Video like they've done with the NFL. So many people already have (though seldom use) Prime Video just by virtue of getting Prime for regular Amazon purchases --  150MM+ estimated members in America (roughly 6 of 10 American households), per quick Google search. Compare that to roughly 75MM domestic subscribers to ESPN's "big two" (ESPN and ESPN2). 

Add CFB to the mix of Amazon's live video offerings, and have to imagine that drives incremental subscriptions purely for that offering. End result being what I would consider a "new major channel" for CFB. 

A game exclusively on streaming services (e.g., Prime) has to be attractive to advertisers because the average Joe is forced to watch it, in its entirety (or until it becomes noncompetitive) in real time because he can't record that game and play it back while fast-forwarding through the commercials, half-times, time-outs, injuries, etc. Plus, given the current glut of time-conflicted televised games, lots of viewers watch the most appealing game live while recording the other(s). It's waaaay harder to record from streaming than from cable or satellite. Just sayin' . . . 

[Mitch Cumsteen 18547]

1 minute ago, 'stache said:

A Friday night without competition. And doesn't the PAC's irrelevance in the playoff just underscore that it's a damaged league? Regardless, taking all of your qualifications into account, it wasn't close. OSU-BU doubled the PAC, that's 4 million extra viewers. That can't be explained away by the day of the week and what may have been on the line.

The fuck it can't. Friday night college football is shit. People do shit on Friday night -- they go to the movies, they go to dinner, they go get shitfaced in a bar. The entire fall Saturday TV schedule is set up around college football. I promise you, if Baylor/Okie State played Friday night, their ratings would have been dogshit too. Not only was the big 12 championship game the only game on in its time slot on Championship Saturday (Note -- they don't call it Championship Friday night), but it was also the lead in for Georgia / Bama. If you can't draw a huge number there, then fucking forget about it.

[6th Street 6390]

2 minutes ago, Mitch Cumsteen said:

The fuck it can't. Friday night college football is shit. People do shit on Friday night -- they go to the movies, they go to dinner, they go get shitfaced in a bar. The entire fall Saturday TV schedule is set up around college football. I promise you, if Baylor/Okie State played Friday night, their ratings would have been dogshit too. Not only was the big 12 championship game the only game on in its time slot on Championship Saturday (Note -- they don't call it Championship Friday night), but it was also the lead in for Georgia / Bama. If you can't draw a huge number there, then fucking forget about it.

I would agree with that. College Football on Saturday and NFL on Sunday/Monday. No need to add Friday night to the mix. Too much other shit going on 

[Vermin 3043]

2 minutes ago, 6th Street said:

I would agree with that. College Football on Saturday and NFL on Sunday/Monday. No need to add Friday night to the mix. Too much other shit going on 

There are 131 FBS teams. You’ll live if you miss a C tier game.

A lot of people have families and aren’t partying on Friday night and would appreciate it.

[camel at sea 589]

1 hour ago, Texas Wahoo said:

Except the Pac 12 does not make money from their conference network in the same way as the Big Ten does (no one does).  Obviously USC is a big loss because, as was shown in Mandel's numbers, they are the biggest draw in the conference (although not nearly as big a gap as Texas/OU in the Big Ten).  But the Big Ten will get at least 17.9 million a year more just by being able to charge the in-footprint rates for the Big Ten network that they are already charging in the states that have Big Ten schools.  The Pac 12 Network is already charging in-footprint rates in California (to the extent the network is available for each service provider).

 

Again, this is why adding Rutgers to the Big Ten was a huge money-maker for them, when no other conference wanted them - including the ACC.

It's not just the PACN - though Tier 3 is going to market and being negotiated for them, too.  They don't have L.A. for Tiers 1 or 2.  That matters with respect to expected ad revenue.  

['stache 21801]

22 minutes ago, Mitch Cumsteen said:

The fuck it can't. Friday night college football is shit. People do shit on Friday night -- they go to the movies, they go to dinner, they go get shitfaced in a bar. The entire fall Saturday TV schedule is set up around college football. I promise you, if Baylor/Okie State played Friday night, their ratings would have been dogshit too. Not only was the big 12 championship game the only game on in its time slot on Championship Saturday (Note -- they don't call it Championship Friday night), but it was also the lead in for Georgia / Bama. If you can't draw a huge number there, then fucking forget about it.

Maybe you should tell their commissioner this devastating news about why their ratings sucked.

[Mitch Cumsteen 18547]

I guess this is the real question that should be asked:

Do your ratings suck because you are on a shitty network at a shitty time? Or are you on a shitty network at a shitty time because your ratings suck?

[ButtFumble 5165]

talking about tier 3 rights

Kansas did well with theirs, WVU did pretty good......even Texas Tech and Baylor were getting cash for theirs and I am pretty sure the Big 12 had a lot less total content across all sports to sell

yes the PAC 12 made a massive fuck up doing it alone with no major media partner to cram the channel, way over spent because larry liked nice shit, and in general just fucked it all up

but the reality is when the PAC 12 "ask" (begged) people to call their cable and sat companies and tell them they would switch if they did not carry the PAC12n I am pretty sure more people called and said they would cancel if their bill went up by $.25 a month to have that channel

the market spoke pretty damn loud and clear AT&T was like "don't give a fuck go away" and so were a couple of others when Larry called them to "negotiate"

ESPN offered them ZERO dollars and ZERO cents to take it over and run it and try and cram it and share profits

with the Big 12 (the 8 left) ESPN just stepped up and at least paid them something and then paid something again to be on ESPN+