A similar exercise has been done by D1-360 and I believe Andy Staples (?) for the Athletic.

D1-360 was between 2012-2021 looking only at ACC, B12, and PAC. He eliminated Bowl Games (not surprising), all Conference Championship games, Games against the SEC, the B1G, and the four new members, Notre Dame, and Mirror Games supposedly because there is no way to determine who watched for which conference/teams but oddly he forgets the same can be said for any game within conference. Andy Staples did his from 2015-2021 eliminating the same games as well as throwing out 2020 altogether simply because some conferences chose not to participate fully.

Outside of Bowl Games, I kept everything and I recognize that gives the ACC an advantage over the B12 and PAC due to the large number of rivalry games with the SEC and having ND committed to 5 games annually.

When I get around to finishing the B12 and the PAC, still doing the 2019-2021 years for both conferences, they will have included in their totals the teams they have recently lost as well as any home, away, or neutral site games against the 5 major conferences and ND.

ACC Tier 1

Team.....#Games 1M+.....Avg #Viewers*

Clemson - 74 - 3.83M
Florida St - 66 - 3.58M
Miami - 49 - 3.03M

ACC Tier 2

Louisville - 40 - 2.67M
Virginia Tech - 36 - 3.05M
North Carolina - 36 - 2.40M
Georgia Tech - 27 - 2.69M
Pittsburgh - 27 - 2.47M

ACC the Rest

Virginia - 24 - 2.31M
Syracuse - 25 - 2.29M
NC State - 23 - 2.24M
Boston College - 21 - 2.21M
Wake Forest - 17 - 1.94M
Duke - 11 - 2.60M

Now obviously the ACC isn't going to fare well against the SEC or B1G in these numbers. And it has a built in advantage to the B12 and PAC due to its many rivalry games with the SEC, the Notre Dame commitment, and even a few B1G games (though not a lot).

But I thought I would share this first so we remember the ACC isn't as bad as some on these boards think. And hopefully someone could see if the new scheduling is impacted either positively or negatively with these numbers.

Cheers,
Neil

(07-18-2022 06:18 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  A similar exercise has been done by D1-360 and I believe Andy Staples (?) for the Athletic.

D1-360 was between 2012-2021 looking only at ACC, B12, and PAC. He eliminated Bowl Games (not surprising), all Conference Championship games, Games against the SEC, the B1G, and the four new members, Notre Dame, and Mirror Games supposedly because there is no way to determine who watched for which conference/teams but oddly he forgets the same can be said for any game within conference. Andy Staples did his from 2015-2021 eliminating the same games as well as throwing out 2020 altogether simply because some conferences chose not to participate fully.

Outside of Bowl Games, I kept everything and I recognize that gives the ACC an advantage over the B12 and PAC due to the large number of rivalry games with the SEC and having ND committed to 5 games annually.

When I get around to finishing the B12 and the PAC, still doing the 2019-2021 years for both conferences, they will have included in their totals the teams they have recently lost as well as any home, away, or neutral site games against the 5 major conferences and ND.

ACC Tier 1

Team.....#Games 1M+.....Avg #Viewers*

Clemson - 74 - 3.83M
Florida St - 66 - 3.58M
Miami - 49 - 3.03M

ACC Tier 2

Louisville - 40 - 2.67M
Virginia Tech - 36 - 3.05M
North Carolina - 36 - 2.40M
Georgia Tech - 27 - 2.69M
Pittsburgh - 27 - 2.47M

ACC the Rest

Virginia - 24 - 2.31M
Syracuse - 25 - 2.29M
NC State - 23 - 2.24M
Boston College - 21 - 2.21M
Wake Forest - 17 - 1.94M
Duke - 11 - 2.60M

Now obviously the ACC isn't going to fare well against the SEC or B1G in these numbers. And it has a built in advantage to the B12 and PAC due to its many rivalry games with the SEC, the Notre Dame commitment, and even a few B1G games (though not a lot).

But I thought I would share this first so we remember the ACC isn't as bad as some on these boards think. And hopefully someone could see if the new scheduling is impacted either positively or negatively with these numbers.

Cheers,
Neil

Cheers,
Neil

How different is it if you go in-conference games only?
I actually like that restriction.

(07-18-2022 06:18 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  A similar exercise has been done by D1-360 and I believe Andy Staples (?) for the Athletic.

D1-360 was between 2012-2021 looking only at ACC, B12, and PAC. He eliminated Bowl Games (not surprising), all Conference Championship games, Games against the SEC, the B1G, and the four new members, Notre Dame, and Mirror Games supposedly because there is no way to determine who watched for which conference/teams but oddly he forgets the same can be said for any game within conference. Andy Staples did his from 2015-2021 eliminating the same games as well as throwing out 2020 altogether simply because some conferences chose not to participate fully.

Outside of Bowl Games, I kept everything and I recognize that gives the ACC an advantage over the B12 and PAC due to the large number of rivalry games with the SEC and having ND committed to 5 games annually.

When I get around to finishing the B12 and the PAC, still doing the 2019-2021 years for both conferences, they will have included in their totals the teams they have recently lost as well as any home, away, or neutral site games against the 5 major conferences and ND.

ACC Tier 1

Team.....#Games 1M+.....Avg #Viewers*

Clemson - 74 - 3.83M
Florida St - 66 - 3.58M
Miami - 49 - 3.03M

ACC Tier 2

Louisville - 40 - 2.67M
Virginia Tech - 36 - 3.05M
North Carolina - 36 - 2.40M
Georgia Tech - 27 - 2.69M
Pittsburgh - 27 - 2.47M

ACC the Rest

Virginia - 24 - 2.31M
Syracuse - 25 - 2.29M
NC State - 23 - 2.24M
Boston College - 21 - 2.21M
Wake Forest - 17 - 1.94M
Duke - 11 - 2.60M

Now obviously the ACC isn't going to fare well against the SEC or B1G in these numbers. And it has a built in advantage to the B12 and PAC due to its many rivalry games with the SEC, the Notre Dame commitment, and even a few B1G games (though not a lot).

But I thought I would share this first so we remember the ACC isn't as bad as some on these boards think. And hopefully someone could see if the new scheduling is impacted either positively or negatively with these numbers.

Cheers,
Neil

Cheers,
Neil

You can go back 10 years and see the same posters saying the ACC is dead and they always think the only value besides Clemson and FSU are Va and UNC both Basketball strong but no so strong in Football which is expansions primary driver

(07-18-2022 06:27 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-18-2022 06:18 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  A similar exercise has been done by D1-360 and I believe Andy Staples (?) for the Athletic.

D1-360 was between 2012-2021 looking only at ACC, B12, and PAC. He eliminated Bowl Games (not surprising), all Conference Championship games, Games against the SEC, the B1G, and the four new members, Notre Dame, and Mirror Games supposedly because there is no way to determine who watched for which conference/teams but oddly he forgets the same can be said for any game within conference. Andy Staples did his from 2015-2021 eliminating the same games as well as throwing out 2020 altogether simply because some conferences chose not to participate fully.

Outside of Bowl Games, I kept everything and I recognize that gives the ACC an advantage over the B12 and PAC due to the large number of rivalry games with the SEC and having ND committed to 5 games annually.

When I get around to finishing the B12 and the PAC, still doing the 2019-2021 years for both conferences, they will have included in their totals the teams they have recently lost as well as any home, away, or neutral site games against the 5 major conferences and ND.

ACC Tier 1

Team.....#Games 1M+.....Avg #Viewers*

Clemson - 74 - 3.83M
Florida St - 66 - 3.58M
Miami - 49 - 3.03M

ACC Tier 2

Louisville - 40 - 2.67M
Virginia Tech - 36 - 3.05M
North Carolina - 36 - 2.40M
Georgia Tech - 27 - 2.69M
Pittsburgh - 27 - 2.47M

ACC the Rest

Virginia - 24 - 2.31M
Syracuse - 25 - 2.29M
NC State - 23 - 2.24M
Boston College - 21 - 2.21M
Wake Forest - 17 - 1.94M
Duke - 11 - 2.60M

Now obviously the ACC isn't going to fare well against the SEC or B1G in these numbers. And it has a built in advantage to the B12 and PAC due to its many rivalry games with the SEC, the Notre Dame commitment, and even a few B1G games (though not a lot).

But I thought I would share this first so we remember the ACC isn't as bad as some on these boards think. And hopefully someone could see if the new scheduling is impacted either positively or negatively with these numbers.

Cheers,
Neil

Cheers,
Neil

How different is it if you go in-conference games only?
I actually like that restriction.

I did think about that and now that I have all the data it wouldn't be too difficult to do - but I was more interested in what the overall value a program brings to a conference TV wise based on who they play whether in conference or out-of-conference.

Just my take.

Cheers,
Neil

(07-18-2022 07:21 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(07-18-2022 06:27 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  How different is it if you go in-conference games only?
I actually like that restriction.

I did think about that and now that I have all the data it wouldn't be too difficult to do - but I was more interested in what the overall value a program brings to a conference TV wise based on who they play whether in conference or out-of-conference.

Just my take.

Cheers,
Neil

I understand your point of view. It's a good angle, too.

Is Duke supposed to be 1.6M?

(07-18-2022 06:18 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  A similar exercise has been done by D1-360 and I believe Andy Staples (?) for the Athletic.

D1-360 was between 2012-2021 looking only at ACC, B12, and PAC. He eliminated Bowl Games (not surprising), all Conference Championship games, Games against the SEC, the B1G, and the four new members, Notre Dame, and Mirror Games supposedly because there is no way to determine who watched for which conference/teams but oddly he forgets the same can be said for any game within conference. Andy Staples did his from 2015-2021 eliminating the same games as well as throwing out 2020 altogether simply because some conferences chose not to participate fully.

Outside of Bowl Games, I kept everything and I recognize that gives the ACC an advantage over the B12 and PAC due to the large number of rivalry games with the SEC and having ND committed to 5 games annually.

When I get around to finishing the B12 and the PAC, still doing the 2019-2021 years for both conferences, they will have included in their totals the teams they have recently lost as well as any home, away, or neutral site games against the 5 major conferences and ND.

ACC Tier 1

Team.....#Games 1M+.....Avg #Viewers*

Clemson - 74 - 3.83M
Florida St - 66 - 3.58M
Miami - 49 - 3.03M

ACC Tier 2

Louisville - 40 - 2.67M
Virginia Tech - 36 - 3.05M
North Carolina - 36 - 2.40M
Georgia Tech - 27 - 2.69M
Pittsburgh - 27 - 2.47M

ACC the Rest

Virginia - 24 - 2.31M
Syracuse - 25 - 2.29M
NC State - 23 - 2.24M
Boston College - 21 - 2.21M
Wake Forest - 17 - 1.94M
Duke - 11 - 2.60M

Now obviously the ACC isn't going to fare well against the SEC or B1G in these numbers. And it has a built in advantage to the B12 and PAC due to its many rivalry games with the SEC, the Notre Dame commitment, and even a few B1G games (though not a lot).

But I thought I would share this first so we remember the ACC isn't as bad as some on these boards think. And hopefully someone could see if the new scheduling is impacted either positively or negatively with these numbers.

Cheers,
Neil

I’ve been doing a similar analysis with media ratings over the past five year… https://csnbbs.com/thread-941841.html

Generally agree with your tiers. Mine:
1) Clemson, FSU, Miami
2) VT, Louisville, Pitt, UNC, GT
3) BC, Cuse, Wake, NC State, UVa
4) Duke

For the PAC (includes games against USC & UCLA):
1) Oregon
2) Washington, Stanford, WSU, Utah
3) Colorado, Arizona State
4) Cal, Arizona, Oregon State

For the new B12 (includes games against Oklahoma & Texas):
1) Oklahoma State
2) ISU, WVU, Baylor
3) TCU, UCF, TTU, Cincy, K State, BYU
4) Houston, Kansas

(07-19-2022 01:54 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Is Duke supposed to be 1.6M?

Good question. I realize why one might considered that a typo but keep in mind this analysis is only looking at the games with $1M or more viewers. The Blue Devils have 11 such games with 3 of those 11 with 4M plus.

When taking into account all 19 games including those less than 1M viewers their average viewers drop to 1.86M per game.

Hope this makes sense.

Eventually my goal is to give total game viewer average (similar to Duke's above ) and then a final analysis where Clemson and FSU are taken out of the equation what would these numbers look like.

Cheers,
Neil

(07-19-2022 02:30 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(07-18-2022 06:18 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  A similar exercise has been done by D1-360 and I believe Andy Staples (?) for the Athletic.

D1-360 was between 2012-2021 looking only at ACC, B12, and PAC. He eliminated Bowl Games (not surprising), all Conference Championship games, Games against the SEC, the B1G, and the four new members, Notre Dame, and Mirror Games supposedly because there is no way to determine who watched for which conference/teams but oddly he forgets the same can be said for any game within conference. Andy Staples did his from 2015-2021 eliminating the same games as well as throwing out 2020 altogether simply because some conferences chose not to participate fully.

Outside of Bowl Games, I kept everything and I recognize that gives the ACC an advantage over the B12 and PAC due to the large number of rivalry games with the SEC and having ND committed to 5 games annually.

When I get around to finishing the B12 and the PAC, still doing the 2019-2021 years for both conferences, they will have included in their totals the teams they have recently lost as well as any home, away, or neutral site games against the 5 major conferences and ND.

ACC Tier 1

Team.....#Games 1M+.....Avg #Viewers*

Clemson - 74 - 3.83M
Florida St - 66 - 3.58M
Miami - 49 - 3.03M

ACC Tier 2

Louisville - 40 - 2.67M
Virginia Tech - 36 - 3.05M
North Carolina - 36 - 2.40M
Georgia Tech - 27 - 2.69M
Pittsburgh - 27 - 2.47M

ACC the Rest

Virginia - 24 - 2.31M
Syracuse - 25 - 2.29M
NC State - 23 - 2.24M
Boston College - 21 - 2.21M
Wake Forest - 17 - 1.94M
Duke - 11 - 2.60M

Now obviously the ACC isn't going to fare well against the SEC or B1G in these numbers. And it has a built in advantage to the B12 and PAC due to its many rivalry games with the SEC, the Notre Dame commitment, and even a few B1G games (though not a lot).

But I thought I would share this first so we remember the ACC isn't as bad as some on these boards think. And hopefully someone could see if the new scheduling is impacted either positively or negatively with these numbers.

Cheers,
Neil

I’ve been doing a similar analysis with media ratings over the past five year… https://csnbbs.com/thread-941841.html

Generally agree with your tiers. Mine:
1) Clemson, FSU, Miami
2) VT, Louisville, Pitt, UNC, GT
3) BC, Cuse, Wake, NC State, UVa
4) Duke

For the PAC (includes games against USC & UCLA):
1) Oregon
2) Washington, Stanford, WSU, Utah
3) Colorado, Arizona State
4) Cal, Arizona, Oregon State

For the new B12 (includes games against Oklahoma & Texas):
1) Oklahoma State
2) ISU, WVU, Baylor
3) TCU, UCF, TTU, Cincy, K State, BYU
4) Houston, Kansas

I haven't fully completed the B12 or PAC yet due to still adding in the 2019-2021 but I suspect it will be on average the same as your. I decided not to include Cincy, BYU, UCF, and Houston in mine analysis due to the smallness of sample size. I might rethink it if you found it helped and why it helped.

(07-19-2022 02:30 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(07-18-2022 06:18 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  A similar exercise has been done by D1-360 and I believe Andy Staples (?) for the Athletic.

D1-360 was between 2012-2021 looking only at ACC, B12, and PAC. He eliminated Bowl Games (not surprising), all Conference Championship games, Games against the SEC, the B1G, and the four new members, Notre Dame, and Mirror Games supposedly because there is no way to determine who watched for which conference/teams but oddly he forgets the same can be said for any game within conference. Andy Staples did his from 2015-2021 eliminating the same games as well as throwing out 2020 altogether simply because some conferences chose not to participate fully.

Outside of Bowl Games, I kept everything and I recognize that gives the ACC an advantage over the B12 and PAC due to the large number of rivalry games with the SEC and having ND committed to 5 games annually.

When I get around to finishing the B12 and the PAC, still doing the 2019-2021 years for both conferences, they will have included in their totals the teams they have recently lost as well as any home, away, or neutral site games against the 5 major conferences and ND.

ACC Tier 1

Team.....#Games 1M+.....Avg #Viewers*

Clemson - 74 - 3.83M
Florida St - 66 - 3.58M
Miami - 49 - 3.03M

ACC Tier 2

Louisville - 40 - 2.67M
Virginia Tech - 36 - 3.05M
North Carolina - 36 - 2.40M
Georgia Tech - 27 - 2.69M
Pittsburgh - 27 - 2.47M

ACC the Rest

Virginia - 24 - 2.31M
Syracuse - 25 - 2.29M
NC State - 23 - 2.24M
Boston College - 21 - 2.21M
Wake Forest - 17 - 1.94M
Duke - 11 - 2.60M

Now obviously the ACC isn't going to fare well against the SEC or B1G in these numbers. And it has a built in advantage to the B12 and PAC due to its many rivalry games with the SEC, the Notre Dame commitment, and even a few B1G games (though not a lot).

But I thought I would share this first so we remember the ACC isn't as bad as some on these boards think. And hopefully someone could see if the new scheduling is impacted either positively or negatively with these numbers.

Cheers,
Neil

I’ve been doing a similar analysis with media ratings over the past five year… https://csnbbs.com/thread-941841.html

Generally agree with your tiers. Mine:
1) Clemson, FSU, Miami
2) VT, Louisville, Pitt, UNC, GT
3) BC, Cuse, Wake, NC State, UVa
4) Duke

For the PAC (includes games against USC & UCLA):
1) Oregon
2) Washington, Stanford, WSU, Utah
3) Colorado, Arizona State
4) Cal, Arizona, Oregon State

For the new B12 (includes games against Oklahoma & Texas):
1) Oklahoma State
2) ISU, WVU, Baylor
3) TCU, UCF, TTU, Cincy, K State, BYU
4) Houston, Kansas

Still catching up to you Wahoowa84.

Just finished the PAC yesterday, and will start B12 2019-2021 today.

I not only included the PAC games against USC and UCLA I am also including those two schools in my tier list as well.

Team.....#Games 1M+.....Avg #Viewers per game*


PAC12 Tier 1

1) USC - 72 - 2.59M (not an option for ACC expansion)
2) Oregon - 61 - 2.83M


PAC12 Tier 2

Stanford - 54 - 2.60M
UCLA - 48 - 2.37M (not an option for ACC expansion)
Washington - 52 - 2.20M

PAC 12 Tier 3

Utah - 36 - 2.21M
Arizona St - 35 - 2.04M

PAC 12 Best of the Rest

Washington St - 35 - 1.97M
Colorado - 22 - 2.23M
Arizona - 29 - 1.78M

*PAC12 teams were handicapped by their late games (late for ETZ college football fans) but they had an advantage over ACC teams in another way since ACC had only three options for the majority of their televised games (ABC, ESPN, and ESPN2) while the PAC had five options (ABC, FOX, ESPN, ESPN2, and FS1)

My take on the above is that USC in terms of actual viewers per game is definitely less than Clemson and FSU but ahead of Miami over the 9 year period this data covers due solely to number of games aired. This will likely increase being in the B1G.

UCLA despite being in a massive market I suspect will likely increase as well but will also get a lot of the medium valued teams as opponents. But medium valued teams from the B1G are nothing to sneeze at.

As I thought was the case in terms of expansion the Top 3 PAC12 teams are indeed Oregon a step above the rest and Stanford and Washington. Utah would be my choice for number 4 but a case can be made for either Arizona State or Washington State as well though I think the latter is handicapped by a secondary criteria of duplicate markets with Washington.

Cheers,
Neil

(07-25-2022 09:47 AM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(07-19-2022 02:30 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(07-18-2022 06:18 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  A similar exercise has been done by D1-360 and I believe Andy Staples (?) for the Athletic.

D1-360 was between 2012-2021 looking only at ACC, B12, and PAC. He eliminated Bowl Games (not surprising), all Conference Championship games, Games against the SEC, the B1G, and the four new members, Notre Dame, and Mirror Games supposedly because there is no way to determine who watched for which conference/teams but oddly he forgets the same can be said for any game within conference. Andy Staples did his from 2015-2021 eliminating the same games as well as throwing out 2020 altogether simply because some conferences chose not to participate fully.

Outside of Bowl Games, I kept everything and I recognize that gives the ACC an advantage over the B12 and PAC due to the large number of rivalry games with the SEC and having ND committed to 5 games annually.

When I get around to finishing the B12 and the PAC, still doing the 2019-2021 years for both conferences, they will have included in their totals the teams they have recently lost as well as any home, away, or neutral site games against the 5 major conferences and ND.

ACC Tier 1

Team.....#Games 1M+.....Avg #Viewers*

Clemson - 74 - 3.83M
Florida St - 66 - 3.58M
Miami - 49 - 3.03M

ACC Tier 2

Louisville - 40 - 2.67M
Virginia Tech - 36 - 3.05M
North Carolina - 36 - 2.40M
Georgia Tech - 27 - 2.69M
Pittsburgh - 27 - 2.47M

ACC the Rest

Virginia - 24 - 2.31M
Syracuse - 25 - 2.29M
NC State - 23 - 2.24M
Boston College - 21 - 2.21M
Wake Forest - 17 - 1.94M
Duke - 11 - 2.60M

Now obviously the ACC isn't going to fare well against the SEC or B1G in these numbers. And it has a built in advantage to the B12 and PAC due to its many rivalry games with the SEC, the Notre Dame commitment, and even a few B1G games (though not a lot).

But I thought I would share this first so we remember the ACC isn't as bad as some on these boards think. And hopefully someone could see if the new scheduling is impacted either positively or negatively with these numbers.

Cheers,
Neil

I’ve been doing a similar analysis with media ratings over the past five year… https://csnbbs.com/thread-941841.html

Generally agree with your tiers. Mine:
1) Clemson, FSU, Miami
2) VT, Louisville, Pitt, UNC, GT
3) BC, Cuse, Wake, NC State, UVa
4) Duke

For the PAC (includes games against USC & UCLA):
1) Oregon
2) Washington, Stanford, WSU, Utah
3) Colorado, Arizona State
4) Cal, Arizona, Oregon State

For the new B12 (includes games against Oklahoma & Texas):
1) Oklahoma State
2) ISU, WVU, Baylor
3) TCU, UCF, TTU, Cincy, K State, BYU
4) Houston, Kansas

Still catching up to you Wahoowa84.

Just finished the PAC yesterday, and will start B12 2019-2021 today.

I not only included the PAC games against USC and UCLA I am also including those two schools in my tier list as well.

Team.....#Games 1M+.....Avg #Viewers per game*


PAC12 Tier 1

1) USC - 72 - 2.59M (not an option for ACC expansion)
2) Oregon - 61 - 2.83M


PAC12 Tier 2

Stanford - 54 - 2.60M
UCLA - 48 - 2.37M (not an option for ACC expansion)
Washington - 52 - 2.20M

PAC 12 Tier 3

Utah - 36 - 2.21M
Arizona St - 35 - 2.04M

PAC 12 Best of the Rest

Washington St - 35 - 1.97M
Colorado - 22 - 2.23M
Arizona - 29 - 1.78M

*PAC12 teams were handicapped by their late games (late for ETZ college football fans) but they had an advantage over ACC teams in another way since ACC had only three options for the majority of their televised games (ABC, ESPN, and ESPN2) while the PAC had five options (ABC, FOX, ESPN, ESPN2, and FS1)

My take on the above is that USC in terms of actual viewers per game is definitely less than Clemson and FSU but ahead of Miami over the 9 year period this data covers due solely to number of games aired. This will likely increase being in the B1G.

UCLA despite being in a massive market I suspect will likely increase as well but will also get a lot of the medium valued teams as opponents. But medium valued teams from the B1G are nothing to sneeze at.

As I thought was the case in terms of expansion the Top 3 PAC12 teams are indeed Oregon a step above the rest and Stanford and Washington. Utah would be my choice for number 4 but a case can be made for either Arizona State or Washington State as well though I think the latter is handicapped by a secondary criteria of duplicate markets with Washington.

Cheers,
Neil

Interesting. This confirms that only Oregon and Washington would increase the ACC payout (even then the increase may not be very significant). Utah and Az state would be revenue neutral at best.

According to Athletics, it appears that the Big 12 rating numbers would be even worse.

https://theathletic.com/3444339/2022/07/...hip/?amp=1

(07-25-2022 12:11 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(07-25-2022 09:47 AM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(07-19-2022 02:30 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(07-18-2022 06:18 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  A similar exercise has been done by D1-360 and I believe Andy Staples (?) for the Athletic.

D1-360 was between 2012-2021 looking only at ACC, B12, and PAC. He eliminated Bowl Games (not surprising), all Conference Championship games, Games against the SEC, the B1G, and the four new members, Notre Dame, and Mirror Games supposedly because there is no way to determine who watched for which conference/teams but oddly he forgets the same can be said for any game within conference. Andy Staples did his from 2015-2021 eliminating the same games as well as throwing out 2020 altogether simply because some conferences chose not to participate fully.

Outside of Bowl Games, I kept everything and I recognize that gives the ACC an advantage over the B12 and PAC due to the large number of rivalry games with the SEC and having ND committed to 5 games annually.

When I get around to finishing the B12 and the PAC, still doing the 2019-2021 years for both conferences, they will have included in their totals the teams they have recently lost as well as any home, away, or neutral site games against the 5 major conferences and ND.

ACC Tier 1

Team.....#Games 1M+.....Avg #Viewers*

Clemson - 74 - 3.83M
Florida St - 66 - 3.58M
Miami - 49 - 3.03M

ACC Tier 2

Louisville - 40 - 2.67M
Virginia Tech - 36 - 3.05M
North Carolina - 36 - 2.40M
Georgia Tech - 27 - 2.69M
Pittsburgh - 27 - 2.47M

ACC the Rest

Virginia - 24 - 2.31M
Syracuse - 25 - 2.29M
NC State - 23 - 2.24M
Boston College - 21 - 2.21M
Wake Forest - 17 - 1.94M
Duke - 11 - 2.60M

Now obviously the ACC isn't going to fare well against the SEC or B1G in these numbers. And it has a built in advantage to the B12 and PAC due to its many rivalry games with the SEC, the Notre Dame commitment, and even a few B1G games (though not a lot).

But I thought I would share this first so we remember the ACC isn't as bad as some on these boards think. And hopefully someone could see if the new scheduling is impacted either positively or negatively with these numbers.

Cheers,
Neil

I’ve been doing a similar analysis with media ratings over the past five year… https://csnbbs.com/thread-941841.html

Generally agree with your tiers. Mine:
1) Clemson, FSU, Miami
2) VT, Louisville, Pitt, UNC, GT
3) BC, Cuse, Wake, NC State, UVa
4) Duke

For the PAC (includes games against USC & UCLA):
1) Oregon
2) Washington, Stanford, WSU, Utah
3) Colorado, Arizona State
4) Cal, Arizona, Oregon State

For the new B12 (includes games against Oklahoma & Texas):
1) Oklahoma State
2) ISU, WVU, Baylor
3) TCU, UCF, TTU, Cincy, K State, BYU
4) Houston, Kansas

Still catching up to you Wahoowa84.

Just finished the PAC yesterday, and will start B12 2019-2021 today.

I not only included the PAC games against USC and UCLA I am also including those two schools in my tier list as well.

Team.....#Games 1M+.....Avg #Viewers per game*


PAC12 Tier 1

1) USC - 72 - 2.59M (not an option for ACC expansion)
2) Oregon - 61 - 2.83M


PAC12 Tier 2

Stanford - 54 - 2.60M
UCLA - 48 - 2.37M (not an option for ACC expansion)
Washington - 52 - 2.20M

PAC 12 Tier 3

Utah - 36 - 2.21M
Arizona St - 35 - 2.04M

PAC 12 Best of the Rest

Washington St - 35 - 1.97M
Colorado - 22 - 2.23M
Arizona - 29 - 1.78M

*PAC12 teams were handicapped by their late games (late for ETZ college football fans) but they had an advantage over ACC teams in another way since ACC had only three options for the majority of their televised games (ABC, ESPN, and ESPN2) while the PAC had five options (ABC, FOX, ESPN, ESPN2, and FS1)

My take on the above is that USC in terms of actual viewers per game is definitely less than Clemson and FSU but ahead of Miami over the 9 year period this data covers due solely to number of games aired. This will likely increase being in the B1G.

UCLA despite being in a massive market I suspect will likely increase as well but will also get a lot of the medium valued teams as opponents. But medium valued teams from the B1G are nothing to sneeze at.

As I thought was the case in terms of expansion the Top 3 PAC12 teams are indeed Oregon a step above the rest and Stanford and Washington. Utah would be my choice for number 4 but a case can be made for either Arizona State or Washington State as well though I think the latter is handicapped by a secondary criteria of duplicate markets with Washington.

Cheers,
Neil

Interesting. This confirms that only Oregon and Washington would increase the ACC payout (even then the increase may not be very significant). Utah and Az state would be revenue neutral at best.

According to Athletics, it appears that the Big 12 rating numbers would be even worse.

https://theathletic.com/3444339/2022/07/...hip/?amp=1

Not sure the data supports this on its own. Over the 9 year period (2013-2021) Stanford has more games with 1M or more viewers, and the average numbers of viewers definitely favors Stanford - 2.60M viewers per game vs 2.20M viewers.

Stanford's reach in California TV markets include at the very least San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose market and may even extend into the Sacramento-Stockton-Modesto market. If true, that combined market is over 4M TV Households.

And it took a 3 three year step back by Stanford to pull Washington to as close as it is now. The gap between them now (still just looking at those games with 1M or more) is on average 400K per game, but if one looks at 2013-2018 that gap was 800K per game.

So while close I still give the edge to Stanford in a 2 team race. But I can certainly understand the logic for it being Washington as well especially if limited to only 2 schools from the PAC. Which honestly I don't see any PAC team taking that offer of only two schools accepting unless they are completely desperate.

Which is probably why I see any expansion with PAC schools to be at minimum 4 since it gives them 3 regional football rivals and limits travel (at least in terms of football). Olympic sports is going to cost them big time in terms of travel if they go to the ACC.

IF, and this is a BIG IF, it ever happens.

Cheers,
Neil

(07-25-2022 01:09 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(07-25-2022 12:11 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(07-25-2022 09:47 AM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(07-19-2022 02:30 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(07-18-2022 06:18 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  A similar exercise has been done by D1-360 and I believe Andy Staples (?) for the Athletic.

D1-360 was between 2012-2021 looking only at ACC, B12, and PAC. He eliminated Bowl Games (not surprising), all Conference Championship games, Games against the SEC, the B1G, and the four new members, Notre Dame, and Mirror Games supposedly because there is no way to determine who watched for which conference/teams but oddly he forgets the same can be said for any game within conference. Andy Staples did his from 2015-2021 eliminating the same games as well as throwing out 2020 altogether simply because some conferences chose not to participate fully.

Outside of Bowl Games, I kept everything and I recognize that gives the ACC an advantage over the B12 and PAC due to the large number of rivalry games with the SEC and having ND committed to 5 games annually.

When I get around to finishing the B12 and the PAC, still doing the 2019-2021 years for both conferences, they will have included in their totals the teams they have recently lost as well as any home, away, or neutral site games against the 5 major conferences and ND.

ACC Tier 1

Team.....#Games 1M+.....Avg #Viewers*

Clemson - 74 - 3.83M
Florida St - 66 - 3.58M
Miami - 49 - 3.03M

ACC Tier 2

Louisville - 40 - 2.67M
Virginia Tech - 36 - 3.05M
North Carolina - 36 - 2.40M
Georgia Tech - 27 - 2.69M
Pittsburgh - 27 - 2.47M

ACC the Rest

Virginia - 24 - 2.31M
Syracuse - 25 - 2.29M
NC State - 23 - 2.24M
Boston College - 21 - 2.21M
Wake Forest - 17 - 1.94M
Duke - 11 - 2.60M

Now obviously the ACC isn't going to fare well against the SEC or B1G in these numbers. And it has a built in advantage to the B12 and PAC due to its many rivalry games with the SEC, the Notre Dame commitment, and even a few B1G games (though not a lot).

But I thought I would share this first so we remember the ACC isn't as bad as some on these boards think. And hopefully someone could see if the new scheduling is impacted either positively or negatively with these numbers.

Cheers,
Neil

I’ve been doing a similar analysis with media ratings over the past five year… https://csnbbs.com/thread-941841.html

Generally agree with your tiers. Mine:
1) Clemson, FSU, Miami
2) VT, Louisville, Pitt, UNC, GT
3) BC, Cuse, Wake, NC State, UVa
4) Duke

For the PAC (includes games against USC & UCLA):
1) Oregon
2) Washington, Stanford, WSU, Utah
3) Colorado, Arizona State
4) Cal, Arizona, Oregon State

For the new B12 (includes games against Oklahoma & Texas):
1) Oklahoma State
2) ISU, WVU, Baylor
3) TCU, UCF, TTU, Cincy, K State, BYU
4) Houston, Kansas

Still catching up to you Wahoowa84.

Just finished the PAC yesterday, and will start B12 2019-2021 today.

I not only included the PAC games against USC and UCLA I am also including those two schools in my tier list as well.

Team.....#Games 1M+.....Avg #Viewers per game*


PAC12 Tier 1

1) USC - 72 - 2.59M (not an option for ACC expansion)
2) Oregon - 61 - 2.83M


PAC12 Tier 2

Stanford - 54 - 2.60M
UCLA - 48 - 2.37M (not an option for ACC expansion)
Washington - 52 - 2.20M

PAC 12 Tier 3

Utah - 36 - 2.21M
Arizona St - 35 - 2.04M

PAC 12 Best of the Rest

Washington St - 35 - 1.97M
Colorado - 22 - 2.23M
Arizona - 29 - 1.78M

*PAC12 teams were handicapped by their late games (late for ETZ college football fans) but they had an advantage over ACC teams in another way since ACC had only three options for the majority of their televised games (ABC, ESPN, and ESPN2) while the PAC had five options (ABC, FOX, ESPN, ESPN2, and FS1)

My take on the above is that USC in terms of actual viewers per game is definitely less than Clemson and FSU but ahead of Miami over the 9 year period this data covers due solely to number of games aired. This will likely increase being in the B1G.

UCLA despite being in a massive market I suspect will likely increase as well but will also get a lot of the medium valued teams as opponents. But medium valued teams from the B1G are nothing to sneeze at.

As I thought was the case in terms of expansion the Top 3 PAC12 teams are indeed Oregon a step above the rest and Stanford and Washington. Utah would be my choice for number 4 but a case can be made for either Arizona State or Washington State as well though I think the latter is handicapped by a secondary criteria of duplicate markets with Washington.

Cheers,
Neil

Interesting. This confirms that only Oregon and Washington would increase the ACC payout (even then the increase may not be very significant). Utah and Az state would be revenue neutral at best.

According to Athletics, it appears that the Big 12 rating numbers would be even worse.

https://theathletic.com/3444339/2022/07/...hip/?amp=1

Not sure the data supports this on its own. Over the 9 year period (2013-2021) Stanford has more games with 1M or more viewers, and the average numbers of viewers definitely favors Stanford - 2.60M viewers per game vs 2.20M viewers.

Stanford's reach in California TV markets include at the very least San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose market and may even extend into the Sacramento-Stockton-Modesto market. If true, that combined market is over 4M TV Households.

And it took a 3 three year step back by Stanford to pull Washington to as close as it is now. The gap between them now (still just looking at those games with 1M or more) is on average 400K per game, but if one looks at 2013-2018 that gap was 800K per game.

So while close I still give the edge to Stanford in a 2 team race. But I can certainly understand the logic for it being Washington as well especially if limited to only 2 schools from the PAC. Which honestly I don't see any PAC team taking that offer of only two schools accepting unless they are completely desperate.

Which is probably why I see any expansion with PAC schools to be at minimum 4 since it gives them 3 regional football rivals and limits travel (at least in terms of football). Olympic sports is going to cost them big time in terms of travel if they go to the ACC.

IF, and this is a BIG IF, it ever happens.

Cheers,
Neil

Oh I didn’t even think about Stanford. Aren’t they like UNC/Duke of Pac12? I don’t see them joining the ACC. Also Stanford has a better chance to get an invitation from BIG and won’t want to sign the GoR.

But I absolutely don’t mind adding four schools including UO, UW, Stanford and ASU, Cal or Colorado.

(07-25-2022 02:18 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(07-25-2022 01:09 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(07-25-2022 12:11 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(07-25-2022 09:47 AM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(07-19-2022 02:30 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  I’ve been doing a similar analysis with media ratings over the past five year… https://csnbbs.com/thread-941841.html

Generally agree with your tiers. Mine:
1) Clemson, FSU, Miami
2) VT, Louisville, Pitt, UNC, GT
3) BC, Cuse, Wake, NC State, UVa
4) Duke

For the PAC (includes games against USC & UCLA):
1) Oregon
2) Washington, Stanford, WSU, Utah
3) Colorado, Arizona State
4) Cal, Arizona, Oregon State

For the new B12 (includes games against Oklahoma & Texas):
1) Oklahoma State
2) ISU, WVU, Baylor
3) TCU, UCF, TTU, Cincy, K State, BYU
4) Houston, Kansas

Still catching up to you Wahoowa84.

Just finished the PAC yesterday, and will start B12 2019-2021 today.

I not only included the PAC games against USC and UCLA I am also including those two schools in my tier list as well.

Team.....#Games 1M+.....Avg #Viewers per game*


PAC12 Tier 1

1) USC - 72 - 2.59M (not an option for ACC expansion)
2) Oregon - 61 - 2.83M


PAC12 Tier 2

Stanford - 54 - 2.60M
UCLA - 48 - 2.37M (not an option for ACC expansion)
Washington - 52 - 2.20M

PAC 12 Tier 3

Utah - 36 - 2.21M
Arizona St - 35 - 2.04M

PAC 12 Best of the Rest

Washington St - 35 - 1.97M
Colorado - 22 - 2.23M
Arizona - 29 - 1.78M

*PAC12 teams were handicapped by their late games (late for ETZ college football fans) but they had an advantage over ACC teams in another way since ACC had only three options for the majority of their televised games (ABC, ESPN, and ESPN2) while the PAC had five options (ABC, FOX, ESPN, ESPN2, and FS1)

My take on the above is that USC in terms of actual viewers per game is definitely less than Clemson and FSU but ahead of Miami over the 9 year period this data covers due solely to number of games aired. This will likely increase being in the B1G.

UCLA despite being in a massive market I suspect will likely increase as well but will also get a lot of the medium valued teams as opponents. But medium valued teams from the B1G are nothing to sneeze at.

As I thought was the case in terms of expansion the Top 3 PAC12 teams are indeed Oregon a step above the rest and Stanford and Washington. Utah would be my choice for number 4 but a case can be made for either Arizona State or Washington State as well though I think the latter is handicapped by a secondary criteria of duplicate markets with Washington.

Cheers,
Neil

Interesting. This confirms that only Oregon and Washington would increase the ACC payout (even then the increase may not be very significant). Utah and Az state would be revenue neutral at best.

According to Athletics, it appears that the Big 12 rating numbers would be even worse.

https://theathletic.com/3444339/2022/07/...hip/?amp=1

Not sure the data supports this on its own. Over the 9 year period (2013-2021) Stanford has more games with 1M or more viewers, and the average numbers of viewers definitely favors Stanford - 2.60M viewers per game vs 2.20M viewers.

Stanford's reach in California TV markets include at the very least San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose market and may even extend into the Sacramento-Stockton-Modesto market. If true, that combined market is over 4M TV Households.

And it took a 3 three year step back by Stanford to pull Washington to as close as it is now. The gap between them now (still just looking at those games with 1M or more) is on average 400K per game, but if one looks at 2013-2018 that gap was 800K per game.

So while close I still give the edge to Stanford in a 2 team race. But I can certainly understand the logic for it being Washington as well especially if limited to only 2 schools from the PAC. Which honestly I don't see any PAC team taking that offer of only two schools accepting unless they are completely desperate.

Which is probably why I see any expansion with PAC schools to be at minimum 4 since it gives them 3 regional football rivals and limits travel (at least in terms of football). Olympic sports is going to cost them big time in terms of travel if they go to the ACC.

IF, and this is a BIG IF, it ever happens.

Cheers,
Neil

Oh I didn’t even think about Stanford. Aren’t they like UNC/Duke of Pac12? I don’t see them joining the ACC. Also Stanford has a better chance to get an invitation from BIG and won’t want to sign the GoR.

But I absolutely don’t mind adding four schools including UO, UW, Stanford and ASU, Cal or Colorado.

Agreed, with the most likely being Cal (although personally I'd prefer Arizona State).

(07-25-2022 02:18 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(07-25-2022 01:09 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(07-25-2022 12:11 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(07-25-2022 09:47 AM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(07-19-2022 02:30 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  I’ve been doing a similar analysis with media ratings over the past five year… https://csnbbs.com/thread-941841.html

Generally agree with your tiers. Mine:
1) Clemson, FSU, Miami
2) VT, Louisville, Pitt, UNC, GT
3) BC, Cuse, Wake, NC State, UVa
4) Duke

For the PAC (includes games against USC & UCLA):
1) Oregon
2) Washington, Stanford, WSU, Utah
3) Colorado, Arizona State
4) Cal, Arizona, Oregon State

For the new B12 (includes games against Oklahoma & Texas):
1) Oklahoma State
2) ISU, WVU, Baylor
3) TCU, UCF, TTU, Cincy, K State, BYU
4) Houston, Kansas

Still catching up to you Wahoowa84.

Just finished the PAC yesterday, and will start B12 2019-2021 today.

I not only included the PAC games against USC and UCLA I am also including those two schools in my tier list as well.

Team.....#Games 1M+.....Avg #Viewers per game*


PAC12 Tier 1

1) USC - 72 - 2.59M (not an option for ACC expansion)
2) Oregon - 61 - 2.83M


PAC12 Tier 2

Stanford - 54 - 2.60M
UCLA - 48 - 2.37M (not an option for ACC expansion)
Washington - 52 - 2.20M

PAC 12 Tier 3

Utah - 36 - 2.21M
Arizona St - 35 - 2.04M

PAC 12 Best of the Rest

Washington St - 35 - 1.97M
Colorado - 22 - 2.23M
Arizona - 29 - 1.78M

*PAC12 teams were handicapped by their late games (late for ETZ college football fans) but they had an advantage over ACC teams in another way since ACC had only three options for the majority of their televised games (ABC, ESPN, and ESPN2) while the PAC had five options (ABC, FOX, ESPN, ESPN2, and FS1)

My take on the above is that USC in terms of actual viewers per game is definitely less than Clemson and FSU but ahead of Miami over the 9 year period this data covers due solely to number of games aired. This will likely increase being in the B1G.

UCLA despite being in a massive market I suspect will likely increase as well but will also get a lot of the medium valued teams as opponents. But medium valued teams from the B1G are nothing to sneeze at.

As I thought was the case in terms of expansion the Top 3 PAC12 teams are indeed Oregon a step above the rest and Stanford and Washington. Utah would be my choice for number 4 but a case can be made for either Arizona State or Washington State as well though I think the latter is handicapped by a secondary criteria of duplicate markets with Washington.

Cheers,
Neil

Interesting. This confirms that only Oregon and Washington would increase the ACC payout (even then the increase may not be very significant). Utah and Az state would be revenue neutral at best.

According to Athletics, it appears that the Big 12 rating numbers would be even worse.

https://theathletic.com/3444339/2022/07/...hip/?amp=1

Not sure the data supports this on its own. Over the 9 year period (2013-2021) Stanford has more games with 1M or more viewers, and the average numbers of viewers definitely favors Stanford - 2.60M viewers per game vs 2.20M viewers.

Stanford's reach in California TV markets include at the very least San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose market and may even extend into the Sacramento-Stockton-Modesto market. If true, that combined market is over 4M TV Households.

And it took a 3 three year step back by Stanford to pull Washington to as close as it is now. The gap between them now (still just looking at those games with 1M or more) is on average 400K per game, but if one looks at 2013-2018 that gap was 800K per game.

So while close I still give the edge to Stanford in a 2 team race. But I can certainly understand the logic for it being Washington as well especially if limited to only 2 schools from the PAC. Which honestly I don't see any PAC team taking that offer of only two schools accepting unless they are completely desperate.

Which is probably why I see any expansion with PAC schools to be at minimum 4 since it gives them 3 regional football rivals and limits travel (at least in terms of football). Olympic sports is going to cost them big time in terms of travel if they go to the ACC.

IF, and this is a BIG IF, it ever happens.

Cheers,
Neil

Oh I didn’t even think about Stanford. Aren’t they like UNC/Duke of Pac12? I don’t see them joining the ACC. Also Stanford has a better chance to get an invitation from BIG and won’t want to sign the GoR.

But I absolutely don’t mind adding four schools including UO, UW, Stanford and ASU, Cal or Colorado.

I believe Stanford's preference would be

1) a stable PAC that keeps it's academic integrity in tact
2) the B1G (which isn't likely to happen unless Notre Dame joins, and that isn't a guarantee even if the Irish join the B1G and if they don't unless the B1G takes 3 from the PAC and perhaps a Kansas I don't see it happening)
3) Independence if they could manage it ??? probably could handle it $$$ wise but not sure it has enough clout to sustain a high level of football as an indy.
4) the ACC if they get enough $$$ in the supposed contract renegotiation to stabilize the conference.

Cheers,
Neil

(07-25-2022 06:38 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-25-2022 02:18 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(07-25-2022 01:09 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(07-25-2022 12:11 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(07-25-2022 09:47 AM)OrangeDude Wrote:  Still catching up to you Wahoowa84.

Just finished the PAC yesterday, and will start B12 2019-2021 today.

I not only included the PAC games against USC and UCLA I am also including those two schools in my tier list as well.

Team.....#Games 1M+.....Avg #Viewers per game*


PAC12 Tier 1

1) USC - 72 - 2.59M (not an option for ACC expansion)
2) Oregon - 61 - 2.83M


PAC12 Tier 2

Stanford - 54 - 2.60M
UCLA - 48 - 2.37M (not an option for ACC expansion)
Washington - 52 - 2.20M

PAC 12 Tier 3

Utah - 36 - 2.21M
Arizona St - 35 - 2.04M

PAC 12 Best of the Rest

Washington St - 35 - 1.97M
Colorado - 22 - 2.23M
Arizona - 29 - 1.78M

*PAC12 teams were handicapped by their late games (late for ETZ college football fans) but they had an advantage over ACC teams in another way since ACC had only three options for the majority of their televised games (ABC, ESPN, and ESPN2) while the PAC had five options (ABC, FOX, ESPN, ESPN2, and FS1)

My take on the above is that USC in terms of actual viewers per game is definitely less than Clemson and FSU but ahead of Miami over the 9 year period this data covers due solely to number of games aired. This will likely increase being in the B1G.

UCLA despite being in a massive market I suspect will likely increase as well but will also get a lot of the medium valued teams as opponents. But medium valued teams from the B1G are nothing to sneeze at.

As I thought was the case in terms of expansion the Top 3 PAC12 teams are indeed Oregon a step above the rest and Stanford and Washington. Utah would be my choice for number 4 but a case can be made for either Arizona State or Washington State as well though I think the latter is handicapped by a secondary criteria of duplicate markets with Washington.

Cheers,
Neil

Interesting. This confirms that only Oregon and Washington would increase the ACC payout (even then the increase may not be very significant). Utah and Az state would be revenue neutral at best.

According to Athletics, it appears that the Big 12 rating numbers would be even worse.

https://theathletic.com/3444339/2022/07/...hip/?amp=1

Not sure the data supports this on its own. Over the 9 year period (2013-2021) Stanford has more games with 1M or more viewers, and the average numbers of viewers definitely favors Stanford - 2.60M viewers per game vs 2.20M viewers.

Stanford's reach in California TV markets include at the very least San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose market and may even extend into the Sacramento-Stockton-Modesto market. If true, that combined market is over 4M TV Households.

And it took a 3 three year step back by Stanford to pull Washington to as close as it is now. The gap between them now (still just looking at those games with 1M or more) is on average 400K per game, but if one looks at 2013-2018 that gap was 800K per game.

So while close I still give the edge to Stanford in a 2 team race. But I can certainly understand the logic for it being Washington as well especially if limited to only 2 schools from the PAC. Which honestly I don't see any PAC team taking that offer of only two schools accepting unless they are completely desperate.

Which is probably why I see any expansion with PAC schools to be at minimum 4 since it gives them 3 regional football rivals and limits travel (at least in terms of football). Olympic sports is going to cost them big time in terms of travel if they go to the ACC.

IF, and this is a BIG IF, it ever happens.

Cheers,
Neil

Oh I didn’t even think about Stanford. Aren’t they like UNC/Duke of Pac12? I don’t see them joining the ACC. Also Stanford has a better chance to get an invitation from BIG and won’t want to sign the GoR.

But I absolutely don’t mind adding four schools including UO, UW, Stanford and ASU, Cal or Colorado.

Agreed, with the most likely being Cal (although personally I'd prefer Arizona State).

I left both Oregon State and Cal out of my post above because Cal had 26 actual games with 1M viewers or more but the only PAC teams they did better than in terms of number of games were Colorado with 22 and Oregon State with 10. But Colorado's average in those 1M plus games was 2.23M while Cal's was 1.73M. I left Oregon State out since in terms of these stats they are the equivalent of Duke. Duke had 11 games and an average of 2.60M per game. The Beavers had 10 games and an average of 2.68M per game.

In Duke's case I felt I had to display it since this is an ACC board and the school I root for is an ACC member. Didn't feel the necessity to include what I consider the lesser 2 of the PAC-12, soon to be PAC-10.

Now a market argument might be made on Cal's behalf. But if only 4 can make it to me it's Oregon, Washington, Stanford and one of - Utah, Arizona State, and Colorado

Utah is my choice if it's about football and only football.
Both Colorado and Arizona State have good football and better markets than the Utes but-

It's rumored that Colorado is a major pain (from some stuff I've heard) and is totally against unequal revenue distribution - which might be needed to keep the "brand" programs on board in the long term.

And has the NCAA investigation of Arizona State football been resolved yet?

I am okay with either one in a 4 team PAC grab as long as they are number 4. Unfortunately not sure any of the 6 above are truly a bridge to 2 of Oklahoma State, Baylor and TCU which is what I see the ACC might also need.

Cheers,
Neil