(03-04-2020 06:40 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 10:12 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Remember, the other side of the equation is Texas and Oklahoma, and i agree with Mongoose that they are much less likely to be interested in the PAC than they were 10 years ago. The Big 12 with 10 model has proven to be competitive on the field and lucrative at the bank.

The Big 12 model was lucrative at the bank because of Texas and Oklahoma, not the Little Eight. If Oklahoma and Texas moved to the Sun Belt Conference, they'd be lucrative.

Yes, no question, TX and OK are the bread winners for the Big 12. But point is, they are making a ton of money even with the "little 8" around them. And, there are other advantages to being with the L8: The L8 schools are much more geographically and culturally similar to TX and OK than are the PAC schools, and in the Big 12, Texas and OK dominate the league, whereas in the PAC they would have significantly less power, and power matters a lot to these schools.

The Big 12 looked unstable a couple years ago when OK started to worry about CFP playoff access and media money. But the NCAA gave them a CCG at 10 teams, which has allayed the playoff worries, and the media money has proven to be very good. The Big 12 distributed about $38m last year per school, and that was with teams retaining their 3rd tier rights, which adds several million more in some cases.

We can all speculate about how things will change between now and 2024/2025, but as of now, Texas and OK seem very happy in the Big 12, and have reason to be.

(03-04-2020 07:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 02:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Has the value of the PAC changed since 2012? Absolutely Quo. In 2012 the market footprint model determined value. Today it is content and actual rather than potential viewers because technology has changed the way advertising is sold. The PAC's viewing numbers is only slightly ahead of the AAC and behind the ACC and Big 12. So yes the product is worth less in today's pay model. And content value is not great either.

I'm not sure there's that much of a one-to-one ratings correspondence between ratings and media payments. E.g., IIRC the AAC's football ratings aren't that much worse than the ACC's or Big 12's, but the AAC just signed a deal for a paltry $7m a year, way less than the ACC or Big 12. Yes, I know Aresco isn't very good at negotiating media deals, but still.

Nobody will know until 2024 what the PAC media deal will look like, but I will be surprised if they take a hit. Nobody has yet.

Quo,

You are getting old and your memory is failing you lol. I laugh because we are the same age. But anyway, the ACC has been getting great ratings and viewership since the final realignment in 2013. Those are the earliest years that i could find. But every year the ACC has had the 3rd highest tv ratings of all the conferences. The AAC has not been close to the ACC in any of those years, and has been outdone by the MWC at least one season. Here is a chart from an ACC blogger., HokieMark. But you dont have to take his word. You can just google "average tv ratings of college football conferences" and you can see for yourself that the ACC is always a solid #3.

Conference TV Ratings

(03-04-2020 12:48 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(03-04-2020 07:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 02:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Has the value of the PAC changed since 2012? Absolutely Quo. In 2012 the market footprint model determined value. Today it is content and actual rather than potential viewers because technology has changed the way advertising is sold. The PAC's viewing numbers is only slightly ahead of the AAC and behind the ACC and Big 12. So yes the product is worth less in today's pay model. And content value is not great either.

I'm not sure there's that much of a one-to-one ratings correspondence between ratings and media payments. E.g., IIRC the AAC's football ratings aren't that much worse than the ACC's or Big 12's, but the AAC just signed a deal for a paltry $7m a year, way less than the ACC or Big 12. Yes, I know Aresco isn't very good at negotiating media deals, but still.

Nobody will know until 2024 what the PAC media deal will look like, but I will be surprised if they take a hit. Nobody has yet.

Quo,

You are getting old and your memory is failing you lol. I laugh because we are the same age. But anyway, the ACC has been getting great ratings and viewership since the final realignment in 2013. Those are the earliest years that i could find. But every year the ACC has had the 3rd highest tv ratings of all the conferences. The AAC has not been close to the ACC in any of those years, and has been outdone by the MWC at least one season. Here is a chart from an ACC blogger. But you dont have to take his word. You can just google "average tv ratings of college football conferences" and you can see for yourself that the ACC is always a solid #3.

Conference TV Ratings

The 2019 numbers were the same in order but the SEC had almost a full point lead over the Big 10 and the PAC's numbers were 1.9 to the AAC's 1.7. I just don't buy any of the scenarios of the PAC being strong enough to attract any top product or catch up to any degree of significance with the rest of the P5.

(03-03-2020 10:12 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Remember, the other side of the equation is Texas and Oklahoma, and i agree with Mongoose that they are much less likely to be interested in the PAC than they were 10 years ago. The Big 12 with 10 model has proven to be competitive on the field and lucrative at the bank.

Thanks, and that was my intended point. As unlikely as it is that USC would actually jump ship from the Pac-12, the evolution in conference earnings over the past decade has made it even more unlikely that Texas and Oklahoma would jump ship to the Pac-12.

(03-04-2020 12:48 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(03-04-2020 07:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 02:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Has the value of the PAC changed since 2012? Absolutely Quo. In 2012 the market footprint model determined value. Today it is content and actual rather than potential viewers because technology has changed the way advertising is sold. The PAC's viewing numbers is only slightly ahead of the AAC and behind the ACC and Big 12. So yes the product is worth less in today's pay model. And content value is not great either.

I'm not sure there's that much of a one-to-one ratings correspondence between ratings and media payments. E.g., IIRC the AAC's football ratings aren't that much worse than the ACC's or Big 12's, but the AAC just signed a deal for a paltry $7m a year, way less than the ACC or Big 12. Yes, I know Aresco isn't very good at negotiating media deals, but still.

Nobody will know until 2024 what the PAC media deal will look like, but I will be surprised if they take a hit. Nobody has yet.

Quo,

You are getting old and your memory is failing you lol. I laugh because we are the same age. But anyway, the ACC has been getting great ratings and viewership since the final realignment in 2013. Those are the earliest years that i could find. But every year the ACC has had the 3rd highest tv ratings of all the conferences. The AAC has not been close to the ACC in any of those years, and has been outdone by the MWC at least one season. Here is a chart from an ACC blogger., HokieMark. But you dont have to take his word. You can just google "average tv ratings of college football conferences" and you can see for yourself that the ACC is always a solid #3.

Conference TV Ratings

OK ... facts are facts. The ACC is drawing good ratings.

(03-04-2020 02:32 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 10:12 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Remember, the other side of the equation is Texas and Oklahoma, and i agree with Mongoose that they are much less likely to be interested in the PAC than they were 10 years ago. The Big 12 with 10 model has proven to be competitive on the field and lucrative at the bank.

Thanks, and that was my intended point. As unlikely as it is that USC would actually jump ship from the Pac-12, the evolution in conference earnings over the past decade has made it even more unlikely that Texas and Oklahoma would jump ship to the Pac-12.

The Pac-12 issues are not going to be resolved by expansion. Give them a network with SEC type of exposure and about $5 million more per school annually and they would be fine until the contract expires in 2025. The fact that they own their own network could be beneficial in the next contract negotiation.

Expansion was never the answer to the network issue or the revenue issue and if you are going to expand, you need to do it from a position of strength. Outside of UT and OU, the Big 12 is unattractive. Neither school needs the Pac-12 and schools like USC and UCLA don't need the Big 12.

(03-04-2020 03:34 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(03-04-2020 02:32 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 10:12 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Remember, the other side of the equation is Texas and Oklahoma, and i agree with Mongoose that they are much less likely to be interested in the PAC than they were 10 years ago. The Big 12 with 10 model has proven to be competitive on the field and lucrative at the bank.

Thanks, and that was my intended point. As unlikely as it is that USC would actually jump ship from the Pac-12, the evolution in conference earnings over the past decade has made it even more unlikely that Texas and Oklahoma would jump ship to the Pac-12.

The Pac-12 issues are not going to be resolved by expansion. Give them a network with SEC type of exposure and about $5 million more per school annually and they would be fine until the contract expires in 2025. The fact that they own their own network could be beneficial in the next contract negotiation.

Expansion was never the answer to the network issue or the revenue issue and if you are going to expand, you need to do it from a position of strength. Outside of UT and OU, the Big 12 is unattractive. Neither school needs the Pac-12 and schools like USC and UCLA don't need the Big 12.

Correct expansion is the wrong move for the Pac12 right now. They need to replace their commish and directly address the issues they’re having. Kickoff times need to be a top priority in their tv negotiations. They need to be hands on with their officiating problems. And they need to either change their scheduling strategy or be able to better lobby it to the public.

An article from Jon Wilner about Larry Scott:

https://www.dailybreeze.com/2020/03/02/f...darn-soon/

(03-04-2020 08:42 PM)schmolik Wrote:  An article from Jon Wilner about Larry Scott:

https://www.dailybreeze.com/2020/03/02/f...darn-soon/

Um, that's the same article posted by the OP.

(03-04-2020 01:11 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-04-2020 12:48 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(03-04-2020 07:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 02:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Has the value of the PAC changed since 2012? Absolutely Quo. In 2012 the market footprint model determined value. Today it is content and actual rather than potential viewers because technology has changed the way advertising is sold. The PAC's viewing numbers is only slightly ahead of the AAC and behind the ACC and Big 12. So yes the product is worth less in today's pay model. And content value is not great either.

I'm not sure there's that much of a one-to-one ratings correspondence between ratings and media payments. E.g., IIRC the AAC's football ratings aren't that much worse than the ACC's or Big 12's, but the AAC just signed a deal for a paltry $7m a year, way less than the ACC or Big 12. Yes, I know Aresco isn't very good at negotiating media deals, but still.

Nobody will know until 2024 what the PAC media deal will look like, but I will be surprised if they take a hit. Nobody has yet.

Quo,

You are getting old and your memory is failing you lol. I laugh because we are the same age. But anyway, the ACC has been getting great ratings and viewership since the final realignment in 2013. Those are the earliest years that i could find. But every year the ACC has had the 3rd highest tv ratings of all the conferences. The AAC has not been close to the ACC in any of those years, and has been outdone by the MWC at least one season. Here is a chart from an ACC blogger. But you dont have to take his word. You can just google "average tv ratings of college football conferences" and you can see for yourself that the ACC is always a solid #3.

Conference TV Ratings

The 2019 numbers were the same in order but the SEC had almost a full point lead over the Big 10 and the PAC's numbers were 1.9 to the AAC's 1.7. I just don't buy any of the scenarios of the PAC being strong enough to attract any top product or catch up to any degree of significance with the rest of the P5.

Pretty skeptical of these numbers from an ACC blogger. Aggie blogger had Big 12 dead last a few years back and a Texas fan who works in media took those numbers apart. Big 12 was really 3rd, but only a little ahead of ACC and Pac 12 and not far behind Big 10. Now at that time, Big 10 was Ohio St. and the 13 drawves, so I wouldn't be surprised that they had pulled away from the other 3. But I find it hard to believe they are that close to the SEC. They were waaaaaayyyy behind before.

Just looking at it, you can see his assumptions make adjustments that favor the ACC. Now there does need to be some adjustment to account for the differences in TV platforms as he mentions 3 conferences had games on unmetered networks. But excluding all ESPNU definitely bumps up ACC numbers. I don't recall anybody but ACC and SEC on ESPNU.

(03-04-2020 09:04 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-04-2020 01:11 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-04-2020 12:48 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(03-04-2020 07:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 02:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Has the value of the PAC changed since 2012? Absolutely Quo. In 2012 the market footprint model determined value. Today it is content and actual rather than potential viewers because technology has changed the way advertising is sold. The PAC's viewing numbers is only slightly ahead of the AAC and behind the ACC and Big 12. So yes the product is worth less in today's pay model. And content value is not great either.

I'm not sure there's that much of a one-to-one ratings correspondence between ratings and media payments. E.g., IIRC the AAC's football ratings aren't that much worse than the ACC's or Big 12's, but the AAC just signed a deal for a paltry $7m a year, way less than the ACC or Big 12. Yes, I know Aresco isn't very good at negotiating media deals, but still.

Nobody will know until 2024 what the PAC media deal will look like, but I will be surprised if they take a hit. Nobody has yet.

Quo,

You are getting old and your memory is failing you lol. I laugh because we are the same age. But anyway, the ACC has been getting great ratings and viewership since the final realignment in 2013. Those are the earliest years that i could find. But every year the ACC has had the 3rd highest tv ratings of all the conferences. The AAC has not been close to the ACC in any of those years, and has been outdone by the MWC at least one season. Here is a chart from an ACC blogger. But you dont have to take his word. You can just google "average tv ratings of college football conferences" and you can see for yourself that the ACC is always a solid #3.

Conference TV Ratings

The 2019 numbers were the same in order but the SEC had almost a full point lead over the Big 10 and the PAC's numbers were 1.9 to the AAC's 1.7. I just don't buy any of the scenarios of the PAC being strong enough to attract any top product or catch up to any degree of significance with the rest of the P5.

Pretty skeptical of these numbers from an ACC blogger. Aggie blogger had Big 12 dead last a few years back and a Texas fan who works in media took those numbers apart. Big 12 was really 3rd, but only a little ahead of ACC and Pac 12 and not far behind Big 10. Now at that time, Big 10 was Ohio St. and the 13 drawves, so I wouldn't be surprised that they had pulled away from the other 3. But I find it hard to believe they are that close to the SEC. They were waaaaaayyyy behind before.

Just looking at it, you can see his assumptions make adjustments that favor the ACC. Now there does need to be some adjustment to account for the differences in TV platforms as he mentions 3 conferences had games on unmetered networks. But excluding all ESPNU definitely bumps up ACC numbers. I don't recall anybody but ACC and SEC on ESPNU.

Then by all means, share with us a study that shows the B12 in 3rd place. I have seen articles from different writers over the years since 2013 and every one had the ACC in 3rd with the B12 and Pac12 taking turns bringing up the rear.

(03-05-2020 11:48 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(03-04-2020 09:04 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-04-2020 01:11 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-04-2020 12:48 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(03-04-2020 07:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I'm not sure there's that much of a one-to-one ratings correspondence between ratings and media payments. E.g., IIRC the AAC's football ratings aren't that much worse than the ACC's or Big 12's, but the AAC just signed a deal for a paltry $7m a year, way less than the ACC or Big 12. Yes, I know Aresco isn't very good at negotiating media deals, but still.

Nobody will know until 2024 what the PAC media deal will look like, but I will be surprised if they take a hit. Nobody has yet.

Quo,

You are getting old and your memory is failing you lol. I laugh because we are the same age. But anyway, the ACC has been getting great ratings and viewership since the final realignment in 2013. Those are the earliest years that i could find. But every year the ACC has had the 3rd highest tv ratings of all the conferences. The AAC has not been close to the ACC in any of those years, and has been outdone by the MWC at least one season. Here is a chart from an ACC blogger. But you dont have to take his word. You can just google "average tv ratings of college football conferences" and you can see for yourself that the ACC is always a solid #3.

Conference TV Ratings

The 2019 numbers were the same in order but the SEC had almost a full point lead over the Big 10 and the PAC's numbers were 1.9 to the AAC's 1.7. I just don't buy any of the scenarios of the PAC being strong enough to attract any top product or catch up to any degree of significance with the rest of the P5.

Pretty skeptical of these numbers from an ACC blogger. Aggie blogger had Big 12 dead last a few years back and a Texas fan who works in media took those numbers apart. Big 12 was really 3rd, but only a little ahead of ACC and Pac 12 and not far behind Big 10. Now at that time, Big 10 was Ohio St. and the 13 drawves, so I wouldn't be surprised that they had pulled away from the other 3. But I find it hard to believe they are that close to the SEC. They were waaaaaayyyy behind before.

Just looking at it, you can see his assumptions make adjustments that favor the ACC. Now there does need to be some adjustment to account for the differences in TV platforms as he mentions 3 conferences had games on unmetered networks. But excluding all ESPNU definitely bumps up ACC numbers. I don't recall anybody but ACC and SEC on ESPNU.

Then by all means, share with us a study that shows the B12 in 3rd place. I have seen articles from different writers over the years since 2013 and every one had the ACC in 3rd with the B12 and Pac12 taking turns bringing up the rear.

That’s ridiculous. The Big 12 has always had better numbers than the ACC. Not even close despite ESPN pushing a poorly rated conference

(03-05-2020 08:56 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 11:48 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(03-04-2020 09:04 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-04-2020 01:11 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-04-2020 12:48 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  Quo,

You are getting old and your memory is failing you lol. I laugh because we are the same age. But anyway, the ACC has been getting great ratings and viewership since the final realignment in 2013. Those are the earliest years that i could find. But every year the ACC has had the 3rd highest tv ratings of all the conferences. The AAC has not been close to the ACC in any of those years, and has been outdone by the MWC at least one season. Here is a chart from an ACC blogger. But you dont have to take his word. You can just google "average tv ratings of college football conferences" and you can see for yourself that the ACC is always a solid #3.

Conference TV Ratings

The 2019 numbers were the same in order but the SEC had almost a full point lead over the Big 10 and the PAC's numbers were 1.9 to the AAC's 1.7. I just don't buy any of the scenarios of the PAC being strong enough to attract any top product or catch up to any degree of significance with the rest of the P5.

Pretty skeptical of these numbers from an ACC blogger. Aggie blogger had Big 12 dead last a few years back and a Texas fan who works in media took those numbers apart. Big 12 was really 3rd, but only a little ahead of ACC and Pac 12 and not far behind Big 10. Now at that time, Big 10 was Ohio St. and the 13 drawves, so I wouldn't be surprised that they had pulled away from the other 3. But I find it hard to believe they are that close to the SEC. They were waaaaaayyyy behind before.

Just looking at it, you can see his assumptions make adjustments that favor the ACC. Now there does need to be some adjustment to account for the differences in TV platforms as he mentions 3 conferences had games on unmetered networks. But excluding all ESPNU definitely bumps up ACC numbers. I don't recall anybody but ACC and SEC on ESPNU.

Then by all means, share with us a study that shows the B12 in 3rd place. I have seen articles from different writers over the years since 2013 and every one had the ACC in 3rd with the B12 and Pac12 taking turns bringing up the rear.

That’s ridiculous. The Big 12 has always had better numbers than the ACC. Not even close despite ESPN pushing a poorly rated conference

Really, based on what, your perception? Lots of people have done the stats based on numbers and facts, not ignorance. Here are the stats from 2012 from FranktheTank, a BIG Blogger. He gets his numbers from Nielsen. This was before the BE imploded:

Here are the average football viewership totals by conference according to Nielsen:
1. SEC – 4,447,000
2. Big Ten – 3,267,000
3. ACC – 2,650,000
4. Big 12 – 2,347,000
5. Pac-12 – 2,108,000
6. Big East – 1,884,000



The following is from GoodBullHunting.com 2013, a Texas A&M Website

Rank Conference Avg Viewers Avg Rating # of Rated Gms
1 SEC 3,805,794 2.34 120
2 Big 10 2,920,815 1.84 82
3 ACC 1,961,674 1.25 88
4 Pac 12 1,759,673 1.11 76
5 Big 12 1,625,221 1.01 92
6 MWC 1,010,406 0.65 49
7 AAC 971,983 0.65 60
8 MAC 792,583 0.50 36
9 C-USA 780,254 0.50 42


Just because you hate the ACC and think its a poor product doesnt reflect the thoughts of other college football fans, as shown by the tv ratings. I will offer you the same advice. If you have some stats that show that the B12 gets better ratings than the ACC, show us. Otherwise its just flapping gums.

The Big 12 averaged a 2.6 rating for 14 OTA conference games this season. The ACC averaged 1.8 for 9 OTA games. The Big XII had an additional six games on ESPN which drew a 0.71. The ACC's 11 games on ESPN drew a 0.69.

The whole 9 am kickoffs idea was absurd.

(03-06-2020 06:38 AM)Go College Sports Wrote:  The Big 12 averaged a 2.6 rating for 14 OTA conference games this season. The ACC averaged 1.8 for 9 OTA games. The Big XII had an additional six games on ESPN which drew a 0.71. The ACC's 11 games on ESPN drew a 0.69.

We will see the numbers when they are released. Obviously, your numbers are for 20 games. there are a lot more games to consider. The numbers come out every year and someone posts them on this board. If you have them share them. The ACC has come in third every season since 2012. If the B12 has a better rating this season it will be the first in years.

(03-06-2020 08:58 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  The whole 9 am kickoffs idea was absurd.

Is the goal better attendance in stadiums or better TV audience? 7:30pm/8pm PT kickoffs would be better for fans in California, Oregon, Washington, etc. but mean that most fans in the East won't watch. The Pac-12 should have a primary focus to cater to its fans in its target markets first which is of course the West Coast but if it wants to grow nationally it should also cater to them as well and air games earlier in the day so Eastern and Central Time Zone fans can watch them. If the SEC counted only on fans in Alabama and Louisiana, it wouldn't be where it is today.

The premise behind a 9am PT kickoff is to accommodate the FOX "Big Noon" strategy of them placing their biggest games at noon ET. They wanted to win the time slot since most weeks CBS dominates at 3:30pm ET with the SEC and ABC usually wins in prime time. Most of FOX's biggest 2019 games aired at noon including Ohio State at Michigan, Penn State at Ohio State, Wisconsin at Ohio State, Michigan at Wisconsin, and the Red River Rivalry between Texas and Oklahoma.

FOX is apparently doubling down on the "Big Noon" strategy. At the MWC press conference, they have an interest in airing Florida State-Boise State at noon ET, which would be 10am in Boise.

https://themw.com/documents/2020/1/9//MW...script.pdf

"Q. Mark, this might be a local question, but with the
Big Noon Saturday games, a lot of times it was kind
of a lead-in for your noon eastern game. If you did
the Boise State-Florida State, would you guys be
looking at a 10:00 a.m. mountain time start or
would you try to push that back later?

MARK SILVERMAN: No, we would be looking at a very
special, unique time that would be sort of a special
event, 10:00 a.m. local start kick time. Yes, we would.
And the way we look at it, for a little explanation, as we
look at creating special events in the sports world,
whether it's an outdoor hockey game, whether it's
Midnight Madness, sometimes special time frames
make the game more unique. No one has talked about
doing anything on a regular basis, but we believe, and
I've had conversations with the Pac-12 about even an
earlier game kick start. On occasion it could create a
heck of a lot of interest, and we actually believe if we
are able to kick that game at 10:00 and it would be
airing on the FOX broadcast network, it'll most likely be
the highest-rated Boise State football game in at least
five to seven years. We think there's an incredible
audience there. We've seen it from our first year doing
it on air. We do it as a special occasion, and again, I
think it could be something everyone could rally around
and make it a fun one-time event."

You better believe FOX will ask Pac-12 schools for 9am PT kickoffs in 2020, especially if they get their hands on Michigan at Washington and/or Ohio State at Oregon. Of course the Pac-12 schools can say no. But from a national TV audience perspective the late night games (or just too many of them) hurt the Pac-12 more than a few 9am PT kickoffs will.

(03-06-2020 09:25 AM)schmolik Wrote:  Is the goal better attendance in stadiums or better TV audience?

This is an example of where conference and school interests don't always coincide. For the conference, the answer is clearly "TV audience" because that's where the conference gets income from, TV, the conference doesn't share in Alabama's ticket income when fans attend its games.

But of course for a school, the answer is "home attendance", because even with ballooning TV revenue, that still generates more money. E.g, last year LSU got about $40 million from conference TV revenue, but at least double that, more than $80 million, from revenue associated with home attendance - ticket sales, PSLs, luxury suites, parking, alumni donations and corporate sponsorships, and concessions. LOCAL revenue, revenue related to attendance, has always been the biggest money-maker for a successful athletic program.

Conference commissioners will always push schools to prioritize TV, because that is where conference income, and hence their own salaries and staff, are paid from. But a school might think twice because the bottom line is, home attendance is basically the defining marker of a successful program. The correlation between home attendance and brand value is is extremely high.

(03-06-2020 08:58 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  The whole 9 am kickoffs idea was absurd.

Maybe not for the MAC!

(03-06-2020 09:02 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 06:38 AM)Go College Sports Wrote:  The Big 12 averaged a 2.6 rating for 14 OTA conference games this season. The ACC averaged 1.8 for 9 OTA games. The Big XII had an additional six games on ESPN which drew a 0.71. The ACC's 11 games on ESPN drew a 0.69.

We will see the numbers when they are released. Obviously, your numbers are for 20 games. there are a lot more games to consider. The numbers come out every year and someone posts them on this board. If you have them share them. The ACC has come in third every season since 2012. If the B12 has a better rating this season it will be the first in years.

I wouldn't be surprised that you can calculate it in a way that the ACC came in 3rd every year since 2012. But when you compare apples to apples it simply isn't true.

Now comparing apples to apples is difficult. ABC and CBS draw better than Fox. ESPN draws better than ESPN2 which draws better than FS1. Time slots matter. Competition vs. other games matters. And if you do averages, you have to consider the number of games per team. If you are rating 4 games per team in the Big 10 (because of BTN) and 6 games per team with the Big 12, you depress the Big 12 averages because you are only using the top 4 games with the Big 10. The only things that are easy to state is that the SEC is a clear #1 and that the Big 10 gets more big rated games than anyone but the SEC. And whatever the ratings, ESPN and Fox value the SEC and the Big 10 the highest.