A good chunk of the ACC is in trouble as P5 qualifiers. You have FSU, Clemson, GT as the crème of the crop as all-around-best in the conference. UVA-UNC-Duke get points for their AAU and basketball base and everyone else is dead weight.
Does BC continue to do stay in P5?
- Thread starter steeleer
- Start date
A good chunk of the ACC is in trouble as P5 qualifiers. You have FSU, Clemson, GT as the crème of the crop as all-around-best in the conference. UVA-UNC-Duke get points for their AAU and basketball base and everyone else is dead weight.
If, in the future, there is a way to pay for the content you want to see, FSU fans in Massachusetts will not need BC in the ACC in order to watch FSU games. We would not need UCONN in the BIG12 in order for BIG12 fans in Connecticut to watch BIG12 games. I submit that there are not many people in the demographic that have that WF vs BC game circled on their calendars. Expanding just for TV sets and population is perhaps an outmoded model, or will be soon.
Also, just curious. If you had to pay for every game you watched in college sports, who would you watch? I'd watch all the WVU games, a few conference games that might affect our standings or next week's opponent, maybe some of the big rivalry week games from other conferences and 4 or 5 bowl games. There would be a whole lot of games played that I would never see or care to see, especially if I was paying for each one.
Considering how rare it is for a school to get booted, and how stupid it would be for BC to drop to a lower conference considering every conference other than the P5 basically bleed absurd amounts of money, I dont think this is even a debate.
Programs go through up and down cycles, while BC is awful right now, they are historically solid in both sports. They would need to establish a pattern of futility that extended decades for this to even register as a possibility.
Programs go through up and down cycles, while BC is awful right now, they are historically solid in both sports. They would need to establish a pattern of futility that extended decades for this to even register as a possibility.
Until now, you are right. I'm telling you though that once athletes start getting paid, this is going to get ugly quickly. There will be programs that will not only lose money, but lose A LOT of money.
When athletes start getting paid more often....................the sports programs that are operating on the margin will disappear from the upper division and will drop down to the AA level. Coaches down there still work for blue collar wages......................as it should be.
Not sure how you see this playing out, but when (and I agree it is when not if) the compensation policy changes, it is going to be something like this:
Option A - Increased stipends across the board, per player in each sport this will not be that much money but collectively it will cost the schools a lot, however it is not going to be crippling to an AD.
Option B - Allow 3rd parties (donors) to pay what the market dictates to a player, allowing schools to bypass paying anybody.
Option C - Allow players to profit off of their likeness by way of a royalty, which means that only the guys good enough to warrant jersey/t shirt sales will be profiting, allowing schools to bypass paying pretty much everyone other than the star player(s).
That's not why ESPN delayed an ACC network. It was because Disney read them the riot act about their finances, and ESPN has to cut costs.
I don't know what you've researched, but the ratings don't support your conclusion. Here are the ratings for the conferences over the last 5 years. (I couldn't find data for 2012.) The order of finish was:
The ACC was consistently 3rd in the ratings 4 of the last 5 years. (They may have been 3rd all 5 years, since I can't find 2012 figures.) This doesn't bear out your assertion that poor ratings would dissuade ESPN from starting a network, especially considering that the Pac 12 (who consistently comes in behind the ACC) has its own network. If you are going to make the case that the ACC doesn't have the ratings for a network, then the Big 12 doesn't have a prayer.
Numbers can say anything you want them too and they mean different things to different interests. Those ratings are based on quantity, not quality as I have read through them. The average per game is the worst for the ACC and it is the Big-12 that moves into 3rd. The size of the conference determines the number of games in the comparison and of course the Big-12 has the least in both categories. What matters to an investor is how much does the average Big-12 game have in viewership each time one is on.
Right now, the ACC has to put on a lot of games to get their total viewers numbers up and that means a broadcaster has to do a lot of work to get there because each event is a production. the ACC has 50% more games than the Big-12 and the difference in total viewers is not that wide, but the difference per game is.
The ACC has weak viewership and what makes this even weaker is that the SEC smothers their markets in the south and the Big Ten in the north. Even the lone Big-12 member, WVU puts hurt on the ACC in the mid-Atlantic.
If your Option B ever came to fruition, it would only come after the P5 teams leave the NCAA. That would open up a level of underhandedness never seen before. The playoffs would be Ohio State, Oregon, Alabama, Auburn, FSU and Michigan in some order or another every year.
Option A is how it will get rolled out. It will be a huge chunk of cash. Title 9 isn't going to get left out of this payday. Everyone gets paid or else.
Option C is the best one, with a smaller "base stipend" for everyone else.
Simply incorrect. All the numbers listed in the articles were averages.
2015
ACC 6.1 million viewers per game
Big 12 5.0 million
2014
ACC 2.4 million
Big 12 1.8 million
2013
ACC 1.9 million
Big 12 1.6 million
2011
ACC 2.65 million
Big 12 2.35 million
So no, these numbers are averages. They are not total viewers. You clearly didn't read through them. You completely made up the statement that the figures in the articles were for total viewers. They clearly are not. They are for average viewers. You flat out lied.
Also, the ACC average per game was clearly not the worst. Another lie. The Big 12 also did not have the 3rd best average per game. Yet another lie.
How did this turn into Big 12 vs ACC? Averages for the ACC are skewered by games played by two teams, FSU and Clemson, maybe GT. This was supposed to be about BC.
I don't know why he thinks his numbers matter.. ...but a quick glance and I wonder how both the ACC (almost triple) and the Big 12 Had such huge jumps in viewership between 2014 and 2015.
If that's the case then both conferences should be licking their chops at the next contract negotiations....despite ESPN being told to reel in some costs. I mean those jumps make me really question the provided stats.
Holy moly...2015 was an incredible year for college football, or those numbers are cooked.
You misunderstand the whole reasoning behind it. P5 is not going to make the same money next contract. It will constrict and make one of two things happen: conferences go smaller to get the best bang for their buck or schools kill most non-revenue sports. Both could likely happen.
If you think the income stream is sustainable, then you have blinders on just like stock markets in 1929, home lenders in 2008, or MLB in the 90s. Quantity is going to be what harms superconferences when that day comes.
Coal... ...you're really moving up the list of my most loyal fans.
Sure, there's great reasons for conferences to purge schools (won't happen though) but almost no logical (big) reason for a school to volunteer to leave a P5 conference. Yes, that could change....but not today (or tomorrow).
Sure, there's great reasons for conferences to purge schools (won't happen though) but almost no logical (big) reason for a school to volunteer to leave a P5 conference. Yes, that could change....but not today (or tomorrow).
Why would the numbers more than double from 2014 to 2015? No sources though. Smells like bullshit.
You are the one that brought up the ACC network. You said that the ACC wouldn't get a network because it didn't have good ratings. I was pointing out that the ACC had solid (not spectacular), and I was using the Big 12 as a reference point, given the talk on here about a Big 12 network.
Regarding the ACC's numbers being "skewered," they aren't. The networks don't care how a conference delivers ratings. They just care what the ratings are. Also keep in mind that some of Notre Dame's games are now part of the ACC, so some of them factor into this as well. Thing is, that's exactly why Notre Dame was added. If the ACC ever got a network, Notre Dame would sometimes appear on the network. Again, it goes back to my point. It doesn't matter how you get the ratings. It just matters what the ratings are.
One more point about the ratings being skewered. If you want to say the ACC is a two horse league, that's fine. However, in the past two year, the Big 12 did not have a single game in the top 10 of the ratings, whereas the ACC had 3 in 2015 http://www.barkingcarnival.com/2015/12/21/10636988/sec-big-10-dominate-college-football-tv-ratings, and 4 in 2014 http://texags.com/s/15550/infographic-2014-college-football-tv-ratings. My point is, you're trying to tell me how bad the ACC's ratings are, and thus will prevent them from getting a network, but the facts aren't backing up either of your points.
I posted a link to where I got the numbers for every season. Anyone is free to look at them. The numbers in 2015 were up across the board, not just for the ACC and Big 12, but for all conferences proportionally.
Yes, I did source all of my numbers. Here are the links for each of the four years:
2015
http://footballscoop.com/news/charts-what-bubble-sports-on-tv-are-more-valuable-than-ever/
2014
http://texags.com/s/15550/infographic-2014-college-football-tv-ratings
2013
http://www.goodbullhunting.com/2013...ball-tv-ratings-2013-regular-season-final-sec
2011
http://www.statista.com/statistics/244245/average-conference-tv-viewership-ncaa-football/
Lol... ..diff sources for each season ? ...that you represented as one ?
Big mistake on your part.
-------
As pointed out earlier in the thread...methods to come up with stats are diff. You certainly can't use multiple sources for diff seasons. Even if you had a statistical point you made a huge blunder.
Big mistake on your part.
-------
As pointed out earlier in the thread...methods to come up with stats are diff. You certainly can't use multiple sources for diff seasons. Even if you had a statistical point you made a huge blunder.
Well you saw it on the internet, so it must be true. 2015 numbers smell like bullshit, whoever they belong to.
Four different sources for four different years, with one year having a major statically anomaly.
Sorry, but I can think for myself and I'm not buying what you're pushing.
2015 was a great year...for people in the sports statistic business.
200% increase across the board....he doesn't list 2012, but 2011-2013 shows a major dip...but that audience doubles in 2015...
The B10 cares less about the AAU than people realize. They would take Notre Dame today, but Notre Dame lacks AAU status. They did not kick out Nebraska when they lost AAU status, and they did not put a mandate for Nebraska to get it back in order to maintain B10 membership.
Boston is a large market, and a financially hurting BC would absolutely go to the B10 if the opportunity presented itself, and the B10 would love to sell its network to Boston cable providers for about $1 per subscriber as opposed to the $0.10 per subscriber they get in non-B10 territory markets. And BC academics are highly regarded, they just aren't an AAU school.
Further, the B10 knows it doesn't have to add power schools, only schools with established branding in large markets... see Rutgers. They have several anchor-caliber programs already that will carry the conference.
The B10 has never stated that they have an end game number in mind as far as the ultimate size of their conference goes. If adding a school in a particular market makes financial sense, they will consider it.
The B10 also controls their own network. Why does this matter? Because unlike the broadcast network deals they have with ABC/ESPN, their network is less ratings dependent and more "forced subscriber" dependent, whereas their Disney deal is more likely to be ratings and market driven. Most predict a modest increase for the B10 during their negotiations in the next 18 months or so, but that looks to be the ceiling. With their own network, they can continue to expand their market by adding teams strategically.
They could add BC, UVA, UNC and GT and end up with an unequalled windfall in terms of subscribers paying $1 a piece. It would be financially worth it to both the B10 and the potential member schools. You essentially lock up the east coast with a line up including Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, BC, UNC, UVA, and GT. And UNC, UVA & GT are AAU schools.
Nobody would be making more money than the B10.
So don't get hung up on wins and losses for BC or attendance at games, or even AAU status. They have a sellable brand and a large market.
As much as I enjoy seeing their failures, they will ultimately be fine.
The only untouchable conferences out there as far as not losing teams to someone else are the B10, SEC and P12.
Everyone else is fair game.
And even the SEC (although unlikely) could lose Missouri to the B10, and the P12 could lose Arizona and Arizona State to the B12 if the B12 ever gets its act together.
The B10 isn't losing anyone.
Boston is a large market, and a financially hurting BC would absolutely go to the B10 if the opportunity presented itself, and the B10 would love to sell its network to Boston cable providers for about $1 per subscriber as opposed to the $0.10 per subscriber they get in non-B10 territory markets. And BC academics are highly regarded, they just aren't an AAU school.
Further, the B10 knows it doesn't have to add power schools, only schools with established branding in large markets... see Rutgers. They have several anchor-caliber programs already that will carry the conference.
The B10 has never stated that they have an end game number in mind as far as the ultimate size of their conference goes. If adding a school in a particular market makes financial sense, they will consider it.
The B10 also controls their own network. Why does this matter? Because unlike the broadcast network deals they have with ABC/ESPN, their network is less ratings dependent and more "forced subscriber" dependent, whereas their Disney deal is more likely to be ratings and market driven. Most predict a modest increase for the B10 during their negotiations in the next 18 months or so, but that looks to be the ceiling. With their own network, they can continue to expand their market by adding teams strategically.
They could add BC, UVA, UNC and GT and end up with an unequalled windfall in terms of subscribers paying $1 a piece. It would be financially worth it to both the B10 and the potential member schools. You essentially lock up the east coast with a line up including Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, BC, UNC, UVA, and GT. And UNC, UVA & GT are AAU schools.
Nobody would be making more money than the B10.
So don't get hung up on wins and losses for BC or attendance at games, or even AAU status. They have a sellable brand and a large market.
As much as I enjoy seeing their failures, they will ultimately be fine.
The only untouchable conferences out there as far as not losing teams to someone else are the B10, SEC and P12.
Everyone else is fair game.
And even the SEC (although unlikely) could lose Missouri to the B10, and the P12 could lose Arizona and Arizona State to the B12 if the B12 ever gets its act together.
The B10 isn't losing anyone.
Yea.. ..if true Disney/ABC would be calling for an 'all in' and actually encouraging ESPN to sign more expensive contracts.
We all know that they've been given the order to stand down... ...and it's because the provided stats are BS.
I didn't represent them as one. If you go back to post #48, I listed every year, and posted a link for each corresponding year. When I responded to the other poster, I told her that I had a link for each year listed. No blunder there. You just misread my post.
Ok, so post the correct numbers.
Again, I mentioned in post #48 that I couldn't find stats for 2012. If you can find them and post them, I'd be pleased to read them. Also, if you don't believe the other numbers I posted, then post the correct ones.
I think your close to being right on the posibility that we could see some college football programs go away or at least drop down a level. Unfortunately the money divide between "the have's" and "the have not's" will increase even more then it is now. Also I believe it will impact the parity that the NCAA has been working towards.
It's not my job to correct your work. I can think for myself and your numbers are a fugazi. I'm not buying.
Schlep your pyrite elsewhere. Your phony links are no match for a free-thinking man.
Last edited:
That's just because you don't like the numbers. If the numbers showed the Big 12 with bigger ratings, you would accept them unquestionably. The reason you say it's not your job to correct my work is because you can't. The numbers are what they are. You can't refute them, so you sidestep the issue. You can say you don't buy the numbers, and I can say I don't buy your thinking. Like I said, you only reject the numbers because you don't like their implication.
I dont accept anything unquestionably. I'm not a puppet. You're a drone to links. I have a brain.
I reject your numbers because they are unreasonable.
They don't make sense.
Why wouldn't I like numbers that showed the B12 spiked an AVERAGE 200+% viewership in a single year?
You can't buy my thinking, it's not for sale.
Last edited:
Some legitimate organization does track the statistics every year. It's just different media outlets quoting the same numbers. You can go to this link, and see the ratings for all the games. If you really feel like it, you can add up the numbers for each season, and see if the figures I quoted are correct. I personally wouldn't want to go to the trouble, but if you do, knock yourself out. http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings/
I don't accept anything unquestionably either. For example, I don't unquestionably accept your analysis. You are just some guy on the internet, with NO evidence whatsoever, telling me I'm wrong. Well sorry, you have to give me some evidence before I believe your "thinking" over documented numbers.
Similarly, I don't unquestionably accept the other poster's assertion that the ACC won't get a network because it has bad ratings. Really? Where is his evidence for that? When I searched for the ratings, what I found didn't back up what he said. So, I'm not going to accept what he, or you, said unquestionably.
And I'm telling you, I don't find your questioning valid. The numbers I posted come from the Neilson ratings. So now you're telling Neilson ratings aren't credible? That's only the entire basis of the TV advertising industry. What's BS is your "questioning."
My friend, you provided the analysis. It's your responsibility to defend it. If your best defense is a hodgepodged amalgamation of unrelated websites, then I simply reject your opinion as hogwash.
The most unfortunate, I can no longer consider you an intellectual peer.
The most unfortunate, I can no longer consider you an intellectual peer.
And I am defending it. The numbers come from the Neilson ratings. The "hodgepodged" websites list their sources. The source of the numbers is Neilson. (If you had bothered to even read the links, you would know that.) In the link for the 2015 numbers (the ones you doubt) it says in the very first sentence that they got the numbers from Neilson. If you are trying to tell me that Neilson numbers are bogus, then you are then one whose intellectual prowess is in question.
They don't document the methodology. Are bowls excluded from their statistics? What effect did participation in the 4 team playoff have? When Nielsen lists a stat like 4.02 million, TCU vs Texas OR Wisconsin VS Purdue did they just split the difference between 4 teams and two conferences or credit all teams/conferences with 4.02 million in viewership? Does Notre Dame get included with the ACC or not? Did they calculate the averages week by week and average that or average all data after the regular season? Are games from the LHN included? Did they average by team first and then by conference? Did conference games have the same weighting as non conference games? What does P2 + 000 mean on your 2015 source? Are conference championship games included? It is easy to use the same source of data and come up with wildly different numbers if you aren't using the same methodology. I'd be willing to accept any but the 2015 data as reasonable since the variation from year to year is within a plausible range. 2015 is an outlier at best. It gets tossed out. I really have no idea who gets the most eyeballs on the conference games nor do I much care to tease out all of the nuances that affect viewership. As more games become available over the internet the data will be increasingly unreliable because Nielsen won't capture that. Whether the Big12 makes the playoffs and wins the National Championship is really the only thing that matters. Success will breed success, failure will not.
Um, yes they do document methodology. You can go to Neilson's website and look up exactly how they calculate ratings. You and some of the other posters are getting too hung up on the fact that I linked to different websites. All the websites are using Neilson ratings, so the data are the same. Now, some of you questions, I can answer simply based on that.
Are bowls excluded from their statistics?
For 2011, 2013, 2014 yes, bowls are excluded. They are simply the ratings for the regular season. If you read the links, this would be apparent. For example, in the 2014 link, it lays out a table documenting the ratings for each conference week-by-week, from 1-15. Then it has another graph listing the average of those weekly ratings.
What effect did participation in the 4 team playoff have?
None, for those years listed. The bowls weren’t included, neither were the playoff games.
When Nielsen lists a stat like 4.02 million, TCU vs Texas OR Wisconsin VS Purdue did they just split the difference between 4 teams and two conferences or credit all teams/conferences with 4.02 million in viewership?
Don’t know. However, if you look at the week-by-week ratings, this occurs with everyone. In other words, either way you add those split games, it’s not going to significantly skew the data, because it basically evens out over the course of the season.
Does Notre Dame get included with the ACC or not?
Notre Dame does not count, unless they are playing against another ACC team.
Did they calculate the averages week by week and average that or average all data after the regularseason?
They took the averages week by week, then the overall average. The reason being, if you just took the average of total viewers, then one league could get a bigger total simply by having more games.
Are games from the LHN included?
Nope. Games from the SECN, BTN, P12N, and CBSSN are not included. That’s because Neilson does not take ratings for those channels.
Did they average by team first and then by conference?
No. They did this week-by-week. They took all the games for said conference that week, and got the average rating for that week. You can’t take a yearly average for each team, and a weekly average at the same time.
Did conference games have the same weighting as non conference games?
Yes. This is reading too much into it. Neilson simply rates how many viewers a game got. There is no way to weight conference games, because all games are rated the same way.
What does P2 + 000 mean on your 2015 source?
Don’t know. Here’s the thing. You and other posters are making a big deal out of the fact that the numbers are bigger in 2015. What interests me in that the order of finish in 2015 is consistent with the other years: Big Ten/SEC at the top, ACC in the middle, Big 12/Pac 12 at the bottom. That suggests to me that there is nothing “fishy” about 2015, simply because the actual numbers are larger, because the ratio is consistent.
Are conference championship games included?
Yes. Conference CCGs are included. Keep in mind that the Big 12 also has games on that weekend, so this isn’t skewing the data.
Last edited:
Nice to see others waking up to your methods. You have no place on this board. Go back to the ACC and hold hands while the ship goes down.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
WVSPORTS.COM How former Mountaineer Sean Martin performed at the NFL Combine
- Latest: lostinthelight
-
