Non-Key Tweets

[CJasmer]

We shall see. All will be clear when ESPN and the ACC settle on their extension. We all thought the B12 had modest value and yet they pulled off a nice contract.

Barring a twist in the ACC lawsuits that allows for a low cost exit (then yes schools will leave and the ACC contract will lose value), I think the ACC gets a decent contract which will defer the ultimate P2/P3 alignment to the mid 2030s.

You disagree without Clemson and FSU that the media rights at probably 30% less? This was like when B12 lost Texas and OU.

 

[jostar1]

MHver3@MHver3
·
23h
My contact is saying a straw poll is currently being conducted to see how much support there is for adding Pac2. WVU is a no.


MHver3@MHver3
·
23h
WVU, Cincy, UCF, OkSU, and Kansas are currently “no” votes on the first straw poll. None of those 5 are a hard no though. More information needed. Board meeting informally to discuss with consultants.


MHver3@MHver3
·
22h
So espn actually has to pay less to add Pac2 to B12 vs adding to ACC. ACC currently shopping for more additions anticipating multiple defections and needing to stay at 14 to keep ESPN deal from getting restructured.



MHver3@MHver3
WVU and a few other B12 schools offering the following counter-proposal to BY today :

MHver3@MHver3
·
9h
B12 enters a scheduling alliance with Pac2 in 2025. If ratings are satisfactory then an invitation to join would be extended with entrance fee requirements and a graduated buy in. Wouldn’t be a full share member until next tv contract.


MHver3@MHver3
·
9h
Pac2 halts all legal disputes with networks during this “evaluation period”

MHver3@MHver3
·
9h
The “entrance fee” would be used to offset travel costs for the expanded geographical footprint.

MHver3@MHver3
·
9h
Pac2 relinquishes ownership of PAC assets to B12 as a condition of joining the conference. This includes all monies, media infrastructure, and intellectual property


MHver3@MHver3
·
9h
B12 CEOs would need to approve a provision that if the conference expands again there will be at least 2 additions east of the Mississippi River

MHver3@MHver3
·
54m
ESPN looking to once again block Apple and Amazon from power4 content. Pac2 absorption by B12 would create extra inventory. ESPN now offering to partner with B12 to create a conference network and secure carriage.

MHver3@MHver3
·
47m
K-State and Iowa St changed their stance on the additions to a soft “no”. BY is telling the network there is a path to unanimous support but it’s going to take time and negotiation with all 3 parties.


MHver3
@MHver3
·
48m
Full steam ahead though on starting talks with Pac2 for a 2025 scheduling agreement.


MHver3@MHver3
45m
BY and B12 not looking to make a hair trigger decision. There is majority support for the pac2 additions but 2 extra mouths to feed in the west when the focus is on the east means this is not going to be rushed.


MHver3@MHver3
·
40m
B12 partnering with espn on a network for the extra inventory has risks. Start up costs would be low due to PACN existing infrastructure but up front revenue would be lower than just selling off the content. Long term potential revenue could outweigh risks.

 

[jostar1]

 

[Greedo]

Maybe...or maybe just wishcasting....

TV viewing right now...50% is captured by only 18 teams...when you move that up to 40 or so, it's nearly the universe.

Only 10% of viewers from bottom 71 schools...

I think it’s worth knowing what the total number of viewers actually is. Potentially losing 10% of viewers by dropping those bottom schools could still be a rather significant number of viewers.

 

[billybud]

I think it’s worth knowing what the total number of viewers actually is. Potentially losing 10% of viewers by dropping those bottom schools could still be a rather significant number of viewers.

Believe me...a business will plan on focusing on where 90% of the business revenue comes from...

And..I'll bet the ad revenue is not 90%-10%....the ad revenue may not be proportionate to viewing but be weighted to
heavy viewing,

When you have 97,000 watching Memphis-UAB and and 5.3 million watching Penn State-Ohio State the same Saturday...Memphis-UAB is not worth worrying with,

 

[GoConn]

the Big 12 can still decide to expand before 2031...thats BS hes saying

 

[uconndogs]

Believe me...a business will plan on focusing on where 90% of the business revenue comes from...

And..I'll bet the ad revenue is not 90%-10%....the ad revenue may not be proportionate to viewing but be weighted to
heavy viewing,

When you have 97,000 watching Memphis-UAB and and 5.3 million watching Penn State-Ohio State the same Saturday...Memphis-UAB is not worth worrying with,

First, a 10% loss of market share would be very significant and greatly impact media contracts. I’m not saying there is going to be a 10% loss, but for the purpose of this discussion the impact of something of that magnitude needs to be recognized.

Also, the issue is not the draw of Memphis-UAB, the issue is the impact on the viewership of PSU-Ohio State. Does all the change in college football including an eventually segregated P2 of the Big and SEC disenfranchise a significant portion of college football viewership? The underlying assumption around much of conference realignment is that viewership holds and even increases. I question whether that critical assumption is correct.

 

[CJasmer]

A

First, a 10% loss of market share would be very significant and greatly impact media contracts. I’m not saying there is going to be a 10% loss, but for the purpose of this discussion the impact of something of that magnitude needs to be recognized.

Also, the issue is not the draw of Memphis-UAB, the issue is the impact on the viewership of PSU-Ohio State. Does all the change in college football including an eventually segregated P2 of the Big and SEC disenfranchise a significant portion of college football viewership? The underlying assumption around much of conference realignment is that viewership holds and even increases. I question whether that critical assumption is correct.

Anybody who believes there be a drop off watching the biggest college games is delusional. No one in the past was watching G5 games and in the future no one will be still watching those games. I did not attend Alabama nor Georgia but will still watch that game on a Saturday afternoon. Watch UMass vs UConn - No.

 

[dayooper]

First, a 10% loss of market share would be very significant and greatly impact media contracts. I’m not saying there is going to be a 10% loss, but for the purpose of this discussion the impact of something of that magnitude needs to be recognized.

Also, the issue is not the draw of Memphis-UAB, the issue is the impact on the viewership of PSU-Ohio State. Does all the change in college football including an eventually segregated P2 of the Big and SEC disenfranchise a significant portion of college football viewership? The underlying assumption around much of conference realignment is that viewership holds and even increases. I question whether that critical assumption is correct.

Who is being disenfranchised? What major areas would not be covered by the P2 + the Big12? Assuming UNC, UVA, VT, and Miami find a home somewhere in the P2+Big12 (along with FSU and Clemson), where are the holes? The North East. Thats it. All other regions are covered. Hopefully UConn finds a home and that would cover just about everywhere.

 

[billybud]

One has to wonder why 18 teams have captured, over a ten year period, 50 percent of viewers. Obviously, folks from “disenfranchised” programs are tuning in.

ESPN has been honest in admitting that they have put their eggs solidly in the SEC basket. The market is consolidating. No accident that the P12 is gone, that the ACC contract was not extended.

 

[Kolumbo]

Who is being disenfranchised? What major areas would not be covered by the P2 + the Big12? Assuming UNC, UVA, VT, and Miami find a home somewhere in the P2+Big12 (along with FSU and Clemson), where are the holes? The North East. Thats it. All other regions are covered. Hopefully UConn finds a home and that would cover just about everywhere.

Even the Northeast region is covered because it includes NJ and PA. New England may not be covered unless UConn or BCU get invited to the show. I don't think the powers that be care too much about New England though.

 

[dayooper]

Even the Northeast region is covered because it includes NJ and PA. New England may not be covered unless UConn or BCU get invited to the show. I don't think the powers that be care too much about New England though.

Yeah, Boston is a pretty big market, but it’s a pro sports town there ever was. Between the Red Socks, Celtics and Pats, I’m not sure college football even registers with them.

 

[jostar1]

 

[jostar1]

 

[Kolumbo]

Yeah, Boston is a pretty big market, but it’s a pro sports town there ever was. Between the Red Socks, Celtics and Pats, I’m not sure college football even registers with them.

Well, the Celtics, Patsies and Bruins at least.

 

[CTFAN4LIFE]

Well, the Celtics, Patsies and Bruins at least.

Not sure if you sarc was on, but you have to include the Sox as they annually average 2.5m fans a year and are always getting their fair share of talk radio.

 

[uconndogs]

Who is being disenfranchised?

Me for one. But, addressing the topic more broadly - college football is likely going to be two super conferences of probably 40 programs which will dominate money and talent. This will be a professional sports franchise model.

Of the roughly 135 programs that participate in the current BCS format, how much of the total college football fan base continues to identify with college football? Does a BC, Syracuse, Baylor fan continue to be a broad based college football fan knowing they have no practical way of competing with two power conferences. Or worse, those two conferences break off from the NCAA altogether.

My point is simply this. Conference realignment may turn out to be a huge economic success for a much smaller group of programs. But, given all the change, I think there is a big assumption that current viewership will all be restrained, let alone grow.

I used to watch all my football in Saturdays, now it’s mostly Sundays. I can watch the best players in the world in the NFL. I used to watch college football for something much different.

 

[ScottVib]

One has to wonder why 18 teams have captured, over a ten year period, 50 percent of viewers. Obviously, folks from “disenfranchised” programs are tuning in.

ESPN has been honest in admitting that they have put their eggs solidly in the SEC basket. The market is consolidating. No accident that the P12 is gone, that the ACC contract was not extended.

I mean the answer to this is easy... it's about exposure self-selected by networks.. and lack of other options, particularly in the early portion of the timeframe. I mean if you accept Tony Altimore's data Florida, Clemson & Auburn are all more effective than Florida State in driving viewers over the last 8 years. That's something that I would be skeptical of, as Florida or Auburn could be replaced with generic SEC team vs Georgia or Alabama and draw similar ratings; Clemson's viewership is boosted heavily by its 10 playoff games during that window, recent seasons have shown the massive decline as they stopped being relevant; while Florida State's brand still has the power to make an otherwise unairable matchup with Wake, have some value to be aired.

So while I have no doubt that the data is accurate, it's a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy. The networks put the teams they've always leaned on into time-slots that have historically strong ratings on networks with broad coverage; unsurprisingly those games draw higher ratings. I would hazard a guess that you could swap out the bottom third of that list for generic state school having a good year and it wouldn't move the ratings much, those ratings aren't coming from who the team is, but what network the game is on and what other options were available; its ease of access as much as anything.

The data is also from Nielsen counted games from 2016-2023... so it's got the end of the cable era (hell even ESPN+ hadn't launched yet for the first two seasons); an era where TV viewership and valuation is much different than it is now. The data is also an aggregate which means the bottom 71% of programs had only a fraction of their games on Neilsen counted networks; the lower exposure essentially forces them into the bottom spots (again that also goes back to a history where they've been unproven as draws, resulting in a lack of opportunity). That 71% now has greater exposure, but that exposure comes on streaming services (not Nielsen rated). The end result of the greater quantity of options on TV has been that ratings for the "prime" broadcast windows have declined. It is my belief that the real value over the new landscape will be those programs who have the brand-value to drive subscriptions over eyeballs.

To that end, it's been proven over the years that dominant teams (and brands) tend to draw ratings. The Patriots & Clemson drew monster national ratings when they were relevant. Now that both teams have tailed off a bit, they are no longer the ratings powerhouses. Clemson has value as a perennial 11-1/12-0 ACC championship team, even if their conference is not considered elite; it has much less value as an 8-4 team in the ACC or any other conference (similar to how Florida's value in that data comes from the SEC brand, not the Gator brand). That has to be priced into any move from a network value perspective, when you have consolidation you are going to reduce the number of those "dominant" type of teams and records, which ultimately reduces the inventory of games that are attractive to casual fans/advertisers; unless you can convince the fan-base that inherently not because of the teams, but because of the league, the game is important. That is what ESPN has been doing with the SEC.. trying to convince fans that because its an SEC game, Mississippi State - Arkansas is an important matchup worth watching. In a world where more content has to be sought out, it's going to be a tougher argument to make.. and they risk losing bandwagon fans (which are still a portion) if formerly dominant/readily airable teams move to a new conference and become middle of the pack (think Nebraska going from a program with dominant value (similar to Clemson in Altimore's data) to just another midwestern school in the Big Ten).




TLDR: There's no question as to why they scored more viewers.... they had greater opportunity on Nielsen rated networks with higher carriage in better time-slots for 8 years starting in an era that no-longer truly exists, that doesn't necessarily mean that those 18 programs would continue to be able to maintain similar ratings in a world where the P2 separates.

 

[baggerbob]

I mean the answer to this is easy... it's about exposure self-selected by networks.. and lack of other options, particularly in the early portion of the timeframe. I mean if you accept Tony Altimore's data Florida, Clemson & Auburn are all more effective than Florida State in driving viewers over the last 8 years. That's something that I would be skeptical of, as Florida or Auburn could be replaced with generic SEC team vs Georgia or Alabama and draw similar ratings; Clemson's viewership is boosted heavily by its 10 playoff games during that window, recent seasons have shown the massive decline as they stopped being relevant; while Florida State's brand still has the power to make an otherwise unairable matchup with Wake, have some value to be aired.

So while I have no doubt that the data is accurate, it's a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy. The networks put the teams they've always leaned on into time-slots that have historically strong ratings on networks with broad coverage; unsurprisingly those games draw higher ratings. I would hazard a guess that you could swap out the bottom third of that list for generic state school having a good year and it wouldn't move the ratings much, those ratings aren't coming from who the team is, but what network the game is on and what other options were available; its ease of access as much as anything.

The data is also from Nielsen counted games from 2016-2023... so it's got the end of the cable era (hell even ESPN+ hadn't launched yet for the first two seasons); an era where TV viewership and valuation is much different than it is now. The data is also an aggregate which means the bottom 71% of programs had only a fraction of their games on Neilsen counted networks; the lower exposure essentially forces them into the bottom spots (again that also goes back to a history where they've been unproven as draws, resulting in a lack of opportunity). That 71% now has greater exposure, but that exposure comes on streaming services (not Nielsen rated). The end result of the greater quantity of options on TV has been that ratings for the "prime" broadcast windows have declined. It is my belief that the real value over the new landscape will be those programs who have the brand-value to drive subscriptions over eyeballs.

To that end, it's been proven over the years that dominant teams (and brands) tend to draw ratings. The Patriots & Clemson drew monster national ratings when they were relevant. Now that both teams have tailed off a bit, they are no longer the ratings powerhouses. Clemson has value as a perennial 11-1/12-0 ACC championship team, even if their conference is not considered elite; it has much less value as an 8-4 team in the ACC or any other conference (similar to how Florida's value in that data comes from the SEC brand, not the Gator brand). That has to be priced into any move from a network value perspective, when you have consolidation you are going to reduce the number of those "dominant" type of teams and records, which ultimately reduces the inventory of games that are attractive to casual fans/advertisers; unless you can convince the fan-base that inherently not because of the teams, but because of the league, the game is important. That is what ESPN has been doing with the SEC.. trying to convince fans that because its an SEC game, Mississippi State - Arkansas is an important matchup worth watching. In a world where more content has to be sought out, it's going to be a tougher argument to make.. and they risk losing bandwagon fans (which are still a portion) if formerly dominant/readily airable teams move to a new conference and become middle of the pack (think Nebraska going from a program with dominant value (similar to Clemson in Altimore's data) to just another midwestern school in the Big Ten).




TLDR: There's no question as to why they scored more viewers.... they had greater opportunity on Nielsen rated networks with higher carriage in better time-slots for 8 years starting in an era that no-longer truly exists, that doesn't necessarily mean that those 18 programs would continue to be able to maintain similar ratings in a world where the P2 separates.

Within 3 years of a top 40 the entire thing will implode, why waste your time watching semi-pro when you can watch the real thing on Sundays.
Plus there would be no reason for the NF L not to expand the days they broadcast games.
The only reason they don't do that now is college's are feeder programs.
Going to 40 teams you eliminate a lot of potential players for the pro's and they no longer have to play nice.

 

[CJasmer]

Not sure I under the disenfranchised. New England has not been relevant in the FBS national championship picture in almost 100 years (Yale 1927). Yes BC had some good teams during the Flutie years but those teams were not talked about being National Championship caliber teams. So UConn and BC can keep being what they have been for most of their history in football. Mediocre.

 

[Patman]

Within 3 years of a top 40 the entire thing will implode, why waste your time watching semi-pro when you can watch the real thing on Sundays.
Plus there would be no reason for the NF L not to expand the days they broadcast games.
The only reason they don't do that now is college's are feeder programs.
Going to 40 teams you eliminate a lot of potential players for the pro's and they no longer have to play nice.

Yeah the whole thing is getting too silly way too fast. One thing that could happen is the European model with youth clubs but I am thinking more about second teams... junior varsity. What not.

Either way the whole system is breaking in pieces

Edit: the nfl is going to have to be careful because long term they might be getting flanked

 

[uconndogs]

One has to wonder why 18 teams have captured, over a ten year period, 50 percent of viewers. Obviously, folks from “disenfranchised” programs are tuning in.

ESPN has been honest in admitting that they have put their eggs solidly in the SEC basket. The market is consolidating. No accident that the P12 is gone, that the ACC contract was not extended.

Again, the model is changing completely. Professional sport franchises in which only a small number of programs will be able to compete. Funding and talent will be inceasingly concentrated. When you change your product you need to ask what the impact is to the consumer, or viewer in this case. It may be an enormous economic success for a select group of programs, but I don't think we know that for sure.

As a side note to this, I doubt even the elite programs know what their payroll costs are going to be. Pretty hard to figure out what your P&L looks like when you don't know your labor costs.

I see lots of risk......

 

[UConnJim]

Within 3 years of a top 40 the entire thing will implode, why waste your time watching semi-pro when you can watch the real thing on Sundays.
Plus there would be no reason for the NF L not to expand the days they broadcast games.
The only reason they don't do that now is college's are feeder programs.

The Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 prohibits the NFL from broadcasting games on Fridays and Saturdays until the 2nd or 3rd week of December. The Act was to prevent NFL football from taking fans away from HS and college football.

 

[Kolumbo]

Me for one. But, addressing the topic more broadly - college football is likely going to be two super conferences of probably 40 programs which will dominate money and talent. This will be a professional sports franchise model.

Of the roughly 135 programs that participate in the current BCS format, how much of the total college football fan base continues to identify with college football? Does a BC, Syracuse, Baylor fan continue to be a broad based college football fan knowing they have no practical way of competing with two power conferences. Or worse, those two conferences break off from the NCAA altogether.

My point is simply this. Conference realignment may turn out to be a huge economic success for a much smaller group of programs. But, given all the change, I think there is a big assumption that current viewership will all be restrained, let alone grow.

I used to watch all my football in Saturdays, now it’s mostly Sundays. I can watch the best players in the world in the NFL. I used to watch college football for something much different.

To take another view. Let's say the number is 40 and they break away with their professional model. That leaves 95 other programs including most of the Big 12 and ACC and the G5. There is plenty of talent out there for the remaining NCAA model. Every year a MAC team beats a B1G team, I believe, so talent is out there. 40 would be a good number because the remaining 95 would compete to win the NCAA Championship. It may actually drive viewership up for everyone else because suddenly everyone has a shot. The remaining conferences would still be great to compete in and the fact that your Alabamas and Ohio States are out of the way may be a good thing.

UConn Huskies! NCAA National Champions!!

 

[dayooper]

Me for one. But, addressing the topic more broadly - college football is likely going to be two super conferences of probably 40 programs which will dominate money and talent. This will be a professional sports franchise model.

Of the roughly 135 programs that participate in the current BCS format, how much of the total college football fan base continues to identify with college football? Does a BC, Syracuse, Baylor fan continue to be a broad based college football fan knowing they have no practical way of competing with two power conferences. Or worse, those two conferences break off from the NCAA altogether.

My point is simply this. Conference realignment may turn out to be a huge economic success for a much smaller group of programs. But, given all the change, I think there is a big assumption that current viewership will all be restrained, let alone grow.

I used to watch all my football in Saturdays, now it’s mostly Sundays. I can watch the best players in the world in the NFL. I used to watch college football for something much different.

The issue is that most programs know they already can’t compete for national championships. I know for a fact that many fans of MAC schools (I am a fan of the MAC in general) know they will never win a national championship. Yet, those fans still root for Michigan, MSU, OSU and the other schools. The MAC fans aren’t fans of their schools because they want to win a national championship, they are fans because the university means something to them. They are alumni or they had someone who took them to games. The majority of G5 fans that I know look at their teams this way. They aren’t disenfranchised, they are realists.

We assume there will be a P3 or P4 (depending on what happens to the ACC). They have guaranteed access to they playoff. Even the smaller conferences like the MAC have access. If they win their conference, Baylor, TCU, WVU and the rest of the Big12 all can make the playoff. My guess is there will be years that 2 Big12 teams get invited with the open spots. Sure fans of Cuse and BC might not watch college football, but are they even watching it now?

Let’s say the ACC breaks up. I believe 20-24 is the number of schools that will be in the Big10, SEC and Big12. That’s at least 60 and up to 72. We had 64 P5 team plus ND. Throw in the 4 that the Big 12 took when Texas and Oklahoma left. That’s 69 teams. Who gets left out that had access before? WSU and OSU? Probably. From the ACC? Cuse, BC, Wake Forest will probably be left out. Maybe GT, Louisville and Pitt? Stanford and Cal? Thats at most 10. Everybody else almost for certain will find a home in the P2+1. How many of these schools thought they were winning a National Championship in the past 15 years?