Non-Key Tweets

[CTFAN4LIFE]

Content costs going up at the same time revenues are flattish is not a recipe for success. Something needs to give and the ACC media rights extension is next up for negotiation. There was not one top 25 rated TV game that involved an ACC vs ACC matchup and the lowest 3 TV rated bowl games involving P5 schools had current ACC members BC, SMU, Syracuse, and Cal. Take out Clemson and FSU and the ACC media rights value drops considerably.

Some are estimating that FSU/Clemson equate to 25-30% of the entire ACC tv value.

 

[uconndogs]

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 college athletics needs to be very careful with the assumption that the viewer market is locked into the top programs. First of all, 10% of the market is an enormous piece of the market. The goal is to grow markets. Second, a lot of college fans watch the big programs compete becuase they identify with college athletics through their own affiliation. That model is all being upended and probably will be factured. I think that when the day comes that the average college football fan views Alabama, Michigan, USC, etc. like the view the New England Patriots, as professional sports franchises, college football is in a lot of trouble.

I'm only one fan, but I was an avid college athletics fan. My viewership is way down and continues to decline. Am I alone?

 

[ZooCougar]

I will say that Ledecky is an absolute machine when she swims. It is impressive to watch.

PAC 12 phenom

 

[UConnTrumbull]

I think college athletics needs to be very careful with the assumption that the viewer market is locked into the top programs. First of all, 10% of the market is an enormous piece of the market. The goal is to grow markets. Second, a lot of college fans watch the big programs compete becuase they identify with college athletics through their own affiliation. That model is all being upended and probably will be factured. I think that when the day comes that the average college football fan views Alabama, Michigan, USC, etc. like the view the New England Patriots, as professional sports franchises, college football is in a lot of trouble.

I'm only one fan, but I was an avid college athletics fan. My viewership is way down and continues to decline. Am I alone?

I think college football has the ability, perhaps even the likelihood, to get away with it and follow an NFL Lite model. The other sports not so much.

 

[Exit 4]

Content costs going up at the same time revenues are flattish is not a recipe for success. Something needs to give and the ACC media rights extension is next up for negotiation. There was not one top 25 rated TV game that involved an ACC vs ACC matchup and the lowest 3 TV rated bowl games involving P5 schools had current ACC members BC, SMU, Syracuse, and Cal. Take out Clemson and FSU and the ACC media rights value drops considerably.

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.

 

[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.

 

[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.