An ad who doesn't want to be identified making that quote, tells you all you need to know about the P12's troubles.
Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)
- Thread starter ISUcyclones11
- Start date
An ad who doesn't want to be identified making that quote, tells you all you need to know about the P12's troubles.
Oh no it wasn’t me, just some college kid I challenged to beer bong two shots of rumplemintz mixed with a can of Natty Ice.
Even worse, rumors are the Pac-12 schools are discussing unequal revenue sharing!
Seems like you’d have to be a pretty sad-sack, desperate little program to submit to that kind of humiliation for a few tens of millions in extra media deal dollars in your pocket.
This is correct. The common figure thrown around is that games with 4mil or more viewers is the number that the broadcasters are very interested in but there aren’t that many of those.
One thing that I’m seeing talked about is that if you aren’t on one of the major networks your ratings take a hit regardless. So for all the fans out there would you be ok with a massive ratings hit if you moved to a streaming platform like Apple, Amazon, peacock, etc as long as the money was good?
The Iowa-Illinois game being a 1:00 kick on FS1 while the Indiana-Michigan game was a primetime kick on FOX had nothing to do with it, I'm sure. Then you're comparing two regular season games involving awful teams to the Big 12 title game.
The last Big Ten Title game without Michigan or Ohio State got 9.2 Million viewers for Wisconsin-Penn State in 2016. The Big Ten Title game is ratings juggernaut because you've got name brand schools with giant, national alumni bases playing in a standalone prime time game on broadcast television.
Somehow this post gets worse the more I think about it.
Then I will wait for the super deal the PAC 12 comes back with. PAC 12 should not be afraid at all then. Clearly a position of strength.
That's a REAL interesting question.
On one hand, if there aren't many viewers on streaming platform, then the money SHOULDN"T be that great, right? But then again it might be-- they have a different revenue model, and they might just be willing to overpay to get into the business.
But if you suddenly have much less viewership, does that lower exposure hurt your fan interest and future product in the longer term? Or conversely, will that viewership increase substantially as tastes change over time?
I sure af don't know. I think hedging your bets for now with a bit of both would be the best course of action.
This is why I'm glad to be in the big 12, it's balanced enough to avoid bigger brands throwing their weight around. If the pac 12 gets away with this, it should really scare the smaller brands in leagues like the big 10 and SEC. Most teams could probably accept teams like tOSU and Michigan wanting more money but what will programs like Minnesota, Iowa, NW and Illinois do when Nebraska wants a bigger share? Huskers have struggled in part because being the biggest brand in the big 10 west, they have had made for TV matchups against teams like Penn St, Michigan and Ohio St every year. The are taking bullets for these smaller brand programs.
To continue down this line, why do we think Amazon or Apple want to outbid traditional outlets if the ratings of the games would be really low on the streaming platform? Just because those companies have a lot of cash in the bank doesn't mean they want to spend it on CFB without a positive return.
I don’t think that’s the primary reasons for their struggles but this year they don’t play OSU, sparty or Penn state so we will see. Last year their schedule was brutal but usually it isn’t that bad.
In terms of schools left out of P2, is it better to have 3 weakened rump conferences trying to share the P2 scraps, or consolidate into a 3rd super conference?
A PAC with SDSU and Fresno is further from P2 than if 6-8 are part of a 24 school consolidation.
Same with Big 12. Also ACC, once they lose schools.
This is just a pillow fight over which conference lineage survives, but that’s just pride, and for several reasons it can only be the Big 12. Exit fees, central location, better time zone and college athletic markets, less risk of P2 departures, etc
The 6-8 PAC schools need to bite the pillow and accept it’s the P2 era.
A PAC with SDSU and Fresno is further from P2 than if 6-8 are part of a 24 school consolidation.
Same with Big 12. Also ACC, once they lose schools.
This is just a pillow fight over which conference lineage survives, but that’s just pride, and for several reasons it can only be the Big 12. Exit fees, central location, better time zone and college athletic markets, less risk of P2 departures, etc
The 6-8 PAC schools need to bite the pillow and accept it’s the P2 era.
Not a great rating for the Big 10, Baylor and OSU had viewership in that ballpark this year. Thanks, you just made my point.
Some actual numbers coming in from a real source finally. ESPN offer is $24.5 million per school, which is terrible. It's considerable lower than any current B12 estimate and those don't even include T3 like everyone else's do.
All he proved OU/UT >>>>>>>UCLA/USC
YOU didn't make your point unless that point was the Big Ten's worst number in the last decade was still 9% higher than the Big 12's best.
And you made my point on Michigan and OSU carrying the conference.
Right - and what Apple did pick up (MLS soccer) is something already is too niche to make it onto the major outlets. Amazon did pay up to buy NFL Thursday night games, but that's the NFL - it's the most watched sport in America so that makes sense.
On the other hand it is true that the business model is different. Their revenue is based on driving new subscribers rather than selling ads, though I'm sure they would run ads if they picked up live sports. Still seems hard to believe with all that that they could compete with the traditional broadcasters for primetime games.
The streamers are a T2/T3 option but no one would take them over the T1 primetime, imo. Even the proponents of going to streaming seem to feel that way now too.
