Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)

[CydeofFries]

The next shoe to drop.

5+7 or best 12 are both horrible options designed to give SEC and B1G a monopoly on the playoff, and I feel like Best 12 is only proposed to make 5+7 seem more palatable. 6 + 6 is honestly still better than either of those options since it gives more conferences a guaranteed chance at the playoff. If they cap the number of teams a conference can get in to the playoff maybe I'll change my tune, but until then I don't like it.

 

[JM4CY]

I know the rumor has 'technically been dispelled' but it's even funnier if you read Cyclone Larry as Brent Blum's burner account

I’m just gonna believe that it’s true because that’s what I want to believe.

 

[isucy86]

5+7 or best 12 are both horrible options designed to give SEC and B1G a monopoly on the playoff, and I feel like Best 12 is only proposed to make 5+7 seem more palatable. 6 + 6 is honestly still better than either of those options since it gives more conferences a guaranteed chance at the playoff. If they cap the number of teams a conference can get in to the playoff maybe I'll change my tune, but until then I don't like it.

With Pac12 becoming a Pac4, it seems like a logical move.

Rather than hurting the Big12, a 5-7 format will probably help the Big12 get an additional team in the playoffs. Especially if CFP selection isn't determined by a committee.

I'm OK with 5 or 6 auto qualifiers, but I would want a requirement that any auto qualifier be ranked in top 15. IMO it would be a mistake to have a 20th ranked MWC team get a CFP bid over a 12th ranked team.

 

[CascadeClone]

Don't forget 'when' you played, what 'channel', and how much promotion was done for the game. The media controls viewership. That's not to say there aren't contingencies worthy of more promotion. But, let's face it, these numbers are a by product of win/loss and media exposure.

Agree. Putting Stanford on Fox Noon is going to get more eyeballs than Alabama on the SECN at 9pm.

But it isn't 100% timeslot - Bama vs GA is going to get more eyeballs than Iowa vs ISU, even on the same channel at the same time. The opponent matters too. And rankings matter, both for the team and the opponent. There's a lot to tease out there to really get to root cause drivers.

A smarter data analytics mind than mine could determine how much the team matters vs the timeslot, ie the % impact of the teams vs the timeslot, and from there the % differences between the teams. I am sure the TV folks have done it already.

Piqued, I looked at the data I have for 2021. I then looked at the subset of the truly prime games (Fox at noon and afternoon, ABC at noon, afternoon, and evening, and CBS afternoon). There were 76 games. The avg viewership was 4.25M, the median 3.75M. A handful of games (UM-OSU 16M, ALA-AUB 10M, UM-MSU 9M, CLEM-GA 8.9M) really brought the average up a lot.
The standard deviation was 2.4M - so pretty high relative to the average.
Just looking at the top end teams vs the bottom end teams vs the overall averages... I would say, roughly:
best teams are 50-60% above average
worst teams are 25-30% below average

So those best teams are about 2x better than the worst, and that's probably true in every timeslot. 2x is a big difference when game value is exponential per viewer - those top teams games are worth 4x the others.

As far as timeslot impact... from +300% to -75% vs the overall average, or about 10x for the best vs the worst. So a HUGE range, full order of magnitude. But that shows you how important it is to put the best brands and best matchups in the top timeslots to drive that exponential value of viewership. And there are only 6-7 important timeslots per week. Then maybe 5-6 more that are "okay" and then the rest is just filler.

So roughly, the timeslot drives about 70% of viewership, and the teams drive about 30%.

 

[CloneJD]

5+7 or best 12 are both horrible options designed to give SEC and B1G a monopoly on the playoff, and I feel like Best 12 is only proposed to make 5+7 seem more palatable. 6 + 6 is honestly still better than either of those options since it gives more conferences a guaranteed chance at the playoff. If they cap the number of teams a conference can get in to the playoff maybe I'll change my tune, but until then I don't like it.

I don’t understand this. There will never be a year the big 12 is not a top 5 conference.

 

[1UNI2ISU]

I don’t understand this. There will never be a year the big 12 is not a top 5 conference.

Correct but it's the Top 5 conference champions, not conferences so, while unlikely, there could be a year where you've got two undefeated or one loss G5 teams that are higher rated than a two or three loss Big 12 team. I suppose you could say the same for the ACC assuming Clemson isn't quite the Clemson they used to be.

 

[MugNight]

5+7 or best 12 are both horrible options designed to give SEC and B1G a monopoly on the playoff, and I feel like Best 12 is only proposed to make 5+7 seem more palatable. 6 + 6 is honestly still better than either of those options since it gives more conferences a guaranteed chance at the playoff. If they cap the number of teams a conference can get in to the playoff maybe I'll change my tune, but until then I don't like it.

I hate the systemic way the deck will be stacked. Hear me out:
- Preseason rankings top-load SEC and B1G teams. Often based on recruiting rankings and less on previous season performance.
- Bulky conferences mean schedules will be Mis-matched in strength, with some of the best teams potentially never playing each other.
- The Eye Test… Media’s way of using subjective opinion to position some teams over others when rankings don’t match their narrative
- SEC & B1G get lions share of teams, payouts are higher, the rich get richer

It’s no different than it’s been for years, but it sucks even more that now it’s blanketed under the illusion of a fair process. On the surface we are making the pie bigger, but the “P2” is still going to get more pieces of it.

 

[CydeofFries]

With Pac12 becoming a Pac4, it seems like a logical move.

Rather than hurting the Big12, a 5-7 format will probably help the Big12 get an additional team in the playoffs. Especially if CFP selection isn't determined by a committee.

I'm OK with 5 or 6 auto qualifiers, but I would want a requirement that any auto qualifier be ranked in top 15. IMO it would be a mistake to have a 20th ranked MWC team get a CFP bid over a 12th ranked team.

I agree it SEEMS like a logical move, but I think the better strategic option is to limit the teams access and open it to more conferences. A rising tide raises all ships type deal. By giving access to more conferences you increase viewership and interest across all games all season rather than the one or two in the playoffs, which increase revenue, which increases media deals etc.

I understand money and greed will drive this, with the SEC and Big10 trying gobble up as much as they can. I just think that's too near sighted and will end up hurting them/CFB as a whole in the long run. I also just feel like a 10th ranked Penn State/Auburn who has already lost to 2 other Big10/SEC teams in the playoff won't get much more interest to see them lose again vs. a smaller conference champ who hasn't had the chance yet.

 

[Big_Sill]

The key there is games where they couldn't find data equaled 0 instead of just not counting the game. Think about cyclonesTV and Longhorn network. We probably had plenty of 0s due to that.

Related -- I've never seen the Cyclones.TV subscriptions / game viewership numbers reported anywhere. I would love to see what those show. Has anyone seen these? Sorry if I missed them.

 

[CloneJD]

Correct but it's the Top 5 conference champions, not conferences so, while unlikely, there could be a year where you've got two undefeated or one loss G5 teams that are higher rated than a two or three loss Big 12 team. I suppose you could say the same for the ACC assuming Clemson isn't quite the Clemson they used to be.

I think there is a better chance one of those G5/G6 auto qualifiers knocks out a big 12 at large spot

 

[Daserop]

 

[PickSix]

I'm so hyped to hear the full interview tomorrow.

 

[cykadelic2]

Their decline started when Texas and the rest of old Big 8 (KSU an exception) voted against unlimited partial qualifiers as a condition for the new B12. NU had a competitive advantage with unlimited partial qualifiers and once that stopped and those recruits cycled out by 1999, the party was over for them. Texas was the ringleader of that rule change which fueled the Tom Osborne hate towards Texas and a major reason why that eventually led him to proactively seek Big 10 membership.

I believe the decline started earlier. I think Tom Osborne saw the writing on the wall and got out while he could.

HEADED FOR A FALL? NEBRASKA MAY WIN ANOTHER NATIONAL TITLE, BUT THE DAYS WHEN SUCH A COLOSSUS RULED THE GAME ARE OVER

It was tempting enough to become enthralled with Nebraska'sbrilliance in its 62-24 Fiesta Bowl humiliation of Florida onJan. 2. It was impossible not to

vault.si.com

Great find on that SI Vault link. I forgot that Ozzy was publicly whining about the new B12 qualifier rules even before the B12 started playing FB in Fall 1996 and perhaps looking for a new conference back in JAN 1996.

 

[Cydwinder]

I think 6+6 is the best format just because there is usually at least a couple G5 teams that are pretty good. Sure they might get absolutely smoked 9 out of 10 times, but that 10th time will be amazing and help build hype around the playoff. It’s the same reason March madness is so great that the little guys get a chance too

 

[LonelyCyKC]

The key there is games where they couldn't find data equaled 0 instead of just not counting the game. Think about cyclonesTV and Longhorn network. We probably had plenty of 0s due to that.

The Cyclone Network is a zero. As were all of the PAC stations on ESPN.

 

[LonelyCyKC]

With Pac12 becoming a Pac4, it seems like a logical move.

Rather than hurting the Big12, a 5-7 format will probably help the Big12 get an additional team in the playoffs. Especially if CFP selection isn't determined by a committee.

I'm OK with 5 or 6 auto qualifiers, but I would want a requirement that any auto qualifier be ranked in top 15. IMO it would be a mistake to have a 20th ranked MWC team get a CFP bid over a 12th ranked team.

I don't think that the SEC would go along with the top 15 requirement, as then they would not be able to get their third and fourth place teams in the playoffs.

 

[AuH2O]

The Cyclone Network is a zero. As were all of the PAC stations on ESPN.

The two methods that get used to show average viewership are terrible. They either discount games that don't report like PACN, ACCN, etc. and don't factor them in at all, which drastically overstates teams in those leagues by a ton. Or, they count them as zero, which greatly depresses those schools and creates a larger gap between the top teams that get more traditional linear than there is in reality.

Surely someone is sophisticated enough to have a decent idea what ESPN+, ACCN, and PACN games draw that it can be used as an assumption. Even if that assumption is off by a lot, it's going to be more accurate than counting the game as 0 viewers or taking those games out of the average altogether.

 

[AuH2O]

Agree. Putting Stanford on Fox Noon is going to get more eyeballs than Alabama on the SECN at 9pm.

But it isn't 100% timeslot - Bama vs GA is going to get more eyeballs than Iowa vs ISU, even on the same channel at the same time. The opponent matters too. And rankings matter, both for the team and the opponent. There's a lot to tease out there to really get to root cause drivers.

A smarter data analytics mind than mine could determine how much the team matters vs the timeslot, ie the % impact of the teams vs the timeslot, and from there the % differences between the teams. I am sure the TV folks have done it already.

Piqued, I looked at the data I have for 2021. I then looked at the subset of the truly prime games (Fox at noon and afternoon, ABC at noon, afternoon, and evening, and CBS afternoon). There were 76 games. The avg viewership was 4.25M, the median 3.75M. A handful of games (UM-OSU 16M, ALA-AUB 10M, UM-MSU 9M, CLEM-GA 8.9M) really brought the average up a lot.
The standard deviation was 2.4M - so pretty high relative to the average.
Just looking at the top end teams vs the bottom end teams vs the overall averages... I would say, roughly:
best teams are 50-60% above average
worst teams are 25-30% below average

So those best teams are about 2x better than the worst, and that's probably true in every timeslot. 2x is a big difference when game value is exponential per viewer - those top teams games are worth 4x the others.

As far as timeslot impact... from +300% to -75% vs the overall average, or about 10x for the best vs the worst. So a HUGE range, full order of magnitude. But that shows you how important it is to put the best brands and best matchups in the top timeslots to drive that exponential value of viewership. And there are only 6-7 important timeslots per week. Then maybe 5-6 more that are "okay" and then the rest is just filler.

So roughly, the timeslot drives about 70% of viewership, and the teams drive about 30%.

Yes - this is great analysis. When you also consider how the top several brands - ALA, OSU, UM and GA - do, you realize that there is a pretty big misconception of the impact of teams. I think people have this idea that there is a somewhat smooth curve of media value from top to bottom in conferences. What this demonstrates is that basically there are a handful of teams that matter, and differences among the rest, at least in terms of the SEC and Big 10, is immaterial.

 

[mj4cy]

Oklahoma is going to go from basically the Top Dog of the past 10 years to at best the 5th best program in their conference. Texas has all the resources and advantages in the world - so they're either going to sink or swim. Considering how many times they've drowned over the past 15 years, I wouldn't bet on them either way.

I wonder how long OU fans are gonna enjoy their school making more money yet more losses and an unlikely decrease in tickets and parking costs...

 

[isucy86]

I don't think that the SEC would go along with the top 15 requirement, as then they would not be able to get their third and fourth place teams in the playoffs.

Top 15 ranking requirement only applies to conference champions/auto qualifiers. So Power Conference Champions wouldn't be impacted. It would mainly apply to G5.