Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)

1UNI2ISU

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2013
9,036
12,148
113
Waterloo
I can't figure out why the Big 12 isn't begging FOX to get a few of the Friday night spots or begging ESPN for a full Friday slate on ABC. Those games rate well and save the networks from having to fill Friday prime time with expensive content that nobody watches anyway. Sports are the only proven Friday night draw.
 

1SEIACLONE

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2024
2,707
2,491
113
63
Ames Iowa
That’s, uh not exactly how it’s played out this year
No it is, looking at week to week the media numbers show its games on ABC, CBS, Fox and ESPN are leading every week. Basically every game on one of the four major networks draws over a million, put them on BTN or FS1 or any other station they drop off like a rock.

 

ClubCy

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Apr 8, 2023
4,269
6,736
113
If my math is right and with the exclusion of the ESPN + game we are averaging just over 1 million/viewers per game. Not great but not bad considering the games (mentioned in an earlier post) we have been up against plus we have not had a ranked vs ranked game yet either.
 

CascadeClone

Well-Known Member
Oct 24, 2009
10,878
13,956
113
If you look at the ratings, for every team except for 6/8 blue bloods, the time and network the game is shown on is more important than the teams that are playing the game ratings wise. Put ISU vs. TT on ABC starting at 7:00 you are going to get a couple million people watching the game, put that same game at 2:30 on FS1 the numbers drop to less than a million. Time and network are two most important factors unless you are Ohio State, Georgia, Alabama and a few others.
I tried to tease this out using regression a couple years ago to get solid ideas of which teams impacted the viewership more than others.

It was really hard.

In addition to controlling for the channel, and the timeslot, and the team 'brand' - you also have the teams ranking, the opponents ranking. Getting all the data, even proxies for the data, wasn't really feasible for an amateur.

But my takeaway was VERY ROUGHLY, the channel/timeslot drove probably 60% of the ratings, and the teams involved (all mixed up as brand, rating, opponent) was 40%.

So ABC at 2:30 game, a mid ISU vs mid opponent would get say 3M viewers. But a top 10 matchup with Ohio St would prob get more like 5M. Again these are back of napkin type numbers.

Alternately, the same matchups on ESPN+ might be 600k and 1M.
 

isucy86

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2006
9,131
7,731
113
Dubuque
Agreed. You can bet that any venture by the power 2 will have the backing of the big broadcasters, and be based on thorough market research on expected viewership. I guarantee they'll have models where they factor in multiple different potential viewership outcomes, including ones where casual fans stop watching. Of course there's always a chance that it will fail, but I guarantee that any move is significantly hedged.
IMO the P2 will add somewhere between 6-14 more schools to have 40 or 44 or 48 teams. The main driver will be brands that bring TV audience.

Also having teams in all large media markets will be a filter. aka a Bay Area team. It's no coincidence Game Day went to Berkeley.

And then there might be spots for Top 25 teams that might not meet the viewership or media market filters.

IMO if there are 20-24 P2 conference games a week, that is sufficient inventory for 4-5 media partners. And they save money by relegating the Big12 & ACC.
 

isucy86

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2006
9,131
7,731
113
Dubuque
It is if the offer is 4-4-2-2 and we either get it our four or we walk and form our own league. Everything I have read says that the SEC and B10 want four guaranteed spots in the new 14 team playoff. I would guess the ACC and B12 will give them that if they also get at least 2 spots out of the 14.
Take the best 12 teams. No quotas!

Greed is going to turn fans off. IMO there is no reason college football playoff should extend season until Jan 20.
 

Clonehomer

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2006
26,793
24,891
113
I think you're forgetting the fact that ESPN and Fox essentially own the SEC and B10 respectively for a long period of time. The SEC and B10 don't have significant leverage with ESPN and Fox for the foreseeable future.

And with ESPN and Fox consolidating a few more brands (e.g. FSU, Clemson, UNC) into a separate P2 and further financially relegating the majority of existing ACC and B12 with 30% or less of their existing payouts, they certainly do drive up their profits by consolidating even more than what they've done.

Hell, Fox has already killed off Oregon St and Wazzu and ESPN plans kill more with ACC schools.

Assuming they don’t hurt their revenue by doing so. They are getting to the point of losing a lot of fans by consolidating.
 

Clonehomer

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2006
26,793
24,891
113
I tried to tease this out using regression a couple years ago to get solid ideas of which teams impacted the viewership more than others.

It was really hard.

In addition to controlling for the channel, and the timeslot, and the team 'brand' - you also have the teams ranking, the opponents ranking. Getting all the data, even proxies for the data, wasn't really feasible for an amateur.

But my takeaway was VERY ROUGHLY, the channel/timeslot drove probably 60% of the ratings, and the teams involved (all mixed up as brand, rating, opponent) was 40%.

So ABC at 2:30 game, a mid ISU vs mid opponent would get say 3M viewers. But a top 10 matchup with Ohio St would prob get more like 5M. Again these are back of napkin type numbers.

Alternately, the same matchups on ESPN+ might be 600k and 1M.

You’d have to have more data points of top teams playing in the FS1 timeslot to get a good idea of whether it is the team or timeslot. Problem is, that this year even when you have a team like Alabama get relegated to a lesser timeslot and channel, they lose which drives up viewer numbers.
 

PickSix

Well-Known Member
Aug 25, 2013
865
1,369
93
Take the best 12 teams. No quotas!

Greed is going to turn fans off. IMO there is no reason college football playoff should extend season until Jan 20.
No. "12 best" is way too subjective of a metric. We've already seen how committees will pick whatever definition of "best" is most convenient to get the big brands in, and give the shaft to everyone else.

The Big 12 will never resource wise be on the same plane as the 2 big conferences. It's time to drop the illusion and embrace what we are: the most exciting and competitive conference in the nation. Getting 2 guaranteed slots will cement our status as a legitimate and relevant conference. On the other hand, having the ESPN/B1G/SEC influenced suits collude to keep our teams out using the "12 best" metric will put us in danger of being reduced over time to a G5 league (in terms of perception, not reality).

Sign me up for the 4-4-2-2-1. And then let's re-evaluate it if the ACC ever implodes.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: isucy86

isucy86

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2006
9,131
7,731
113
Dubuque
No. "12 best" is way too subjective of a metric. We've already seen how committees will pick whatever definition of "best" is most convenient to get the big brands in, and give the shaft to everyone else.

The Big 12 will never resource wise be on the same plane as the 2 big conferences. It's time to drop the illusion and embrace what we are: the most exciting and competitive conference in the nation. Getting 2 guaranteed slots will cement our status as a legitimate and relevant conference. On the other hand, having the ESPN/B1G/SEC influenced suits collude to keep our teams out using the "12 best" metric will put us in danger of being reduced over time to a G5 league (in terms of perception, not reality).

Sign me up for the 4-4-2-2-1. And then let's re-evaluate it if the ACC ever implodes.

So you've raised the white flag before the battle!

When I say 12 best teams, I'm saying get rid of the committee. The 12 best is based on a computerized ranking system where the criteria are transparent. You've bought into the Big10 & SEC Commissioner mantra that money and brands automatically means every year they each have 4 or 5 teams that deserve a playoff bid. Before the 1st snap of the season!

You're carrying over the mindset that existed when we had 4 playoff teams. A playoff where only the elite got bids. The paradigm is different with 12 teams. The Big10 & SEC want you to automatically believe their 3rd/4th & 5th best teams are better than the Big12 and ACC's 3rd/4th & 5 best teams.

Part of the problem with college football is SOS is so subjective because there are only a handful of games played between 2 ranked teams during the non-conference schedule! In 2024 there have been 6 games. And in 2023 there were 5 games. I might have missed a game or so, but that just shows how few games there are between top 25 ranked teams.

Maybe before ceding that the Big10 & SEC should get a fixed number of teams every year, the Big12, ACC and G5 should require there be conference challenge games during the first 3 weeks like we see in college hoops. One year have Big12 play the SEC and the next have Big12 teams play the Big10. If the Big10 & SEC dominate such a series over a 4-6 year period, then go with quotas.

I hate to tell you, when the ACC implodes- that will just mean more bids for the Big10/SEC. If the Big12 settles for 2 bids now, that will be our max go forward.

And the Big10 & SEC won't stop at football. When they are flush with TV money and dominate football playoff bids, the will move to dominate college hoops talent and Tournament bids.
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Cyclonsin

FriendlySpartan

Well-Known Member
Jul 26, 2021
9,611
10,101
113
38
So you've raised the white flag before the battle!

When I say 12 best teams, I'm saying get rid of the committee. The 12 best is based on a computerized ranking system where the criteria are transparent. You've bought into the Big10 & SEC Commissioner mantra that money and brands automatically means every year they each have 4 or 5 teams that deserve a playoff bid. Before the 1st snap of the season!

You're carrying over the mindset that existed when we had 4 playoff teams. A playoff where only the elite got bids. The paradigm is different with 12 teams. The Big10 & SEC want you to automatically believe their 3rd/4th & 5th best teams are better than the Big12 and ACC's 3rd/4th & 5 best teams.

Part of the problem with college football is SOS is so subjective because there are only a handful of games played between 2 ranked teams during the non-conference schedule! In 2024 there have been 6 games. And in 2023 there were 5 games. I might have missed a game or so, but that just shows how few games there are between top 25 ranked teams.

Maybe before ceding that the Big10 & SEC should get a fixed number of teams every year, the Big12, ACC and G5 should require there be conference challenge games during the first 3 weeks like we see in college hoops. One year have Big12 play the SEC and the next have Big12 teams play the Big10. If the Big10 & SEC dominate such a series over a 4-6 year period, then go with quotas.

I hate to tell you, when the ACC implodes- that will just mean more bids for the Big10/SEC. If the Big12 settles for 2 bids now, that will be our max go forward.

And the Big10 & SEC won't stop at football. When they are flush with TV money and dominate football playoff bids, the will move to dominate college hoops talent and Tournament bids.
Your computer system won’t be better as like you mentioned their isn’t enough cross competition to actually make a realistic comparison. Similar to the downsides of having the cross matchups at the beginning of the year. Teams grow and change over the season with injuries and experience.
 

SolterraCyclone

Well-Known Member
Jul 26, 2021
2,397
3,307
113
38

PickSix

Well-Known Member
Aug 25, 2013
865
1,369
93
So you've raised the white flag before the battle!

When I say 12 best teams, I'm saying get rid of the committee. The 12 best is based on a computerized ranking system where the criteria are transparent. You've bought into the Big10 & SEC Commissioner mantra that money and brands automatically means every year they each have 4 or 5 teams that deserve a playoff bid. Before the 1st snap of the season!

You're carrying over the mindset that existed when we had 4 playoff teams. A playoff where only the elite got bids. The paradigm is different with 12 teams. The Big10 & SEC want you to automatically believe their 3rd/4th & 5th best teams are better than the Big12 and ACC's 3rd/4th & 5 best teams.

Part of the problem with college football is SOS is so subjective because there are only a handful of games played between 2 ranked teams during the non-conference schedule! In 2024 there have been 6 games. And in 2023 there were 5 games. I might have missed a game or so, but that just shows how few games there are between top 25 ranked teams.

Maybe before ceding that the Big10 & SEC should get a fixed number of teams every year, the Big12, ACC and G5 should require there be conference challenge games during the first 3 weeks like we see in college hoops. One year have Big12 play the SEC and the next have Big12 teams play the Big10. If the Big10 & SEC dominate such a series over a 4-6 year period, then go with quotas.

I hate to tell you, when the ACC implodes- that will just mean more bids for the Big10/SEC. If the Big12 settles for 2 bids now, that will be our max go forward.

And the Big10 & SEC won't stop at football. When they are flush with TV money and dominate football playoff bids, the will move to dominate college hoops talent and Tournament bids.
If you can get the B1G and SEC to agree to get rid of their stacked committees in favor of an unbiased computer model, then absolutely do that.

I'm not convinced that's going to happen though. I think 4-4-2-2 might be a palatable enough win-win for both sides to agree on. The B1G/SEC get a set amount of slots that they can budget around, and we cement our place above the rest of college football as a multi-bid league.

Like CW always says, there's too many good players for the Big 12 to not be competitive, so long as a we have a seat at the table. Such a structure would be great for the conference, and great for ISU. We should be able to make the dance relatively frequently.
 

Kinch

Well-Known Member
Sep 19, 2021
5,762
5,859
113
I like this line

Oklahoma’s playoff chances: Please. The Sooners are in an uphill fight just to be bowl eligible. But fans can cheer for that SEC revenue while their team languishes in 13th place.
Nebby also faces an uphill battle to be bowl eligible. You have to love it. I hope both teams enjoy their irrelevance.
 

FriendlySpartan

Well-Known Member
Jul 26, 2021
9,611
10,101
113
38
If you can get the B1G and SEC to agree to get rid of their stacked committees in favor of an unbiased computer model, then absolutely do that.

I'm not convinced that's going to happen though. I think 4-4-2-2 might be a palatable enough win-win for both sides to agree on. The B1G/SEC get a set amount of slots that they can budget around, and we cement our place above the rest of college football as a multi-bid league.

Like CW always says, there's too many good players for the Big 12 to not be competitive, so long as a we have a seat at the table. Such a structure would be great for the conference, and great for ISU. We should be able to make the dance relatively frequently.
The Big12 and ACC already turned the 4-4-2-2 down, if they come back and ask for it now I would be worried that the SEC would try to press the advantage even farther. Turning it down in the first place might have been a mistake