I just fundamentally disagree with this. However since this isn’t happening anytime in the next decade I’m happy to cede the point to you for this thought experiment
Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)
- Thread starter ISUcyclones11
- Start date
Guys, FriendlySpartan is right. A second-tier league would have pitiful viewership, much worse than the schools that would eventually populate that tier are getting today.
Viewership is HEAVILY driven by the casual fan (AKA none of us) and those fans will almost immediately focus entirely on the top tier and only consider watching the lower-level games if there is literally nothing else on.
Viewership is HEAVILY driven by the casual fan (AKA none of us) and those fans will almost immediately focus entirely on the top tier and only consider watching the lower-level games if there is literally nothing else on.
I am so glad you said this. Can you point me to the data that actually shows this. I am having a hard time finding it.
Agreed. It might now start like that, but over time, viewership would decrease as newer and casual fans focus on the top league and older dedicated fans die out.
If you want to know roughly where a program stands ranked by viewers in 2025, a Medium writer made an attempt:
According to this, a 40 team premier league of college football would have around 6 Big 12 teams, 5 ACC, 15 SEC, 12 Big Ten, and 2 independents. Which is roughly the current distribution of over-the-air/top tier cable television slots. TV ratings and brand popularity are a function of where and when you are on, more than anything else.
According to this, a 40 team premier league of college football would have around 6 Big 12 teams, 5 ACC, 15 SEC, 12 Big Ten, and 2 independents. Which is roughly the current distribution of over-the-air/top tier cable television slots. TV ratings and brand popularity are a function of where and when you are on, more than anything else.
Where most all of the people that care about and watch college sports are casual fans that have no connection to the teams they are watching. They are the ones that drive and keep college sports alive I am being told. I'd like to see the market rerserarch that has been done on this. I'm just not able to find it. It is probably right in front of me, but I can't find the numbers that support or discount this concept.
I think it’s pretty easy to do some math on this without needing survey date (only real way you could do it) and just look at the games that draw the big ratings.
Use ISU/Iowa as an example. This year the game drew 4.3mil viewers. Thats millions more then the alumni bases of both schools combined and a million more then if the entire state of Iowa tuned it. That viewership is being driven by the casual fan that sees a rivalry or ranked number next to the game, or even being on a major network. Possibly the combination of the 3 for many
This all works perfectly. What people are looking for is a league that they have no connection to that isn't the top of their craft. That is why the XFL and UFL are raking in the money they are. People will just drop those teams that they care about and the team they play, for the next level up. Pretty soon there will be no viewers for college football because the XFL and UFL will take all those viewers.
Please give me the reason that this is true, because it isn't.
If the top tier of college football teams somehow made their own league. They would not get a single view from me. It is irrelevant. If I want to watch the best, I'll watch the NFL (which is not interesting to me.) If I want to watch something other than the best, it is what is important to me relatively (and that is league/level in which my team plays.)
I'm wondering how many poeple have NO affiliation whatsoever in college sports compared to those that have some affiliation. I know 1 person that is like that. I know dozens that are college football fans and they all have a team that they root for. I'm pretty sure almost all of them would continue to follow their team down a league than to pick any random team from the premier league.
The one person I know that doesn't have a team, won't give a rip and will not affiliate themselves with anyone and will continue to watch whatever game is most interesting independent of level. That is what he already does.
I can be convinced otherwise with research or documented numbers. I'm sure it exists, just point me at it.
Please give me the reason that this is true, because it isn't.
If the top tier of college football teams somehow made their own league. They would not get a single view from me. It is irrelevant. If I want to watch the best, I'll watch the NFL (which is not interesting to me.) If I want to watch something other than the best, it is what is important to me relatively (and that is league/level in which my team plays.)
I'm wondering how many poeple have NO affiliation whatsoever in college sports compared to those that have some affiliation. I know 1 person that is like that. I know dozens that are college football fans and they all have a team that they root for. I'm pretty sure almost all of them would continue to follow their team down a league than to pick any random team from the premier league.
The one person I know that doesn't have a team, won't give a rip and will not affiliate themselves with anyone and will continue to watch whatever game is most interesting independent of level. That is what he already does.
I can be convinced otherwise with research or documented numbers. I'm sure it exists, just point me at it.
Last edited:
What do you mean it didn’t happen to Oregon state?
Oregon state averaged 1.74mil viewers its final year in the Pac and fell to barely over 400K viewers the first year it was out. Thats part of the scale of the fallout we are talking here
I think the growth is largely driven by collectively bargained media rights. If college sports decided to negotiate as one bloc instead of separate leagues that incentive would go away. Essentially what the NFL does. Then you could break it up into whatever conferences or pieces make logical sense. I think that was one of the things Texas Tech's Cody Campbell was advocating for. Not going to happen any time soon, unfortunately, but it would be the end result of what has been happening.
Viewership alone proves nothing.
It could be that all of those 4.3 Million fans are college football fans of some other NCAA level team. Probably not, but let's say most are.
That PROVES my point. They have an affinity for watching a matchup that is on the same level as their school. P4 + G5 at the very least are the schools I am talking about. The P4 is interested in what schools they compete with and those schools that THEY compete with are doing. They like to see the relative matchups, see what their team might do in those situations, dream that they could be in the position someday. Most of the G5 is looking up, but still has similar dreams.
Noone is watching XFL or UFL and thinking anything like that. Noone cares about them. They are not the best and they have no natural affinity to the college sports fan. They are regional diversions at best.
Split off the top 20 teams in the NCAA to make some super league, there goes 80% of the population that cared about what they were doing in any way shape or form. That would also cause a tremendous amount of resentment and they can just kiss those people goodbye. The only people left to watch their games are the unaffiliated, gamblers and degenerates (loving term I have for those that have no alliance and will watch whatever is on due to their addiction.) The same ones that will spend time and money on the XFL and UFL.
Once again, I'd like to see the data that proves me wrong. I'm fine with being wrong, that just means I need to change the focus to making propositions for a better system.
Saying “viewership alone means nothing” is a wild take in a conversation about viewership.
Btw to be clear I don’t think there is going to be a 24 team premier league. My point was responding to the thought experiment that if there was time viewership and financial support for the non premier league would fall to catistropic levels over time
The people I throw in the "casual fan" bucket, I'm not sure they'd even know the distinction between a top-tier league and whatever else. They'd still watch the team they have some affinity for. Maybe long, long term over several generations it might change? I don't know. I have a buddy who I consider a "casual." He got a degree from a directional Illinois university but considers himself an Illinois fan. He watches them when they're on. If I'd ask him to name the schools in the B1G, Big 12, SEC, whatever...he couldn't do it. Maybe he'd get between 50 and 75% correct. An elite, super league isn't going to change his viewing habits or loyalties, casual as they may be.
You realize you’re proving the opposite point of what you think you are right?
Your friend from a directional Illinois university chooses Illinois as his school because its currently is in the top league available. it’s why he didn’t choose Illinois state or some other random school he chose a school he never went to as his team because of its status
If you shift to a premier league the same thing will happen or people will just stop watching in areas that don’t have a premier team to choose (which is why a 24 team league would happen)
Interesting. So bowls weren't included. It says 12 week season, did out 0 week game get included? I thought our numbers were higher than what's reported here.
They still didn't become Portland State. And they had to cobble together a schedule without a conference or dedicated TV partner. If you put Alabama on the CW and CBSN for 2/3 of their games, their viewership is going to drop.
OSU and WSU are also bad examples as I stated before. They were the only two schools left behind last time. If a super league forms, there will be 40-48 schools going together into the 2nd tier. In my opinion, that league would have media rights comparable to the Big 12 at a minimum.
I am all for it. If a league formed that had a strict salary floor/cap and rules on player movement, Iowa State would be better off. I would rather compete against other schools in the same boat than try to keep up in an arms race that is unsustainable. If winning a championship in that league is looked down upon because, "yeah, but you didn't beat Indiana", my response would be that Indiana didn't beat the Seahawks.
In fact, If I were in charge of any of this, I would be proactive and work to get those 40-48 schools to preemptively break away.
Then we disagree. And that is OK.
But this isn't about viewership as much as it is about whether a group of teams could make a successful league compared to a smaller number of "top-tier" schools.
I am still interested in the numbers and actual market research. In this case, viewership alone DOES mean nothing because you don't know what motivates the people to "view". If you don't know WHY someone watches, you can't predict what happens if something changes. Extrapolation doesn't work in a vacuum.
My wife watched the superbowl, but she didn't give a **** about either of the teams or the play on the field. She wanted to watch the commercials and Bad Bunny (who knows why that is, but whatever.) I am pretty certain that the viewership of the Superbowl is well documented and they know down to a couple percentage points who is watching for what reasons.
I just want the same for college football. There are a lot of people that feel the lower level teams would die, just like you appear to be on the other side of the fence. Real market research would tell us more likely what the truth is.
I figured people on here that were making claims of who is watching and what they would do given certain scenarios would have the data that backs their claims. Let's just see the data and THEN we can discuss this point better.
EDIT: I did not correctly understand Friendly. He believes the lower tier market would indeed die out. I disagreed with him to begin with, then messed up later in my observation. I place this here as a correction.
Last edited:
You would preemptively break away? Wow I guess ISU should be thankful you aren’t in charge then.
If the Pac couldn’t even get a media deal done how on earth do you expect to get rights the same as you have now if the Big12 was in a lower league by itself with the dregs of the ACC/SEC/BIG. It just wouldn’t happen without so many of these schools that drive ratings.
This isn’t even taking into account the massive drop in talent the lower league would very quickly have to deal with or a whole bunch of other horrible issues by doing this
