USC/UCLA to the Big Ten in 24?

Jeremy

CF Founder
Staff member
Bookie
Feb 28, 2006
18,402
13,634
10,030
Waukee, IA
Sorry, but many more people 'generalize' dollars. It's not the 'biggest' dollars. It's the most cost effective dollars. And, to ignore streaming is like saying 10 years ago streaming would never exist. It does and it will continue to be a major player. The networks will always accommodate the advertising dollar. If that means redirecting people to streaming, then that'll happen.

I'm a fan and full-time streamer. I never said I didn't support having some games on streaming. But if anybody thinks we're better off with only being on Amazon, Apple, or some other service with no linear footprint, they're flat out wrong. We need access to the biggest audience possible for brand awareness, recruiting, ranking consideration, etc. While I don't think we would go full streaming, there are a lot that want that as they think it's the key to the biggest money.
 

FrankDrebin

Active Member
Jul 21, 2014
100
79
28
Yes, and Auburn-South Carolina(1.5 rating) beat WVU-KU(.9 rating) in the ratings handily. Clemson-GT beat them soundly as well. The WVU game was the worst rated game on network TV that day.

October 17, 2020 UGA vs. ALA (CBS)5.39.61
October 17, 2020 LOU vs. ND (NBC)1.83.12
October 17, 2020 AUB vs. SC (ESPN)1.52.57
October 17, 2020 T A&M vs. MISS ST (ESPN)1.52.43
October 17, 2020 CLEM vs. GT (ABC)1.42.25
October 17, 2020 UNC vs. FSU (ABC)1.42.2
October 17, 2020 UCF vs. MEM (ABC)1.11.9
October 17, 2020 KU vs. WVU (FOX)0.9
Yes attractive matchups trounced an awful one.

It's also true that getting that game onto FOX blew away what WV/KU would be expected to do on FS1 or ESPN2 for instance.
 

Jeremy

CF Founder
Staff member
Bookie
Feb 28, 2006
18,402
13,634
10,030
Waukee, IA
Id rather do the 80 team bracket(beleive that goes to 2 playins in each region, could be wrong) over the other proposed idea of kicking out the mid majors

Id rather just leave it at 6-8 though
If we went to 80, the Hawks might get in once in a while.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lyndal

timinatoria

Active Member
Aug 29, 2008
135
52
28
No ****? The original point was if you put a game on a network it gets a lot more viewers. The point is that a bad mediocre WVU team and K freaking U had 1.9 million people watch. Normally that would be an FS2 game that gets fewer than 300k viewers.

It supports the point refuting the PAC 12 dimwits perfectly. PAC viewership only compares to Big 12 because they get the immense benefit of double the network slots.

If you think Clemson and Auburn conference games beating as bad a Big 12 game as there was in 2020 by like 30% and 20% respectively is some sort of negative for the Big 12, I do t know what to tell you.

Bottom line is you thought they got those viewers because there was zero competition. You were wrong, so now your point is KU and WVU got beat in the ratings by Clemson and Auburn.
Ok got it, got it. My bad. I misread the earlier comments and didn’t really get this was a PAC vs. Big 12 thing. I thought people were arguing something that they weren’t.

I’m out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: agentbear

FrankDrebin

Active Member
Jul 21, 2014
100
79
28
It supports the point refuting the PAC 12 dimwits perfectly. PAC viewership only compares to Big 12 because they get the immense benefit of double the network slots.
0050877-dudy.jpg


Not only that but a whole lot of extra games on the Big 12 side drag down the average since everyone's worst games lower an average and the Pac 12's simple averages benefit from "oopsie we didn't release viewer data for P12Network!"
 
  • Winner
Reactions: VeloClone

cykadelic2

Well-Known Member
Jun 10, 2006
2,796
784
113
I'm a fan and full-time streamer. I never said I didn't support having some games on streaming. But if anybody thinks we're better off with only being on Amazon, Apple, or some other service with no linear footprint, they're flat out wrong. We need access to the biggest audience possible for brand awareness, recruiting, ranking consideration, etc. While I don't think we would go full streaming, there are a lot that want that as they think it's the key to the biggest money.
It is the biggest money but I agree you have to have weekly OTA exposure, preferably in the same Saturday time slot.

Apple, or perhaps Amazon, is the only realistic hope left IMO for both the B12 and PAC (the inventory would have to be consolidated in some fashion) to get anywhere near the level of B10 and SEC payouts (75% or more). Apple will likely overpay to get into the space and I would have no issues going all in with them as long as they sublicense one OTA GOTW to Fox or CBS and one or two more GOTWs to TNT and/or USA (with THU and FRI night games in play). Those deals would be between Apple and those networks with Apple advertising and production negotiated as required. The rest of the games can be on Apple with staggered start times starting at 11 CT and running throughout Saturdays with one final game starting at 9 PM CT (and perhaps that game sublicensed to ESPN).
 

AuH2O

Well-Known Member
Sep 7, 2013
8,986
12,841
113
0050877-dudy.jpg


Not only that but a whole lot of extra games on the Big 12 side drag down the average since everyone's worst games lower an average and the Pac 12's simple averages benefit from "oopsie we didn't release viewer data for P12Network!"
If you look at the number of PACN games, and the level of games, this is a HUGE difference, that frankly the SicEm guys are underestimating. These teams had 3-6 of their worst games thrown out essentially in most viewership averages. On the rare occasion these games are instead on FS2 or ESPN2/U like the Big 12 equivalent almost always is, they are getting 200-400k typically. So a team might average 1.2 million over 7 games other than PACN games. They might have averaged 300k for the games on PACN if on FS2 or ESPN2/U. That turns that 1.2 million average into 825,000.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: VeloClone

cyman05

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Dec 7, 2010
2,069
236
63
0050877-dudy.jpg


Not only that but a whole lot of extra games on the Big 12 side drag down the average since everyone's worst games lower an average and the Pac 12's simple averages benefit from "oopsie we didn't release viewer data for P12Network!"
Interesting that the green/yellow distinctions lines up for both right at 1M viewers. Almost like if you’re on a OTA network you’re guaranteed 1M and if you’re limited to cable it’s hard to crack 1M. Now part of that is network reach and part is that the best games get put OTA. It’s why the B10 wants this self fulfilling prophecy in place to have a triple header on OTA networks to keep drawing ratings and promoting their brands.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StPaulCyclone

cyclones500

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2010
31,421
18,446
113
Michigan
basslakebeacon.com

Jeremy

CF Founder
Staff member
Bookie
Feb 28, 2006
18,402
13,634
10,030
Waukee, IA
It is the biggest money but I agree you have to have weekly OTA exposure, preferably in the same Saturday time slot.

Apple, or perhaps Amazon, is the only realistic hope left IMO for both the B12 and PAC (the inventory would have to be consolidated in some fashion) to get anywhere near the level of B10 and SEC payouts (75% or more). Apple will likely overpay to get into the space and I would have no issues going all in with them as long as they sublicense one OTA GOTW to Fox or CBS and one or two more GOTWs to TNT and/or USA (with THU and FRI night games in play). Those deals would be between Apple and those networks with Apple advertising and production negotiated as required. The rest of the games can be on Apple with staggered start times starting at 11 CT and running throughout Saturdays with one final game starting at 9 PM CT (and perhaps that game sublicensed to ESPN).

I would take less money for more exposure to the "casual" fan that isn't going to seek out an ISU game on another service when they have 4-5 other games to select from on whatever they're watching. My bet is that most current and future streamers will have a base service like Hulu, YouTube TV, etc and then addons like Netflix, Apple, Amazon, etc. If they can get what they want on the base service and aren't switching for a marquee matchup, our exposure goes down. Less exposure is hugely impactful to a school like ISU.

I posted a poll earlier this week that proved my point that a lot of people are going to stick to 1-2 services and not switch services mid-day unless it's huge game.
 

BCClone

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Sep 4, 2011
52,236
45,232
113
North Iowa
Yes, and Auburn-South Carolina(1.5 rating) beat WVU-KU(.9 rating) in the ratings handily. Clemson-GT beat them soundly as well. The WVU game was the worst rated game on network TV that day.

October 17, 2020 UGA vs. ALA (CBS)5.39.61
October 17, 2020 LOU vs. ND (NBC)1.83.12
October 17, 2020 AUB vs. SC (ESPN)1.52.57
October 17, 2020 T A&M vs. MISS ST (ESPN)1.52.43
October 17, 2020 CLEM vs. GT (ABC)1.42.25
October 17, 2020 UNC vs. FSU (ABC)1.42.2
October 17, 2020 UCF vs. MEM (ABC)1.11.9
October 17, 2020 KU vs. WVU (FOX)0.9
You said they were the only game.
 

isucy86

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2006
5,455
4,040
113
Here's one analysis connected with the topic.

If expansion of the NCAA Basketball Tournament means more than 68 teams as a way to get more P6 schools in the tourney, that would be a bad idea. IMO the big schools get enough visibility and play enough top 30 teams to identify tournament worthy P6 teams.

For some of the other 26ish conferences, especially those that don't typically get multiple bids, I could see a couple rounds of play-in games. It is tough when teams have great regular seasons in non-P5 leagues get upset in their conference tournament and don't get selected to the NCAA Tournament.