Eight
Member
your an unwanted guest so take the political [ Finebaum ] out of the thread.
tell you what, go dm longhorn in aledo since no one else wants to talk to either of you
Houston Chronicle: Texas, Oklahoma reach out to SEC about joining conference
- Thread starter CryptoMiner
- Start date
your an unwanted guest so take the political [ Finebaum ] out of the thread.
tell you what, go dm longhorn in aledo since no one else wants to talk to either of you
Gary's Shirtless Revenge
Full Member
Right, the analysis is actually not helpful. He doesn't filter the right broadcasts, and even notes he isn't doing an apples to apples comparison.
But the thrust of what he is saying is true, and it's what I've covered here: The Big 8 aren't fantastic media properties, they just don't bring a lot of value above the baseline AAC school. Thus, expansion for the sake of expansion gets hard without a broader strategy... The SEC added Tx/OU for TV money, but it added Missouri for strategic expansion reasons. The PAC may do the same.
But this is why anything but a Big8/AAC outcome is unlikely, at the end of the day.
Last edited:
Eight
Member
careful now, the frogs 8 games that didn't include ou and texas averaged just over 750K viewers last year which is under that average mentioned by mandel
Bob Sugar
Active Member
See, that's a useful data point.
TCU_91
Active Member
No Biden to 85...cough cough
Eight
Member
here is a link to the sportsmediawatch ratings list for 2020
one thing i noticed was all ten of tcu's games were broadcast and drew some type of rating so even games like kansas and la tech are included in that average
could only find ratings for 8 of tech's games (6 if you exclude ou and texas which happened to be roughly where the tcu games were with texas and ou)
their game with hbu was on epsn+ and their kansas game was on fox sports 2 and shows no data
tech's average rating on the 6 games was just under 1M which just happens to be just a bit above the frogs average rating if you remove their two lowest rated games
Last edited:
FBallFan123
Active Member
One good thing going (for at least some) Big 12 teams is Kliavkoff talking about the Pac 12’s interest in increasing its CFP bids.
I do think that growing the Pac 12’s size could lead to it getting more bids.
But I don’t think that means 20 teams.
I think they look closer at 14-16 teams.
And I just don’t really see TCU and Baylor being part of it.
Eight
Member
question to gsr on ratings. last i had heard there wasn't a way to accurately tract viewers who stream an event
that might be completely wrong, but i could have sworn listening to a podcast about netflix and amazon buying all the content they could, but it sounded as if streaming does have an impact on ratings
is this accurate and if so how does that impact someone watching a game on say youtube or hulu versus timewarner or good ole over the airwaves antennas
that might be completely wrong, but i could have sworn listening to a podcast about netflix and amazon buying all the content they could, but it sounded as if streaming does have an impact on ratings
is this accurate and if so how does that impact someone watching a game on say youtube or hulu versus timewarner or good ole over the airwaves antennas
Paul in uhh
Active Member
The Missouri point is a good one. It’s hard for me to imagine the b10 and PAC both letting the SEC be the only major conference in the state that provides the most collegiate talent.
FBallFan123
Active Member
No expert on the subject but I occasionally read some of the various sports media guys on Twitter (Austin Karp, Richard Deitsch, John Ourand, etc) talking about it.
From what I can tell, the independent reporting is usually just the old school tv/cable numbers.
The media companies channels do track it, but the numbers arw very hard to get publicly … unless the media outlet wants to put that number out, which they sometimes do in press releases to make the viewing numbers seem bigger.
Gary's Shirtless Revenge
Full Member
That used to be true, not really anymore. It's harder for the traditional companies like Nielsen to include those audiences, but they've found ways around that and now the networks (like ESPN) can get a pretty darn accurate picture of their audiences across all platforms. Also good to keep in mind: Streaming (like YTTV) is still a small % of watchers, even in the aggregate.
FBallFan123
Active Member
And since media companies control those streaming numbers, they can manipulate how they’re made public.
For instance, I’ve seen it said a lot of steaming numbers focus on how many people *started* watching something … not necessarily how many *finished* it.
This became a topic around Netflix’s reporting numbers for movies like the 3 and half hour “The Irishman” … which apparently a lot more people started than finished … (which I can’t really blame them for).
Eight
Member
thanks, more just a question that popped into my head while we were discussing tv ratings instead of of it specifically relates to the frogs
Gary's Shirtless Revenge
Full Member
OK, I've been working on the ACC angle as I kept hearing a few things the past year, so I figured I'd get this down on paper... Not TCU related, but helps illuminate some of the broader things going on.
Whilst Texas and OU were starting to look at a move, there has also been ongoing and building turmoil in the ACC. Principally, they signed a devastatingly bad contract in 2016 that will be in place for TWENTY YEARS and will saddle their members with poor tv payouts for the duration. Why did this happen? FSU and Clemson, primarily, really really thought they needed an ACC network to "compete" and they worked overtime to force ESPN to do it. ESPN did, but in turn they got sub-par rights value on their TV slots over 20 years. Ouchie. It also doesn't help that, like the Big 12, after the few top schools in that conference the rest aren't exactly premier TV properties.
So now, Clemson and FSU are angry, irony aside. I had heard the SEC was chatting with them back in April, but dismissed it at the time until the Texas/OU rumors heated up. Since then I've been checking on some things, and it appears the dialogue is very real and ongoing. As an aside, if true, that means the SEC has also probably talked to Ohio State and Michigan too (doesn't mean they are going anywhere).
The crux is this: The ACC is a half SEC and half BIG/Big East conference, in terms of athletics performance, focus, and mentality. Clemson and FSU want to go big on football and be an SEC conference, but Duke/NC/SYR want to protect their reputation academically and be a basketball conference too.
If you are Clemson, why not just bolt to the SEC? It comes down to competition (duh), revenue sharing, and Notre Dame.
If you had asked the ACC presidents whether they would consider a more progressive revenue sharing model to attract ND and keep Clemson six months ago, they'd say no almost unanimously. Ask them today: They are seriously considering it. In addition, the conference + ESPN has been working very quietly to see if they could work a deal to fold in ND after 2025 when their NBC contract terminates, but allow ND to keep some of the pieces of their individuality they like, like ownership of their event IP, some third-tier content distribution rights, and a higher % of media rights payouts from the Tire 1 and 2 ACC deals. Notre Dame leadership has realized that being an Independent in the new CFB world isn't going to work, so they just need to find their best landing spot if possible. ESPN would help make this happen by re-doing the ACC tv contract to accommodate them, and Clemson and FSU would benefit as well. Will the conference presidents go for it? Things are getting real...
Keep in mind, the ACC has some leverage over its members as its GOR is in place until 2036... That's a long time and a lot of money, much much harder to overcome.
By the way, ND to the BIG? If history is a predictor, probably not. The BIG has historically asked for ND to be all-in or nothing, so it'll probably be nothing. If Clemson and FSU bolt to the SEC? Everything is back open again.
Which brings me to WVU... From what I know, they would still be a target if the above Plan A gets finalized, as they do add some regional value to the conference, have a crazy rabid fan base, and most importantly: Would take a 7-10 year buy-in deal which would improve revenue distributions to all the remaining members, which is super important. If added, they would probably provide a step-basis improvement to the conference's media rights, but a large % of that money during their first decade in the conference would go to all the other members.
So, plan of action:
1. Play defense with Clemson and FSU by playing offense with ND
2. Get everybody on the same page, get a new deal done, declare a truce
3. Add WVU to finish things off, keep the family happy... They could pass on this step if that's the impediment to 1-2
(By the way, to get WVU, you need Pitt-Virginia-WVU to all bury the hatchet... Another roadblock to work through)
I had heard they started moving real fast on this, so there could be news very soon... I think it was reported ND was meeting Wednesday to discuss "their future" internally, which isn't surprising.
Whilst Texas and OU were starting to look at a move, there has also been ongoing and building turmoil in the ACC. Principally, they signed a devastatingly bad contract in 2016 that will be in place for TWENTY YEARS and will saddle their members with poor tv payouts for the duration. Why did this happen? FSU and Clemson, primarily, really really thought they needed an ACC network to "compete" and they worked overtime to force ESPN to do it. ESPN did, but in turn they got sub-par rights value on their TV slots over 20 years. Ouchie. It also doesn't help that, like the Big 12, after the few top schools in that conference the rest aren't exactly premier TV properties.
So now, Clemson and FSU are angry, irony aside. I had heard the SEC was chatting with them back in April, but dismissed it at the time until the Texas/OU rumors heated up. Since then I've been checking on some things, and it appears the dialogue is very real and ongoing. As an aside, if true, that means the SEC has also probably talked to Ohio State and Michigan too (doesn't mean they are going anywhere).
The crux is this: The ACC is a half SEC and half BIG/Big East conference, in terms of athletics performance, focus, and mentality. Clemson and FSU want to go big on football and be an SEC conference, but Duke/NC/SYR want to protect their reputation academically and be a basketball conference too.
If you are Clemson, why not just bolt to the SEC? It comes down to competition (duh), revenue sharing, and Notre Dame.
If you had asked the ACC presidents whether they would consider a more progressive revenue sharing model to attract ND and keep Clemson six months ago, they'd say no almost unanimously. Ask them today: They are seriously considering it. In addition, the conference + ESPN has been working very quietly to see if they could work a deal to fold in ND after 2025 when their NBC contract terminates, but allow ND to keep some of the pieces of their individuality they like, like ownership of their event IP, some third-tier content distribution rights, and a higher % of media rights payouts from the Tire 1 and 2 ACC deals. Notre Dame leadership has realized that being an Independent in the new CFB world isn't going to work, so they just need to find their best landing spot if possible. ESPN would help make this happen by re-doing the ACC tv contract to accommodate them, and Clemson and FSU would benefit as well. Will the conference presidents go for it? Things are getting real...
Keep in mind, the ACC has some leverage over its members as its GOR is in place until 2036... That's a long time and a lot of money, much much harder to overcome.
By the way, ND to the BIG? If history is a predictor, probably not. The BIG has historically asked for ND to be all-in or nothing, so it'll probably be nothing. If Clemson and FSU bolt to the SEC? Everything is back open again.
Which brings me to WVU... From what I know, they would still be a target if the above Plan A gets finalized, as they do add some regional value to the conference, have a crazy rabid fan base, and most importantly: Would take a 7-10 year buy-in deal which would improve revenue distributions to all the remaining members, which is super important. If added, they would probably provide a step-basis improvement to the conference's media rights, but a large % of that money during their first decade in the conference would go to all the other members.
So, plan of action:
1. Play defense with Clemson and FSU by playing offense with ND
2. Get everybody on the same page, get a new deal done, declare a truce
3. Add WVU to finish things off, keep the family happy... They could pass on this step if that's the impediment to 1-2
(By the way, to get WVU, you need Pitt-Virginia-WVU to all bury the hatchet... Another roadblock to work through)
I had heard they started moving real fast on this, so there could be news very soon... I think it was reported ND was meeting Wednesday to discuss "their future" internally, which isn't surprising.
Last edited:
CountryFrog
Active Member
Once again, ESPN pulling all the strings. Not surprising at all but pretty scheissing disgusting imo.
Their consolidation of power and money ruins college football, killing 150 years of tradition. Good luck with a 32-ish team of haves. Not gonna go over so well with a bunch of them after 15 years of losing. But they'll have nice bank accounts.
100 years from now, will we be the current equivalent of Toby's Business College to us today?
Last edited:
Gary's Shirtless Revenge
Full Member
Another item to cover from today: The idea that the PAC 12 and BIG could "merge"
This is not a merger, from what I understand. What's being discussed is a cooperation agreement and it has 100% to do with FOX. The idea is that they will go together to FOX to bargain their upcoming deal(s), and in part introduce the idea of a flex-schedule between the league's members that creates top matchups annually like USC-Ohio State, Michigan-Stanford... The kinds of "storied" matchups that you normally only get in the Rose Bowl. Both conferences would retain their own rights, but see bumps in value from these premier matchups. Lots of leverage against FOX who, if they want to stay in CFB, has few options. What would through a wrench? BIG getting raided, or the BIG landing a premier like ND... Then I think they probably go it alone.
On the Rose Bowl, I saw it mentioned that this might be why they are forming the partnership... I don't think that's true. My knowledge of the broader new CFP discussions is that they are going to cave to the "premier bowls" and get them placed in the semis/etc. and revenue will be distributed appropriately... Outside of that, if the BIG/PAC want to have a non-playoff rose bowl, they will be able. The Rose Bowl contract is up after 2026.
All of this, the ACC and BIG/PAC news, is further bad news for the Big 8.
This is not a merger, from what I understand. What's being discussed is a cooperation agreement and it has 100% to do with FOX. The idea is that they will go together to FOX to bargain their upcoming deal(s), and in part introduce the idea of a flex-schedule between the league's members that creates top matchups annually like USC-Ohio State, Michigan-Stanford... The kinds of "storied" matchups that you normally only get in the Rose Bowl. Both conferences would retain their own rights, but see bumps in value from these premier matchups. Lots of leverage against FOX who, if they want to stay in CFB, has few options. What would through a wrench? BIG getting raided, or the BIG landing a premier like ND... Then I think they probably go it alone.
On the Rose Bowl, I saw it mentioned that this might be why they are forming the partnership... I don't think that's true. My knowledge of the broader new CFP discussions is that they are going to cave to the "premier bowls" and get them placed in the semis/etc. and revenue will be distributed appropriately... Outside of that, if the BIG/PAC want to have a non-playoff rose bowl, they will be able. The Rose Bowl contract is up after 2026.
All of this, the ACC and BIG/PAC news, is further bad news for the Big 8.
FBallFan123
Active Member
Yeah, it seems a lot of this stems from the poor decisions surrounding the ACC Network and Longhorn Network.
It’s a shame that those decisions are gonna lead to the re-ordering of college football … at the expense of TCU and the Big 12.
These current moves may help ESPN in the short-term … and maybe medium-term as the CFB expansion may mean a lot of business for them early.
But long-term, these moves seem like they could do more damage than good to college football as a whole.
And this is what I can't understand. I understand on the surface why the chosen schools would want to do it. I fail to understand what long term benefit is gained by ESPN in killing college football through eliminating dozens of programs from "big time" status - and alienating the alumni / fans of them at the same time.
gohornedfrogs
Tier 1
I'm having a hard time believing that Google and Apple and Microsoft can track just about everything you do on a phone, tablet or computer, but they can't track how many people stream a sporting event.
The cynical side of me thinks ESPN et. al. don't release streaming numbers because they are smaller than what they promised their advertisers. Not because they don't have the ability to track it...
