Michigan played the same number of televised games as USC in 2020. And do you think any of that has to do with the timing of west coast games v. midwest games? One of USC's games last year didn't kick off until 9:30 p.m. central, 10:30 eastern.
Report: OU & Texas reach out to join SEC
- Thread starter BigJCy
- Start date
Michigan played the same number of televised games as USC in 2020. And do you think any of that has to do with the timing of west coast games v. midwest games? One of USC's games last year didn't kick off until 9:30 p.m. central, 10:30 eastern.
The bolded should infuriate EVERY university president, athletic director, and business ethics professor alive.
I was not pleased when I read it the first time in an article. I am hoping that is one of the legal issue for ESPN, OuT and perhaps the SEC.
Oregon's east coast kickoff times and television were:
7:30 ABC
7:00 Fox
3:30 ESPN2
7:30 ESPN
7:00 ESPN
4:00 Fox
8:00 Fox
USCs were
Noon Fox
3:30 Fox
10:30 ESPN
3:30 ABC
7:30 FS1
7:30 ABC
8:00 Fox
Basically between the two schools there were three games that were not absolutely set on a tee to knock ratings out of the ballpark.
For regular season only, here's how ISU, USC and Oregon stacked up on games on Fox, ABC, and ESPN:
1. ISU - Oklahoma 3.7
2. ISU - Texas 3.6
3. USC - UCLA 3.2
4. Oregon- Oreg. St. 2.8
5. ISU - Okie St. 2.8
6. Oreg - WSU 2.7
7. USC - Az 2.3
8. USC - ASU 2.2
9. ISU - KSU 2.0
10. ISU - Louisiana 1.7
11. ISU - TTU 1.4
12. USC - Utah 1.3
13. ISU - WVU 1.2
14. Oregon - Cal 1.0
Again, only the USC - Utah game was a late kick.
Avg. viewership for the three on those tier 1 channels was ISU - 2.34, USC - 2.25, Oregon - 2.17
Excluding Texas and OU, ISUs viewership for those games averages 1.82.
We're not talking about a major viewership advantage, and we're not comparing ISU to mid-pack teams. We're comparing them to national brands and absolute top dogs in a conference. And it takes removing all blueblood opponents for ISU before Oregon and USC have a viewership advantage.
I'm in no way saying ISU is nearly as valuable as these two. But the viewership is surprisingly close between two big-time national brands and ISU, who brings "no value."
If it is, then we have to hope that Bob and the Big 12 are willing to fight for the rest of the schools and not bend over for a quick settlement/short term satisfaction. I mean, how old is Bob? He could settle, take a nice chunk of it for himself and ride off into the rest of his old age, leaving us ****** for the long term because who really gives a **** about us?
This just pisses me off more. We are told this all comes down to eyeballs and what really matters is TV ratings and (shocker) ISU proves to be as bankable a TV brand as USC, if not slightly better. But then ESPN will just turn around and remind you that without OuT you are nothing, barely more valuable than an AAC team. It's just motivated reasoning, like the 13th data point Big 12 teams needed to be considered for the CFP when allowing teams to jump over them in the rankings.
You see those TV numbers and it makes you wonder if the USC "big dog" status really is legitimate in the eyes of TV Land. Or the Big 10.
The only people who you should be mad at are the talking heads, as they are blowing opinions out their backsides on a regular basis. The execs at the various networks undoubtedly know and act upon the actual facts (and so will conferences looking to expand).
I think some people might look at those numbers and think OU and UT are doing the heavy lifting in terms of viewers.
Agree except there needs to be enough blue bloods to support another tier of CFP ... which I don't think there are. IMO, the entire suite of CFB as it stands now is best suited to justify their earnings. Otherwise eyeballs will wain. I believe it's more precarious for the SEC than the rest ... at this point. But, we won't know for sure until the entire landscape starts to change.
Correct me if I'm wrong. The Universities have to vote for these things. So, if what you're saying is true, then the U's would have to be pretty naïve which I don't think they are.
There are two simple ways to look at this:
1. The media is downplaying viewership to gain an advantage in negotiations.
2. Or the media is controlling viewership through their own marketing. Point being, if they chose to equitably market Iowa State the numbers would likely tell a much different story.
Either way, the numbers are skewed for their benefit. Not Iowa State's. By design.
Last edited:
And I assume CBS would have really like to have kept SEC on their network but didn't think it was worth the money ESPN was throwing out.
How long before CBS starts looking at their legal options if ESPN was manipulating behind the scenes?
Perhaps, but Games against/with OuT have preferred times and networks. They have more value, but a good portion of that lift comes from the time and network factor and promotion.
If you take out the OU and Texas games, Iowa State vs Okie St is the first non rivalry game. In non rivalry games USC and Oregon don't seem much different than ISU.
Everybody understands that. The problem is delusional big 10 fans think anybody besides OSU, PSU, and Michigan matters. Every league is the top 2-3 schools leaving from being a junk league. The new SEC being the only exception.
The point is if you do a direct comparison of tier 1 games, take out OU and UT games, the difference in viewership between ISU and the absolute top two, national brands in the PAC is not very large. Yet people are arguing at the same time that Oregon and USC are huge needle movers, but ISU is worthless. Both simply can’t be true at the same time. The numbers say so clearly. I’ll believe those over dimwit fans and media.
PAC could add OSU and ISU and they would be the 3rd and 4th most watched teams in the league.
The Oklahoman had a solid summary of the OU/UT leaving timeline an conundrum. Most of the details are known and discussed in this thread.
I factor that I hadn't considered is FOX owning of the PAC 12 and 1/2 of the Big 12's media rights influence on when UT/OU could leave. Fox would lose a lot of viewers when the SEC takes the Sooners and Longhorns from the Big 12 partnership and only have the 8 schools in their contract. Fox would want try to force TX/OU to stay in 2025 to fulfill the current Big 12 contract and may not want to incentivize the PAC12 or BiG to take schools.
That is unless Fox gains the irate 8 fanbases under with PAC12 or Big 10 membership to increase those viewer ships and it makes sense financially to do it earlier.
I could also see the case where FOX could force "their" conferences to move on expansion early if TX/OU get the buyout. Especially if the ACC or AAC ESPN properties get traction on adding a Big 12 teams and increasing their CFB foot print. I don't see that as an attractive option for ISU but if I were JP I would at least threaten that it is a possibility to get a seat at the desired FOX conference table.
I factor that I hadn't considered is FOX owning of the PAC 12 and 1/2 of the Big 12's media rights influence on when UT/OU could leave. Fox would lose a lot of viewers when the SEC takes the Sooners and Longhorns from the Big 12 partnership and only have the 8 schools in their contract. Fox would want try to force TX/OU to stay in 2025 to fulfill the current Big 12 contract and may not want to incentivize the PAC12 or BiG to take schools.
That is unless Fox gains the irate 8 fanbases under with PAC12 or Big 10 membership to increase those viewer ships and it makes sense financially to do it earlier.
I could also see the case where FOX could force "their" conferences to move on expansion early if TX/OU get the buyout. Especially if the ACC or AAC ESPN properties get traction on adding a Big 12 teams and increasing their CFB foot print. I don't see that as an attractive option for ISU but if I were JP I would at least threaten that it is a possibility to get a seat at the desired FOX conference table.
Tramel's ScissorTales: Don't expect quick resolution on OU & OSU conference realignment
It's in Fox’s best interests to keep OU and Texas in the Big 12 as long as possible; Fox would be a major player in any potential Pac-12 expansion.
www.oklahoman.com
Many Big 10 fans are thinking about the old way to make money, get into large markets that have a team, and the money will continue to flow in. As long as they have that outdated belief then they will never move past that point to consider other factors that are going to be more important in the future. Therefore to many EIU fans, ISU brings nothing to the table, because there already is a team in Iowa, but USC, Washington, Oregon and maybe even Colorado bring in new markets that will force local cable companies to offer BTN at $1.00 a month, whether you watch or not.
All the reports and data suggest that plan is now changing the league itself knows it that is why they have begun pushing BTN+, streaming being the future, they want to get people locked into it now, and keep the cash cow flowing as it moves from grandma that never watches to the hardcore sports fan.
Totally has something to do with that. Here is the breakdown of audiences by time of day (eastern) that the game was shown.
To your point, USC is definitely a big brand, Oregon isn't a blue blood like USC until they win something. They're more akin to Wisconsin at the moment, which is also a big brand due to sustained success for a long time. Wisconsin, however, averages a million more per game than both USC or Oregon.
I think we're seeing a confluence of timing, a bad contract, and both teams being down. I'd expect them closer to 3m per game than 2 if they're getting 9-11 win seasons. If USC was in natty mode, they have a much higher top end than most any other school due to the LA bandwagon. Like any of the blue bloods they have a top and bottom range depending on performance, but are generally higher than the rank and file participants.
The Big Ten was in a fight with Comcast a couple years back over carriage rates for the BTN, and ultimately Comcast blinked first. The market is telling cable companies they need to save on costs as people cut the cord, the paradigm is shifting, but they know cable TV without live sports only accelerates their decline. So they pay up, try and hold on a little longer, fight another day.
Point being, if content is king, it may help the value by having more competitors willing to get in the game to buy it, but the current demand remains fairly inelastic. Their solution is to carve college football up so they can move more money where they need to by devaluing others, and pocket the difference.
Adding other players to the market might not change that dynamic. For some of these media outfits whose money comes mostly from cable subscriptions, they are in a death struggle. The more dependent on cable subscriptions that they are, the more tightly they want to cling to media rights to these games.
Last edited:
