Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)

Trice

Well-Known Member
Apr 1, 2010
7,315
12,173
113
I'm jumping back into realignment news this morning as I see a fresh wave of PR from the west coast reporters. It's been said a thousand times, but I'm still astonished to see all these reporters rush to the defense of a league its own fans barely care about when they went out of their way to bury us on three separate occasions.

I could certainly be wrong, but I see some flaws on both sides of the Big 12/Pac 10 argument.

The pro-Pac side is pulling all kinds of numbers to bolster its case, but they are imperfect analyses because it's almost impossible to compare ratings in a fair way across different networks, teams, time zones, and time slots. You can't just hold up a highly-rated Pac-after-dark game and declare it more valuable than anything the Big 12 can offer, because the Big 12 hasn't had that real estate.

Meanwhile, I see people on the Big 12 side of the argument who seem almost insanely overconfident about our chances to come out on top, as if it's a foregone conclusion. While that certainly seems possible, I think this ignores that the networks can simply engineer whatever outcome they want out of this. If they want the Pac to exist, and/or Big 12 to cease to exist - not a far-fetched idea, as we saw just a year ago - then that's likely to happen.

TLDR, as is always the case in realignment talk, is [shrug emoji].
 
Last edited:

ScottyP

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Jan 24, 2007
5,264
7,652
113
Urbandale, IA
Mandel and Wilner trying use these numbers to support keeping the PAC together is a nice gesture. If the TV networks/streaming services aren't willing to pay for a decent TV deal, their numbers don't matter.
 

20eyes

Well-Known Member
May 15, 2020
2,054
3,060
113
50

I'm curious what Stewey and Jonny are hoping to accomplish, other than driving views of their stuff. The network execs know whats up, and have the data and competent analysis. Public sentiment is going to drive realignment.
Exactly, cui bono...?

Push for an alliance vs. acquisition of the Pac by the Big 12? Protection of Wazzu & OSU?
 

JohnnyFive

Well-Known Member
Feb 25, 2012
5,159
2,522
113
These West Coasters and some of the writers that cover them are going through the stages of grief right now. Some are still in the denial stage, and the others, including Wilner and Mandel, are full on in the bargaining stage. It’s the same thing that happened to us (Big 8/12 lifers) when our century-old rivals began leaving. We get it. It sucks. Weve accepted what happened by now, and acted quickly to add four quality schools. We made the best of a sh**ty situation, but the westerners arent at this point yet.

I wont dance on any conference or school’s grave though because I know how it feels to be told constantly the school you love is not worth anything. Im a college sports fan, and what’s happening to it is disgusting and sad for everyone.
 

isucyclones2010

Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Jul 26, 2021
20
52
13
38
Oh ****. If those #s don't include that then it's absolutely a silly comparison

Mandel is using the Sports Media Watch Website, which doesn't include PACN games as I don't think they release those numbers anywhere. Mandel even goes on to say in the article that his numbers don't include PACN, Longhorn Network, or ESPN+.


So most of the worst tv inventory of the Pac 12 is being disguised and all the Pac's hired guns in the media are only reporting the data from the top half of their games and pretending like it is the average.

Here are the number of games per team being reported:
Oregon 12
Az St 11
Utah 9
Stanford 8
Washington 7
WSU 7
Ore St 6
Colorado 5
Cal 5
Arizona 4

Okie St 12
Baylor 11
WV 11
ISU 10
Tech 10
TCU 9
K-State 9
KU 7

Also, using the Sports Media Watch website, you can really see the gap in viewership between nationwide network broadcasts on ABC/CBS/Fox and those on ESPN, and even the gap between those on ESPN vs ESPNU/FS1...which the guy from Baylor Sic Em 365 highlighted what a larger percentage of Big 12 games were relegated to ESPNU/FS1.

Even look at ISU...sure we did have the fortune of having the Cy-Hawk be ESPN Gameday this year and on ABC, but we also had the Texas game put on FS1. So a game where most of the others in our conference got 3 million viewers on big Fox, we only got 900,000.

TV viewership just has so many variables, which makes it that much easier for biased huckster con artist "journalists" to spin the narrative that they are being paid to tell.
 

MJ271

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Aug 9, 2012
2,122
2,737
113
Atkins
What I am getting out of this is that the "outlet" (channel and time slot) drives 80% of the resultant viewer numbers, and the actual team is 20%.

So ESPN at 10:30pm with no competition gets 1.5M viewers. Because it's the ONLY option for the degenerate gamblers and west coast CFB fans at that time.

But FS1 at 2:30, up against ESPN, CBS, FOX, and ABC... less than 1M viewers. If you traded the teams on FS1 with the teams on ABC, how much would the resulting viewer numbers change? 20% feels about right, unless you are doing something extreme like switching Bama/TAMU with TT/KSU.

This all screams for a linear regression. Does anyone have a link to individual game viewer number data with channel, time, teams, etc?
I actually started to do this and did a linear regression on 2019 data. I can share the results later tonight when I'm home. I'd like to do it for a bunch of years, but I haven't found a good dataset to work with, even though I know others have created those datasets.

This is the place where Andy Staples got the data for his Athletic article and what I used for the 2019 data. But the annoying thing is that it requires copying and pasting or scraping (and 2021 data is in images, so it's completely manual data entry). Plus the years before 2018 or 2019 require extra cleaning because it uses varying name formats for schools (like IA State, ISU, Iowa State, Iowa St., etc.).
 

JP4CY

Lord, beer me strength.
Staff member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Dec 19, 2008
74,538
95,520
113
Testifying
It's hilarious that OU hates playing noon ET games and publicly complains about it and the P12 lovers think that 1030PM ET is a great bonus for that league.
 

Rods79

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2006
3,546
1,238
113
Des Moines
Forde with the gracious PR assist here, before linking his own SI article that completely blows Stewie out of the water. He is only corroborating the top 3: Washington, Oregon, Stanford (tied with OKST)...then everything goes by the wayside.

 

ScottyP

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Jan 24, 2007
5,264
7,652
113
Urbandale, IA
Looks like they all shared their homework assignment this weekend. Sorry, you're going to have to do it again because you all copied from each other.


These media guys are trying to prop up the PAC while trying to put the Big 12 down. Canzano, Wilner and Mandel are coming across as PAC homers right now.
 

Boxerdaddy

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2009
4,270
1,329
113
47
Beaverdale, IA
Mandel is using the Sports Media Watch Website, which doesn't include PACN games as I don't think they release those numbers anywhere. Mandel even goes on to say in the article that his numbers don't include PACN, Longhorn Network, or ESPN+.


So most of the worst tv inventory of the Pac 12 is being disguised and all the Pac's hired guns in the media are only reporting the data from the top half of their games and pretending like it is the average.

Here are the number of games per team being reported:
Oregon 12
Az St 11
Utah 9
Stanford 8
Washington 7
WSU 7
Ore St 6
Colorado 5
Cal 5
Arizona 4

Okie St 12
Baylor 11
WV 11
ISU 10
Tech 10
TCU 9
K-State 9
KU 7

Also, using the Sports Media Watch website, you can really see the gap in viewership between nationwide network broadcasts on ABC/CBS/Fox and those on ESPN, and even the gap between those on ESPN vs ESPNU/FS1...which the guy from Baylor Sic Em 365 highlighted what a larger percentage of Big 12 games were relegated to ESPNU/FS1.

Even look at ISU...sure we did have the fortune of having the Cy-Hawk be ESPN Gameday this year and on ABC, but we also had the Texas game put on FS1. So a game where most of the others in our conference got 3 million viewers on big Fox, we only got 900,000.

TV viewership just has so many variables, which makes it that much easier for biased huckster con artist "journalists" to spin the narrative that they are being paid to tell.
This is why I hope the B12 gets on CBS and NBC both. The more network slots the better.
 

Scruff

Well-Known Member
Mar 11, 2008
1,022
1,426
113
Coralville, IA
Ummm no one is talking about kansas, arizona, or duke as good options because sadly the basketball means almost nothing.
You have a B1G 10 viewpoint and clearly from that angle yes these teams bball doesn't move the needle enough. From the ACC/PAC/Big12 viewpoint that everyone else here has, bball moves the needle every so slightly for the bluebloods of basketball.
 
  • Like
Reactions: isutrevman

Trice

Well-Known Member
Apr 1, 2010
7,315
12,173
113
These media guys are trying to prop up the PAC while trying to put the Big 12 down. Canzano, Wilner and Mandel are coming across as PAC homers right now.

There's definitely been a tone change in the last 7-10 days. It's one thing to want the best outcome for the schools and region that you cover and write about scenarios that might achieve that, but it's crossed over into naked lobbying. Wilner in particular totally went off the rails for a day or two last week on Twitter.
 

isucyclones2010

Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Jul 26, 2021
20
52
13
38
This is why I hope the B12 gets on CBS and NBC both. The more network slots the better.
And if Amazon really wants to overpay, I see no reason for putting any games on cable. To hell with ESPN, and FS1 viewership is awful. If we can get teams to schedule more conference games and bye weeks in September, and let's say that we hypothetically have 16 teams each playing 9 conference games and let's say 2 home non-cons, that would be 104 games over 13 weeks, or 8 games per week. I'd say the most optimal outcome would be selling 4 to over-the-air and 4 to Amazon. Provided that we can actually Fox/CBS/NBC to buy 4 games and that Amazon really does want to overpay. That would be a pretty sweet outcome IMO.
 

2speedy1

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2014
6,634
7,487
113
Mandel is using the Sports Media Watch Website, which doesn't include PACN games as I don't think they release those numbers anywhere. Mandel even goes on to say in the article that his numbers don't include PACN, Longhorn Network, or ESPN+.


So most of the worst tv inventory of the Pac 12 is being disguised and all the Pac's hired guns in the media are only reporting the data from the top half of their games and pretending like it is the average.

Here are the number of games per team being reported:
Oregon 12
Az St 11
Utah 9
Stanford 8
Washington 7
WSU 7
Ore St 6
Colorado 5
Cal 5
Arizona 4

Okie St 12
Baylor 11
WV 11
ISU 10
Tech 10
TCU 9
K-State 9
KU 7

Also, using the Sports Media Watch website, you can really see the gap in viewership between nationwide network broadcasts on ABC/CBS/Fox and those on ESPN, and even the gap between those on ESPN vs ESPNU/FS1...which the guy from Baylor Sic Em 365 highlighted what a larger percentage of Big 12 games were relegated to ESPNU/FS1.

Even look at ISU...sure we did have the fortune of having the Cy-Hawk be ESPN Gameday this year and on ABC, but we also had the Texas game put on FS1. So a game where most of the others in our conference got 3 million viewers on big Fox, we only got 900,000.

TV viewership just has so many variables, which makes it that much easier for biased huckster con artist "journalists" to spin the narrative that they are being paid to tell.
Exactly, no one wants to look at say Iowa State games on FS1 vs Washington games on FS1. They all want to look at Iowa St games on FS1 vs Wash on ABC and say look at how many more views Wash had. Well the amount of people that have access to ABC vs FS1 is not comparable. Then they want to say Clemson had 20 games above 2 mil while ISU only had 5. But then they dont point out ISU only had 5 games on ABC or Fox where Clemson had 20.

And that Every game on ABC or Fox regardless of the team had those numbers, because of how much more access there is. Every week the major nets win out. This goes for every program and show. It is because everyone has access to them vs Cable, same with your prime time dramas.

Then they go on to take out the top teams in the Big 12. Because the are leaving. But thats not a fair comparison either, because in the ACC those are left in. Those teams would be leaving too if they could. Same with every conference. Fact is those are the top games right now. They draw the fans on both sides, not just for Texas and OU. Taking them out is an unfair disadvantage for the Big 12, and unfairly handicaps us. You have to leave them in because they are still part of the equation. But they want them out because it makes them look better.
 

Cyforce

Well-Known Member
Nov 24, 2009
17,217
13,063
113
Des Moines
I think if Mountain schools have good leadership, and if the numbers thrown around are accurate, they will be in the Big 12.

This is probably the best chance they have to ensure they don't get left out in P2 + 1 and long-term stability. It seems like from the rumors, Arizona and Colorado are the most likely to make the jump first.

Arizona
- Seems most realistic about the situation. Their 247 guy is on top of it; not sure if he has donor / athletic department connections or anything like that.

Arizona State
- AD seems foolish. Not all that confident in their decision-making. Could see them tag along though if other teams left. Fans don't seem to like the AD from what I can tell.

Colorado
- Most fans seem to be onboard with going back to the Big 12 and are realistic with the situation. Fans seem skeptical of their admin decision-making.

Utah
- Haven't looked that much, but from what I can gather they really hate BYU which leads to sort of irrational behavior. I'm not all that confident that they would be the first chess piece, but I could be wrong there.

My prediction is that sometime in August when our new commissioner takes over, that Arizona and Colorado will jump. I've also read that other things would maybe need to get sorted out beforehand (like the B1G contract or something), so maybe it could be a little longer than August.
I'd love to see Arizona, Oregon even though the Ducks could bolt and see the panic start setting in across their dead man walking league.
 

VoiceOfReason

Well-Known Member
Aug 21, 2016
474
450
63
33
I mean, that's exactly why the Big Ten landed USC and UCLA. They now can fill the 9:00 PM Central timeslot with a game, giving them another premium timeslot for ESPN/Fox/Apple/Amazon to bid on and coverage from 11:00 AM to 12:00 AM Central time every football weekend. Two teams allows them to design the schedule in such a way that they can put a game in that timeslot every weekend during conference play. It also means it would be nice if the Big Ten could add more West coast games (for things like double-headers on Friday and Saturday night and to give them more flexibility), but it isn't crucial.

The problem the Big 12/ACC are going to run into versus the Pac 12 is that the Big 12 and ACC play all their games in the same television windows as the Big Ten and SEC, so the Pac 12 is inherently going to have more value.
 

12191987

Well-Known Member
Aug 20, 2012
2,340
2,600
113
So if USC and UCLA didn't really help the P12, why did the Big 10 take them?

All of the so-called analyses proffered up thus far have have been flawed and/or based on obsolete data.

My own model properly weights attendance by percentage of stadium capacity and from the most recent season (2021), as well as the on-field results using the last season not played under the specter of realignment (2020).

It predicts neither USC nor UCLA is a reasonable addition to the Big 10. However, interestingly ISU is grossly undervalued.

I’m short, you sheeple can believe what you want…but JP is going to start cashing those fat Big 10 checks any day now. USC and UCLA are both going to be begging the MWC for a spot.
 

Latest posts

Help Support Us

Become a patron