Recently (02/27/2012), Frank the Tank did a blog that referenced a "State of the Media" slide show that the Nielsen TV ratings service released detailing viewership of sports in the US. What was obvious is that nobody comes close to the NFL.

Contained inside the report was a Nielson comparason of the major college conferences.

Here are the average football viewership totals by conference according to Nielsen:1. SEC – 4,447,000
2. Big Ten – 3,267,000
3. ACC – 2,650,000
4. Big 12 – 2,347,000
5. Pac-12 – 2,108,000
6. Big East – 1,884,000

Here are the average basketball viewership totals by conference according to Nielsen:1. Big Ten – 1,496,000
2. ACC – 1,247,000
3. SEC – 1,222,000
4. Big 12 – 1,069,000
5. Big East – 1,049,000
6. Pac-12 – 783,000


Two things stand out---One is that the Big East football comes in last, but the ratings are not significantly less than the Pac-12 and are relatively close to the Big-12 and ACC. They are actually much closer that it appears (more on that in second).

The second thing that stands out is a bit troubling. Any question that BE basketball is as valuable as BE football can now be laid to rest. The viewership is not even close. Not only that, but BE basketball trails most of the other conferences in basketball viewership.

Now here is the thing that I said I would get to later. The thing that I saw that was not noted in the Neilsen slide show or in Tanks blog, is that the Big East only has 8 football teams----but every other conference has 10-12. That makes a significant difference in the size of the fan base and the number of markets from which viewership would be derived. What happens if we divide Big East viewership by the number of teams in the league and come up with an average per team. Then we adjust the Big East on that basis to a 10, 12 and 14 team league.

When adjusted in that manner, the Big East viewership would be the following---

Big East
8 team----1,884,000
10 team------2,354,000
12 team--------2,825,000
14 team----------3,286,000

Pretty impressive. Those numbers for a 14 team league would place the New Big East behind only the Big-10 and SEC in viewership. Sounds great, but I doubt the viewership would change like that because the new teams likely have smaller fan bases and less national identity than the ones they are replacing.

Now, being a bit more conservative, lets say the new teams have only half the viewer drawing power of the 3 that are leaving the Big East. Using that idea yeilds the following viewership numbers.

Current 8-team Big East--1,884,000
Remaining 5-team Big East--1,177,500
New Big East 12--2,001,750
New Big East 14---2,237,250

That would put the New Big East football viewership smack in the same range as the ACC, Pac-12, and Big 12. Personally, I think this is a reasonable estimate of the New Big East football's drawing power. One nice bonus for the Big East, because they would have a number of less well known teams in larger markets, it very possible that there is far more room for growth in the Big East viewership than there is for conferences that have memberships that are already well known quantities among the general public. If the networks are looking at these numbers in a similar fashion, a strong contract is likely on its way. At any rate, food for thought.


If you would like to read Frank the Tanks blog (which contains the full Nielsen slide show, its available following this link)

http://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2012/0...edia-buzz/

Interesting. Thanks for the post. Hard to say how to extrapolate those numbers the most accurately, but however you slice it, it seems like good news on the FB side, especially if we don't lose anybody, and we don't have any FB teams left to lose that would kill us.

I wouldn't be too concerned about the BB numbers, since BB is a much smaller portion of the contract. I actually think losing UL and UConn, for example, would hurt much worse here, than in FB, but again, it's not what matters the most in the contract.

All CBS televised college football games
http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2011/12/...e-as-well/

All ABC nationally televised college football games
http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2011/12/...es-on-abc/

The logical fallacy here is that you assumed that adding more BE teams would simply add more viewers proportionately to the number of teams. That's not necessarily true. You also have to consider the teams leaving and the teams coming in. To say SDSU and SMU have the same impact to TV viewers as Pitt and WVU is just not taking into consideration all of the factors or even considering that the old teams may have more draw than the new teams.

I don't doubt that in the end, the BE will have more viewers than it did in 2011, but it will take time for the markets, school size, and football ability to all come up to speed. There is no doubt that the BE has a ton of potential, but they will have to have some of that potential realized before they can get a contract that will approach the Big 4.

(05-28-2012 11:07 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  The logical fallacy here is that you assumed that adding more BE teams would simply add more viewers proportionately to the number of teams. That's not necessarily true. You also have to consider the teams leaving and the teams coming in. To say SDSU and SMU have the same impact to TV viewers as Pitt and WVU is just not taking into consideration all of the factors or even considering that the old teams may have more draw than the new teams.

I don't doubt that in the end, the BE will have more viewers than it did in 2011, but it will take time for the markets, school size, and football ability to all come up to speed. There is no doubt that the BE has a ton of potential, but they will have to have some of that potential realized before they can get a contract that will approach the Big 4.

I actually agreee. In my last set of estimated numbers the new teams are valued at only half the viewers of the exiting teams. Those are the numbers I think are most reasonable.

Yeah, we can argue this six ways to Sunday, but the raw numbers are actually encouraging.

The fact that the BE total market size is twice anybody else, doesn't hurt, either. Yeah, yeah, that ain't actual viewers, but it matters in terms of potential upside, and it matters when cable companies calculate fees by the number of cable users, not viewers. And the fact that our FB product is spread over 4 time zones helps, too.

(05-28-2012 11:07 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  The logical fallacy here is that you assumed that adding more BE teams would simply add more viewers proportionately to the number of teams. That's not necessarily true. You also have to consider the teams leaving and the teams coming in. To say SDSU and SMU have the same impact to TV viewers as Pitt and WVU is just not taking into consideration all of the factors or even considering that the old teams may have more draw than the new teams.

I don't doubt that in the end, the BE will have more viewers than it did in 2011, but it will take time for the markets, school size, and football ability to all come up to speed. There is no doubt that the BE has a ton of potential, but they will have to have some of that potential realized before they can get a contract that will approach the Big 4.

Times change, but when the Big 8 and SWC were talking over a shared contract, one of the Big 8 guys asked the network guy how much they'd get for 12 teams instead of 16? "Same price" How much for just the Big 8 plus Texas and A&M? "Same price."

(05-28-2012 11:06 AM)ollin Wrote:  All CBS televised college football games
http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2011/12/...e-as-well/

All ABC nationally televised college football games
http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2011/12/...es-on-abc/

Theres some interesting numbers there. The Air Force numbers are surprising. Those numbers seem to run counter to conventional wisdom around here. I'd like to see a larger sample of games, but based on those numbers, Air Force may not be the great grab people are making it out to be.

(05-28-2012 11:22 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-28-2012 11:07 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  The logical fallacy here is that you assumed that adding more BE teams would simply add more viewers proportionately to the number of teams. That's not necessarily true. You also have to consider the teams leaving and the teams coming in. To say SDSU and SMU have the same impact to TV viewers as Pitt and WVU is just not taking into consideration all of the factors or even considering that the old teams may have more draw than the new teams.

I don't doubt that in the end, the BE will have more viewers than it did in 2011, but it will take time for the markets, school size, and football ability to all come up to speed. There is no doubt that the BE has a ton of potential, but they will have to have some of that potential realized before they can get a contract that will approach the Big 4.

Times change, but when the Big 8 and SWC were talking over a shared contract, one of the Big 8 guys asked the network guy how much they'd get for 12 teams instead of 16? "Same price" How much for just the Big 8 plus Texas and A&M? "Same price."

Thats close, but that wasnt the question asked. The question asked was 'how much with would the Big-8 be worth if they just added Texas'. The network exec gave a price. Then they asked the exec --how much if we added all 8 SWC teams---the exec said "same price". It was 1994 and the only thing ABC cared about was getting Texas. Even A&M was an add-on. Texas was the prize.

The other teams had little value because in 1994 the networks still only had slots for a handfull of games a week. Now, with all the sports channels and media competition, that media value calculus for additional inventory is dramatically different.

(05-28-2012 11:19 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Yeah, we can argue this six ways to Sunday, but the raw numbers are actually encouraging.

The fact that the BE total market size is twice anybody else, doesn't hurt, either. Yeah, yeah, that ain't actual viewers, but it matters in terms of potential upside, and it matters when cable companies calculate fees by the number of cable users, not viewers. And the fact that our FB product is spread over 4 time zones helps, too.

The fact that both Pac-12 and B12 got much better media deals than the Acc is also telling. This is why that 60m per year estimate from McMurphy is ridiculous. If anything, Be should shoot for Pac-12 type of number for the next media deal. BE has slightly less in football but much better numbers in basketball. The new teams will bring something in potential new markets and more viewers.

(05-28-2012 11:31 AM)attackfrog Wrote:  Thats close, but that wasnt the question asked. The question asked was 'how much with would the Big-8 be worth if they just added Texas'. The network exec gave a price. Then they asked the exec --how much if we added all 8 SWC teams---the exec said "same price". It was 1994 and the only thing ABC cared about was getting Texas. Even A&M was an add-on. Texas was the prize.

I think this is a major point that is often missed around here: Networks want the Elite, Tent-Pole teams. They do not sign the SEC for Vanderbilt and Mississippi State or the Big 12 for Iowa State. They want the elite teams, so it is dangerous to look at average TV ratings across conferences, and thus they are willing to sign Vandy, Northwestern, Mississippi State, and other "baggage" teams to get these elite teams.

Unfortunately, the Big East does not have any such teams.

(05-28-2012 12:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-28-2012 11:31 AM)attackfrog Wrote:  Thats close, but that wasnt the question asked. The question asked was 'how much with would the Big-8 be worth if they just added Texas'. The network exec gave a price. Then they asked the exec --how much if we added all 8 SWC teams---the exec said "same price". It was 1994 and the only thing ABC cared about was getting Texas. Even A&M was an add-on. Texas was the prize.

I think this is a major point that is often missed around here: Networks want the Elite, Tent-Pole teams. They do not sign the SEC for Vanderbilt and Mississippi State or the Big 12 for Iowa State. They want the elite teams, so it is dangerous to look at average TV ratings across conferences, and thus they are willing to sign Vandy, Northwestern, Mississippi State, and other "baggage" teams to get these elite teams.

Unfortunately, the Big East does not have any such teams.

Come on, quo. This is NOT a major point that is missed around here. We know this already, b/c you keep posting it everywhere.

And we know our numbers don't match up with the SEC, either. We know we're not getting deals like that.

We're just trying to discuss what we might get, low though it will be, compared to better FB conferences.

(05-28-2012 12:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-28-2012 11:31 AM)attackfrog Wrote:  Thats close, but that wasnt the question asked. The question asked was 'how much with would the Big-8 be worth if they just added Texas'. The network exec gave a price. Then they asked the exec --how much if we added all 8 SWC teams---the exec said "same price". It was 1994 and the only thing ABC cared about was getting Texas. Even A&M was an add-on. Texas was the prize.

I think this is a major point that is often missed around here: Networks want the Elite, Tent-Pole teams. They do not sign the SEC for Vanderbilt and Mississippi State or the Big 12 for Iowa State. They want the elite teams, so it is dangerous to look at average TV ratings across conferences, and thus they are willing to sign Vandy, Northwestern, Mississippi State, and other "baggage" teams to get these elite teams.

Unfortunately, the Big East does not have any such teams.

Incorrect. The networks want viewers. The tent pole schools are merely a means to an end. The networks also like TV stars. But reality programming has no stars, yet it is popular with networks because it brings comparable or better viewership than scripted TV, but often at a lower production price.

The question is, can the Big East bring viewers without a tent-pole program. The reality is, it appears it can. It hasnt truely had a tent-pole program since Miami and Virginia Tech left. Despite this, it has a viewership that is close to other conferences while having fewer members. I would think expanding the size of the league and the footprint of the league would only increase the number of viewers.

I expect that the Big East will be somewhat discounted due to it's laack of a tent pole teams. They will likely fall short of the top tier pay checks, but could very well match the ACC's numbers if for no other reason than the ACC appears to be underpaid.

Actually, when you look at the raw numbers the BE doesn't look bad at all considering the so-called Tent-Pole teams are put on national tv at least 4 times per year.

(05-28-2012 12:16 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(05-28-2012 12:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-28-2012 11:31 AM)attackfrog Wrote:  Thats close, but that wasnt the question asked. The question asked was 'how much with would the Big-8 be worth if they just added Texas'. The network exec gave a price. Then they asked the exec --how much if we added all 8 SWC teams---the exec said "same price". It was 1994 and the only thing ABC cared about was getting Texas. Even A&M was an add-on. Texas was the prize.

I think this is a major point that is often missed around here: Networks want the Elite, Tent-Pole teams. They do not sign the SEC for Vanderbilt and Mississippi State or the Big 12 for Iowa State. They want the elite teams, so it is dangerous to look at average TV ratings across conferences, and thus they are willing to sign Vandy, Northwestern, Mississippi State, and other "baggage" teams to get these elite teams.

Unfortunately, the Big East does not have any such teams.

Come on, quo. This is NOT a major point that is missed around here. We know this already, b/c you keep posting it everywhere.

And we know our numbers don't match up with the SEC, either. We know we're not getting deals like that.

We're just trying to discuss what we might get, low though it will be, compared to better FB conferences.

That's what you appeared to be discussing, but others, like SF Husky, seemed to not have in mind the point i made, so i believe it was worth making.

Another common belief around here that i think bears scrutiny is the enthusiasm for service academies. God bless them, but for the whole 40 years I've been watching college football, the service academies have been viewed by the national football culture as strictly low-end cannon-fodder, and if any big-time team scheduled them, it has always been viewed as a kind of charity work, throwing a bone to our men in uniform, so to speak. But around here, the service academies are viewed as big-time prizes, valuable additions. It's a real head-scratcher.

(05-28-2012 12:20 PM)attackfrog Wrote:  

(05-28-2012 12:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-28-2012 11:31 AM)attackfrog Wrote:  Thats close, but that wasnt the question asked. The question asked was 'how much with would the Big-8 be worth if they just added Texas'. The network exec gave a price. Then they asked the exec --how much if we added all 8 SWC teams---the exec said "same price". It was 1994 and the only thing ABC cared about was getting Texas. Even A&M was an add-on. Texas was the prize.

I think this is a major point that is often missed around here: Networks want the Elite, Tent-Pole teams. They do not sign the SEC for Vanderbilt and Mississippi State or the Big 12 for Iowa State. They want the elite teams, so it is dangerous to look at average TV ratings across conferences, and thus they are willing to sign Vandy, Northwestern, Mississippi State, and other "baggage" teams to get these elite teams.

Unfortunately, the Big East does not have any such teams.

Incorrect. The networks want viewers. Reality programming has no stars, but is popular with networks because it brings comparable or better viewership than scripted TV, but often at a lower production price.

The question is, can the Big East bring viewers without a tent-pole program. The reality is, it appears it can. It hasnt truely had a tent-pole program since Miami and Virginia Tech left. Despite this, it has a viewership that is close to other conferences while having fewer members. Expanding the size of the league and the footprint of the league can only increase the number of viewers.

While not huge tent poles, both WVU and Pitt are nationally known names, as is Syracuse.

Only nationally known name in nBE is Boise.

UConn-Rutgers, Houston-UCF, Memphis-USF have ZERO national appeal.
Boise will, at least for the first few years have a lot of interest in seeing how well they do.

(05-28-2012 12:27 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(05-28-2012 12:20 PM)attackfrog Wrote:  

(05-28-2012 12:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-28-2012 11:31 AM)attackfrog Wrote:  Thats close, but that wasnt the question asked. The question asked was 'how much with would the Big-8 be worth if they just added Texas'. The network exec gave a price. Then they asked the exec --how much if we added all 8 SWC teams---the exec said "same price". It was 1994 and the only thing ABC cared about was getting Texas. Even A&M was an add-on. Texas was the prize.

I think this is a major point that is often missed around here: Networks want the Elite, Tent-Pole teams. They do not sign the SEC for Vanderbilt and Mississippi State or the Big 12 for Iowa State. They want the elite teams, so it is dangerous to look at average TV ratings across conferences, and thus they are willing to sign Vandy, Northwestern, Mississippi State, and other "baggage" teams to get these elite teams.

Unfortunately, the Big East does not have any such teams.

Incorrect. The networks want viewers. Reality programming has no stars, but is popular with networks because it brings comparable or better viewership than scripted TV, but often at a lower production price.

The question is, can the Big East bring viewers without a tent-pole program. The reality is, it appears it can. It hasnt truely had a tent-pole program since Miami and Virginia Tech left. Despite this, it has a viewership that is close to other conferences while having fewer members. Expanding the size of the league and the footprint of the league can only increase the number of viewers.

While not huge tent poles, both WVU and Pitt are nationally known names, as is Syracuse.

Only nationally known name in nBE is Boise.

UConn-Rutgers, Houston-UCF, Memphis-USF have ZERO national appeal.
Boise will, at least for the first few years have a lot of interest in seeing how well they do.

Hence, the example of the nBE teams only having 50% of the draw of the schools leaving.

(05-28-2012 12:20 PM)attackfrog Wrote:  Incorrect. The networks want viewers. Reality programming has no stars, but is popular with networks because it brings comparable or better viewership than scripted TV, but often at a lower production price.

Seems like all the evidence suggests that the networks want the elite teams, that's why the conferences with the elite teams get the biggest deals and those without them do not.

I bet it is because there is serious upside potential for showing those "big games" that elite teams provide. E.g., ABC can probably really jack up the ad rates for Ohio State-Michigan or Texas-Oklahoma, and that makes a big difference in their revenues. So even if average ratings over 10 games between two conferences are similar, if one conference can offer a couple "blockbuster" games while another can't, then the first conference will get a much bigger TV deal.

Kind of like networks in the old days being willing to sign a big contract with the NFL because of the chance to show the Super Bowl. The broadcast rights for the SB were about 25% of the whole contract, even though it was just one game.

Big East doesn't have those kinds of games ...

(05-28-2012 12:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-28-2012 12:16 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(05-28-2012 12:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-28-2012 11:31 AM)attackfrog Wrote:  Thats close, but that wasnt the question asked. The question asked was 'how much with would the Big-8 be worth if they just added Texas'. The network exec gave a price. Then they asked the exec --how much if we added all 8 SWC teams---the exec said "same price". It was 1994 and the only thing ABC cared about was getting Texas. Even A&M was an add-on. Texas was the prize.

I think this is a major point that is often missed around here: Networks want the Elite, Tent-Pole teams. They do not sign the SEC for Vanderbilt and Mississippi State or the Big 12 for Iowa State. They want the elite teams, so it is dangerous to look at average TV ratings across conferences, and thus they are willing to sign Vandy, Northwestern, Mississippi State, and other "baggage" teams to get these elite teams.

Unfortunately, the Big East does not have any such teams.

Come on, quo. This is NOT a major point that is missed around here. We know this already, b/c you keep posting it everywhere.

And we know our numbers don't match up with the SEC, either. We know we're not getting deals like that.

We're just trying to discuss what we might get, low though it will be, compared to better FB conferences.

That's what you appeared to be discussing, but others, like SF Husky, seemed to not have in mind the point i made, so i believe it was worth making.

Another common belief around here that i think bears scrutiny is the enthusiasm for service academies. God bless them, but for the whole 40 years I've been watching college football, the service academies have been viewed by the national football culture as strictly low-end cannon-fodder, and if any big-time team scheduled them, it has always been viewed as a kind of charity work, throwing a bone to our men in uniform, so to speak. But around here, the service academies are viewed as big-time prizes, valuable additions. It's a real head-scratcher.

It's not a head scratcher at all. The service academies have a lot of viewers; that is all the networks care about. Nothing mysterious about it...and thanks for making the point that totally shoots down your own argument.

I was shocked looking at the numbers...

both in that I was shocked how well football actually did vs some of the others and also shocked at how poorly basketball did vs some of the others.