(02-17-2016 09:45 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-16-2016 10:23 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-16-2016 09:28 PM)goofus Wrote:  While all those fancy graphics are very colorful, the data presented does not make much sense. Since they don't do a good job of spelling out what is being measured and how it was measured, it makes all the data seem inconsistent and much like gibberish.

The Big ten had an average viewership of 8.5M ? What does that even mean? It can't possibly mean average of all games they had on tv. Maybe it means total viewership for all games during a week, averaged for all weeks. But they don't really spell it out.

That whole article is badly written dressed up with fancy graphics.

Yeh, I don't buy it. Notre Dame is lower than the ACC and Big 12 averages? That's a pretty hard sell. And Big 10 being first isn't consistent with the ratings I saw this season. Is it just talking about bowl viewership? That maybe I could believe.

It's actually very consistent and it has nothing to do with the bowls. These are numbers that are DIRECT from Nielsen, so it's also not the product of a "biased" Big Ten blogger (regardless of the fact that he posted them).

If you don't want to believe the aggregate numbers, look at Sports Media Watch complete listing of nationally televised college football TV ratings from this past season:

http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-...v-ratings/

The Big Ten had 6 conference games that got over a 4.0 rating. It also had 3 non-conference games over a 4.0 rating. There were also 2 other Big Ten conference games that got just under that number at a 3.9 rating.

The only other conference that was comparable was the SEC, which also had 6 conference games that got over a 4.0 rating. It also had 1 non-conference game (the Wisconsin-Alabama Big Ten-SEC matchup) with over a 4.0.

None of the other conferences were even close. For games over 4.0, the ACC had 2 conference games and 2 non-conference games (against Ohio State/Big Ten and Notre Dame). Notre Dame had 2 games (against Clemson and Pac-12/Stanford). The Pac-12 had zero conference games and 2 non-conference games (against Michigan State/Big Ten and Notre Dame). The Big 12 technically had 1 conference game with over a 4.0, but it was actually a split ABC window with the Big Ten where there the Big Ten game actually was in most of the country (so the Big 12 got the benefit of a Big Ten game propping its stat here).

So, of the 4 of the 10 conference game windows with a 4.0 or higher rating were Big Ten games and 3 of the 5 non-conference games that achieved that level involved Big Ten teams. (The other 2 non-conference games involved Notre Dame playing top 10 teams.) We're not even counting the 2 games that were right under at 3.9, which were the 2 highest-rated games outside of that group.

The Nielsen figures posted are right in line with this data - the Big Ten and SEC are substantially ahead of everyone else with a very clear line of demarcation after those two leagues. This has been the case EVERY single year that Nielsen has released this report. I have a lot of critiques of how the Big Ten is run at times, but it is every bit as much of a TV monster as the SEC when it comes to college football. I know a lot of people don't want to believe it because they don't want to believe that members of their own conferences would jump to the Big Ten ASAP if they were invited and/or don't want to believe that the Big Ten is going to break all records with its new TV contracts and/or want to believe that Big Ten expansion didn't work. The data has been completely clear and consistent that all of those people are wrong and in denial about the Big Ten's power compared to everyone outside of the SEC (and this is not just an outlier season - this data has been consistent for YEARS).

EDIT: I missed the Stanford-ND game as also getting over 4.0, so I corrected the numbers accordingly.

Out of 13 Saturdays, the top SEC game beat the top Big 10 game 8 times and one time the top game for both conferences was against each other. So that is 8-4-1. And sometimes the SEC game was way ahead of anybody else.

In reality, the last few years looks much more like 1. SEC 2. Everybody else. Big 10 was probably always #2, but way behind #1 and not far ahead of everyone else.

I only saw 7 non-bowl games all season over the 8 million average both the SEC and Big 10 had per that report. And Notre Dame's relative position leaves serious doubts about the validity of the data.

(02-17-2016 10:08 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 09:45 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-16-2016 10:23 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-16-2016 09:28 PM)goofus Wrote:  While all those fancy graphics are very colorful, the data presented does not make much sense. Since they don't do a good job of spelling out what is being measured and how it was measured, it makes all the data seem inconsistent and much like gibberish.

The Big ten had an average viewership of 8.5M ? What does that even mean? It can't possibly mean average of all games they had on tv. Maybe it means total viewership for all games during a week, averaged for all weeks. But they don't really spell it out.

That whole article is badly written dressed up with fancy graphics.

Yeh, I don't buy it. Notre Dame is lower than the ACC and Big 12 averages? That's a pretty hard sell. And Big 10 being first isn't consistent with the ratings I saw this season. Is it just talking about bowl viewership? That maybe I could believe.

It's actually very consistent and it has nothing to do with the bowls. These are numbers that are DIRECT from Nielsen, so it's also not the product of a "biased" Big Ten blogger (regardless of the fact that he posted them).

If you don't want to believe the aggregate numbers, look at Sports Media Watch complete listing of nationally televised college football TV ratings from this past season:

http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-...v-ratings/

The Big Ten had 6 conference games that got over a 4.0 rating. It also had 3 non-conference games over a 4.0 rating. There were also 2 other Big Ten conference games that got just under that number at a 3.9 rating.

The only other conference that was comparable was the SEC, which also had 6 conference games that got over a 4.0 rating. It also had 1 non-conference game (the Wisconsin-Alabama Big Ten-SEC matchup) with over a 4.0.

None of the other conferences were even close. For games over 4.0, the ACC had 2 conference games and 2 non-conference games (against Ohio State/Big Ten and Notre Dame). Notre Dame had 2 games (against Clemson and Pac-12/Stanford). The Pac-12 had zero conference games and 2 non-conference games (against Michigan State/Big Ten and Notre Dame). The Big 12 technically had 1 conference game with over a 4.0, but it was actually a split ABC window with the Big Ten where there the Big Ten game actually was in most of the country (so the Big 12 got the benefit of a Big Ten game propping its stat here).

So, of the 4 of the 10 conference game windows with a 4.0 or higher rating were Big Ten games and 3 of the 5 non-conference games that achieved that level involved Big Ten teams. (The other 2 non-conference games involved Notre Dame playing top 10 teams.) We're not even counting the 2 games that were right under at 3.9, which were the 2 highest-rated games outside of that group.

The Nielsen figures posted are right in line with this data - the Big Ten and SEC are substantially ahead of everyone else with a very clear line of demarcation after those two leagues. This has been the case EVERY single year that Nielsen has released this report. I have a lot of critiques of how the Big Ten is run at times, but it is every bit as much of a TV monster as the SEC when it comes to college football. I know a lot of people don't want to believe it because they don't want to believe that members of their own conferences would jump to the Big Ten ASAP if they were invited and/or don't want to believe that the Big Ten is going to break all records with its new TV contracts and/or want to believe that Big Ten expansion didn't work. The data has been completely clear and consistent that all of those people are wrong and in denial about the Big Ten's power compared to everyone outside of the SEC (and this is not just an outlier season - this data has been consistent for YEARS).

EDIT: I missed the Stanford-ND game as also getting over 4.0, so I corrected the numbers accordingly.

Out of 13 Saturdays, the top SEC game beat the top Big 10 game 8 times and one time the top game for both conferences was against each other. So that is 8-4-1. And sometimes the SEC game was way ahead of anybody else.

In reality, the last few years looks much more like 1. SEC 2. Everybody else. Big 10 was probably always #2, but way behind #1 and not far ahead of everyone else.

I only saw 7 non-bowl games all season over the 8 million average both the SEC and Big 10 had per that report. And Notre Dame's relative position leaves serious doubts about the validity of the data.

I've seen you argue this before and it's just not true. The Big Ten HAS been far above everyone else other than the SEC. The Big Ten has not been "probably always #2" - they have ALWAYS been #1 or #2 in this Nielsen report. I think the ACC got within striking distance of the SEC and Big Ten a couple of years ago with #1 Florida State driving their ratings, but that was the only instance where there wasn't a very clear distance between the SEC/Big Ten and everyone else. Non-SEC college football fans seem to want to discount the success of the Big Ten down a notch and then overrate the successes of their own conferences up a notch, which then makes it seem as though the gap isn't large in their own minds, even though the reality is that the Big Ten is MUCH more powerful by comparison. It's not an accident that the Big Ten has the largest TV contracts. It's also not an accident that the Big Ten has been the predator in realignment in a way that the Big 12 and ACC could never be. This doesn't even count the Big Ten Network - these are pure national interest numbers. I'm not saying this as a Big Ten guy - you'll see it when ESPN and Fox (even with the specter of continued cord cutting) still break out their checkbooks because the league provides such critical and high-rated content.

Notre Dame is at somewhat of a disadvantage in these aggregate ratings since all of their games (including those against the MAC-types) are nationally televised on a major Nielsen-rated network. It would be like if you had to count all of Alabama's games against Sun Belt teams or all of Ohio State's games against MAC teams - those games are on conference networks, whereas the ND matchups are still on NBC/ABC/ESPN. Also, 2 ND opponents that would normally draw great ratings (Texas and USC) had subpar seasons, while ND is in its cycle of not having Michigan on the schedule (which is a game that would have been a monster if it had been played this year).

(02-17-2016 10:25 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 10:08 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 09:45 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-16-2016 10:23 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-16-2016 09:28 PM)goofus Wrote:  While all those fancy graphics are very colorful, the data presented does not make much sense. Since they don't do a good job of spelling out what is being measured and how it was measured, it makes all the data seem inconsistent and much like gibberish.

The Big ten had an average viewership of 8.5M ? What does that even mean? It can't possibly mean average of all games they had on tv. Maybe it means total viewership for all games during a week, averaged for all weeks. But they don't really spell it out.

That whole article is badly written dressed up with fancy graphics.

Yeh, I don't buy it. Notre Dame is lower than the ACC and Big 12 averages? That's a pretty hard sell. And Big 10 being first isn't consistent with the ratings I saw this season. Is it just talking about bowl viewership? That maybe I could believe.

It's actually very consistent and it has nothing to do with the bowls. These are numbers that are DIRECT from Nielsen, so it's also not the product of a "biased" Big Ten blogger (regardless of the fact that he posted them).

If you don't want to believe the aggregate numbers, look at Sports Media Watch complete listing of nationally televised college football TV ratings from this past season:

http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-...v-ratings/

The Big Ten had 6 conference games that got over a 4.0 rating. It also had 3 non-conference games over a 4.0 rating. There were also 2 other Big Ten conference games that got just under that number at a 3.9 rating.

The only other conference that was comparable was the SEC, which also had 6 conference games that got over a 4.0 rating. It also had 1 non-conference game (the Wisconsin-Alabama Big Ten-SEC matchup) with over a 4.0.

None of the other conferences were even close. For games over 4.0, the ACC had 2 conference games and 2 non-conference games (against Ohio State/Big Ten and Notre Dame). Notre Dame had 2 games (against Clemson and Pac-12/Stanford). The Pac-12 had zero conference games and 2 non-conference games (against Michigan State/Big Ten and Notre Dame). The Big 12 technically had 1 conference game with over a 4.0, but it was actually a split ABC window with the Big Ten where there the Big Ten game actually was in most of the country (so the Big 12 got the benefit of a Big Ten game propping its stat here).

So, of the 4 of the 10 conference game windows with a 4.0 or higher rating were Big Ten games and 3 of the 5 non-conference games that achieved that level involved Big Ten teams. (The other 2 non-conference games involved Notre Dame playing top 10 teams.) We're not even counting the 2 games that were right under at 3.9, which were the 2 highest-rated games outside of that group.

The Nielsen figures posted are right in line with this data - the Big Ten and SEC are substantially ahead of everyone else with a very clear line of demarcation after those two leagues. This has been the case EVERY single year that Nielsen has released this report. I have a lot of critiques of how the Big Ten is run at times, but it is every bit as much of a TV monster as the SEC when it comes to college football. I know a lot of people don't want to believe it because they don't want to believe that members of their own conferences would jump to the Big Ten ASAP if they were invited and/or don't want to believe that the Big Ten is going to break all records with its new TV contracts and/or want to believe that Big Ten expansion didn't work. The data has been completely clear and consistent that all of those people are wrong and in denial about the Big Ten's power compared to everyone outside of the SEC (and this is not just an outlier season - this data has been consistent for YEARS).

EDIT: I missed the Stanford-ND game as also getting over 4.0, so I corrected the numbers accordingly.

Out of 13 Saturdays, the top SEC game beat the top Big 10 game 8 times and one time the top game for both conferences was against each other. So that is 8-4-1. And sometimes the SEC game was way ahead of anybody else.

In reality, the last few years looks much more like 1. SEC 2. Everybody else. Big 10 was probably always #2, but way behind #1 and not far ahead of everyone else.

I only saw 7 non-bowl games all season over the 8 million average both the SEC and Big 10 had per that report. And Notre Dame's relative position leaves serious doubts about the validity of the data.

I've seen you argue this before and it's just not true. The Big Ten HAS been far above everyone else other than the SEC. The Big Ten has not been "probably always #2" - they have ALWAYS been #1 or #2 in this Nielsen report. I think the ACC got within striking distance of the SEC and Big Ten a couple of years ago with #1 Florida State driving their ratings, but that was the only instance where there wasn't a very clear distance between the SEC/Big Ten and everyone else. Non-SEC college football fans seem to want to discount the success of the Big Ten down a notch and then overrate the successes of their own conferences up a notch, which then makes it seem as though the gap isn't large in their own minds, even though the reality is that the Big Ten is MUCH more powerful by comparison. It's not an accident that the Big Ten has the largest TV contracts. It's also not an accident that the Big Ten has been the predator in realignment in a way that the Big 12 and ACC could never be. This doesn't even count the Big Ten Network - these are pure national interest numbers. I'm not saying this as a Big Ten guy - you'll see it when ESPN and Fox (even with the specter of continued cord cutting) still break out their checkbooks because the league provides such critical and high-rated content.

Notre Dame is at somewhat of a disadvantage in these aggregate ratings since all of their games (including those against the MAC-types) are nationally televised on a major Nielsen-rated network. It would be like if you had to count all of Alabama's games against Sun Belt teams or all of Ohio State's games against MAC teams - those games are on conference networks, whereas the ND matchups are still on NBC/ABC/ESPN. Also, 2 ND opponents that would normally draw great ratings (Texas and USC) had subpar seasons, while ND is in its cycle of not having Michigan on the schedule (which is a game that would have been a monster if it had been played this year).

The Big 12 games aren't on conference networks. All but one for every team is national. I don't believe the average Big 12 game was higher than the average ND game and I sure don't see it in those SMW numbers. There's simply something questionable about those numbers. Its not clear how they are bringing them together and they don't pass the smell test.

(02-17-2016 10:25 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 10:08 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 09:45 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-16-2016 10:23 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-16-2016 09:28 PM)goofus Wrote:  While all those fancy graphics are very colorful, the data presented does not make much sense. Since they don't do a good job of spelling out what is being measured and how it was measured, it makes all the data seem inconsistent and much like gibberish.

The Big ten had an average viewership of 8.5M ? What does that even mean? It can't possibly mean average of all games they had on tv. Maybe it means total viewership for all games during a week, averaged for all weeks. But they don't really spell it out.

That whole article is badly written dressed up with fancy graphics.

Yeh, I don't buy it. Notre Dame is lower than the ACC and Big 12 averages? That's a pretty hard sell. And Big 10 being first isn't consistent with the ratings I saw this season. Is it just talking about bowl viewership? That maybe I could believe.

It's actually very consistent and it has nothing to do with the bowls. These are numbers that are DIRECT from Nielsen, so it's also not the product of a "biased" Big Ten blogger (regardless of the fact that he posted them).

If you don't want to believe the aggregate numbers, look at Sports Media Watch complete listing of nationally televised college football TV ratings from this past season:

http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-...v-ratings/

The Big Ten had 6 conference games that got over a 4.0 rating. It also had 3 non-conference games over a 4.0 rating. There were also 2 other Big Ten conference games that got just under that number at a 3.9 rating.

The only other conference that was comparable was the SEC, which also had 6 conference games that got over a 4.0 rating. It also had 1 non-conference game (the Wisconsin-Alabama Big Ten-SEC matchup) with over a 4.0.

None of the other conferences were even close. For games over 4.0, the ACC had 2 conference games and 2 non-conference games (against Ohio State/Big Ten and Notre Dame). Notre Dame had 2 games (against Clemson and Pac-12/Stanford). The Pac-12 had zero conference games and 2 non-conference games (against Michigan State/Big Ten and Notre Dame). The Big 12 technically had 1 conference game with over a 4.0, but it was actually a split ABC window with the Big Ten where there the Big Ten game actually was in most of the country (so the Big 12 got the benefit of a Big Ten game propping its stat here).

So, of the 4 of the 10 conference game windows with a 4.0 or higher rating were Big Ten games and 3 of the 5 non-conference games that achieved that level involved Big Ten teams. (The other 2 non-conference games involved Notre Dame playing top 10 teams.) We're not even counting the 2 games that were right under at 3.9, which were the 2 highest-rated games outside of that group.

The Nielsen figures posted are right in line with this data - the Big Ten and SEC are substantially ahead of everyone else with a very clear line of demarcation after those two leagues. This has been the case EVERY single year that Nielsen has released this report. I have a lot of critiques of how the Big Ten is run at times, but it is every bit as much of a TV monster as the SEC when it comes to college football. I know a lot of people don't want to believe it because they don't want to believe that members of their own conferences would jump to the Big Ten ASAP if they were invited and/or don't want to believe that the Big Ten is going to break all records with its new TV contracts and/or want to believe that Big Ten expansion didn't work. The data has been completely clear and consistent that all of those people are wrong and in denial about the Big Ten's power compared to everyone outside of the SEC (and this is not just an outlier season - this data has been consistent for YEARS).

EDIT: I missed the Stanford-ND game as also getting over 4.0, so I corrected the numbers accordingly.

Out of 13 Saturdays, the top SEC game beat the top Big 10 game 8 times and one time the top game for both conferences was against each other. So that is 8-4-1. And sometimes the SEC game was way ahead of anybody else.

In reality, the last few years looks much more like 1. SEC 2. Everybody else. Big 10 was probably always #2, but way behind #1 and not far ahead of everyone else.

I only saw 7 non-bowl games all season over the 8 million average both the SEC and Big 10 had per that report. And Notre Dame's relative position leaves serious doubts about the validity of the data.

I've seen you argue this before and it's just not true. The Big Ten HAS been far above everyone else other than the SEC. The Big Ten has not been "probably always #2" - they have ALWAYS been #1 or #2 in this Nielsen report. I think the ACC got within striking distance of the SEC and Big Ten a couple of years ago with #1 Florida State driving their ratings, but that was the only instance where there wasn't a very clear distance between the SEC/Big Ten and everyone else. Non-SEC college football fans seem to want to discount the success of the Big Ten down a notch and then overrate the successes of their own conferences up a notch, which then makes it seem as though the gap isn't large in their own minds, even though the reality is that the Big Ten is MUCH more powerful by comparison. It's not an accident that the Big Ten has the largest TV contracts. It's also not an accident that the Big Ten has been the predator in realignment in a way that the Big 12 and ACC could never be. This doesn't even count the Big Ten Network - these are pure national interest numbers. I'm not saying this as a Big Ten guy - you'll see it when ESPN and Fox (even with the specter of continued cord cutting) still break out their checkbooks because the league provides such critical and high-rated content.

Notre Dame is at somewhat of a disadvantage in these aggregate ratings since all of their games (including those against the MAC-types) are nationally televised on a major Nielsen-rated network. It would be like if you had to count all of Alabama's games against Sun Belt teams or all of Ohio State's games against MAC teams - those games are on conference networks, whereas the ND matchups are still on NBC/ABC/ESPN. Also, 2 ND opponents that would normally draw great ratings (Texas and USC) had subpar seasons, while ND is in its cycle of not having Michigan on the schedule (which is a game that would have been a monster if it had been played this year).

Frank, pot calling the kettle black? Its your own homerism that won't let you question obviously fishy numbers.

While ND's 4.8 million may be reasonable, the Big 12 had 5 games ALL season higher than their supposed average of 5.0-two of those the Clemson-OU playoff game and the TCU-Oregon bowl game. The only others over were Baylor/TCU and Baylor/OU barely over and Baylor/Tech (which was a split broadcast with Ohio St./Indiana).

These numbers just don't make sense as an average rating. They are clearly measuring something else, but they don't explain what it is they are measuring.

(02-16-2016 09:28 PM)goofus Wrote:  While all those fancy graphics are very colorful, the data presented does not make much sense. Since they don't do a good job of spelling out what is being measured and how it was measured, it makes all the data seem inconsistent and much like gibberish.

The Big ten had an average viewership of 8.5M ? What does that even mean? It can't possibly mean average of all games they had on tv. Maybe it means total viewership for all games during a week, averaged for all weeks. But they don't really spell it out.

That whole article is badly written dressed up with fancy graphics.

Nielsen says it's the "Average Audience (P2+Live+SD US AA Proj) across the Top Ten games involving specified conference/team"

So the average of the best 10 games from, what, over 100 Big Ten games, was 8.5 million viewers... while the average of the 10 best Notre Dame games was only 4.8 M. THAT makes sense!

(02-17-2016 01:45 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(02-16-2016 09:28 PM)goofus Wrote:  While all those fancy graphics are very colorful, the data presented does not make much sense. Since they don't do a good job of spelling out what is being measured and how it was measured, it makes all the data seem inconsistent and much like gibberish.

The Big ten had an average viewership of 8.5M ? What does that even mean? It can't possibly mean average of all games they had on tv. Maybe it means total viewership for all games during a week, averaged for all weeks. But they don't really spell it out.

That whole article is badly written dressed up with fancy graphics.

Nielsen says it's the "Average Audience (P2+Live+SD US AA Proj) across the Top Ten games involving specified conference/team"

So the average of the best 10 games from, what, over 100 Big Ten games, was 8.5 million viewers... while the average of the 10 best Notre Dame games was only 4.8 M. THAT makes sense!

Well, that is a questionable methodology in which to derive any significant point out of the data.

When I have done a similar analysis in the past I have always used the ratings point average from SMW of the regular season games in terms of the games shown on ABC, ESPN, FOX, CBS, and NBC.

Since they no longer provide ratings points anymore for all games, I was thinking about doing a similar analysis using viewers instead but never found the time to do it.

Cheers,
Neil

(02-16-2016 10:07 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  

(02-16-2016 09:58 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(02-16-2016 08:16 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  Zach Barnett
‏@zach_barnett
According to Nielsen, the Big Ten actually got better ratings in 2015 than the SEC http://bit.ly/1QjH4D0

Haha. The difference is SEC fans actually were at the games not wstching them on tv

You saying all of those large stadiums in the B1G were empty?

lol.

You best attempt for SEC SEC SEC failed.

From 2014 but still, its a little empty....

Also from 2014 but again...

Oh the horror of pregame stadium pictures.....you failed even worse than the previous poster.

So how much of a factor is time slot and network? What were the comparisons head to head? Do the SEC and B1G have built in advantages because of their contracts?

(02-17-2016 01:45 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(02-16-2016 09:28 PM)goofus Wrote:  While all those fancy graphics are very colorful, the data presented does not make much sense. Since they don't do a good job of spelling out what is being measured and how it was measured, it makes all the data seem inconsistent and much like gibberish.

The Big ten had an average viewership of 8.5M ? What does that even mean? It can't possibly mean average of all games they had on tv. Maybe it means total viewership for all games during a week, averaged for all weeks. But they don't really spell it out.

That whole article is badly written dressed up with fancy graphics.

Nielsen says it's the "Average Audience (P2+Live+SD US AA Proj) across the Top Ten games involving specified conference/team"

So the average of the best 10 games from, what, over 100 Big Ten games, was 8.5 million viewers... while the average of the 10 best Notre Dame games was only 4.8 M. THAT makes sense!

That is certainly believable. The Big 10 did have some really big games.

And that is virtually 100% of Notre Dame's games vs. the top 10 from the other conferences, so that is also believable.

(02-17-2016 04:26 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  Oh the horror of pregame stadium pictures.....you failed even worse than the previous poster.

Sure cool guy. I don't have the time to hold your hand. Just Google purdue, iu or Illinois football attendance.

(02-17-2016 09:35 PM)FrancisDrake Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 04:26 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  Oh the horror of pregame stadium pictures.....you failed even worse than the previous poster.

Sure cool guy. I don't have the time to hold your hand. Just Google purdue, iu or Illinois football attendance.

Then do yourself a favor and Google Vandy and KY.

Big Ten fans. Always trying to measure up. Lol.