The UConn women, on ESPN2 just scored a .8 national rating. Women's freaking basketball. A 13.4 rating in Hartford/New Haven. A 3.4 share in Soutth Carolina. Killing it.
Thisnational rating is 10 times the ratings of the Big East on Fox Sports Network.
Combine this with the UConn men's team, if you're a content provider, you're loving life. ESPN is going to Uconn for gameday. This one school provides so much in content. Add in its football viewership, and even in the down years of Pasqualoni, Uconn's ratings for football are the highest in the AAC. Think about that. UConn football has sucked monkey balls the past few years, yet its games still outdraw everyone in the AAC.
In short, UConn gives you massive content.
You can't say something snarky like "football drives the bus" because UConn delivers viewers. Period. A lot more viewers than the majority of P5 schools. And they deliver viewers from September through April.
There isn't a school that is shown on ESPN more than UConn in all of college sports. Think about that.
So when I hear talk of an ACC Network and you have BC giving you New England viewers, it's almost comical. The two aren't even in the same ballpark. And this when UConn plays in an inferior league. It doesn't take a genius to think if the ACC is at all serious about a conference network, no way is it successful without UConn.
Yep, UConn belongs in a P-5 - But what one will take them?
ACC will not move unless we move(Ain't happening)
Big 10 took Rutgers and seems unwilling to move on UConn right now(Doubt they ever will, maybe I'm wrong).
Big 12 makes no sense.
But you're correct they belong.
Many UConn fans blame ESPN for this. As of right now, they are getting premium UConn content at bargain basement prices. It's in their interest to keep the situation the way it is. I don't understand why ESPNs competitors don't get more aggressive about one of their properties bringing in UConn though. BTN would kill in the Hartford/New Haven market with UConn in the fold.
(02-10-2015 03:30 PM)BE4evah Wrote: [ -> ]The UConn women, on ESPN2 just scored a .8 national rating. Women's freaking basketball. A 13.4 rating in Hartford/New Haven. A 3.4 share in Soutth Carolina. Killing it.
Thisnational rating is 10 times the ratings of the Big East on Fox Sports Network.
Combine this with the UConn men's team, if you're a content provider, you're loving life. ESPN is going to Uconn for gameday. This one school provides so much in content. Add in its football viewership, and even in the down years of Pasqualoni, Uconn's ratings for football are the highest in the AAC. Think about that. UConn football has sucked monkey balls the past few years, yet its games still outdraw everyone in the AAC.
In short, UConn gives you massive content.
You can't say something snarky like "football drives the bus" because UConn delivers viewers. Period. A lot more viewers than the majority of P5 schools. And they deliver viewers from September through April.
There isn't a school that is shown on ESPN more than UConn in all of college sports. Think about that.
So when I hear talk of an ACC Network and you have BC giving you New England viewers, it's almost comical. The two aren't even in the same ballpark. And this when UConn plays in an inferior league. It doesn't take a genius to think if the ACC is at all serious about a conference network, no way is it successful without UConn.
UConn, in a vacuum, is a P5-level school. However, as the old adage goes, it takes two to tango. Here are the main issues:
(1) Who is inviting them? The Big Ten has a lot of different aspirations along with certain academic requirements. The ACC seems to be holding serve with what it has. The Big 12 is the most likely to expand in the near future but it's the worst fit for the UConn both culturally and geographically. Once again, UConn might be valuable in a vacuum, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they're valuable enough for the Big Ten or ACC to add with the high levels of revenue that they already have.
(2) UConn has only been playing FBS football since 2000. A lot of people seem to gloss over this, but that's a MAJOR issue. The "football drives the bus" mantra isn't snarky - it's completely true. Football power is based on old money power, yet UConn's FBS program is younger than the likes of SUNY Buffalo and Middle Tennessee. This is quite different from the power conferences where most schools have been playing at the top level of football for close to a century (and in many cases, much more than a century). People in the Northeast seem to perceive UConn as "old money" because of their association with the old Big East, but the rest of the country simply sees it as a "new money" football team. There's a large disconnect there.
Look - I know it's frustrating to a lot of UConn fans since UConn is likely more valuable than several P5 schools that were grandfathered into the power structure decades ago. However, the bar is simply unbelievably high these days. The only 3 schools that weren't in power leagues when the BCS system began in 1998 and have risen up are Louisville, TCU and Utah (all of whom made massive strides in football and TCU had been a power member before in the old SWC).
(02-10-2015 04:01 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ] (02-10-2015 03:30 PM)BE4evah Wrote: [ -> ]The UConn women, on ESPN2 just scored a .8 national rating. Women's freaking basketball. A 13.4 rating in Hartford/New Haven. A 3.4 share in Soutth Carolina. Killing it.
Thisnational rating is 10 times the ratings of the Big East on Fox Sports Network.
Combine this with the UConn men's team, if you're a content provider, you're loving life. ESPN is going to Uconn for gameday. This one school provides so much in content. Add in its football viewership, and even in the down years of Pasqualoni, Uconn's ratings for football are the highest in the AAC. Think about that. UConn football has sucked monkey balls the past few years, yet its games still outdraw everyone in the AAC.
In short, UConn gives you massive content.
You can't say something snarky like "football drives the bus" because UConn delivers viewers. Period. A lot more viewers than the majority of P5 schools. And they deliver viewers from September through April.
There isn't a school that is shown on ESPN more than UConn in all of college sports. Think about that.
So when I hear talk of an ACC Network and you have BC giving you New England viewers, it's almost comical. The two aren't even in the same ballpark. And this when UConn plays in an inferior league. It doesn't take a genius to think if the ACC is at all serious about a conference network, no way is it successful without UConn.
UConn, in a vacuum, is a P5-level school. However, as the old adage goes, it takes two to tango. Here are the main issues:
(1) Who is inviting them? The Big Ten has a lot of different aspirations along with certain academic requirements. The ACC seems to be holding serve with what it has. The Big 12 is the most likely to expand in the near future but it's the worst fit for the UConn both culturally and geographically. Once again, UConn might be valuable in a vacuum, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they're valuable enough for the Big Ten or ACC to add with the high levels of revenue that they already have.
(2) UConn has only been playing FBS football since 2000. A lot of people seem to gloss over this, but that's a MAJOR issue. The "football drives the bus" mantra isn't snarky - it's completely true. Football power is based on old money power, yet UConn's FBS program is younger than the likes of SUNY Buffalo and Middle Tennessee. This is quite different from the power conferences where most schools have been playing at the top level of football for close to a century (and in many cases, much more than a century). People in the Northeast seem to perceive UConn as "old money" because of their association with the old Big East, but the rest of the country simply sees it as a "new money" football team. There's a large disconnect there.
Look - I know it's frustrating to a lot of UConn fans since UConn is likely more valuable than several P5 schools that were grandfathered into the power structure decades ago. However, the bar is simply unbelievably high these days. The only 3 schools that weren't in power leagues when the BCS system began in 1998 and have risen up are Louisville, TCU and Utah (all of whom made massive strides in football and TCU had been a power member before in the old SWC).
If the bar is so high that a school that DOMINATES a top-30 market and has pull in several other huge markets can't meet it then that, to me, equals a bubble. When the market finally corrects itself (and it will, eventually), UConn will be fine. Until then, we will soldier on.
what is amazing about the rating was the game was a blowout, and against a non traditional power in South Carolina and not a blue-blood like a Tennessee.
My "ACC"-centric thinking on this (subject to bias, of course):
IMHO, the ACC's basketball product is strong enough to where we don't "need" the addition of UCONN. Some of "us" may "want" UCONN, but it's not a NEED. It would
almost be like your wife's shoe closest -- she already HAS enough shoes and buying more would be overkill.
In fact, I will argue (with bias, of course) that Notre Dame basketball is on par, or at least in the same zip code, in brand, level of play and road draw (see ND @ NC State, ND @ UNC, and ND @ Duke).
Personally (with bias, of course), this ACC fan is enjoying Notre Dame and doesn't think for a moment,
Quote:"Hey, we need UConn in the league to strengthen the product."
I'm sure that ratings numbers for ACC hoops would bear that the league's ratings are pretty strong.
---
Football wise, UCONN has made great strides and correctly leveraged their basketball brand to build a football identity, but when it came down to Louisville and UCONN, the football schools in ACC selected Louisville which was seen as the more appealing "football" brand.
---
Beyond that, and again, subject to my personal bias, UCONN is suffering from the same thing "Georgetown & the Big East" is suffering from -- the absence of Syracuse as a worthy antagonist.
---
Ok, have at it.
(02-10-2015 03:30 PM)BE4evah Wrote: [ -> ]The UConn women, on ESPN2 just scored a .8 national rating. Women's freaking basketball. A 13.4 rating in Hartford/New Haven. A 3.4 share in Soutth Carolina. Killing it.
Thisnational rating is 10 times the ratings of the Big East on Fox Sports Network.
Combine this with the UConn men's team, if you're a content provider, you're loving life. ESPN is going to Uconn for gameday. This one school provides so much in content. Add in its football viewership, and even in the down years of Pasqualoni, Uconn's ratings for football are the highest in the AAC. Think about that. UConn football has sucked monkey balls the past few years, yet its games still outdraw everyone in the AAC.
In short, UConn gives you massive content.
You can't say something snarky like "football drives the bus" because UConn delivers viewers. Period. A lot more viewers than the majority of P5 schools. And they deliver viewers from September through April.
There isn't a school that is shown on ESPN more than UConn in all of college sports. Think about that.
So when I hear talk of an ACC Network and you have BC giving you New England viewers, it's almost comical. The two aren't even in the same ballpark. And this when UConn plays in an inferior league. It doesn't take a genius to think if the ACC is at all serious about a conference network, no way is it successful without UConn.
In regards to the ACC it's all about football. The football schools in the ACC felt that whatever they bring to the table in basketball would not be enough to overcome how much they would weaken the football product.
(02-10-2015 04:28 PM)Kaplony Wrote: [ -> ] (02-10-2015 03:30 PM)BE4evah Wrote: [ -> ]The UConn women, on ESPN2 just scored a .8 national rating. Women's freaking basketball. A 13.4 rating in Hartford/New Haven. A 3.4 share in Soutth Carolina. Killing it.
Thisnational rating is 10 times the ratings of the Big East on Fox Sports Network.
Combine this with the UConn men's team, if you're a content provider, you're loving life. ESPN is going to Uconn for gameday. This one school provides so much in content. Add in its football viewership, and even in the down years of Pasqualoni, Uconn's ratings for football are the highest in the AAC. Think about that. UConn football has sucked monkey balls the past few years, yet its games still outdraw everyone in the AAC.
In short, UConn gives you massive content.
You can't say something snarky like "football drives the bus" because UConn delivers viewers. Period. A lot more viewers than the majority of P5 schools. And they deliver viewers from September through April.
There isn't a school that is shown on ESPN more than UConn in all of college sports. Think about that.
So when I hear talk of an ACC Network and you have BC giving you New England viewers, it's almost comical. The two aren't even in the same ballpark. And this when UConn plays in an inferior league. It doesn't take a genius to think if the ACC is at all serious about a conference network, no way is it successful without UConn.
In regards to the ACC it's all about football. The football schools in the ACC felt that whatever they bring to the table in basketball would not be enough to overcome how much they would weaken the football product.
The ACC is all about basketball. Duke UNC end of story
(02-10-2015 04:08 PM)uconnwhaler Wrote: [ -> ]If the bar is so high that a school that DOMINATES a top-30 market and has pull in several other huge markets can't meet it then that, to me, equals a bubble. When the market finally corrects itself (and it will, eventually), UConn will be fine. Until then, we will soldier on.
It's not a bubble. Look at the bar for the Big Ten in this last round of expansion: adding NYC (#1 market) and the DC/Baltimore capitol region (where those 2 markets combined would be the equivalent of the #3 TV market in the US, with more TV households than even the Chicago market). The BTN was able to get onto basic cable in both of those markets, so Rutgers and Maryland delivered them for the Big Ten's needs. The only additions that would have a similar impact would be schools that could deliver all of California, Texas or Florida. So, yeah, the bar is *massively* high right now.
(02-10-2015 04:12 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote: [ -> ]I'm sure that ratings numbers for ACC hoops would bear that the league's ratings are pretty strong.
UVA UNC last week did a .7
Uconn Women outdrew that game.
(02-10-2015 04:35 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ] (02-10-2015 04:08 PM)uconnwhaler Wrote: [ -> ]If the bar is so high that a school that DOMINATES a top-30 market and has pull in several other huge markets can't meet it then that, to me, equals a bubble. When the market finally corrects itself (and it will, eventually), UConn will be fine. Until then, we will soldier on.
It's not a bubble. Look at the bar for the Big Ten in this last round of expansion: adding NYC (#1 market) and the DC/Baltimore capitol region (where those 2 markets combined would be the equivalent of the #3 TV market in the US, with more TV households than even the Chicago market). The BTN was able to get onto basic cable in both of those markets, so Rutgers and Maryland delivered them for the Big Ten's needs. The only two additions that would have a similar impact would be schools that could deliver all of California, Texas or Florida. So, yeah, the bar is *massively* high right now.
Bubble, distortion, call it what you want but when the #5 team in North Carolina and distant #2's in Oregon and Washington are making 20x what UConn is making then something is wrong.
I never really got it either as the old BE bb would crush tv ratings, had big markets, msg, etc.
But when when it came time for tv deals, the bb never translated.
All they cared about was miami and va tech were gone.
(02-10-2015 03:30 PM)BE4evah Wrote: [ -> ]The UConn women, on ESPN2 just scored a .8 national rating. Women's freaking basketball. A 13.4 rating in Hartford/New Haven. A 3.4 share in Soutth Carolina. Killing it.
Thisnational rating is 10 times the ratings of the Big East on Fox Sports Network.
Combine this with the UConn men's team, if you're a content provider, you're loving life. ESPN is going to Uconn for gameday. This one school provides so much in content. Add in its football viewership, and even in the down years of Pasqualoni, Uconn's ratings for football are the highest in the AAC. Think about that. UConn football has sucked monkey balls the past few years, yet its games still outdraw everyone in the AAC.
In short, UConn gives you massive content.
You can't say something snarky like "football drives the bus" because UConn delivers viewers. Period. A lot more viewers than the majority of P5 schools. And they deliver viewers from September through April.
There isn't a school that is shown on ESPN more than UConn in all of college sports. Think about that.
So when I hear talk of an ACC Network and you have BC giving you New England viewers, it's almost comical. The two aren't even in the same ballpark. And this when UConn plays in an inferior league. It doesn't take a genius to think if the ACC is at all serious about a conference network, no way is it successful without UConn.
You're not missing the math at all.
Conference league offices and network executive became overly enamored with market size. They failed (and are still failing) to realize something that is very obvious, but also overlooked. Big markets don't necessarily equal big ratings. If no one in the market cares, they won't watch and the ratings will be lousy. Take Boston College for instance. People in Boston aren't even watching the BC games, much less the Wake Forest v Miami games. So, all Boston really provides in terms of TV is a big market where no one is watching.
The best way to look at it is to think of the country as one big market. UConn, while located in Storrs, is more compelling nationally than many other programs that are in big markets. They would have been the better choice.
(02-10-2015 04:37 PM)OkaForPrez Wrote: [ -> ] (02-10-2015 04:12 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote: [ -> ]I'm sure that ratings numbers for ACC hoops would bear that the league's ratings are pretty strong.
UVA UNC last week did a .7
Uconn Women outdrew that game.
Now that is an interesting fact.
(02-10-2015 04:43 PM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote: [ -> ]I never really got it either as the old BE bb would crush tv ratings, had big markets, msg, etc.
But when when it came time for tv deals, the bb never translated.
All they cared about was miami and va tech were gone.
I'm a hoops guy at heart. However, I don't think a lot of people realize simply how many more people watch college football compared to college basketball (outside of the NCAA Tournament, which is a completely separate TV deal from the conferences). So far this year, there have been only 2 college basketball games that have drawn more than 3 million viewers (Kentucky-Louisville and Duke-UVA). In contrast, every single week of the college football season featured at least 4 games that drew more than 3 million viewers, and there were several weeks where there were at least 6 or 7 games with more than that number. 17 *non-CFP* bowls drew more than 3 million viewers (not to mention all 7 CFP games on top of that). Those bigger audiences also command an exponential premium - a game with 3 million viewers can charge 3 or 4 times as much for ads as a game with 1.5 million viewers. So, when we're talking about the outsized payouts that the power conferences receive, there's a clear financial basis because of how much larger the audiences are for football.
(02-10-2015 04:32 PM)Minutemen429 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-10-2015 04:28 PM)Kaplony Wrote: [ -> ] (02-10-2015 03:30 PM)BE4evah Wrote: [ -> ]The UConn women, on ESPN2 just scored a .8 national rating. Women's freaking basketball. A 13.4 rating in Hartford/New Haven. A 3.4 share in Soutth Carolina. Killing it.
Thisnational rating is 10 times the ratings of the Big East on Fox Sports Network.
Combine this with the UConn men's team, if you're a content provider, you're loving life. ESPN is going to Uconn for gameday. This one school provides so much in content. Add in its football viewership, and even in the down years of Pasqualoni, Uconn's ratings for football are the highest in the AAC. Think about that. UConn football has sucked monkey balls the past few years, yet its games still outdraw everyone in the AAC.
In short, UConn gives you massive content.
You can't say something snarky like "football drives the bus" because UConn delivers viewers. Period. A lot more viewers than the majority of P5 schools. And they deliver viewers from September through April.
There isn't a school that is shown on ESPN more than UConn in all of college sports. Think about that.
So when I hear talk of an ACC Network and you have BC giving you New England viewers, it's almost comical. The two aren't even in the same ballpark. And this when UConn plays in an inferior league. It doesn't take a genius to think if the ACC is at all serious about a conference network, no way is it successful without UConn.
In regards to the ACC it's all about football. The football schools in the ACC felt that whatever they bring to the table in basketball would not be enough to overcome how much they would weaken the football product.
The ACC is all about basketball. Duke UNC end of story
If that were true UConn would be in the ACC.
Again, if by the "it's all about football" mantra we must only be dealing with football TV ratings. Well, UConn delivered as many viewers with a WOMEN'S basketball game the average Big 12 football game did. On a Monday night. On ESPN2.
Look at it like this, the Big 12 in 2013 had 92 national football games. The average rating was 1.01. The PAC 12 had 76 national football games. The average rating was 1.11.
So for the Big 12, each school was required to bring in 9 games at an average rating of 1.01 to justify its TV contract. In the PAC 12, each school was required to bring in 5.4 games at an average rating of 1.11 to justify its TV contract.
The TV contract pays the Big 12 $200 million a year total and each school $20 million specifically. So the Big 12 is being paid $200 million/92 rating shares, or $2.17 million per rating share.
The PAC 12 pays $240 million a year and each school receives $17.4 million per team. So the PAC 12 is being paid $240 million/78 rating shares, or $3 million per rating share.
Now of course, this doesn't take into account basketball ratings, but since basketball ratings apparently don't mean the same as football ratings, I didn't include them.
Looking at UConn's rating shares for its football team, men's basketball team,and its women's team, no matter how one looks at it, UConn is not being paid anywhere near the $ per rating share as the other conferences. UConn is being paid $1.8 million for the entire freaking year!!!!
Am I missing something? Is a person who watches a UConn game different than a person who watches a Wake Forest game? Or a Clemson game?
Again, something doesn't add up.
(02-10-2015 04:58 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ] (02-10-2015 04:43 PM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote: [ -> ]I never really got it either as the old BE bb would crush tv ratings, had big markets, msg, etc.
But when when it came time for tv deals, the bb never translated.
All they cared about was miami and va tech were gone.
I'm a hoops guy at heart. However, I don't think a lot of people realize simply how many more people watch college football compared to college basketball (outside of the NCAA Tournament, which is a completely separate TV deal from the conferences). So far this year, there have been only 2 college basketball games that have drawn more than 3 million viewers (Kentucky-Louisville and Duke-UVA). In contrast, every single week of the college football season featured at least 4 games that drew more than 3 million viewers, and there were several weeks where there were at least 6 or 7 games with more than that number. 17 *non-CFP* bowls drew more than 3 million viewers (not to mention all 7 CFP games on top of that). Those bigger audiences also command an exponential premium - a game with 3 million viewers can charge 3 or 4 times as much for ads as a game with 1.5 million viewers. So, when we're talking about the outsized payouts that the power conferences receive, there's a clear financial basis because of how much larger the audiences are for football.
This is true, but you have to keep in mind that basketball is more regional. If you total up the numbers, there are just as many people watching college basketball as there are watching college football. It's that instead of two or three big games a week in football, you have two or three big games a night in basketball, and as many as twenty or thirty a week. Probably more, actually.
In football, nearly everyone who is watching a football game is watching the same game. People in New Mexico are watching Auburn v Alabama. In basketball, until the NCAA Tournament starts, people in New Mexico are only watching New Mexico. When Duke plays UNC, for instance, there are probably thirty other games that same night, and the fans of those other teams are watching those other games. Therefore, the numbers go down.
(02-10-2015 05:24 PM)BE4evah Wrote: [ -> ]Again, if by the "it's all about football" mantra we must only be dealing with football TV ratings. Well, UConn delivered as many viewers with a WOMEN'S basketball game the average Big 12 football game did. On a Monday night. On ESPN2.
Look at it like this, the Big 12 in 2013 had 92 national football games. The average rating was 1.01. The PAC 12 had 76 national football games. The average rating was 1.11.
So for the Big 12, each school was required to bring in 9 games at an average rating of 1.01 to justify its TV contract. In the PAC 12, each school was required to bring in 5.4 games at an average rating of 1.11 to justify its TV contract.
The TV contract pays the Big 12 $200 million a year total and each school $20 million specifically. So the Big 12 is being paid $200 million/92 rating shares, or $2.17 million per rating share.
The PAC 12 pays $240 million a year and each school receives $17.4 million per team. So the PAC 12 is being paid $240 million/78 rating shares, or $3 million per rating share.
Now of course, this doesn't take into account basketball ratings, but since basketball ratings apparently don't mean the same as football ratings, I didn't include them.
Looking at UConn's rating shares for its football team, men's basketball team,and its women's team, no matter how one looks at it, UConn is not being paid anywhere near the $ per rating share as the other conferences. UConn is being paid $1.8 million for the entire freaking year!!!!
Am I missing something? Is a person who watches a UConn game different than a person who watches a Wake Forest game? Or a Clemson game?
Again, something doesn't add up.
Is UConn worth as much as at least a lower level P5 team? Yes.
Does that mean that provides enough value for a P5 conference to add them? Not necessarily - that's an entirely separate issue.
Saying that the single top #1 vs. #2 women's basketball matchup of the year garners as much as the *average* Big 12 football game doesn't really say much to me. Plus, the networks aren't paying the premium for the *average* game. As I've said, you get exponential ad revenue for the very largest audiences. A football conference that can provide a single game per week that draws a very large audience (i.e. 4 million-plus) is going to get paid very well (and that definition includes all of the power conferences). The ones that can provide multiple games per week at that level consistently (like the SEC and Big Ten) get paid insanely well.
The fact that UConn is underpaid relative to its free market value (which might be true) is separate from the issue of whether it provides enough additional value for one of the power conferences to add them. Just because UConn is underpaid doesn't mean that a power conference will add them. Plus, football is where conferences get to keep their money, whereas much of the value in basketball is given up to the NCAA via the NCAA Tournament. Hence, power conference realignment has been almost entirely about football revenue.