I think we can close this thread. It no longer holds any connection to the OP.

So where are you getting this 50% of ACC games number? I'm not quite seeing that part. You referring to conference games or total games.

Second, Fox needed content on FS1, the problem is the numbers were abysmal this year. That's not inflation for the ACC being on ESPN. It's reality. The Big 12's content was supposed to start swinging the pendulum.

Three, these numbers are using teams that had 4 or more games rated on the major networks. That also skews this report. Look at a team like Syracuse. Syracuse isn't on the chart but they had games against FSU, Clemson, Penn St which were all rated very well. So you make the statement, the leftover games wouldn't be that good but that's clearly not the case.

(02-13-2014 06:46 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  So where are you getting this 50% of ACC games number? I'm not quite seeing that part. You referring to conference games or total games.

Second, Fox needed content on FS1, the problem is the numbers were abysmal this year. That's not inflation for the ACC being on ESPN. It's reality. The Big 12's content was supposed to start swinging the pendulum.

Three, these numbers are using teams that had 4 or more games rated on the major networks. That also skews this report. Look at a team like Syracuse. Syracuse isn't on the chart but they had games against FSU, Clemson, Penn St which were all rated very well. So you make the statement, the leftover games wouldn't be that good but that's clearly not the case.

I'm getting it from the total # of games per league table in the blogpost linked earlier in the thread. That number (85 in the case of the ACC) is then divided by 12(games per season)*14(number of league members).

So out of 168 appearances by an ACC team, 85 were broadcast widely enough to make this list. That comes out to 50.595%.

It's consistent with the way that the post tallied up the appearances.

(02-13-2014 06:53 PM)S11 Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 06:46 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  So where are you getting this 50% of ACC games number? I'm not quite seeing that part. You referring to conference games or total games.

Second, Fox needed content on FS1, the problem is the numbers were abysmal this year. That's not inflation for the ACC being on ESPN. It's reality. The Big 12's content was supposed to start swinging the pendulum.

Three, these numbers are using teams that had 4 or more games rated on the major networks. That also skews this report. Look at a team like Syracuse. Syracuse isn't on the chart but they had games against FSU, Clemson, Penn St which were all rated very well. So you make the statement, the leftover games wouldn't be that good but that's clearly not the case.

I'm getting it from the total # of games per league table in the blogpost linked earlier in the thread. That number (85 in the case of the ACC) is then divided by 12(games per season)*14(number of league members).

So out of 168 appearances by an ACC team, 85 were broadcast widely enough to make this list. That comes out to 50.595%.

It's consistent with the way that the post tallied up the appearances.

So Raycom took 31 games which could be as many as another 62 appearances (it wasn't but humor me). So the rest of the games would either be a team that didn't have 4 or more rated games (like Syracuse), the game was on ESPNNEWS, or no TV at all.

(02-13-2014 06:46 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  Second, Fox needed content on FS1, the problem is the numbers were abysmal this year. That's not inflation for the ACC being on ESPN. It's reality. The Big 12's content was supposed to start swinging the pendulum.

The performance of similar quality games on FOX/FS1 vs ABC/ESPN by both the PAC and Big 12 disprove that. Each league performed better on ABC/ESPN.

Stanford vs Notre Dame drew a 2 rating when it's never been below a 4 rating when it's been on ABC dating back to 2005. OU/KSU 2013 vs 2011, Utah/Utah State, etc. USC/Washington, I could go on and on and on.

It's pretty consistent that both leagues drew better on the more established networks.

Quote:Three, these numbers are using teams that had 4 or more games rated on the major networks. That also skews this report. Look at a team like Syracuse. Syracuse isn't on the chart but they had games against FSU, Clemson, Penn St which were all rated very well.

Even with the 6 Syracuse and NC State games added in it only spikes the ACC to 1.82MM per game.

Quote:So you make the statement, the leftover games wouldn't be that good but that's clearly not the case.

That isn't what I mean by a leftover game. I am not talking games that ABC/ESPN took on a major network that this blog decided to fuzzy math. I am talking about the other games, the ones stuck on ESPN3, stuck on syndication, stuck below where nielsen tracks them closely.

Counting the 6 appearances I added to the list now that moves the ACC to 90 appearances out of 168 possible. 53.5%.

Which games aren't there? Thrilling games like Wake-ULM, LT-NCST, MTSU-UNC, and others. In order to match the Big 12's 75% or the SEC's 68% you'd need to add 25-36 of these appearances. That isn't likely to kill the average (as league games would count as 2 appearances) but it wouldn't help it either.

So while you identified 6 good appearances, the bulk of them aren't that good.

I'm going to give you two examples of why this conversation between the Big 12 and ACC football games is moot

1) November 30...Duke vs UNC had higher ratings than Baylor vs TCU...both games were on ESPN 2
2) December 28 (not in the numbers above but it highlights the issue): Cincinnati vs UNC Belk Bowl had higher ratings than Michigan and Kansas St ..BWW Bowl. Both games were on ESPN.

There are plenty of other examples like this, and I'm sure you can find others as well. The fact of the matter is, the ACC is able to have these numbers with FIVE private schools which is about as many as the other power conferences combined (and over 1/3 of the entire league). Not to mention, three of those schools are some of the smallest football schools in a major conference (BC, Duke, Wake--all three of these teams are included in the numbers). The conference was built on basketball not football, but got really into the game by getting FSU first, then Miami and VT. If I were in a football first conference and my numbers trailed the ACC, it would bother me too.

LOL...this board should be called "Defending Your Life:B12" because every thread is people ripping on the B12 for something or other and a handful of B12 fans defending their conference and each other...too funny

(02-13-2014 08:25 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  LOL...this board should be called "Defending Your Life:B12" because every thread is people ripping on the B12 for something or other and a handful of B12 fans defending their conference and each other...too funny

Think of it as a spirited debated. Gotta have thick skin around here.

(02-13-2014 08:14 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  I'm going to give you two examples of why this conversation between the Big 12 and ACC football games is moot

1) November 30...Duke vs UNC had higher ratings than Baylor vs TCU...both games were on ESPN 2

So a game with two regional private schools (one without bowl hopes, the other a week after a season collapse) going head to head with limited conference title chances without someone else losing playing in the same time slot as the Iron Bowl, Psu/Wisconsin, UGA/Gt, and VT/UVA which makes pretty much our home markets the only place without a serious draw competing for timeslot ratings...
Was outdrawn by
A game with direct division title implications that really only had one legitimate national game that was any contest (tOSU/UM) and featured a large state school?

Shocking! (Sarcasm)

Time slots and what else is on matters.

Quote:2) December 28 (not in the numbers above but it highlights the issue): Cincinnati vs UNC Belk Bowl had higher ratings than Michigan and Kansas St ..BWW Bowl. Both games were on ESPN.

Bowls that kick off in the 9PM Eastern spot tend to get outdrawn by the prime time spots. When a chunk of the country goes to bed it affects it. The PAC has pointed this out for years because it is true. The Alamo bowl (same time slot) is a better comparison as half the country isn't getting ready for bed.

Quote:There are plenty of other examples like this, and I'm sure you can find others as well.

My examples used similar time slots and competition in those slots. Yours ignored this.

Quote:The fact of the matter is, the ACC is able to have these numbers with FIVE private schools which is about as many as the other power conferences combined (and over 1/3 of the entire league). Not to mention, three of those schools are some of the smallest football schools in a major conference (BC, Duke, Wake--all three of these teams are included in the numbers).

Acting like Miami is some forgettable ratings draw is borderline misleading. Other than them you have 28% of your league. The Big 12 has 20% of ours. Not a huge difference.

Quote:The conference was built on basketball not football, but got really into the game by getting FSU first, then Miami and VT. If I were in a football first conference and my numbers trailed the ACC, it would bother me too.

When the number of appearances is equal we beat the Acc. The only "trailing" is when you compare apples to oranges because espn shoved 25% of your games on a crap network that didn't give a rating for them.

Name THREE games other than the Syracuse or NC State games I added in that weren't on that list that you'd expect to help your average.

It's like bragging about better batting average in Tee ball vs your friend that plays baseball. Apples and oranges.

(02-13-2014 08:25 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  LOL...this board should be called "Defending Your Life:B12" because every thread is people ripping on the B12 for something or other and a handful of B12 fans defending their conference and each other...too funny

No joke. The other side would flip out if the shoe was on the other foot.

I'm not trying to help the average. The fact that you are arguing with me about this is the issue. The Big 12 is supposed to be better at football than the ACC. They are supposed to have all of the eyeballs watching, but they don't. The highest rated ACC games are still higher than the Big 12 games even on the same networks. Granted, the ACC has it's share of stinkers. There are 14 teams..5 are small private schools....already covered that.

The Big 12's averages are as good as they are only because there are 10 teams. What do you think it would look like if there were 14? Say UCF, Cincy, BYU, USF joined. How would those numbers look then? Not good, I can tell you that.

(02-13-2014 09:08 PM)S11 Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 08:25 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  LOL...this board should be called "Defending Your Life:B12" because every thread is people ripping on the B12 for something or other and a handful of B12 fans defending their conference and each other...too funny

No joke. The other side would flip out if the shoe was on the other foot.

Shoe has been on the other foot...see ACC realignment threads after Maryland decided to leave the ACC. How many threads were started by Big 12 folks predicting the demise of the ACC......too many to count.

(02-13-2014 09:16 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  I'm not trying to help the average. The fact that you are arguing with me about this is the issue. The Big 12 is supposed to be better at football than the ACC. They are supposed to have all of the eyeballs watching, but they don't. The highest rated ACC games are still higher than the Big 12 games even on the same networks. Granted, the ACC has it's share of stinkers. There are 14 teams..5 are small private schools....already covered that.

The Big 12's averages are as good as they are only because there are 10 teams. What do you think it would look like if there were 14? Say UCF, Cincy, BYU, USF joined. How would those numbers look then? Not good, I can tell you that.

Duh! That's why the Big 12 stayed at 10 as we've told everyone who suggests the Big 12 needs to expand.

(02-13-2014 09:18 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 09:08 PM)S11 Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 08:25 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  LOL...this board should be called "Defending Your Life:B12" because every thread is people ripping on the B12 for something or other and a handful of B12 fans defending their conference and each other...too funny

No joke. The other side would flip out if the shoe was on the other foot.

Shoe has been on the other foot...see ACC realignment threads after Maryland decided to leave the ACC. How many threads were started by Big 12 folks predicting the demise of the ACC......too many to count.

Since 2011 the count has been heavily against the Big 12. Your year long dilemma doesn't even come close to evening it.

(02-13-2014 10:36 PM)S11 Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 09:18 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 09:08 PM)S11 Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 08:25 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  LOL...this board should be called "Defending Your Life:B12" because every thread is people ripping on the B12 for something or other and a handful of B12 fans defending their conference and each other...too funny

No joke. The other side would flip out if the shoe was on the other foot.

Shoe has been on the other foot...see ACC realignment threads after Maryland decided to leave the ACC. How many threads were started by Big 12 folks predicting the demise of the ACC......too many to count.

Since 2011 the count has been heavily against the Big 12. Your year long dilemma doesn't even come close to evening it.

Oh the poor ACC. They had to deal with realignment rumors for a couple of months. Too bad. How sad.

Hell, even the vast majority of B12 fans don't know what it's like to constantly be under attack by the forces of realignment. The only folks that really know that feeling used to be in the Big East, with the exceptions of BC, VT, and Miami. But all the other Big East football schools heard realignment rumors from 2005 until the final demise of the conference last year. So wait until you've been under attack for a few years, then you can talk about it. But until then...

(02-13-2014 10:36 PM)S11 Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 09:18 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 09:08 PM)S11 Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 08:25 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  LOL...this board should be called "Defending Your Life:B12" because every thread is people ripping on the B12 for something or other and a handful of B12 fans defending their conference and each other...too funny

No joke. The other side would flip out if the shoe was on the other foot.

Shoe has been on the other foot...see ACC realignment threads after Maryland decided to leave the ACC. How many threads were started by Big 12 folks predicting the demise of the ACC......too many to count.

Since 2011 the count has been heavily against the Big 12. Your year long dilemma doesn't even come close to evening it.

Nah. The ACC bore the brunt of much criticism well before 2011 due to the lack of BCS bowls wins and high profile football teams.

(02-13-2014 11:11 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 10:36 PM)S11 Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 09:18 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 09:08 PM)S11 Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 08:25 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  LOL...this board should be called "Defending Your Life:B12" because every thread is people ripping on the B12 for something or other and a handful of B12 fans defending their conference and each other...too funny

No joke. The other side would flip out if the shoe was on the other foot.

Shoe has been on the other foot...see ACC realignment threads after Maryland decided to leave the ACC. How many threads were started by Big 12 folks predicting the demise of the ACC......too many to count.

Since 2011 the count has been heavily against the Big 12. Your year long dilemma doesn't even come close to evening it.

Nah. The ACC bore the brunt of much criticism well before 2011 due to the lack of BCS bowls wins and high profile football teams.

Outside of FSU, the rest of the ACC still deserves a bunch of criticism. It's an overvalued, overrated conference in football. If it weren't for FSU, the ACC would have been relegated to minor status long ago, and all ACC fans know this in their heart, even if they won't admit it.

(02-13-2014 09:48 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 09:16 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  I'm not trying to help the average. The fact that you are arguing with me about this is the issue. The Big 12 is supposed to be better at football than the ACC. They are supposed to have all of the eyeballs watching, but they don't. The highest rated ACC games are still higher than the Big 12 games even on the same networks. Granted, the ACC has it's share of stinkers. There are 14 teams..5 are small private schools....already covered that.

The Big 12's averages are as good as they are only because there are 10 teams. What do you think it would look like if there were 14? Say UCF, Cincy, BYU, USF joined. How would those numbers look then? Not good, I can tell you that.

Duh! That's why the Big 12 stayed at 10 as we've told everyone who suggests the Big 12 needs to expand.

Some get it, some don't. I hate the Big 12 but as long as we are a conference, we will get paid and get paid nicely.

(02-13-2014 11:15 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 11:11 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 10:36 PM)S11 Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 09:18 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 09:08 PM)S11 Wrote:  No joke. The other side would flip out if the shoe was on the other foot.

Shoe has been on the other foot...see ACC realignment threads after Maryland decided to leave the ACC. How many threads were started by Big 12 folks predicting the demise of the ACC......too many to count.

Since 2011 the count has been heavily against the Big 12. Your year long dilemma doesn't even come close to evening it.

Nah. The ACC bore the brunt of much criticism well before 2011 due to the lack of BCS bowls wins and high profile football teams.

Outside of FSU, the rest of the ACC still deserves a bunch of criticism. It's an overvalued, overrated conference in football. If it weren't for FSU, the ACC would have been relegated to minor status long ago, and all ACC fans know this in their heart, even if they won't admit it.

Now you're just being ridiculous. If it wasn't for Texas the Big 12 wouldn't even exist. The ACC can survive without FSU. The Big 12 can not survive without Texas. Let's not talk about overrated when your conference champion got punched in the mouth by UCF.

(02-13-2014 11:50 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 11:15 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 11:11 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 10:36 PM)S11 Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 09:18 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  Shoe has been on the other foot...see ACC realignment threads after Maryland decided to leave the ACC. How many threads were started by Big 12 folks predicting the demise of the ACC......too many to count.

Since 2011 the count has been heavily against the Big 12. Your year long dilemma doesn't even come close to evening it.

Nah. The ACC bore the brunt of much criticism well before 2011 due to the lack of BCS bowls wins and high profile football teams.

Outside of FSU, the rest of the ACC still deserves a bunch of criticism. It's an overvalued, overrated conference in football. If it weren't for FSU, the ACC would have been relegated to minor status long ago, and all ACC fans know this in their heart, even if they won't admit it.

Now you're just being ridiculous. If it wasn't for Texas the Big 12 wouldn't even exist. The ACC can survive without FSU. The Big 12 can not survive without Texas. Let's not talk about overrated when your conference champion got punched in the mouth by UCF.

If FSU left the ACC they would be dead as a power football conference similarly to the B12 if UT or OU leave. Both would survive in name, but not power. The ACC and B12 are both holding on to the life raft hoping for the last spot inside and hoping the other drowns first.