(05-09-2019 08:05 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  Very interesting.

Shows the SEC & B1G are far ahead of the other conferences with 6 schools each in the top 20.

I was surprised that the XII had more top 20 than the ACC.

Also surprised at how far behind the ACC & PAC are behind the other 3 conferences.

Does show that OU draws well despite being in a relatively small state population wise.

Biggest "wow" is how large the number is for a small private school like Northwestern.

As Coach Fitz would say "Go Cats"...

Yes, Norehwestern numbers are awesome! And I love coach Fritz! Its amazing where he has that program. It helps too that they have, in my opinion, the best AD in the country.

Sorry, Fitz and not Fritz. Fat swollen arthritic hands and failure to proof read often gets me on here.

(05-09-2019 09:12 AM)cubucks Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 08:05 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  Very interesting.

Shows the SEC & B1G are far ahead of the other conferences with 6 schools each in the top 20.

I was surprised that the XII had more top 20 than the ACC.

Also surprised at how far behind the ACC & PAC are behind the other 3 conferences.

Does show that OU draws well despite being in a relatively small state population wise.

Biggest "wow" is how large the number is for a small private school like Northwestern.

As Coach Fitz would say "Go Cats"...

Yes, Norehwestern numbers are awesome! And I love coach Fritz! Its amazing where he has that program. It helps too that they have, in my opinion, the best AD in the country.

Love coach Fitz as well. He seems like the type of coach you WANT to play for. That's why I was more than a bit excited when his name was floated in Green bay for the Packers.

If I were a rated recruit and he came a calling, I'd have a hard time saying no.

Northwestern is only so high because they were in the Big Ten championship. Adding one of the top conference games of the season while almost everyone else is at home is a huge advantage. Kudos for reaching the championship but you had 13 games compared to 12 for everyone else but Ohio State.

In fact, most conferences show the championship schools as their top two most viewed teams. Only Northwestern, Pitt, and Utah were not. Utah looks especially bad relative to their conference mates. Pitt doesn't look much better but lucked into the ACC championship.

(05-09-2019 06:52 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  Northwestern is only so high because they were in the Big Ten championship. Adding one of the top conference games of the season while almost everyone else is at home is a huge advantage. Kudos for reaching the championship but you had 13 games compared to 12 for everyone else but Ohio State.

In fact, most conferences show the championship schools as their top two most viewed teams. Only Northwestern, Pitt, and Utah were not. Utah looks especially bad relative to their conference mates. Pitt doesn't look much better but lucked into the ACC championship.

Correct about Northwestern and yet it's still impressive to me. They achieved those numbers and were awarded with all those eyes watching them play. We are talking about a small private school tucked away in the suburbs of Chicago.

Penn State had strong numbers too, kudos to them!

(05-08-2019 11:05 AM)JRsec Wrote:  I took note of that. And should the day ever come where Vandy decided to opt out for whatever reason, and I'm not saying they would or should, and given the freedom of information issues and how having a private in your conference is needed because of it, then I think T.C.U. moves to the top of the replacement list.

What are the freedom of information issues? The MWC is entirely public.

(05-09-2019 06:52 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  In fact, most conferences show the championship schools as their top two most viewed teams. Only Northwestern, Pitt, and Utah were not. Utah looks especially bad relative to their conference mates. Pitt doesn't look much better but lucked into the ACC championship.

Florida State went 5-7 with their first below .500 season in a long time other than vacated wins. 6 of their 7 losses were by at least 19. They were second in the ACC, and way above third. The top two couldn't have played in the ACC Championship game because they're in the same division.

(05-13-2019 08:21 AM)EvanJ Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 11:05 AM)JRsec Wrote:  I took note of that. And should the day ever come where Vandy decided to opt out for whatever reason, and I'm not saying they would or should, and given the freedom of information issues and how having a private in your conference is needed because of it, then I think T.C.U. moves to the top of the replacement list.

What are the freedom of information issues? The MWC is entirely public.

(05-09-2019 06:52 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  In fact, most conferences show the championship schools as their top two most viewed teams. Only Northwestern, Pitt, and Utah were not. Utah looks especially bad relative to their conference mates. Pitt doesn't look much better but lucked into the ACC championship.

Florida State went 5-7 with their first below .500 season in a long time other than vacated wins. 6 of their 7 losses were by at least 19. They were second in the ACC, and way above third. The top two couldn't have played in the ACC Championship game because they're in the same division.

As a fan of FSU, those are numbers to be proud of. As for the conference you're playing in, that should be concerning.

I'm not a chest beating conference homer by any means. I like the teams in the BIG for the most part and like Midwestern folks. So dont get me wrong but this has to be concerning with the ACC Network starting up.. right?

So correct me if I'm wrong please. ESPN is going to bundle the ACCN right along with their family of networks and demand x amount of dollars? The TV ratings may be weak for the ACCN yet living in Ohio I may be stuck with the bill paying for something nobody really wants? Just so I can have ESPN? What could possibly go wrong!?!

I dont want anybody to fail. I hope the ACCN is a gem and very successful! These numbers I'm looking at though, if correct, tell a different story.

Seminoles!

(05-13-2019 08:40 AM)cubucks Wrote:  

(05-13-2019 08:21 AM)EvanJ Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 11:05 AM)JRsec Wrote:  I took note of that. And should the day ever come where Vandy decided to opt out for whatever reason, and I'm not saying they would or should, and given the freedom of information issues and how having a private in your conference is needed because of it, then I think T.C.U. moves to the top of the replacement list.

What are the freedom of information issues? The MWC is entirely public.

(05-09-2019 06:52 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  In fact, most conferences show the championship schools as their top two most viewed teams. Only Northwestern, Pitt, and Utah were not. Utah looks especially bad relative to their conference mates. Pitt doesn't look much better but lucked into the ACC championship.

Florida State went 5-7 with their first below .500 season in a long time other than vacated wins. 6 of their 7 losses were by at least 19. They were second in the ACC, and way above third. The top two couldn't have played in the ACC Championship game because they're in the same division.

As a fan of FSU, those are numbers to be proud of. As for the conference you're playing in, that should be concerning.

I'm not a chest beating conference homer by any means. I like the teams in the BIG for the most part and like Midwestern folks. So dont get me wrong but this has to be concerning with the ACC Network starting up.. right?

So correct me if I'm wrong please. ESPN is going to bundle the ACCN right along with their family of networks and demand x amount of dollars? The TV ratings may be weak for the ACCN yet living in Ohio I may be stuck with the bill paying for something nobody really wants? Just so I can have ESPN? What could possibly go wrong!?!

I dont want anybody to fail. I hope the ACCN is a gem and very successful! These numbers I'm looking at though, if correct, tell a different story.

Seminoles!

It's a story, just not the whole story.

1. 2018 was a BAD year for ACC football if your team wasn't Clemson or Syracuse - neither of which have really big national followings (although Clemson's is growing). That said, it was just ONE year - 2016 would tell a very different story, IMO. No doubt it would be a problem if the ACC has 10 years in a row like 2018 (or worse yet, reverts back to 2003-2012 form), but that hasn't happened yet and may never happen.

2. It's also just one sport. ACC basketball had a BANNER year (both literally and figuratively). Keep in mind that the ACCN will show 40 football games and 150 men's and women's basketball games. Even if each football game is worth 4X as much as a basketball game, the numbers tell me that the ACCN as a whole is probably every bit as valuable as the SECN or the BTN because of basketball (4X as many games - nearly).

So, should the ACC be concerned? Certainly. Does this spell doom for the ACCN? Not necessarily, and probably not IMO.

In the Sagarin for Football, the ACC was fifth in 2018, second in 2017, and first in 2016. In 2017, the Big 12 was first and the SEC was third because the SEC East was by far the worst Power 5 Division. If the 14 ACC teams average 2.5 out of conference home games, that's 35, and 56 conference games before the Championship game makes 91. 40 would be 44 percent. There won't be many games left for RSNs if the ACC has the same amount on national TV channels other than the ACCN. In the New York City area, ACC games are on YES (created by the Yankees) and WLNY. WLNY is a broadcast channel owned by CBS that shows reruns and doesn't have any sports other than the ACC. Their sports are mostly on Saturdays, but they did show Florida State at Syracuse in Men's Basketball on a weeknight. There are some ACC games on RSNs but not available where I live, so the ACC Network would help with that. There are many niche sports channels that aren't in TV ratings.

Great points, Hokie Mark and EvanJ.

Wouldn't the ACCN totally eliminate RSNs? That's the whole point for the conference network, correct? Without looking before speaking, the ACC is in contract right now with ESPN I believe. So, with ESPN family and ACCN that would cover all the games. Plus away games at Notre Dame on NBC. I never knew RSNs were still an option now in the ACC?

https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearm.sites/a...elease.pdf has last year's ACC schedule on Page 4. Games on RSNs are in three categories, RSN, Raycom, and ACCNE (ACC Network). ACCNE might refer to games on ESPN College Sports Extra channels. Here are the channels by week for games at ACC teams:

1: ACCNE (3), ESPN, ESPNU, Raycom (2), RSN (8 total)
2: ABC, ACCNE (6), Raycom, RSN (9 total)
3: ESPN (2), ESPN2, ESPNU, RSN (2) (6 total, 3 games canceled)
4: ABC (2), ACCNE, ESPN2, ESPNews, ESPNU, Raycom, RSN (8 total)
5: ABC, ESPN, ESPN2 (2), ESPNU, Raycom, RSN (2) (8 total)
6: ABC (2), ESPN (2), Raycom, RSN (6 total)
7: ESPN2, ESPNU, Raycom, RSN (4 total)
8: ESPN, ESPN2, Raycom, RSN (4 total)
9: ABC, ESPN (2), ESPN2, Raycom, RSN (2) (7 total)
10: ABC (2), ESPN2 (2), Raycom (2), RSN (7 total)
11: ABC, ESPN, ESPN2 (2), ESPNU, Raycom, RSN (7 total)
12: ACCNE, ESPN (2), ESPN2, Raycom, RSN (2) (7 total)
13: ABC (2), ESPN (3), ESPN2, Raycom, RSN (8 total)
14: ABC (Conference Championship), ACCNE (2 regular season) (3 total)

Totals:
ABC: 13 (14.1 percent)
ACCNE: 13 (14.1 percent)
ESPN: 15 (16.3 percent)
ESPN2: 13 (14.1 percent)
ESPNews: 1 (1.1 percent)
ESPNU: 6 (6.5 percent)
Raycom: 14 (15.2 percent)
RSN: 17 (18.5 percent)
Total: 92 (the percents add up to 99.9 due to rounding)

If you combine Raycom and RSN, you get 31 (33.7 percent). If you combine ACCNE, Raycom, and RSN, you get 44 (47.8 percent).

(05-09-2019 09:10 AM)cubucks Wrote:  What's up Minnesota and North Carolina? That's just embarrassing!

I do find some joy though with Minnesota. I hate them just as much as Michigan.

its actually a good reason why this is a flawed study, you really need a 10-20 year range to get better data on these. Unless you are a "franchise" like Ohio State, Michigan, Texas, Oklahoma, etc you rapidly lose viewers when the team sucks.

I'm sure if you compare Rutgers 2006-07 versus 2018-19 you'd probably get a massive discrepancy (and deservedly so given Rutgers' leadership's failure to hire the right coach post-Schiano). I would assume the same goes for Minnesota and UNC.

(05-13-2019 02:01 PM)EvanJ Wrote:  https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearm.sites/a...elease.pdf has last year's ACC schedule on Page 4. Games on RSNs are in three categories, RSN, Raycom, and ACCNE (ACC Network). ACCNE might refer to games on ESPN College Sports Extra channels. Here are the channels by week for games at ACC teams:

1: ACCNE (3), ESPN, ESPNU, Raycom (2), RSN (8 total)
2: ABC, ACCNE (6), Raycom, RSN (9 total)
3: ESPN (2), ESPN2, ESPNU, RSN (2) (6 total, 3 games canceled)
4: ABC (2), ACCNE, ESPN2, ESPNews, ESPNU, Raycom, RSN (8 total)
5: ABC, ESPN, ESPN2 (2), ESPNU, Raycom, RSN (2) (8 total)
6: ABC (2), ESPN (2), Raycom, RSN (6 total)
7: ESPN2, ESPNU, Raycom, RSN (4 total)
8: ESPN, ESPN2, Raycom, RSN (4 total)
9: ABC, ESPN (2), ESPN2, Raycom, RSN (2) (7 total)
10: ABC (2), ESPN2 (2), Raycom (2), RSN (7 total)
11: ABC, ESPN, ESPN2 (2), ESPNU, Raycom, RSN (7 total)
12: ACCNE, ESPN (2), ESPN2, Raycom, RSN (2) (7 total)
13: ABC (2), ESPN (3), ESPN2, Raycom, RSN (8 total)
14: ABC (Conference Championship), ACCNE (2 regular season) (3 total)

Totals:
ABC: 13 (14.1 percent)
ACCNE: 13 (14.1 percent)
ESPN: 15 (16.3 percent)
ESPN2: 13 (14.1 percent)
ESPNews: 1 (1.1 percent)
ESPNU: 6 (6.5 percent)
Raycom: 14 (15.2 percent)
RSN: 17 (18.5 percent)
Total: 92 (the percents add up to 99.9 due to rounding)

If you combine Raycom and RSN, you get 31 (33.7 percent). If you combine ACCNE, Raycom, and RSN, you get 44 (47.8 percent).

I had no idea the ACC would still be using Regional networks along side the ACCN.

Appreciate the effort in laying this out for me. Very interesting numbers!

(05-13-2019 02:01 PM)EvanJ Wrote:  https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearm.sites/a...elease.pdf has last year's ACC schedule on Page 4. Games on RSNs are in three categories, RSN, Raycom, and ACCNE (ACC Network). ACCNE might refer to games on ESPN College Sports Extra channels. Here are the channels by week for games at ACC teams:

1: ACCNE (3), ESPN, ESPNU, Raycom (2), RSN (8 total)
2: ABC, ACCNE (6), Raycom, RSN (9 total)
3: ESPN (2), ESPN2, ESPNU, RSN (2) (6 total, 3 games canceled)
4: ABC (2), ACCNE, ESPN2, ESPNews, ESPNU, Raycom, RSN (8 total)
5: ABC, ESPN, ESPN2 (2), ESPNU, Raycom, RSN (2) (8 total)
6: ABC (2), ESPN (2), Raycom, RSN (6 total)
7: ESPN2, ESPNU, Raycom, RSN (4 total)
8: ESPN, ESPN2, Raycom, RSN (4 total)
9: ABC, ESPN (2), ESPN2, Raycom, RSN (2) (7 total)
10: ABC (2), ESPN2 (2), Raycom (2), RSN (7 total)
11: ABC, ESPN, ESPN2 (2), ESPNU, Raycom, RSN (7 total)
12: ACCNE, ESPN (2), ESPN2, Raycom, RSN (2) (7 total)
13: ABC (2), ESPN (3), ESPN2, Raycom, RSN (8 total)
14: ABC (Conference Championship), ACCNE (2 regular season) (3 total)

Totals:
ABC: 13 (14.1 percent)
ACCNE: 13 (14.1 percent)
ESPN: 15 (16.3 percent)
ESPN2: 13 (14.1 percent)
ESPNews: 1 (1.1 percent)
ESPNU: 6 (6.5 percent)
Raycom: 14 (15.2 percent)
RSN: 17 (18.5 percent)
Total: 92 (the percents add up to 99.9 due to rounding)

If you combine Raycom and RSN, you get 31 (33.7 percent). If you combine ACCNE, Raycom, and RSN, you get 44 (47.8 percent).

I think you're all over it. Raycom and RSN will disappear and those ACCNE games will now be ACCN games too. There is some variability from year to year due to OOC games - some teams play 3/4 at home every year, some play 3/4 one year and 2/2 the next, etc.

(05-13-2019 02:22 PM)AntiG Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 09:10 AM)cubucks Wrote:  What's up Minnesota and North Carolina? That's just embarrassing!

I do find some joy though with Minnesota. I hate them just as much as Michigan.

its actually a good reason why this is a flawed study, you really need a 10-20 year range to get better data on these. Unless you are a "franchise" like Ohio State, Michigan, Texas, Oklahoma, etc you rapidly lose viewers when the team sucks.

I'm sure if you compare Rutgers 2006-07 versus 2018-19 you'd probably get a massive discrepancy (and deservedly so given Rutgers' leadership's failure to hire the right coach post-Schiano). I would assume the same goes for Minnesota and UNC.

I agree with you. Still embarrassing though, lol.

You all at Rutgers need to figure out how to keep your own talent at home. To many nice high school programs to not be able to build a competitor. I know I'm not saying anything you already know. Opportunity is there for the right coaching staff.

(05-13-2019 08:21 AM)EvanJ Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 06:52 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  In fact, most conferences show the championship schools as their top two most viewed teams. Only Northwestern, Pitt, and Utah were not. Utah looks especially bad relative to their conference mates. Pitt doesn't look much better but lucked into the ACC championship.

Florida State went 5-7 with their first below .500 season in a long time other than vacated wins. 6 of their 7 losses were by at least 19. They were second in the ACC, and way above third. The top two couldn't have played in the ACC Championship game because they're in the same division.

I am aware of how Florida State did last season and I wasn't taking a shot at them. They should be commended by how they drew viewers despite performance. On the other hand, Pitt got the viewer boost by playing in the ACC championship (against the top draw Clemson) and still was middle of the pack in the ACC for number of viewers.

(05-13-2019 02:40 PM)cubucks Wrote:  

(05-13-2019 02:22 PM)AntiG Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 09:10 AM)cubucks Wrote:  What's up Minnesota and North Carolina? That's just embarrassing!

I do find some joy though with Minnesota. I hate them just as much as Michigan.

its actually a good reason why this is a flawed study, you really need a 10-20 year range to get better data on these. Unless you are a "franchise" like Ohio State, Michigan, Texas, Oklahoma, etc you rapidly lose viewers when the team sucks.

I'm sure if you compare Rutgers 2006-07 versus 2018-19 you'd probably get a massive discrepancy (and deservedly so given Rutgers' leadership's failure to hire the right coach post-Schiano). I would assume the same goes for Minnesota and UNC.

I agree with you. Still embarrassing though, lol.

You all at Rutgers need to figure out how to keep your own talent at home. To many nice high school programs to not be able to build a competitor. I know I'm not saying anything you already know. Opportunity is there for the right coaching staff.

That's an easy one - Rutgers needs to be willing to pay the money to get the right coach in place. Until they stop being so cheap, they'll continue to watch the top guys go out of state on the regular.

Dan Mullen wanted to come here when Flood was fired due to his NJ/NYC/Philly roots. Rutgers didn't want to pay his salary + his assistants' salaries.

(05-13-2019 11:17 PM)AntiG Wrote:  

(05-13-2019 02:40 PM)cubucks Wrote:  

(05-13-2019 02:22 PM)AntiG Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 09:10 AM)cubucks Wrote:  What's up Minnesota and North Carolina? That's just embarrassing!

I do find some joy though with Minnesota. I hate them just as much as Michigan.

its actually a good reason why this is a flawed study, you really need a 10-20 year range to get better data on these. Unless you are a "franchise" like Ohio State, Michigan, Texas, Oklahoma, etc you rapidly lose viewers when the team sucks.

I'm sure if you compare Rutgers 2006-07 versus 2018-19 you'd probably get a massive discrepancy (and deservedly so given Rutgers' leadership's failure to hire the right coach post-Schiano). I would assume the same goes for Minnesota and UNC.

I agree with you. Still embarrassing though, lol.

You all at Rutgers need to figure out how to keep your own talent at home. To many nice high school programs to not be able to build a competitor. I know I'm not saying anything you already know. Opportunity is there for the right coaching staff.

That's an easy one - Rutgers needs to be willing to pay the money to get the right coach in place. Until they stop being so cheap, they'll continue to watch the top guys go out of state on the regular.

Dan Mullen wanted to come here when Flood was fired due to his NJ/NYC/Philly roots. Rutgers didn't want to pay his salary + his assistants' salaries.

Once they get fully vested in the B1G, they should have plenty of money. That's 2021 I think. From what I've seen, they're spending some cash on facilities so hopefully they'll do the same with coaching. A good Rutgers is good for the conference.

(05-14-2019 09:19 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(05-13-2019 11:17 PM)AntiG Wrote:  

(05-13-2019 02:40 PM)cubucks Wrote:  

(05-13-2019 02:22 PM)AntiG Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 09:10 AM)cubucks Wrote:  What's up Minnesota and North Carolina? That's just embarrassing!

I do find some joy though with Minnesota. I hate them just as much as Michigan.

its actually a good reason why this is a flawed study, you really need a 10-20 year range to get better data on these. Unless you are a "franchise" like Ohio State, Michigan, Texas, Oklahoma, etc you rapidly lose viewers when the team sucks.

I'm sure if you compare Rutgers 2006-07 versus 2018-19 you'd probably get a massive discrepancy (and deservedly so given Rutgers' leadership's failure to hire the right coach post-Schiano). I would assume the same goes for Minnesota and UNC.

I agree with you. Still embarrassing though, lol.

You all at Rutgers need to figure out how to keep your own talent at home. To many nice high school programs to not be able to build a competitor. I know I'm not saying anything you already know. Opportunity is there for the right coaching staff.

That's an easy one - Rutgers needs to be willing to pay the money to get the right coach in place. Until they stop being so cheap, they'll continue to watch the top guys go out of state on the regular.

Dan Mullen wanted to come here when Flood was fired due to his NJ/NYC/Philly roots. Rutgers didn't want to pay his salary + his assistants' salaries.

Once they get fully vested in the B1G, they should have plenty of money. That's 2021 I think. From what I've seen, they're spending some cash on facilities so hopefully they'll do the same with coaching. A good Rutgers is good for the conference.

Yes it is! I've also been preaching for a couple years that I truly believe Maryland is going to be a top team soon. They are so close with Talent!

(05-14-2019 09:49 AM)cubucks Wrote:  

(05-14-2019 09:19 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(05-13-2019 11:17 PM)AntiG Wrote:  

(05-13-2019 02:40 PM)cubucks Wrote:  

(05-13-2019 02:22 PM)AntiG Wrote:  its actually a good reason why this is a flawed study, you really need a 10-20 year range to get better data on these. Unless you are a "franchise" like Ohio State, Michigan, Texas, Oklahoma, etc you rapidly lose viewers when the team sucks.

I'm sure if you compare Rutgers 2006-07 versus 2018-19 you'd probably get a massive discrepancy (and deservedly so given Rutgers' leadership's failure to hire the right coach post-Schiano). I would assume the same goes for Minnesota and UNC.

I agree with you. Still embarrassing though, lol.

You all at Rutgers need to figure out how to keep your own talent at home. To many nice high school programs to not be able to build a competitor. I know I'm not saying anything you already know. Opportunity is there for the right coaching staff.

That's an easy one - Rutgers needs to be willing to pay the money to get the right coach in place. Until they stop being so cheap, they'll continue to watch the top guys go out of state on the regular.

Dan Mullen wanted to come here when Flood was fired due to his NJ/NYC/Philly roots. Rutgers didn't want to pay his salary + his assistants' salaries.

Once they get fully vested in the B1G, they should have plenty of money. That's 2021 I think. From what I've seen, they're spending some cash on facilities so hopefully they'll do the same with coaching. A good Rutgers is good for the conference.

Yes it is! I've also been preaching for a couple years that I truly believe Maryland is going to be a top team soon. They are so close with Talent!

We shall see. I'm both a Rutgers alum and a Mets fan, so I'm an automatic skeptic given how cheap the leadership has been for decades when it came to making the smart investment. Big Ten was a godsend to us, and Schiano truly beat the odds, and while the school has upgraded facilities, they didn't have the foresight to see that had they spent just a few million more on the right coach, there would have been a financial boon in terms of seat purchases, box purchases, alumni donations, etc. Right now its getting to the point where the alumni and fans are getting seriously fed up - donations are at an all-time high, but results are not on the field and season ticket and seat sales have receded a lot for 2019. If Hobbs doesn't make a power move this year to fire Ash and hire a legit stud coach, they will start seeing real consequences.