Total viewers is even dumber because then you're just measuring the number of televised games by proxy. Yes people watch Army-Navy. Yes people will watch the CCG because it is on ABC. It's pretty much completely channel and time slot. No school in this conference has hundreds of thousands of people tuning in into particular game specifically to watch that school. Except for the Army-Navy game. That's it.

The only thing that would be interesting is to see ESPN+ viewers. Those broadcasts actually have people tuning in to watch those schools, not hundreds of thousands of people/entities who threw on ESPN.

I think that Total Viewers is valid for individual schools, not the conference, to consider more along the lines of "reach" than "brand." The AD can brag to the President/Chancellor that a bodybag paycheck game at Enormous State U got the institution into alot of living rooms.

But the idea of dismissing conference-controlled games vs big names is what I find myself fighting. So many want "G5" vs "G5" or intraconference, but want to throw away the Bama at USF or VPI at ECU that the media partner is paying for.

I would quibble a little on your CCG comment. AAC CCG gets viewers because it has NY6 implications. Every year.
Yes,bit is timeslots timeslots timeslots overall. Whoever are AAC#1 and AAC#2 will get those good timeslots. The three quitters weren't some Big Three in terms of ratings and viewers, and AAC viewership was amost identical after they left.

I can see your point about home games against big name teams. Unfortunately those are becoming few and far between with the way college football is moving.

I agree with what you said about the championship game. But I don’t think that significantly changes with which programs are in that game.

(03-05-2024 01:26 PM)DowdyPirate Wrote:  

(03-05-2024 11:16 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 06:55 PM)DowdyPirate Wrote:  

(03-01-2024 12:32 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

Wow so a 100% correlation between proportion of games on higher viewed channels and higher view counts. Real headscratcher there.

Average viewers of ESPN+ games would actually be interesting/informative.

Not exactly. There are teams that over/under achieved based on their placement. For example, there is zero reason USF's numbers should be so low given the amount of ESPN2 spots they received. Same can be said for SMU, who has zero excuse to not be at the top based on 8 appearances on TV.

SMU's fan support reminds me of Houston's. Turbo wealthy donors, but there are only 38 of them.

ESPN2 is a terrible spot when you look at the average views on that channel, that's all the more reason for their average to be low. USF is exactly where you would expect them to be 3 on ESPN2 * .22M views + 2 on ESPNU *.04M views = .74M views / 5 games = 0.148M views/game

That one perplexes me. I get that ABC has more visibility than ESPN, and that ESPN has more than ESPNU, based on tv packages and all that. The ESPN-ESPN2 comparison, however, doesn't make sense to me. Are there any cable/satellite packages that have ESPN but don't have ESPN2, and don't have the two channels right next to each other on the guide for that matter?

If not, then I'd imagine that the difference comes down to both the quality of games going on ESPN vs. ESPN2, and maybe the adjacent programming (what was on before/after the game).

Either way, the only comparison that really makes sense is to compile as much data as possible, and compare teams in conference games on populations of channels/timeslots. i.e. how have each of us averaged in the Thursday night ESPN time slot over the past decade, or the noon ESPN2 slot, etc? Obviously, matchups will be important(two of us play each game after all), but the law of averages should shake it out.

(03-07-2024 09:14 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(03-05-2024 01:26 PM)DowdyPirate Wrote:  

(03-05-2024 11:16 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 06:55 PM)DowdyPirate Wrote:  

(03-01-2024 12:32 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

Wow so a 100% correlation between proportion of games on higher viewed channels and higher view counts. Real headscratcher there.

Average viewers of ESPN+ games would actually be interesting/informative.

Not exactly. There are teams that over/under achieved based on their placement. For example, there is zero reason USF's numbers should be so low given the amount of ESPN2 spots they received. Same can be said for SMU, who has zero excuse to not be at the top based on 8 appearances on TV.

SMU's fan support reminds me of Houston's. Turbo wealthy donors, but there are only 38 of them.

ESPN2 is a terrible spot when you look at the average views on that channel, that's all the more reason for their average to be low. USF is exactly where you would expect them to be 3 on ESPN2 * .22M views + 2 on ESPNU *.04M views = .74M views / 5 games = 0.148M views/game

That one perplexes me. I get that ABC has more visibility than ESPN, and that ESPN has more than ESPNU, based on tv packages and all that. The ESPN-ESPN2 comparison, however, doesn't make sense to me. Are there any cable/satellite packages that have ESPN but don't have ESPN2, and don't have the two channels right next to each other on the guide for that matter?

If not, then I'd imagine that the difference comes down to both the quality of games going on ESPN vs. ESPN2, and maybe the adjacent programming (what was on before/after the game).

Either way, the only comparison that really makes sense is to compile as much data as possible, and compare teams in conference games on populations of channels/timeslots. i.e. how have each of us averaged in the Thursday night ESPN time slot over the past decade, or the noon ESPN2 slot, etc? Obviously, matchups will be important(two of us play each game after all), but the law of averages should shake it out.

I imagine the reason for the large dip on ESPN2 games are because a better matchup is on ESPN at the same time. Tulane at Memphis was a Friday night game I think, which would have given us a captive audience. Just my two cents.

(03-07-2024 09:43 AM)Memphis Yankee Wrote:  

This below is what I was alluding to in my earlier response.
This is still a bit broad. There is another post in that 2023 Ratings thread with an season-long, multi-conference drill down to weeknights by network, too.

Getting down to team numbers by timeslot, very quickly get down to small sample sizes. When n=1, the eaches are eaches, with different competition from the NFL, or the Voice, or the ACC, or whatever.

(And I'll say once again, intra-conference only has flaws)

(12-09-2023 10:53 AM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

I thought I would look at how the American and the direct competition measure up against those broad and season-long average audiences by network. That's still imperfect - five days of the week, all timeslots lumped in there, and UTSA-Tulane is just in the same bin with say Bedlam or Miami-FSU. These are conference controlled inventory only, so e.g. Bama at USF yes but Rice at Texas no.

CBS overall average - 5.07 million
mwc CBS (3 PAC games) - 1.91 million
AAC CBS (AF at Navy) - 1.21 million

Fox overall average - 4.03 million
mwc Fox (CCG +1) - 0.9985 million

ABC overall average - 3.95 million
AAC ABC (3 games, 1 ooc) - 2.813 million

ESPN overall average - 1.96 million
MAC ESPN (CCG) - 1.29 million
AAC ESPN (7 games) - 0.808 million
CUSA ESPN (2 games) - 0.575 million
SBC ESPN (CCG +2) - 0.548 million

FS1 overall average - 0.587 million
mwc FS1 (13 games) - 0.305 million

ESPN2 overall average - 0.417 million
MAC ESPN2 (7 games) - 0.349 million
AAC ESPN2 (17 games) - 0.333 million
CUSA ESPN2 (3 games) - 0.319 million
SBC ESPN2 (10 games) - 0.258 million

FS2 overall average - 0.171 million
mwc FS2 (2 games) - 0.108 million

NFLN overall average - 0.088 million
AAC NFLN (1 game ) - 0.083 million
SBC NFLN (8 games) - 0.072 million

ESPNU overall average - 0.065 million
CUSA ESPNU (5 games) - 0.116 million
MAC ESPNU (13 games) - 0.080 million
AAC ESPNU (13 games) - 0.051 million
SBC ESPNU (9 games) - 0.045 million

I see that the PAC-2 is close to signing a 1 year deal with the CW for their home games.

Someone who was angry that we missed out on these two must-have schools please explain it to me.

I will wager that the top two AAC teams in viewers on our contract outdraw the viewership of these thirteen games.

(03-26-2024 08:54 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  I see that the PAC-2 is close to signing a 1 year deal with the CW for their home games.

Someone who was angry that we missed out on these two must-have schools please explain it to me.

I will wager that the top two AAC teams in viewers on our contract outdraw the viewership of these thirteen games.

The issue is not what the PAC-2 does alone, but the impact on the AAC upon joining other schools either by MWC membership or by creating a "best of the rest" conference. Dismissing the threat at this point is premature, IMO.

(03-27-2024 07:08 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(03-26-2024 08:54 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  I see that the PAC-2 is close to signing a 1 year deal with the CW for their home games.

Someone who was angry that we missed out on these two must-have schools please explain it to me.

I will wager that the top two AAC teams in viewers on our contract outdraw the viewership of these thirteen games.

The issue is not what the PAC-2 does alone, but the impact on the AAC upon joining other schools either by MWC membership or by creating a "best of the rest" conference. Dismissing the threat at this point is premature, IMO.

Yup. Those two schools arent staying indy forever. They are buying time until the ACC goes boom in the next few years.

(03-27-2024 07:17 AM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(03-27-2024 07:08 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(03-26-2024 08:54 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  I see that the PAC-2 is close to signing a 1 year deal with the CW for their home games.

Someone who was angry that we missed out on these two must-have schools please explain it to me.

I will wager that the top two AAC teams in viewers on our contract outdraw the viewership of these thirteen games.

The issue is not what the PAC-2 does alone, but the impact on the AAC upon joining other schools either by MWC membership or by creating a "best of the rest" conference. Dismissing the threat at this point is premature, IMO.

Yup. Those two schools aren't staying indy forever. They are buying time until the ACC goes boom in the next few years.

Yeah, well, seven to eight months ago there were literally thousands of posts on this board about WSU and OSU.

One theme - the one I was poking fun at - was that the AAC was absolutely missing the boat in not pulling in WOSU. Posters pilloried Aresco, blamed every school but their own for rejecting WOSU, and more. This was silly for more than one reason. First the two schools were determined NOT to merge with another conference; their priority remains to maintain and rebuild the PAC. Second, both of those presidents have no interest in shifting eastward. Third, and the point here, there was some wild overestimation of the value those two schools offer, if the AAC had been able to entice them.

The market has spoken. The best case ceiling for this CW contract is probably $20 million total, $10 million per school. That's the market value of a WOSU.

So, that's also their value in whatever "best of the rest" construct is out there. If that's WOSU, plus the top 4 mwc (at $4.5 million each), plus 4 AAC schools (at $7 million each)...that's a $6.6 million per school conference. Even if they magically make other schools worth the same....An AAC school making $10 million per year in a new conference needs 6 years to break even from an $18 million exit fee. If the all-sports travel to Corvallis and Pullman and Boise is $1 million per year (remember UConn president said they would save $2 million per year replacing Tulsa with Omaha and Wichita with Milwaukee...) you need 9 years to break even.

Connecting them to a post-ACC world?
Okay, IF there is an ACC jailbreak, and IF the PAC2 is still alive to see it...they're second in line picking programs to make a new conference, behind the rebuilding rump ACC. If Calford don't win in the ACC jailbreak scenario, they are NOT getting back together with WOSU to rebuild from there -- they placed their bet and that bet was taking reduced ACC shares to get away from WOSU. PAC2 plus a couple mwc (the scheduling deal made it expensive for WOSU to pick and choose mwc schools rather then merge) may be picking CTZ AAC schools after the ACC is done. The question is who do Cal, Stanford, GT, Wake, BC, etc take and who do they leave for WOSU et al?

Either way, the actual value of WOSU is demonstrated by this CW deal and that will be the driver, either in a "best of the rest" or "when the ACC goes boom."

https://nypost.com/2024/03/31/sports/chi...-accident/


clt says smu player is in the news

(03-28-2024 11:35 AM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(03-27-2024 07:17 AM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(03-27-2024 07:08 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(03-26-2024 08:54 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  I see that the PAC-2 is close to signing a 1 year deal with the CW for their home games.

Someone who was angry that we missed out on these two must-have schools please explain it to me.

I will wager that the top two AAC teams in viewers on our contract outdraw the viewership of these thirteen games.

The issue is not what the PAC-2 does alone, but the impact on the AAC upon joining other schools either by MWC membership or by creating a "best of the rest" conference. Dismissing the threat at this point is premature, IMO.

Yup. Those two schools aren't staying indy forever. They are buying time until the ACC goes boom in the next few years.

Yeah, well, seven to eight months ago there were literally thousands of posts on this board about WSU and OSU.

One theme - the one I was poking fun at - was that the AAC was absolutely missing the boat in not pulling in WOSU. Posters pilloried Aresco, blamed every school but their own for rejecting WOSU, and more. This was silly for more than one reason. First the two schools were determined NOT to merge with another conference; their priority remains to maintain and rebuild the PAC. Second, both of those presidents have no interest in shifting eastward. Third, and the point here, there was some wild overestimation of the value those two schools offer, if the AAC had been able to entice them.

The market has spoken. The best case ceiling for this CW contract is probably $20 million total, $10 million per school. That's the market value of a WOSU.

So, that's also their value in whatever "best of the rest" construct is out there. If that's WOSU, plus the top 4 mwc (at $4.5 million each), plus 4 AAC schools (at $7 million each)...that's a $6.6 million per school conference. Even if they magically make other schools worth the same....An AAC school making $10 million per year in a new conference needs 6 years to break even from an $18 million exit fee. If the all-sports travel to Corvallis and Pullman and Boise is $1 million per year (remember UConn president said they would save $2 million per year replacing Tulsa with Omaha and Wichita with Milwaukee...) you need 9 years to break even.

Connecting them to a post-ACC world?
Okay, IF there is an ACC jailbreak, and IF the PAC2 is still alive to see it...they're second in line picking programs to make a new conference, behind the rebuilding rump ACC. If Calford don't win in the ACC jailbreak scenario, they are NOT getting back together with WOSU to rebuild from there -- they placed their bet and that bet was taking reduced ACC shares to get away from WOSU. PAC2 plus a couple mwc (the scheduling deal made it expensive for WOSU to pick and choose mwc schools rather then merge) may be picking CTZ AAC schools after the ACC is done. The question is who do Cal, Stanford, GT, Wake, BC, etc take and who do they leave for WOSU et al?

Either way, the actual value of WOSU is demonstrated by this CW deal and that will be the driver, either in a "best of the rest" or "when the ACC goes boom."

I think for W/OSU the best scenario is for the ACC to not fall apart any time soon, survive one year and then pick off the best of the rest from MW/AAC (say the top 4 or 5 from each conference) to form a new conference under the P10 brand. Then they would hope to get a couple decent options if the ACC explodes later. That is what they are probably angling for, but I am not sure that they are likely to get it.

More likely they just do an inverted takeover with the MW and call it the P10 (or Pac something). I think they would ditch Wyoming and New Mexico and maybe Hawaii while doing that if they could, but they might not be able to pull that off.

They will try to pretend that this new version is part of the power conferences (and if they get scenario 1 above they might even have an argument) but I do not think that they will get that level support in terms of payday or treatment. It will still likely be the #1 football G5/6 conference from that point until something changes.

(04-02-2024 03:23 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

He made $1.9 million in 2023.

2024: $2.2 million
2025: $2.25 million
2026: $2.5 million
2027: $2.6 million
2028: $2.7 million

Incentives up to $500k including:
1. Nine wins $100K
2. Ten wins & CCG appearance $250K
3. P5 win $25k
4. College Playoff appearance $125K

Buyout figures are presently not available.

https://www.commercialappeal.com/story/s...180472007/

https://x.com/rossdellenger/status/17752...OBPKLg0WDw


The American Athletic Conference is targeting Tim Pernetti as its next commissioner, sources tell @YahooSports. Deal could be finalized soon.

A former Rutgers AD, Pernetti has strong business relationships from leadership experiences at Endeavor and IMG and in pro sports.

(04-02-2024 03:51 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(04-02-2024 03:23 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

He made $1.9 million in 2023.

2024: $2.2 million
2025: $2.25 million
2026: $2.5 million
2027: $2.6 million
2028: $2.7 million

Incentives up to $500k including:
1. Nine wins $100K
2. Ten wins & CCG appearance $250K
3. P5 win $25k
4. College Playoff appearance $125K

Buyout figures are presently not available.

https://www.commercialappeal.com/story/s...180472007/

Are you guys happy about it?

(04-03-2024 04:22 PM)Ourland Wrote:  

(04-02-2024 03:51 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(04-02-2024 03:23 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

He made $1.9 million in 2023.

2024: $2.2 million
2025: $2.25 million
2026: $2.5 million
2027: $2.6 million
2028: $2.7 million

Incentives up to $500k including:
1. Nine wins $100K
2. Ten wins & CCG appearance $250K
3. P5 win $25k
4. College Playoff appearance $125K

Buyout figures are presently not available.

https://www.commercialappeal.com/story/s...180472007/

Are you guys happy about it?

Meh...I don't know. He wasn't going to get canned for winning 8 games in the regular season, but winning the Liberty Bowl against a P5 team got him this contract imo.

Army has new slotbacks coach

https://goarmywestpoint.com/news/2024/4/...hing-staff

I'd say this is sort of related. Networks in trouble.