|
Post by nowhereman on Jun 1, 2023 1:01:23 GMT -5
So the speculation is that the Pac is done. Honestly playing devil's advocate, if I was a network suit, I wouldn't want to pay the Pac what they think they're worth. In the revenue sports of football and men's basketball, Pac has been largely irrelevant for at least the last decade.. No one cares about volleyball, softball or tennis - of course I do but most people I know don't. I heard the Pac was being lowballed. Ummmn..no. They're being offered exactly what they should be. Put another way - it'd be nice to have the Pac. But do we have to have? No.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,438
Member is Online
|
Post by bluepenquin on Jun 1, 2023 7:07:13 GMT -5
So the speculation is that the Pac is done. Honestly playing devil's advocate, if I was a network suit, I wouldn't want to pay the Pac what they think they're worth. In the revenue sports of football and men's basketball, Pac has been largely irrelevant for at least the last decade.. No one cares about volleyball, softball or tennis - of course I do but most people I know don't. I heard the Pac was being lowballed. Ummmn..no. They're being offered exactly what they should be. Put another way - it'd be nice to have the Pac. But do we have to have? No. I certainly don't know - and probably don't necessarily have an accurate opinion (but that doesn't stop me from giving it). IMO - the PAC surviving the next ~ 5 years is about 50%. I would have put it a bit north of 50% earlier this week, I know think it is a bit below 50%. Way too early to say the PAC is done in the next couple of years.
|
|
|
Post by horns1 on Jun 1, 2023 8:22:15 GMT -5
So the speculation is that the Pac is done. Honestly playing devil's advocate, if I was a network suit, I wouldn't want to pay the Pac what they think they're worth. In the revenue sports of football and men's basketball, Pac has been largely irrelevant for at least the last decade.. No one cares about volleyball, softball or tennis - of course I do but most people I know don't. I heard the Pac was being lowballed. Ummmn..no. They're being offered exactly what they should be. Put another way - it'd be nice to have the Pac. But do we have to have? No. TV networks are kind of pinching pennies right now. ESPN reportedly doesn't want to pay the SEC more money for 8 additional conference matchups annually beginning in 2024. Supposedly, ESPN going through another round of employee layoffs. ESPN/ABC has SEC, Big 12, and ACC inventory. FOX and CBS have the B1G inventory (and paid big money to get it). There just isn't significant money for the PAC at this time; and, after losing the LA TV market, the PAC is not worth close to what they had been before losing USC and USC (and that was still 4th at best among the P5 conferences). While I can understand the PAC leaders wanting a TV deal equal to or greater than the one signed by the Big 12, I think they overplayed their hand in their negotiations. PAC kind of dragged their feet thinking there would be a bidding war, and that gave the networks time to re-evaluate how to best spend their money.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Jun 1, 2023 8:38:21 GMT -5
So the speculation is that the Pac is done. Honestly playing devil's advocate, if I was a network suit, I wouldn't want to pay the Pac what they think they're worth. In the revenue sports of football and men's basketball, Pac has been largely irrelevant for at least the last decade.. No one cares about volleyball, softball or tennis - of course I do but most people I know don't. I heard the Pac was being lowballed. Ummmn..no. They're being offered exactly what they should be. Put another way - it'd be nice to have the Pac. But do we have to have? No. TV networks are kind of pinching pennies right now. ESPN reportedly doesn't want to pay the SEC more money for 8 additional conference matchups annually beginning in 2024. Supposedly, ESPN going through another round of employee layoffs. ESPN/ABC has SEC, Big 12, and ACC inventory. FOX and CBS have the B1G inventory (and paid big money to get it). There just isn't significant money for the PAC at this time; and, after losing the LA TV market, the PAC is not worth close to what they had been before losing USC and USC (and that was still 4th at best among the P5 conferences). While I can understand the PAC leaders wanting a TV deal equal to or greater than the one signed by the Big 12, I think they overplayed their hand in their negotiations. PAC kind of dragged their feet thinking there would be a bidding war, and that gave the networks time to re-evaluate how to best spend their money. I agree. It seems the Pac-12 made the same mistake that the Big East made about a decade earlier by turning down ESPN's initial offer and going to market. Now, I suppose it's still possible that someone could save the Pac-12 at the eleventh hour. But it doesn't look great at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Jun 1, 2023 10:44:28 GMT -5
I mean, it's not like I said everyone in the country cares about Washington playing Washington State. I wasn't claiming anything about the PAC-12/10/?; I was just saying that the idea that everyone cares about Michigan or Ohio State is clearly false. There is zero level of difference for me between Michigan sports and Vanderbilt sports. They are both basically non-entities in my life, and I think I'm far from being alone in that respect among the people where I live. I do not dispute that Big Ten sports are very popular in the Big Ten region, but so what? There is a lot of this world that isn't "the Big Ten region". As AY points out, it's hardly the same as something like the Superbowl, which is pretty much impossible to be oblivious to even if you have no interest in watching it. Even the average regular season NFL football game draws about 17 million viewers, which your numbers suggest is the very peak of college football viewership. But if people won't turn on Wazzou Football now when it's just on, why would a company bet on people actively subscribing for a season, a month or a game, and logging on to watch them? Now if 4 million people will watch Michigan play a bad team (I'm taking BBG at his word on that) then it's worth researching how many of them might be willing to pay money for an MLB League Pass type of service and/or schedule there day around watching their team play. And they don't care where the subscribers come from. If they get 5 million subscribers between Chicago and Cleveland and none from Pullman, I think they'll survive. That said, I don't know that Washington doesn't make the cut at the end of the day because they are going to want to be in various markets. I'm not sure you get two teams from South Carolina, but I do think you get one team in the northwest - but that's just a hunch. Someone will get paid a lot of money to figure out what combination of teams will make the most money.
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Jun 1, 2023 11:25:57 GMT -5
Boy, all this co-mingling of the terms SEC and B1G in regards to football. I'm no expert but when I look at the recent list of college football champions, I'm not seeing any B1G schools. Am I missing something? They may not be the best at football but boy do their fans know how to use a TV clicker! Here are 37 schools averaging over 1 million viewers per game last season - that's probably more than they'd need but it's also just a 1 season snapshot. Nebraska and Michigan State were bad, and still in the top 20 - safe bets. Utah and K-State each won conference titles and were 33rd and 30th in average viewership so they might be questionable. The numbers next to each school indicate the average number of viewers per week for a 12-week season.
Streaming numbers are included when available. Games that do not have available data are counted as zero.
Ohio State — 5.80M Alabama — 5.11M Michigan — 4.37M Tennessee — 4.13M Georgia — 3.50M Notre Dame — 3.30M LSU — 3.22M Texas — 3.06M Penn State — 3.05M Clemson — 2.59M Florida — 2.57M Oregon — 2.21M TCU — 2.20M Southern Cal — 2.07M Florida State — 2.03M Nebraska — 1.98M Michigan State — 1.91M Texas A&M — 1.87M Maryland — 1.864M Auburn — 1.863M Arkansas — 1.80M Mississippi — 1.753M Oklahoma — 1.748M Oklahoma State — 1.68M UCLA — 1.591M Wisconsin — 1.587M Iowa — 1.50M Kentucky — 1.35M Baylor — 1.32M Kansas State — 1.23M Indiana — 1.19M Illinois — 1.17M Utah — 1.16M Washington — 1.15M Northwestern — 1.13M Mississippi State — 1.10M Minnesota — 1.05M medium.com/run-it-back-with-zach/which-college-football-programs-were-the-most-watched-in-2022-94eca4f6acbd
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jun 1, 2023 11:55:25 GMT -5
Boy, all this co-mingling of the terms SEC and B1G in regards to football. I'm no expert but when I look at the recent list of college football champions, I'm not seeing any B1G schools. Am I missing something? They may not be the best at football but boy do their fans know how to use a TV clicker! Here are 37 schools averaging over 1 million viewers per game last season - that's probably more than they'd need but it's also just a 1 season snapshot. Nebraska and Michigan State were bad, and still in the top 20 - safe bets. Utah and K-State each won conference titles and were 33rd and 30th in average viewership so they might be questionable. The numbers next to each school indicate the average number of viewers per week for a 12-week season.
Streaming numbers are included when available. Games that do not have available data are counted as zero.
Ohio State — 5.80M Alabama — 5.11M Michigan — 4.37M Tennessee — 4.13M Georgia — 3.50M Notre Dame — 3.30M LSU — 3.22M Texas — 3.06M Penn State — 3.05M Clemson — 2.59M Florida — 2.57M Oregon — 2.21M TCU — 2.20M Southern Cal — 2.07M Florida State — 2.03M Nebraska — 1.98M Michigan State — 1.91M Texas A&M — 1.87M Maryland — 1.864M Auburn — 1.863M Arkansas — 1.80M Mississippi — 1.753M Oklahoma — 1.748M Oklahoma State — 1.68M UCLA — 1.591M Wisconsin — 1.587M Iowa — 1.50M Kentucky — 1.35M Baylor — 1.32M Kansas State — 1.23M Indiana — 1.19M Illinois — 1.17M Utah — 1.16M Washington — 1.15M Northwestern — 1.13M Mississippi State — 1.10M Minnesota — 1.05M medium.com/run-it-back-with-zach/which-college-football-programs-were-the-most-watched-in-2022-94eca4f6acbdStrangely enough, that shows Oregon as having more views than "the only really valuable brand in the PAC" or whatever it is that people are saying about USC.
|
|
|
Post by knapplc on Jun 1, 2023 12:33:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Jun 1, 2023 12:53:39 GMT -5
Lol, we're not pretending that the AAU actually matters for conference realignment, are we?
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Jun 1, 2023 12:59:29 GMT -5
They may not be the best at football but boy do their fans know how to use a TV clicker! Here are 37 schools averaging over 1 million viewers per game last season - that's probably more than they'd need but it's also just a 1 season snapshot. Nebraska and Michigan State were bad, and still in the top 20 - safe bets. Utah and K-State each won conference titles and were 33rd and 30th in average viewership so they might be questionable. The numbers next to each school indicate the average number of viewers per week for a 12-week season.
Streaming numbers are included when available. Games that do not have available data are counted as zero.
Ohio State — 5.80M Alabama — 5.11M Michigan — 4.37M Tennessee — 4.13M Georgia — 3.50M Notre Dame — 3.30M LSU — 3.22M Texas — 3.06M Penn State — 3.05M Clemson — 2.59M Florida — 2.57M Oregon — 2.21M TCU — 2.20M Southern Cal — 2.07M Florida State — 2.03M Nebraska — 1.98M Michigan State — 1.91M Texas A&M — 1.87M Maryland — 1.864M Auburn — 1.863M Arkansas — 1.80M Mississippi — 1.753M Oklahoma — 1.748M Oklahoma State — 1.68M UCLA — 1.591M Wisconsin — 1.587M Iowa — 1.50M Kentucky — 1.35M Baylor — 1.32M Kansas State — 1.23M Indiana — 1.19M Illinois — 1.17M Utah — 1.16M Washington — 1.15M Northwestern — 1.13M Mississippi State — 1.10M Minnesota — 1.05M medium.com/run-it-back-with-zach/which-college-football-programs-were-the-most-watched-in-2022-94eca4f6acbdStrangely enough, that shows Oregon as having more views than "the only really valuable brand in the PAC" or whatever it is that people are saying about USC. That’s a one season metric that doesn’t take into account what platform or time slot the various teams played in. As an example, TCU’s place in that list is not reflective of how valuable a commodity they are to various networks. It’s a testament to the success of their season buoyed by several games where there was a national reach with not much competition, such as the conference title game and the two playoff games. Oregon didn’t have those exact advantages last year. Of course, I feel like most people give Oregon credit for creating a brand awareness with some reach, so I don’t think they’re being dismissed as much as you seem to be claiming, at least on volleytalk. Mostly it’s to say those numbers are a one season snapshot. I think most people assume that Oregon and Washington are going to be in the Big 10 at some point relatively soon in any case.
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Jun 1, 2023 13:02:30 GMT -5
Lol, we're not pretending that the AAU actually matters for conference realignment, are we? The Big 10 has repeatedly shunted Notre Dame’s application to join the conference, telling them to seek AAU membership first, “then we’ll talk.” You didn’t know that? NOW the Big 10 will finally allow the Fighting Irish to join.
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Jun 1, 2023 13:03:20 GMT -5
Lol, we're not pretending that the AAU actually matters for conference realignment, are we? The Big 10 makes more money on research than it does on football... and it wasn't that close the last time I looked. Notre Dame absolutely would have gotten in without the AAU but this makes a 3 minute discussion a 30 second discussion.
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Jun 1, 2023 13:08:34 GMT -5
Lol, we're not pretending that the AAU actually matters for conference realignment, are we? The Big 10 makes more money on research than it does on football... and it wasn't that close the last time I looked. Notre Dame absolutely would have gotten in without the AAU but this makes a 3 minute discussion a 30 second discussion. That’s silly. The Big 10 has been begging Notre Dame to join for decades. The conference values its academic reputation and its research consortium is a big deal, but pretending like it has an impact vis a vis Notre Dame is just silliness. It’s not a 3 minute or 30 second discussion. It’s a concluded discussion where the decision was made in the distant past and it’s never changed.
|
|
|
Post by knapplc on Jun 1, 2023 13:17:50 GMT -5
Lol, we're not pretending that the AAU actually matters for conference realignment, are we? I appreciate the irony of a Nebraska fan pointing this out as much as the rest of VT, believe me.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Jun 1, 2023 13:30:21 GMT -5
Lol, we're not pretending that the AAU actually matters for conference realignment, are we? The Big 10 makes more money on research than it does on football... and it wasn't that close the last time I looked. Notre Dame absolutely would have gotten in without the AAU but this makes a 3 minute discussion a 30 second discussion. It doesn't matter. The Big Ten has wanted Notre Dame for at least 30 years and has been obsessed with them to the point that Notre Dame should really consider taking out a restraining order against them. The only reason they didn't join ~100 years ago is because of Michigan.
|
|