SIAP: More Big Ten Expansion

[Redmich]

Much of a schools value from a media and therefore conf perspective is based on viewership

Below are viewership data for the BIG and ACC

note Maryland and Rutgers viewership is poor but what gave them value is the markets they were in which gave increased viewership to other big ten schools (the big ten has largest and wealthiest alumni base of any power 5 conf - 2nd place isn’t close and they reside predominately east of Mississippi with a large concentration on the coast)

 

[Huskers123456]

You guys remember when Kevin Warren threatened to kick us out of the big 10 if we played football?

No.

 

[RedCap]

Much of a schools value from a media and therefore conf perspective is based on viewership

Below are viewership data for the BIG and ACC

note Maryland and Rutgers viewership is poor but what gave them value is the markets they were in which gave increased viewership to other big ten schools (the big ten has largest and wealthiest alumni base of any power 5 conf - 2nd place isn’t close and they reside predominately east of Mississippi with a large concentration on the coast)

That data is pretty sobering for all the posters complaining about Oregon and Washington not adding anything to the conference viewership.

 

[jkeb]

Much of a schools value from a media and therefore conf perspective is based on viewership

Below are viewership data for the BIG and ACC

note Maryland and Rutgers viewership is poor but what gave them value is the markets they were in which gave increased viewership to other big ten schools (the big ten has largest and wealthiest alumni base of any power 5 conf - 2nd place isn’t close and they reside predominately east of Mississippi with a large concentration on the coast)

Imagine if we were good at football

 

[Redmich]

That data is pretty sobering for all the posters complaining about Oregon and Washington not adding anything to the conference viewership.

I think a big part is member schools do not want to travel west more than once

Unlike the ACC schools - Oregon and Washington have already been turned down by the BIG

As we get closer to a power 2 they will be revetted

Have also heard the BIG may be waiting for the PAC12 to implode due to other members leaving and don’t want to be seen as putting in the last nail in the PAC12 coffin by taking Oregon and Washington

The PAC12 is trying to negotiate a media deal currently and with Oregon and Washington as their top schools they are getting offered peanuts

 

[king_kong_]

I think a big part is member schools do not want to travel west more than once

Unlike the ACC schools - Oregon and Washington have already been turned down by the BIG

As we get closer to a power 2 they will be revetted

Have also heard the BIG may be waiting for the PAC12 to implode due to other members leaving and don’t want to be seen as putting in the last nail in the PAC12 coffin by taking Oregon and Washington

The PAC12 is trying to negotiate a media deal currently and with Oregon and Washington as their top schools they are getting offered peanuts

Again, because actual viewership doesn’t factor. At all.

It’s the number of households within cable tv regional markets that matters, not how many people actually watch.

 

[Redmich]

Again, because actual viewership doesn’t factor. At all.

It’s the number of households within cable tv regional markets that matters, not how many people actually watch.

They go hand and hand but viewership is what is used to sell advertising - the more viewership the greater the ad price - now to increase viewership you need more TV markets so they do go hand in hand

It is why Super Bowl ads cost more than other national games - Monday and Sunday night games that are televised nationally and world wide

Also why when Fox gets the first pick of any big ten game all season - they pick Michigan and OSU -higher ratings/viewership that they leverage into ad sales

If viewership didn’t matter FOX could show Purdue v Indiana in prime time or OSU v Michigan and it wouldn’t matter fiscally

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

Yes, but this was about Bigten potential additions and you can’t remove a school so your point, while valid, doesn’t really matter.

My point is that IF Clemson became available, I doubt the SEC would pass on them, so the potential for a Big Ten addition would be moot.

 

[king_kong_]

They go hand and hand but viewership is what is used to sell advertising - the more viewership the greater the ad price - now to increase viewership you need more TV markets so they do go hand in hand

It is why Super Bowl ads cost more than other national games - Monday and Sunday night games that are televised nationally and world wide

Also why when Fox gets the first pick of any big ten game all season - they pick Michigan and OSU -higher ratings/viewership that they leverage into ad sales

If viewership didn’t matter FOX could show Purdue v Indiana in prime time or OSU v Michigan and it wouldn’t matter fiscally

You’re conflating two different things

Expansion is entirely driven by household/market gerrymandering

The network distribution is secondary and - as your chart shows - also not exactly correlated to viewership

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

They go hand and hand but viewership is what is used to sell advertising - the more viewership the greater the ad price - now to increase viewership you need more TV markets so they do go hand in hand

It is why Super Bowl ads cost more than other national games - Monday and Sunday night games that are televised nationally and world wide

Also why when Fox gets the first pick of any big ten game all season - they pick Michigan and OSU -higher ratings/viewership that they leverage into ad sales

If viewership didn’t matter FOX could show Purdue v Indiana in prime time or OSU v Michigan and it wouldn’t matter fiscally

While yes advertising matters to the networks, it is somewhat irrelevant to the leagues. After the contract is signed, the league doesn't care if the networks make money, well until the next time the contract comes up for bid. Advertising pays the network back on their investment. The league is only indirectly affected, again, in the next round of negotiations.

 

[moralvictories]

Clemson isn't AAU

They could always apply for AAU membership.

 

[RedCap]

I think a big part is member schools do not want to travel west more than once

Unlike the ACC schools - Oregon and Washington have already been turned down by the BIG

As we get closer to a power 2 they will be revetted

Have also heard the BIG may be waiting for the PAC12 to implode due to other members leaving and don’t want to be seen as putting in the last nail in the PAC12 coffin by taking Oregon and Washington

The PAC12 is trying to negotiate a media deal currently and with Oregon and Washington as their top schools they are getting offered peanuts

My understanding is that Oregon and Washington were evaluated and just told not at this time. The B1G told them they were waiting for an answer from Notre Dame first but might consider them in the future.

 

[moralvictories]

I think a big part is member schools do not want to travel west more than once

Unlike the ACC schools - Oregon and Washington have already been turned down by the BIG

As we get closer to a power 2 they will be revetted

Have also heard the BIG may be waiting for the PAC12 to implode due to other members leaving and don’t want to be seen as putting in the last nail in the PAC12 coffin by taking Oregon and Washington

The PAC12 is trying to negotiate a media deal currently and with Oregon and Washington as their top schools they are getting offered peanuts

The B1G put a nail in the PAC 12 conference's coffin the day they poached USC and UCLA from the PAC 12.

 

[Redmich]

While yes advertising matters to the networks, it is somewhat irrelevant to the leagues. After the contract is signed, the league doesn't care if the networks make money, well until the next time the contract comes up for bid. Advertising pays the network back on their investment. The league is only indirectly affected, again, in the next round of negotiations.

Yes - the networks need to offset the money they are paying the leagues with ads sales

This is what the BIG leverages in these negotiations - the BIG has 7 of the top 10 viewership numbers since 2016 including the #1 rated game every single year

As you said the BIG wants to be seen as a good investment when deals are renegotiated -they do that by touting viewership and projected ads sales

I think we are in alignment but just looking at opposite sides of the same coin

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

That data is pretty sobering for all the posters complaining about Oregon and Washington not adding anything to the conference viewership.

I don't think anyone ever said anything about viewership. As @king_kong_ has stated in this thread, it is about getting the Big Ten network in the bigger markets that matters. That is why Northwestern and Rutgers bring in more revenue to the Big Ten Network as far as cable subscribers than Nebraska or Iowa.

Additionally, there are so many angles to this that factor in and are being ignored or just not thought about.

1 - most of the viewership is coming from the ESPN/Big Fox/ABC games, 2 of which are free to watch on.
2 - The only games where viewership directly affects the bottom line of the Big Ten is the games on BTN. Since they own a minority stake in that endeavor.
3 - Adding Washington and Oregon would only benefit the networks, if they continue to bring in the same viewership.

 

[RedCap]

I don't think anyone ever said anything about viewership. As @king_kong_ has stated in this thread, it is about getting the Big Ten network in the bigger markets that matters. That is why Northwestern and Rutgers bring in more revenue to the Big Ten Network as far as cable subscribers than Nebraska or Iowa.

Additionally, there are so many angles to this that factor in and are being ignored or just not thought about.

1 - most of the viewership is coming from the ESPN/Big Fox/ABC games, 2 of which are free to watch on.
2 - The only games where viewership directly affects the bottom line of the Big Ten is the games on BTN. Since they own a minority stake in that endeavor.
3 - Adding Washington and Oregon would only benefit the networks, if they continue to bring in the same viewership.

I don't follow that logic. Projected viewership directly affects the negotiated conference media contract which then gets shared by the conference teams.

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

I don't follow that logic. Projected viewership directly affects the negotiated conference media contract which then gets shared by the conference teams.

Edit - sorry

Two different conversations going on.

One - Projected viewership is not under the control of the league, which game is selected isn't either, neither are the advertising contracts. How much AT&T pays FOX to run commercials during the games it chooses to air is of no consequence to the league. The network is simply trying to recouping their costs that will be paid to league and it's teams.

Two - my response to you was about Washington and Oregon bringing enough to the table to join the Big Ten.

Without looking at the ratings, which games garnered the highest ratings for Washington or Oregon is in question.

I looked at Clemson at some point when having a similar discussion. If I recall, Clemson had a game against Georgia to start the season and drew like 9 million viewers for that one game. It was on ABC in primetime. During the year they had like 5 additional games that were on the ACC network and only drew like 200,000 viewers. When you looked at the season as a whole, Clemson averaged about 1.7 million viewers for the 12 game season, or a little shy of 21 million people watched all of their games for the season. Basically, 1 game accounted for almost 1/2 of the people who watched their games all season. So I ask, was Clemson the draw or was it Georgia, or was it simply the matchup. Does Clemson really bring that much to the table? They don't have population and only a couple of games drew solid rating mostly because of when they were played and the opponent. Then you look at Ohio St and that year they averaged more than 5 million viewers per game over 12 games.

So I ask, would you pay Clemson $100 mil per year to be a part of your league? Oregon has better viewership than Clemson, they fall somewhere in the 2.5 mil per game category, Washington was less than 1 mil per game.

Using the same data set provided in that tweet from 2016-2021 (excluding 2020) Oregon only had 5 regular season games that drew 4 million viewers, Washington had 3 games. For Oregon, only 3 of those games were league games, the others were games played against Ohio St and Auburn. Washington had only a game against USC and then games against Michigan and Auburn that drew over 4 million.

For Oregon, 3 of the top 7 watched games were all in 2021, where they averaged 2.5 million viewers per game.

I just don't think the numbers say what people think they do with regards to expanding with Oregon and Washington.

 

[RedCap]

Edit - sorry

Two different conversations going on.

One - Projected viewership is not under the control of the league, which game is selected isn't either, neither are the advertising contracts. How much AT&T pays FOX to run commercials during the games it chooses to air is of no consequence to the league. The network is simply trying to recouping their costs that will be paid to league and it's teams.

Two - my response to you was about Washington and Oregon bringing enough to the table to join the Big Ten.

Without looking at the ratings, which games garnered the highest ratings for Washington or Oregon is in question.

I looked at Clemson at some point when having a similar discussion. If I recall, Clemson had a game against Georgia to start the season and drew like 9 million viewers for that one game. It was on ABC in primetime. During the year they had like 5 additional games that were on the ACC network and only drew like 200,000 viewers. When you looked at the season as a whole, Clemson averaged about 1.7 million viewers for the 12 game season, or a little shy of 21 million people watched all of their games for the season. Basically, 1 game accounted for almost 1/2 of the people who watched their games all season. So I ask, was Clemson the draw or was it Georgia, or was it simply the matchup. Does Clemson really bring that much to the table? They don't have population and only a couple of games drew solid rating mostly because of when they were played and the opponent. Then you look at Ohio St and that year they averaged more than 5 million viewers per game over 12 games.

So I ask, would you pay Clemson $100 mil per year to be a part of your league? Oregon has better viewership than Clemson, they fall somewhere in the 2.5 mil per game category, Washington was less than 1 mil per game.

Using the same data set provided in that tweet from 2016-2021 (excluding 2020) Oregon only had 5 regular season games that drew 4 million viewers, Washington had 3 games. For Oregon, only 3 of those games were league games, the others were games played against Ohio St and Auburn. Washington had only a game against USC and then games against Michigan and Auburn that drew over 4 million.

For Oregon, 3 of the top 7 watched games were all in 2021, where they averaged 2.5 million viewers per game.

I just don't think the numbers say what people think they do with regards to expanding with Oregon and Washington.

I don't know much about Clemson so not evaluating them. But weren't the stats shown for Oregon and Washington for a 5 year period which should have reduced he effect of any one game? Maybe I misread the chart but I know I've seen high viewership numbers for Oregon shown in other charts. No doubt that is influenced by their winning percentage over the last several years (just as Nebraska is with its losing percentage). But a view is a view. And you'd have to think those views would only increase if they were playing a full schedule of B1G teams.

 

[king_kong_]

I don't know much about Clemson so not evaluating them. But weren't the stats shown for Oregon and Washington for a 5 year period which should have reduced he effect of any one game? Maybe I misread the chart but I know I've seen high viewership numbers for Oregon shown in other charts. No doubt that is influenced by their winning percentage over the last several years (just as Nebraska is with its losing percentage). But a view is a view. And you'd have to think those views would only increase if they were playing a full schedule of B1G teams.

for the hundredth time - tv viewership has nothing to do with conference expansion

you need to find some way to separate the two things in your head before plowing forth with more of this

 

[RedCap]

for the hundredth time - tv viewership has nothing to do with conference expansion

you need to find some way to separate the two things in your head before plowing forth with more of this

So for the hundredh time, you enlighten us that TV viewership has nothing whatsoever to do with the conference media contract? OK, if you say so. I'm sure that revelation will be a great comfort to the PAC conference.

P.S. We should be pushing for Wayne State to be added to the B1G since viewership is irrelevant.

 

[king_kong_]

So for the hundredh time, you enlighten us that TV viewership has nothing whatsoever to do with the conference media contract? OK, if you say so. I'm sure that revelation will be a great comfort to the PAC conference.

P.S. We should be pushing for Wayne State to be added to the B1G since viewership is irrelevant.

again - you're conflating two different things

you can't honestly believe anybody in NYC or DC watches the B1G Network, can you?

of course they don't - but, the entirety of both cable regions now carry BTN as part of their local package, which adds ~25M people to the network's broadcasting reach

this is all that matters. viewership is not the conference's concern, nor is it a driving factor in realignment. it's ALL about the number of cable customers within the BTN footprint whether they watch or not.

you can continue making really schlocky jokes, or you can actually learn something. you're welcome in advance for the free education.

it is not a mistake - nor should it be confusing - that 3 of the 4 teams the league has added recently have essentially zero following/viewership (UCLA, Rutgers, Maryland)

 

[moralvictories]

again - you're conflating two different things

you can't honestly believe anybody in NYC or DC watches the B1G Network, can you?

of course they don't - but, the entirety of both cable regions now carry BTN as part of their local package, which adds ~25M people to the network's broadcasting reach

this is all that matters. viewership is not the conference's concern, nor is it a driving factor in realignment. it's ALL about the number of cable customers within the BTN footprint whether they watch or not.

you can continue making really schlocky jokes, or you can actually learn something. you're welcome in advance for the free education.

it is not a mistake - nor should it be confusing - that 3 of the 4 teams the league has added recently have essentially zero following/viewership (UCLA, Rutgers, Maryland)

A large part of conference expansion is that they are trying to get the B1G network on cable TV in major metropolitan areas like Los Angeles and New York City.

This is the reason for adding teams like UCLA, USC, and Rutgers.