USC, UCLA to join the Big Ten in 2024

ChiefGritty said:

I don't think those numbers pencil out, especially not as a share of viewers.

It's also my understanding that the age demographics look way, way worse for college football than they did then.


The freaking Rose Bowl is dead dude. The Pac 12 is dead.

Someone mentioned NASCAR above which is the perfect example. It was a no-brainer in 1996 to cash in with moves from places like Rockingham and North Wilksboro to places like Chicago and Vegas. You're just an old man yelling at a cloud to think anything else. Well, didn't work out so hot did it?

(Sure enough, Formula One, the new hotness in motorsports is running headlong toward the exact same mistake)

Click to expand...

LA Coliseum, covering Bristol in dirt, potential Chicago street race...NASCAR trying new stuff to stay relevant, particularly with TV rights coming up for renewal at the end of '24.

But back to football...Americans absolutely devour top level football, be it the NFL or top echelon of CFB. It's the only game in town, come early October onward. sure there's the World Series, and the NBA and NHL are just getting started, but football rules the roost until mid February.

spotter said:

Conference realignment slows as Big 12, Pac-12 may be realizing they're worth more together than apart

Plus: What's ahead for the Big Ten, SEC, ACC and College Football Playoff?

www.cbssports.com

Click to expand...

The kind of awkward reality is that the very different bidders (NBC and Apple are nothing alike, to pick two) might have very different preferences in terms of what collection of schools cobbled together out of this mess would be most valuable to them.

Who do the network execs even get on the phone to talk to about that?

It's all a bit farcical really.

ChiefGritty said:

I don't think those numbers pencil out, especially not as a share of viewers.

Click to expand...

I picked a random Saturday from last fall. What about this doesn't pencil? 17of the top 20 rated broadcasts are sports content. 8 of those are CFB specific.

ChiefGritty said:

It's also my understanding that the age demographics look way, way worse for college football than they did then.

Click to expand...

Source? But also, you're changing your argument (again).

ChiefGritty said:

The freaking Rose Bowl is dead dude. The Pac 12 is dead.

Click to expand...

You mean the Rose Bowl will never be played again? The schools in the PAC12 will never participate in football again?

Right, just more hyperbole.

ChiefGritty said:

Someone mentioned NASCAR above which is the perfect example. It was a no-brainer in 1996 to cash in with moves from places like Rockingham and North Wilksboro to places like Chicago and Vegas.

Click to expand...

Comparing NASCAR to anything ignores the basic culture surrounding NASCAR, and the fact that culture is being left in the dust by most of the country. Who would have guessed that "Go fast, turn left" and Confederate flags couldn't maintain its popularity past the novelty period?

wma500 said:

LA Coliseum, covering Bristol in dirt, potential Chicago street race...NASCAR trying new stuff to stay relevant, particularly with TV rights coming up for renewal at the end of '24.

But back to football...Americans absolutely devour top level football, be it the NFL or top echelon of CFB. It's the only game in town, come early October onward. sure there's the World Series, and the NBA and NHL are just getting started, but football rules the roost until mid February.

Click to expand...

Huge motorsports fan. I remember when a race (Indy Car or NASCAR) on free TV was a special occasion. NASCAR is over-saturated. They race from February to early November. Indy Cars have 17-races. Gives a good dose of racing and leaves me wanting more.

Football is a different beast. Gamblers love it. Some schools' fandom is almost a cult. The challenge for football in the coming years is to continue to address CTE (moms will determine the future of football), and getting college football games to finish in under three and a half hours. And to see how to properly distribute the golden eggs without killing the goose.

Football may not be totally immune to the whims of fans, and economics and interests of the sports-media complex, but it is the only sport in the United States that is closest to immune.

Here's some CFB specific ratings and viewership data. Note...some of this data aligns with what Ransom posted above, while other games in my post below do not appear on the list he posted. For example, no sign of the ND/USC game in the first list, yet it was listed as ranked #7 in the list below.

Assuming this list is reasonably correct (they cite their sources at the top of the article), what a great read on how CFB rantings went during '21.

Ransom Stoddard said:

View attachment 18896

Click to expand...

This is fascinating, where do I find more of these?

Wisconsin at #25 Purdue on BTN attracting fewer viewers in the demo than a LigaMX soccer game broadcast in Spanish is an eye opening one.

Konnie said:

I wonder if this increases the likelihood of ND jumping to the B1G.

Notre Dame targeting $75 million annual media rights payout in quest to remain independent

Power Five shoulder programming around Notre Dame games will be key to making such a deal happen

www.cbssports.com

Click to expand...

trying to guess what ND is going to do is pretty much impossible

what they really want to do is stay independent AND make the same money as the SEC or B1G schools. is that possible ? who know, probably not

ChiefGritty said:

This is fascinating, where do I find more of these?

Wisconsin at #25 Purdue on BTN attracting fewer viewers in the demo than a LigaMX soccer game broadcast in Spanish is an eye opening one.

Click to expand...

Why is that eye opening? The market for LigaMx is enormous. Telemundo feeds that market well, and it means absolutely zero regarding the popularity of CFB.

Ransom Stoddard said:

Why is that eye opening? The market for LigaMx is enormous. Telemundo feeds that market well, and it means absolutely zero regarding the popularity of CFB.

Click to expand...

The difference is 4X in favor of the BTN broadcast among viewers age 50+

I wanna know where these come from. Do you have any that include network shows? I would assume that looks even more favorable for college football on an average Saturday.

ChiefGritty said:

The difference is 4X in favor of the BTN broadcast among viewers age 50+

Click to expand...

Which means nothing without context on the demo of LigaMX games, the demo of CFB games, the demo of BTN games, and the demo of UI and UW games. In other words, you're comparing 2 data points that merit almost no comparison.

ChiefGritty said:

I wanna know where these come from. Do you have any that include network shows? I would assume that looks even more favorable for college football on an average Saturday.

Click to expand...

Here's where I got the data for the original comment, and there are many other sources around, just google TV ratings. As has already been noted, there can be discrepancies between sources, and as mentioned above, context is everything.

As to the bolded--I think you're starting to get my point now. CFB OWNS Saturdays. Conference realignment or the change in a Bowl tie-in isn't going to change that, in fact I'd expect it to reinforce it. As I've stated many, many times, there are more games available to more viewers than ever before, and that's BECAUSE of these conference changes and TV contracts. If you're a fan of football, you should be a fan of TV expansion.

Ransom Stoddard said:

CFB OWNS Saturdays. Conference realignment or the change in a Bowl tie-in isn't going to change that, in fact I'd expect it to reinforce it.

Click to expand...

A little odd considering a baseball game (a big one no doubt, that was NLCS Game 6 in which the Braves won the pennant over the Dodgers) was a comfortable number one, a boxing match starting at almost 11PM ET beat a whole bunch of games, etc.

But I happily stipulate to the point that CFB has a gigantic, loyal audience.

My prediction based on existing trends is that that audience will be unmistakably smaller in 10 years, both in terms of total eyeballs and the 18-49 demographic that's so coveted by advertisers that the list you posted is ranked solely by those viewers, ignoring everyone else.

Ransom Stoddard said:

There's a fallacy in looking only at Pay TV numbers--for anything, whether it's sports, movies, news, etc. The industry is now counting every monetizable method that put eyeballs on content. Cord cutting doesn't mean people aren't consuming that content, they're getting it differently, and there's money in that "differently", and IMO it's good for consumers because there's a greater breadth.

And for what little my opinion is worth--some of those "prestige" events are down because they've been overhyped. I'd also be interested in learning if the overall number of eyeballs are down on the Superbowl, or just the number on the "main" broadcast.

Click to expand...

Somewhat OT, but I also have never heard a coherent argument for why streaming makes media markets irrelevant (to be fair, this is mostly peddled by teams with loyal fan bases but no big markets —> decent viewers ratings overall, like Iowa State or Oklahoma State). I have HuluTV, but I’m not naive enough to think they don’t know I live in the 60610 zip code of Chicago and pass that info on to advertisers and TV executives in the form of compiled data. Hell, they literally only let us change locations like three times per year BECAUSE we have the TV part! Something like Netflix would never do that.

I still think that all viewers are not “created equal.” Even if it’s through streaming, 1.2 million Illini viewers disproportionately concentrated in the Chicago and St. Louis markets might still be more valuable to these execs than 1.7 million Iowa State viewers disproportionately in Des Moines. This doesn’t even get into the “high ceiling” discussion, where an Illinois that isn’t literally awful at football - and really … why should we be?! - might (would) lead to a ratings boost in a huge market. I think the powers that be bank on this, and I’d argue that’s been made clear through the decisions with Rutgers and Maryland.

Same thing with NIL, by the way, which should help us … every single sports fan I know of in Chicago, regardless of whom they cheer for, was very familiar with Ayo and Kofi from the get-go simply because they’re getting SLIGHTLY more (but enough for it to matter!) Illini exposure than with other teams. I just refuse to believe that’s not an incredible advantage, even with a changing landscape.

ChiefGritty said:

A little odd considering a baseball game (a big one no doubt, that was NLCS Game 6 in which the Braves won the pennant over the Dodgers) was a comfortable number one, a boxing match starting at almost 11PM ET beat a whole bunch of games, etc.

But I happily stipulate to the point that CFB has a gigantic, loyal audience.

My prediction based on existing trends is that that audience will be unmistakably smaller in 10 years, both in terms of total eyeballs and the 18-49 demographic that's so coveted by advertisers that the list you posted is ranked solely by those viewers, ignoring everyone else.

Click to expand...

That "boxing match" was the WBO Jr. Lightweight championship. On basic cable. Yeah, it's gonna get numbers, definitely helped by the fact that there wasn't much else on at that hour in the east, and that Stevenson took Herring to the 10th for a TKO. It wasn't just a boxing match.

Again, context.

BTW, do you have analytics about the audience being "unmistakably smaller" in 10 years? I'm not saying you're right or wrong, I'd like a look at the analysis, along with if those analytics are including traditional viewing options and excluding streaming.

There's been some hand wringing here about streaming services providing sports content, and IMO it's a tempest in a teapot. The streamer (Apple, Amazon, Hulu etc.) are going to partner with production companies that know how to broadcast sporting events. I've watched parts of some WNBA games on Prime and they're provided by NBA TV. I'd be very surprised if other sports streaming didn't follow a similar pattern. Not to mention that I probably streamed as many UI basketball games this season as I watched on cable, and it was the exact same thing--other than commercials--as what was on BTN, ESPN, or FoxSports.

Konnie said:

I wonder if this increases the likelihood of ND jumping to the B1G.

Notre Dame targeting $75 million annual media rights payout in quest to remain independent

Power Five shoulder programming around Notre Dame games will be key to making such a deal happen

www.cbssports.com

Click to expand...

Some ND sports writer’s opinion was ND isn’t going anywhere for money. They only reason they will jump on board is if they feel they are getting pushed out of the CFP by whatever transpires.

cuillini said:

I still have the satellite Direct TV setup. With the dvr box and two other wifi boxes I pay $175. Seems pricey, but I'm not a fan of the clunky way one has to access streaming services. I can stream Direct from my phone or tablet. On the plus side, I've been with Direct so long they give me NFL ticket for free.

Click to expand...

Direct TV Stream has a box you can buy or rent and access the channels directly by number, if you wish. I also use a Roku, which isn't quite as handy, but gives you more streaming channel options. And you can stream on your phone or tablet., using either wifi or cell.

Ransom Stoddard said:

BTW, do you have analytics about the audience being "unmistakably smaller" in 10 years? I'm not saying you're right or wrong, I'd like a look at the analysis, along with if those analytics are including traditional viewing options and excluding streaming.

Click to expand...

If I had access to information from the future I would hope I'd be too rich to spend my time around here, lol.

Anyway, here's an interesting chart


The audience is stagnant to declining as it is.

This was another one that grabbed my eye using older data.



Last year's Rose Bowl drew an 8.2 rating, well below the X axis on this chart. The 90's Rose Bowl average was well above last year's National Title Game.

(And for the record, Nielsen ratings do include internet streaming TV options)

Ransom Stoddard said:

There's been some hand wringing here about streaming services providing sports content, and IMO it's a tempest in a teapot. The streamer (Apple, Amazon, Hulu etc.) are going to partner with production companies that know how to broadcast sporting events. I've watched parts of some WNBA games on Prime and they're provided by NBA TV. I'd be very surprised if other sports streaming didn't follow a similar pattern. Not to mention that I probably streamed as many UI basketball games this season as I watched on cable, and it was the exact same thing--other than commercials--as what was on BTN, ESPN, or FoxSports.

Click to expand...

Those services can do a quality job (and let's not pretend game production quality at ESPN hasn't declined btw), but the problem with putting your games there is the subscriber base is way, WAY smaller than an ESPN2 or Fox Sports 1.

Apple wants sports content so it can grow its subscriber base with the captive audience of sports fans. It may yet work, but in the short term, you're blacking out the vast majority of your audience going exclusive there.

This is why the NFL is simulcasting its Amazon games on broadcast networks in the local markets (and leaving tons of money on the table to do so), putting their games behind a streaming paywall locally is still just unthinkable for a product whose brand is mass appeal. We'll get there when they can't afford to leave the money on the table anymore, even though that's robbing Peter to pay Paul.

This is a great discussion, folks. Keep it up. Love the debate and the intelligence being applied.

Now, for random lurker swooping in with random thoughts. I've tried to read as much of the last 39 pages as i could, but I"ve probably missed stuff, so forgive me if I duplicate something:

The whole discussion on viewership and impact of distribution - over the past decade, there has been a renaissance of media consumption (for better or worse for society). THis isn't just sports, this is pretty much everything. The proliferation mobile broadband has allowed people to watch whatever they want, whenever they want. This has, in turn, led to a lot more competition in distribution - including OTT services (Apple TV, Amazon. Roku, etc.) along with new formats of traditional channels (e.g. Youtube TV). Huge sums are $ are being thrown around by these companies (many of which are already large and cash rich) for content. This has ended up benefitting who else? The content creators including, yes, sports.

Long way of saying, sports is mostly no different than other content creators. There is some difference including the live element as well as broad demographics of viewers (which has helped traditional cable distributors hold on to these properties better than most others). But, overall, they're just another boat that has been benefitting from the rising tide.

Turn to today, you're already seeing this consumption growth theme slowing down. Just look at Netflix's stock price the past year. There's been a race to build as much content as possible for every service (traditional cable + Disney+, Peacock, HBOMax, the aforementioned Apple TV, Prime etc etc etc...there just so many). But once you hit the limit of how much people are going to actually consume, the tide stops rising.

So what do the boats do then? Well, in almost every other industry in history that faces this dilemma (over capacity driven by chasing growth then growth slowing), there's consolidation. This is what I believe we're seeing now. It's not so much the Big Ten (or whomever) accelerating growth by adding new markets, it's more them seeing the inevitable and positioning themselves accordingly. It's perfectly rational, and those that don't move typically lose out.

Now, I fully agree that doing this rational move from a business perspective is at odds with the rational move from a traditions perspective. Should college programs act like pure businesses? I personally don't think so. But with things like NIL, I think there will be an alienation of some portion of your fan base. Longer-term, I actually agree with Chief that the fanbase will be smaller in 10 years. But i don't think that it'll be because of the future TV deals. I think it's the opposite, I think the fanbase is becoming saturated and fans are increasingly becoming disinterested in the product (for various reasons including things like NIL, competition from other content etc etc), and the TV deals will be reflective of that reality (the ones left will pay up for whatever service they need to).

Someone mentioned F1 as another example of going down the wrong path. I'm a big F1 fan, and I disagree for similar reasons. F1 has been doing what they're doing for 15+ years now, just in a slightly different approach. Before Liberty media took over and Bernie Ecclestone was running the show, he took the "go to the highest bidder regardless of what the market is". That's when we got races the have no real markets/demographics/opportunities behind them like Bahrain, Azerbaijan, etc. The customer there is the governments of these countries, and there wasn't any real thought as to the bigger picture. At least LIberty has a broader strategy in play here. Adding Miami and Las Vegas is doing so for markets that can actually be self-sustaining and add more to the whole. Now they'll still be negatively impacted by the tide no longer rising like other products are, but as long as Drive to Survive is a hit and drawing new eyeballs to the core product, their boat will just be getting bigger while the others stay the same.

Sorry for the long post...just sharing thoughts. Continue on with the great chat!

If CBS doesn’t get the Big Ten for the 2:30 game, I could see them willing to get into a bidding war for Notre Dame. With their grand broadcast they would actually be the perfect broadcast partner for Notre Dame. Between NBC and CBS I bet Notre Dame could get an amount that meets their minimum to remain independent.

So yeah, I agree that the only thing that would force Notre Dame to join the conference would be if the CFP turns into a B1G-SEC only affair.

Homecoming 2019 said:

Is this a declining interest in sports or a declining interest in the rising costs of viewing sports?

Click to expand...

I assume it is some of both. I've read that kids are playing less youth sports now mainly due to disinterest and cost and that there is correlation between playing sports as a kid and being a fan of sports.
https://morningconsult.com/2020/09/28/gen-z-poll-sports-fandom/

I can remember watching Bulls, Cubs, and Sox games on WGN for free and getting to see Michael Jordan, Frank Thomas, and Ryne Sandberg on TV all the time. Then I'd watch the morning highlights before school and this is what my friends would talk about at lunch. Of course in 1990 I had no internet, no computer, no Ipad, no smartphone, etc. to compete with sports viewing. Today there are so many other options. These TV/Internet bundles and packages are not cheap for every family and I assume there might be a long term cost to pricing some people out even if it pays off in the short or medium term.

illini80 said:

Some ND sports writer’s opinion was ND isn’t going anywhere for money. They only reason they will jump on board is if they feel they are getting pushed out of the CFP by whatever transpires.

Click to expand...

As someone wise once said: “it’s never about the money… until it’s about the money”. At least, I’m sure someone wise has said that before.

No way ND gets $75 million from NBC. NBC had 15 million viewers total all season last year. OSU vs MI alone had 16 million viewers.

Also found this one which claims ND had 2.84M viewers per game for 12 games, which is 34 million. NBC didn’t even get half of ND viewers.


For reference, all 14 BIG teams collectively had 366 million total viewers while averaging 26M per team, or 2.2M per game. The top 10 BIG teams averaged 32.6 million which compares to NDs 34M.

On ND...worth noting they tried one 2021 home game exclusively on Peacock, where you had to subscribe to view. It was viewed as an experiment to test the streaming waters. Speculation is/was, ND could partner w/ NBC to form its own streaming channel. Swarbrick said all the right things, but amongst ND fans it was generally viewed as a flop.