The reality of the situation, VT does not have very good ratings
From teh Staples article:
"Conversations with people in the SEC suggest that in addition to the obvious reasons for wanting Clemson and Florida State, North Carolina and Virginia are highly coveted. The Tar Heels (1.2 million in 24 rated games) and Cavaliers (1.4 million in 24 rated games) don’t bring the same raw audience, but a different kind of math could be drawing the eye of SEC leaders. Clemson, Florida State, Louisville and Miami (1.4 million in 47 rated games) are all in states that already are in the SEC footprint. Within the footprint, the SEC Network commands a subscriber fee of about $1.40 a month. Outside the footprint, the fee is much lower. North Carolina and Virginia are the two largest states that include neither a Big Ten nor an SEC school. Assuming the fee rises by about $1 a month for territory added to the footprint, it makes sense for the SEC — or the Big Ten, for that matter — to want to plant a flag in those two states. That’s a lot of new money from millions of cable, satellite and streaming bundle subscribers.
The other obvious question is “Why doesn’t one league take North Carolina and Virginia and one take NC State and Virginia Tech?” In this sample, the two flagships drew larger audiences. In 26 rated games, NC State drew a median of 1.1 million viewers. In 41 rated games, Virginia Tech drew a median audience of 968,000."
We have under 1M viewers in rated games. The Hoos have more. Not sure what the outcome is but we have zero leverage. Swofford should be sued for malfeasance or breach of fiduciary duty. He locked the ACC into a crap contract. He created no leverage and did not look out for the best interests of the schools. The SEC has been aggressively expanding the last 10 years. He was caught completely unprepared. Holding out for ND was not the solution, and in fact the covenant probably kept them out.
46 Replies
4y
You'd think have 65% more games viewed as "rateable" goes a lot farther than a 10% higher average rating
(In response to this post by EmpireHokie)
4y
VT had 15 games over a million averaged into 41 rated games
UVA had 9 games over a million averaged into only 24.
Am I missing something, or is that some seriously flawed logic on Staples part?
Now, there's plenty other reason why they may favor UVA, academics, athletics overall, but not football ratings. No way.
(In response to this post by EmpireHokie)
4y
Even more, I don't get why they believe it. Andy Staples is an uninformed hack.
(In response to this post by Techsupport)
4y
(In response to this post by EmpireHokie)
4y
That's a pretty simplistic measure.
# of games with over a million viewers. Has UVa scheduled more big opponents? Deserving of better analysis, but likely not as relevant a measure as claimed.
(In response to this post by EmpireHokie)
4y
I think VT's average number is diluted by the total number of rated games. Its almost double.
(In response to this post by VTfan2019)
4y
That’s the only fair comparison. Or the fact that VT had 41 games qualify as rated games to UVA’s 24 should be enough to tell everyone that more people are interested in watching VT play on TV. Also, I think only Clemson, FSU and Miami had more games to qualify for the rating should be an indicator of who people want to watch on TV.
(In response to this post by EmpireHokie)
4y
This is not a good time for us for realignment to happen.
We'd be one of the last schools chosen even if the B1G and SEC each went to 24 team each.
So, I'd rather make less money and play the current ACC schools than risk being shut out entirely.
(In response to this post by EmpireHokie)
4y
I expect some more changes, and they won't likely be 100% predictable.
The way the conferences measure these changes aren't likely to be those being published in the clickbait articles we're reading.
(In response to this post by ChrisLords)
4y
Key implication is that SEC is more attracted to UVA and UNC as “brands” that would add something different to the league in addition to footprint expansion, ie very deep athletic departments with multiple national championship level programs, as well as adding two very highly rated public universities. I think that means something to the SEC presidents, particularly Florida, Georgia and South Carolina who are aggressively trying to raise the academic profile of their schools. Obviously nothing wrong with academic reputation of TEch or NCSU, but SEC already heavy with land grant schools, so maybe doesn’t move the needle as much. Who knows. At end of the day, I still dont see the SEC expanding anytime soon.
(In response to this post by EmpireHokie)
4y
As near as I can tell it’s almost entirely speculation - and not really supported by any past behavior by the SEC.
(In response to this post by Shore hop)
4y
I'm not seeing those as the primary measures.
(In response to this post by Shore hop)
4y
SEC in an almost perfect position strategically and financially. They dont need to add anybody, so if they were to do this, i think there would be qualitative factors in play, because other than Notre Dame, no one else moves the needle financially, and a few hundred thousand difference in average game viewership among UNC, UVA, VT etc really is not relevant
Again, i dont think SEC or Big10 do anything outside of Notre Dame, and very likely ACC stays together, because i honestly dont think there will be any better options
(In response to this post by VTfan2019)
4y
That famous quote applies to the article. Numbers may be factual, but flawed methodologies will produce misleading results. If you perpetuate this statistical lie enough, then people may believe the faulty end conclusion, which is "VT does not bring in good TV ratings".
(In response to this post by EmpireHokie)
4y
They’ll claim there are a lot more of them then there really is
(In response to this post by jesuisvtguy)
4y
to support it.
(In response to this post by jesuisvtguy)
4y
Its not hard to understand why the SEC would want UVA and UNC because of academics, and overall athletic departments. However, to the extent FOOTBALL is driving the train, I have to believe that favors VT. The SEC has always put a PREMIUM on rivalries, and football culture, and markets to a much lesser extent. They invented the concept. In no way, shape, or form does UVA fit that culture. I just don't believe UVA vs x-SEC team is going to pull better ratings that VT would
Still, all things being said, I think they'd take UVA over VT pretty quick given the balance of all factors.
(In response to this post by Concord Dan)
4y
Try this report instead. It uses AVERAGE watches per weekend
Link:
Hokies top 31, UVA 58th
(In response to this post by EmpireHokie)
4y
If so, that’s worse. But if it is only an average of games with ratings, then that’s good stuff.
(In response to this post by hokiepro)
E
EDGEMAN
4y
No way I believe that BS Empire posted above.
(In response to this post by hokiepro)
E
EDGEMAN
4y
(In response to this post by EmpireHokie)
4y
I guess they're calling you to get your opinion lol
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
4y
Football for years not Virginia. More UVa fans try to sell their tickets to the competition for big games than Hokies. Even had a UVa fan try to sell me tickets to FSU at UVa years ago for these reasons - It's a Thursday night, I'll get home late, and they'll probably lose. Yeah, great following UVa has for football.
I've said it before and I'll say it again - ask anybody the colors of the top college football team in Virginia and the answer will be maroon and orange.
(In response to this post by EmpireHokie)
E
EDGEMAN
4y
Seem to recall WF students being POed that Hokies were overrunning their stadium...lol Hoo fans haven't done that before, nor since...
(In response to this post by laphroaig)
E
EDGEMAN
4y
Starting at the Hokies at #31 (1.26M), and going down in decreasing viewers:
UCLA (1.25M), Louisville, Indiana, South Carolina, Northwestern, Minnesota, Pittsburgh, North Carolina, Cal, NCSU, Syracuse, Maryland, Purdue, GT, Missouri, Hooville, Kentucky, Vandy, Dook, BC, Illinois, WF, Rutsgers (0.27M)
I included SEC, B1X, ACC, and other possible expansion schools below VT. As a side note, Stanford (1.43M), Oregon (1.34M) and Washington (1.32M) have pretty good numbers.
Looking at this, not sure where all of the UNC (or UVA) love is coming from. They suck in football television ratings.
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
4y
They make strong notice that Virginia tech’s football program is the 28th values program
In FBS, while the Hoos are only the 56th valued program.
UVA’s football value is similar
To Maryland, who is ranked 58th. Really, if the B1G wants to secure viewership in Virginia, they should add the Hokies
(In response to this post by EmpireHokie)
You are looking at the numbers wrong- any football fan will also tell you
Which team has greater viewer interest and participation… I see what you are trying to do but the math is not tempered
(In response to this post by EmpireHokie)
V
VTBoar
4y
observations. Tech had 41 rated games and UM had 47 rated games. In contrast, UNC had 24, UVA, 24, and NCSU, 26, rated games.
(In response to this post by EmpireHokie)
4y
Numbers that are that are far apart by using a MEDIAN? Makes no sense. What’s the mean? Why are there 41 data points to UVA’s 24? Probably because VT had enough people watching TO BE MEASURABLE 17 more times in the same time span compared to UVA.
Which game would be streamed more: VT-Richmond or UVA-W&M? I think that right there would show you a difference
(In response to this post by VTBoar)
4y
We had enough people watching streaming and games were broadcast that may not have been if say UVA was playing the same opponent (like Furman)
Comparing median 41 data points vs 24 data points isn’t a valid comparison when our viewership qualified less-watched games to be measured
Completely misleading measure
(In response to this post by EmpireHokie)
E
EDGEMAN
4y
VT owns the Commonwealth. Everyone knows it, so those "quoted" statistics are a steaming pile of Hoo. There is no freaking way the Hoos drew more viewers, unless people were tuning in to see their team beat the Hoos.
(In response to this post by EmpireHokie)
Totally agree - a 10 year old for football fan can confirm*
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
4y
(In response to this post by EmpireHokie)
H
Hokie`79
4y
(In response to this post by 3TechFanz)
4y
Vs a median of 24
(In response to this post by Hokie`79)