Anyone have đ TV ratings by ACC school? Since will effect the $ per school
for the extra payouts. The article listed FSU, Clemson, Miami and UNC as the top rated audiences for football where the money is made, but are they really the schools that make the most money for football by having the largest đ TV audiences where 80+% of the money is paid out? Or is someone trying to pull the wool over our eyes to help his school?đ¤
70 Replies
V
VTCALS72
1y
exist. And here is one thing about the ACCN that appears true. The ACC will get fewer ESPN connected appearances like ESPN2 because we have the ACCN.
So until we see some rating that leaves out nothing, all of them are just blowing smoke.
(In response to this post by Stech)
1y
is because they know that next to nobody is watching the ACCN. If they were, they'd be trumpeting it from the high heavens and we'd hear about it constantly, most prominently because they sell ad space on the ACCN.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
1y
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
1y
(In response to this post by 3TechFanz)
V
VTCALS72
1y
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
1y
Do you think you're pulling a GOTCHA!!!! here? It's an honest question; I really can't tell if you're trying to be funny or not. If you're not, then you have really, really misunderstood what's going on with the ACC/ESPN media rights agreement, which means you've really, really misunderstood this entire round of conference realignment.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
1y
the network, but it gives terrible exposure to the teams playing. The conference networks will be thought of differently as streaming gets more into the sports live content.
Trust me, I'm not saying that ESPN+ is any better, as there is little exposure, and NO money. In addition, the productions suck, and they look like high school productions. As long as the network is bringing in dollars, it will be a part of your media compensation, but it's not the same as being on ESPN, FS1, or the networks. Out here in flyover, we have to pay for the sports package to get the ACCN. The BTN however, is included with lower tiers.
In the current environment with money being the almighty, which would you rather have? The money, or the exposure?
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
1y
definitely made. They said in the article they have not agreed on how the incentives are paid out, so it might be best to rejoin the conversation when that is done.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
V
Vippie1
1y
necessarily. Everything is an apples to oranges comparison because of tv slot, competition, opponent, team record in a given year etc etc etc.
I think you can generally establish a pecking order. My guess is VT is the next tier after Clemson FSU and Miami. Of course if one year VT goes off like SMU did in 2024 we are at the top. But generally I feel we are in the top one third of ACC football brands even after suffering an over decade of relatively awful teams. As such I expect VT under any formula to be a net winner, if only modestly, in any uneven revenues sharing.
(In response to this post by Stech)
1y
rest is all talk. We could be number 4, but Miami's ratings over the last 10 years have just started to come up and without their Incarnate Word QB last year, they would have lost a lot of games. I just don't see Beck being near as good, but we will see on the field.
(In response to this post by Vippie1)
1y
(In response to this post by Stech)
1y
I assume because the numbers aren't great. They claim they use some other sort of analytics, but when you don't publish something like this, it seems you're hiding something.
(In response to this post by Stech)
1y
Joe R. Consumer (the R is for random) isn't rushing to fire up his Dish Network box so he can tune into the SECN with bated breath to watch Mississippi State play Lamar.
In time, these conference networks will be viewed as relics of the legacy cable era designed solely to garner carriage fees and serve as vanity projects for the conferences that had them, and people will be like, "I can't believe that was actually a thing."
(In response to this post by reestuart)
1y
or what, but they've been profitable for a really long time, and it looks like they'll be just fine in the future. They have good programming, and the fact the football side of the conference plays 9 games really helps with inventory. I don't think either the SECN or ACCN measure up to BTN at all. I don't know if it's because ESPN is turrible these days, but there's almost never anything worth watching on either network.
** Edited by reestuart at 1/30/2025, 5:54:32 PM
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
1y
The only time anyone outside a hardcore fan of a specific team playing on them watches the conference networks is when Fox/Disney puts a major football or basketball game on. Nobody is sitting around watching BTN on a Tuesday afternoon.
Even with BTN, the story is the same - its profitability is tied into the dying legacy cable carrier fee model - forcing people that don't watch and might not even know the channel exists to pay for it anyway, every single month.
(In response to this post by reestuart)
1y
It's tied to YouTubeTV and the others.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
1y
Again, the profitability of the conference tv networks is directly tied to the dying practice of charging carriage fees and forcing people to pay for them whether they watch them or not. ACCN being carried in YouTubeTV and other similar services is the exact same thing. Youâre paying for it whether you watch it or not, and nobody is watching it.
Once thatâs done, and itâs not far off, there will be zero reason to have a conference TV network. They will be viewed as a relic from the past. Thatâs my whole point.
(In response to this post by reestuart)
1y
Had an article âHow much is your CFB team worth?â Prof at Indiana University Columbus estimated value of all teams âif the team could be sold on the open marketâ like a professional franchise. Looked at revenue, growth, cash flow, viewership, etc.
OSU is #1, the B10, SEC and ND are the top 16. What may be surprising is the first one outside of those 16 Kansas, coming in at #17. The next non- B10/SEC/ND team comes in at #22, Virginia Tech. FSU is three spots later at #25.
** Edited by CunningFam at 1/30/2025, 2:28:46 PM
(In response to this post by Stech)
1y
TIA
(In response to this post by CunningFam)
M
MVIII
1y
Some interesting information here but no data from the ACC Network and missing most of the ACC Schools as they are too far down the list.
(In response to this post by Stech)
1y
When the FSU and Clemson suits first came around, there was public speculation on potential unequal revenue sharing. I seem to recall that the way the ACC could get certain teams more money was with the postseason money, especially the playoff. The core rights fee bag of money would still be distributed evenly (except new members). With so many games on the un-rated ACC Network, and so many variables that go into a network audience measurement, I'm skeptical the league could actually figure out a future scale of gravitas based on TV audience size.
(In response to this post by Stech)
1y
I interpreted, but I could be wrong. I would love it if it was based on how you do in playoffs since thatâs objectively measurable, but they mentioned that FSU, Clemson, Miami and UNC would benefit the most because of their brands. Well I have spent decades in Marketing, and brand is just another way to say your name draws more people than your competitors, in this case other Conference members.
(In response to this post by Roanokie)
1y
I think I kind of agree with his general take on the ACC.
(In response to this post by Stech)
1
1400E
1y
If they want to claim the brand of the total athletic department, ok.
In addition to being mediocre for a decade plus, VT's AD hasn't done us any favors with ratings by scheduling a terrible OOC.
(In response to this post by Stech)
V
VTCALS72
1y
UNC is where it is because the people in power feel that what UNC has in international brand name is greater than anything. Much easier to build a winning football program at a national brand place than it is to build a national brand at a winning football program.
(In response to this post by 1400E)
1y
in football where the money is! It also hasnât worked for Duke, Kansas, UCONN etc. However, some people keep saying that without any proof for many decades.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
V
VTCALS72
1y
from the big brand. Same reason UVA is mentioned more than VT. It is about the upside of what ESPN etc can do with bigger brands.
(In response to this post by Stech)
1
1400E
1y
but that will be forced it's not natural like the brand that VT has built. Neither program has sniffed the level VT achieved. We may have been a bad program for the last decade but it can't be denied we have a national brand among college football fans. Your typical SEC or B1G fan would not be surprised to see VT back on the national stage again for a long period nor would they shun us joining the P2. We earned a level of respect over two decades.
Now, the current administration has made many poor choices over the past decade to erode that brand but it's still salvageable. UNC basketball, the Jordan Brand and alum in powerful positions give them an edge for the P2 invite but it's not due to football. VT has SEC level fan support and a football brand but it may not be enough to make up for our poor leadership.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
1y
They are why we are where we are period. And apparently our donor base hasn't held anyone accountable. No where else have I ever heard of an AD that can hide from the public, grant no outside interviews and release a scripted softball interview with an internal employee of the university and get away with it. So we will get exactly what we deserve. What a shame to have squandered all of our potential. Being a G5 program suits most of the folks on Techsideline anyway.
(In response to this post by 1400E)
V
VTCALS72
1y
conference realignment is in NO WAY the fault of VT people. This is way bigger than anything that could have been or can be controlled or even mitigated inside Merryman or Burrus.
I also think you way overvalue the VT "Brand" as of today. Most of that was the Beamer brand.
(In response to this post by 1400E)
1y
With much of it on Whit Babcock.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
S
saret
1y
help itself.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
V
VTCALS72
1y
When all of the ACC excepting the 4, and all of the B12 is in the same boat? It's not like all the ACC except Vt have a deal to the P2.
And if your standard is that Whitt should have just done more/better etc than all the above teams, that is over the top criticism.
You know ESPN does not have a place for VT but VT is in the majority of what was the P5. That is the reality on this. And don't go back to the bygone era of yesteryear with what should or should not have been done. There was not much then either.
(In response to this post by saret)
1
1400E
1y
So you're saying if the current conference realignment discussion was happening in 2010 we would be in the same position? UNC/UVA too?
It has everything to do with our leadership.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
V
VTCALS72
1y
And the conditions and situation then was way different.
Our leadership did nothing by omission or commission that put VT where we are today with specific regard to the ACC and the P2. I know you guys want to blame somebody because you desperately want VT to be at the cool kids table. But there are scores of teams out there that are in the exact same place we are. Teams that are our peers. Do you think all of them screwed up? I don't. This was ESPN picking who they wanted to keep while culling college football teams from about 130 teams down to about 40 or so..
(In response to this post by 1400E)
S
saret
1y
we're not going to get invited to the "cool kids" table.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
1
1400E
1y
I don't agree that ESPN is culling teams and keeping who they want. Not until we see half the B1G and several SEC schools cut.
I also don't think scores of programs screwed up because they were never in the position of VT to begin with and never showed the potential. We've been there, we know what's possible. It's a dream for most of the programs you consider peers.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
1y
(In response to this post by 1400E)
1y
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
S
saret
1y
Boar's Head trying to feed the beast.
(In response to this post by Stech)
2
2hhoop3
1y
but, always fun to listen to him shovel his BS.
(In response to this post by saret)
1y
though both have better football records than UNC. Virginia Tech is like 8-2 against UNC football.
(In response to this post by saret)
1y
UNC is a national brand with an elite athletic program in-spite of the football programs lack of sustained wining over the last 40+ years. They are making massive investments into the football program and they want out of the ACC. They will end up in the SEC and will bring NC State with them. Virginia Tech on the other hand will be stuck in a greatly diminished ACC with many of the small northern schools we escaped from in the Big East that that cant stomach competing in the top level of football.
Unfortunately VT richly deserves what it has coming to it. Our athletic administration and Whit Babcock simply lacked the will or aptitude to put us in a favorable position for realignment opportunities. We can't be dysfunctional and completely suck for 15+ years underachieving our potential and expect anything else.
(In response to this post by Stech)
1y
All of those leaders will likely be long gone, unless Pry pulls a miracle next year.
PS Belichick at the Collegiate level is not a proven commodity, in fact without Brady heâs not a proven commodity in the NFL for very long either.
(In response to this post by Poultrygeist)
S
saret
1y
to ESPN that would be needed for us to get an invite. That just another reason I opine we are not going to be invited, and we should plan accordingly, doing what is best of VT. That's what everyone else is doing. But like us, everyone else hasn't realized they aren't going to be invited either.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
saret
1y
are faulty at best.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
1y
interesting to see how many people tune into a UNC game now just to see Ole Sweatshirt roaming the sidelines. I suspect ESPN is banking on there being an uptick in ratings for UNC this season and maybe going forward.
(In response to this post by saret)
V
VTCALS72
1y
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
1y
that to affect anything long-term.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
think ESPN is looking at it from the short-term. If he is able to produce 9+ win seasons every year he is there, then ESPN may be hoping that the program is in a great place for the next HC. If UNC is able to afford him, then we may start seeing UNC make blueblood type football hires going forward.
(In response to this post by NokieHokie)
S
saret
1y
example of desperation.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
from it too. At least I see those things as being mutually independent of each other, but maybe I am missing something.
(In response to this post by saret)
S
saret
1y
that at least UNC is looking proactive. There are times I wish VT were a little more proactive.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
either way, it will help their TV ratings. Maybe Daniel Snyder is giving them advice. đ¤Ŗđ¤Ŗ Nope itâs likely John Skipper đ
(In response to this post by 1400E)
1y
I'm sure there is a way to get a data dump of everything if you pay for it.
I have a personal spreadsheet going that is trying to consolidate all of this data but it is still under development.
(In response to this post by Stech)
1y
I had hoped to be done by now but other priorities have taken my time. Eventually I'll be able to share it here.
As for stuff already out there? No I haven't seen anything showing the data over multiple seasons. The closest I've found is some of the graphs that Tony Altimore puts out on Twitter. But he has some very biased takes and manipulates the data to tell the stories that he wants.
(In response to this post by Stech)
1y
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
1y
instead of D is something we need to do to win this battle that we are in, whether we like being in the battle or not.
** Edited by Stech at 1/30/2025, 2:27:20 PM
(In response to this post by Will Stewart)