As someone who used to do TV audience measurement for a living, I really
hate what I am reading about this being a possible solution to the 0FSUand3 and Clemson cases against the ACC. I always love it when some here question my bona fides on this subject, but that is a story for another day.
The issue is pretty simple, you cannot compare apples to oranges to grapefruit and expect to create something amicable.
If a game appears on over the air television (ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC) then it will naturally earn higher ratings than if it appeared on basic cable (ESPN/ESPN2, FS1) and will earn much better ratings than if it appeared on niche cable (ACCN, BTN , SECN, ESPNU). There is a reason why when the final four is on TBS instead of CBS, that the ratings always go down no matter who is playing and the distribution is the reason.
In addition, depending on the other games that may be taking place in the same window, the audience will clearly be impacted, because there are a finite number of eyeballs that can watch football at a certain time and the distribution of content will impact the rating.
I can see why FSU and Clemson favor this solution because the numbers are clearly skewed in their favor. They have played more games on over the air and top-tier channels than anyone else in the league. If your games live mostly on ACCN or ESPN+, your ratings will be impacted.
Here is an example of the skew:
- FSU plays Georgia Tech in Dublin on Week 0 on ESPN and is the only game of the weekend. Naturally, that draws a sizeable audience. Virginia Tech plays Vandy in a similar window on ESPN the following week against a ton of competition, even though it was the "most competitive game in the early window". It does not take a brain surgeon to figure out that FSU had higher ratings for Week 0 over Tech in week 1 with the same window.
- FSU then played Labor Day night against BC against no other competition on ESPN. Tech plays Marshall on the CW. Many did not even know that the CW existed prior to the game. One guess as to which game did better on ratings.
-Finally, FSU gets Memphis in the noon window on ESPN last Saturday. Tech plays ODU on ESPN+. Do I need to go on?
This measurement is horribly skewed and will only get worse with west coast windows coming into the mix that have bad ratings due to half the country being asleep at game time. Ratings are never equal and can never be used to distribute revenue as they are impacted unequally by the league, the TV partners, and the time of the game.
If I were sitting in Burruss Hall, I would strongly vote against. Period.
54 Replies
1y
quicker) demise of the conference?
(In response to this post by CobbCountyHokie)
Mo' winning. Mo' primo slots. Mo' ratings. Mo' money. Mo' winning.
(In response to this post by CobbCountyHokie)
1y
I am not anti-FSU and Clemson. I agree that they (and others, including VT) are subsidizing, to an unreasonable degree, the Wake Forests and Boston Colleges of the league, and that's become untenable in light of the gargantuan payouts the SEC and B1G are programs are now getting. So, something has to give, but distribution of media rights payouts according to Nielsen ratings or similar metrics is dumb, dumb, dumb.
(In response to this post by CobbCountyHokie)
1y
are we discussing future rating?
The brands were build on being ranked at or near the top for decades, not seasons. That and national championships make up the blue bloods.
I would argue that today, if your team is ranked in the top 10, you are going to get the premiere windows, and the eyeballs. now, that opens a different can of worms when it comes to rankings, especially at the beginning of the year, but it's pretty basic.
With the consolidation of the brands in two conferences, all one has to do, is look at the top ten. Obviously, the SEC and Big 10 will get the prime time network windows, and the ratings. Watch Miami if they continue to win, and are ranked in the top 10. Their ratings will be much better this year than last year.
with the new playoff format, the prime time windows will also go to the teams that are in the hunt for an at large. How much you wanna bet that those windows will be filled with 2 loss blue bloods?
It's the same with the B12. One of the three ranked 12th, 13, or 14, will break out and in all likely hood, be in the top 10 - and they too will get prime time slots when they play another team that is having a ranked season.
The problem with this is obvious, because rankings are subjective. Just like getting the network prime time slots.
If Utah, as an example, goes undefeated, gets the viewers, and is raked in the top 10, should they get more money than Houston that may end up with 2 wins, and is on ESPN+ every weekend? I have to admit, I'd think I'd be OK with that.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
1y
that's because, in your hypothetical, Utah went undefeated and is ranked in the top 10, while Houston only won 2 games. What channel/streaming service they're playing on should be irrelevant. Nobody can control what channel the Walt Disney corporation decides they're playing on.
The two concepts are intertwined, yes - teams that win more usually end up getting more exposure and better time slots, and thus end up getting more eyeballs. The big problem I have with a completely TV ratings-based disbursement of media rights payouts is largely the same problem the British had with the proposed European Super League - the EPL fans thought it would be complete BS to reward a select little group of teams with more of everything and take away even the prospect of promotion and relegation just because they're popular, with no regard to wins and losses, success and failure. Likewise, I think it's complete BS to agree to pay FSU, Clemson, or any other program, including VT, bigger shares of money even if they go 0-12 and embarrass the conference.
To paraphrase General Patton - this is America. We only like winners, and we abhor a loser. The very concept of losing is vulgar to an American. Again, I have no problem with giving ACC programs that win more games more money. Incentivizing winning should be the name of the game. I have a problem with paying FSU and Clemson more money because the people cutting the checks decide they're playing on ESPN2 instead of the ACCN. If that's how they want to do business, then by all means, they can go independent and make their own media rights deals; they don't even need the rest of the ACC, or the B1G/SEC, or anyone else.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
a moving 10 year average as part of the equation. Something that may give FSU or Clemson the advantage now, but one that the other schools could take away from them as their own programs find success.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
1y
If there's going to be unequal distribution of media rights money, it should be based upon wins and CFP placement/progression, period. And winning big games - quality wins should matter more. On that point, if they want to utilize some kind of agreed upon metric for strength of schedule in to make sure programs aren't being rewarded for scheduling FCS teams and bottom tier G6 programs, fine, great.
The ACC is in the place it's in because it has allowed itself to develop a massive perception problem. If programs want a bigger piece of the the pie, it should be because they contributed to fixing that perception problem, not perpetuating it by going 0-3 (0-4?) or getting absolutely embarrassed by a good SEC team by 30+ points.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
it ignores the reality on the ground. The top brands get the best time slots, get the rankings (look at Texas and ND over the years), and it does not correspond to what actually takes place on the field.
The ACC is in the place they are because of the small privates, their lack of national appeal, and their small fan bases. that, and look at VT's OOC schedule. While I applaud the future JMU and Liberty games, what is the deal with Maryland? There is NO national appeal to that game - zip.
Schedule OOC games on the other side of the Mississippi if you want to be a national brand. The ACC gets very little exposure out of their bubble. .
** Edited by Big12 guy at 9/20/2024, 4:21:39 PM
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
S
Stech
1y
(In response to this post by CobbCountyHokie)
1y
distributing the games. ESPN/ABC will place the best matchups in the most advantageous windows to deliver the optimum audience to their advertisers. I would think that the media contract allows ESPN to exercise, with few exceptions, full control of game placement.
(In response to this post by CobbCountyHokie)
1y
We have to make the metrics "relative" instead of "absolute". That means there needs to be some "weighting". How well is a team performing in ratings compared to what would be expected for that time-slot, distribution channel, and competition at the same time.
(In response to this post by CobbCountyHokie)
O
obguthr
1y
to take these very things into consideration in their analysis.
(In response to this post by jesuisvtguy)
1y
If I put a bunch of oranges in the front of my grocery store with a big advertisement sign of 10% OFF, we simply can't say look how well oranges sold this month compared to apples. It has much greater exposure. The solution is to understand what should be expected for that exposure.
(In response to this post by jesuisvtguy)
1y
It's not a conspiracy theory
(In response to this post by CobbCountyHokie)
2
2hhoop3
1y
more akin to a self fulfilling prophecy. Better times, matchups and slots lead to higher ratings in turn leading to higher perceived value.
(In response to this post by SpeakToDamien)
1y
There are lots of metrics that support this fact. Facebook engagement, attendance, ratings, merchandising.
This is a silly chicken/egg argument. They get good game times and network slots because they will deliver good ratings, not the other way around.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
1y
nobody is saying they do not have large fan bases engaged across social media and no one would dispute they are going to draw larger numbers than others. However, the question is how much of the number is attributable to the actual school value versus how much is the network, time slot, opponent, etc.. At least some of that value they tout is the built in advantage of the other factors mentioned. The question is whether there is a reasonable and fair way to isolate the individual components. The guy who actually worked in the industry and knows told you so above whether you choose to believe it or not.
(In response to this post by SpeakToDamien)
1y
consultants hired by the ACC, know more about media rights valuations than HokieCentral posters ... but you never know.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
1y
just as I am sure the OP knows more about it than you.
(In response to this post by SpeakToDamien)
2
2hhoop3
1y
but, hopefully you'll be smarter in the future.
(In response to this post by SpeakToDamien)
1y
might be posters on this board. LOL
(In response to this post by SpeakToDamien)
1y
Air networks, are the ones that tend to get invited back to those networks. So when given the opportunity, you better take advantage of it.
(In response to this post by CobbCountyHokie)
V
Vippie1
1y
Are there any mechanisms to attempt to "normalize" a schools rating's power? My guess is given the number of variables it is virtually impossible . All we can do is make sweeping generalizations like ND football rates (generally) higher than VT , and VT football rates (generally) higher than Akron.
(In response to this post by CobbCountyHokie)
1y
will approve of this deal. And that is not tic - unfortunately. They seem to make bad decision after bad decision. This will, by no means, keep FSU, Clemson, and any others in the ACC. When/If they get a chance to leave, they will regardless of this model - and I don't blame them - I would leave the ACC if given the chance as well.
(In response to this post by CobbCountyHokie)
1y
FSU and Clemson have had the following regular season network coverage over the past two years.
FSU 2023 (12-0 reg season): 8 ABC, 2 ESPN, 1 CW (North Alabama), 1 ACCN (Southern Miss)
CU 2023 (8-4 reg season): 4 ABC, 2 ESPN, 1 SECN, 1 CW (NCSU), 4 ACCN (Charleston So, FAU, Wake, Miami)
FSU 2022 (9-3 reg season): 5 ABC, 1 ESPN, 1 RSN (Louisiana), 5 ACCN (Duquesne, BC, NCSU, GT, Syracuse)
CU 2022 (10-2 reg season): 6 ABC, 3 ESPN, 1 NBC, 2 ACCN (Furman and La Tech)
FSU in 2022 was 4-3 after seven games and less interesting matchups that pushed them off the main channels.
Clemson in 2023 was 4-4 after eight games, but had big enough matchups to still get main channels.
The main point is that Disney is already operating the ACCN with minimal coverage of the top teams. The big brands go to the main ABC and ESPN channels already. So even if FSU were to leave tomorrow, Clemson would still be heavily on ABC and ESPN, while the ACCN would have far more "everyone else" like it already does.
In 2023 the ACCN had these teams on a lot more than FSU and Clemson:
Miami (6 ACCN games),
UNC (6 ACCN, 1 CW),
NCSU (4 ACCN, 4 CW),
VT (7 ACCN) and so on.
You can't get big ratings if you are never on the big channels.
(In response to this post by CobbCountyHokie)
1y
in their choice of metrics. The metrics should be completely in the control of the individual schools and not at the whim of the networks.
(In response to this post by CobbCountyHokie)
2
2hhoop3
1y
I would. This is the issue and inequity in a nutshell and paying Clemson and FSU on those metrics is WRONG, IMO. It makes sense, again IMO, to pay for performance and results and it also makes sense to pay to incent programs to invest or penalize them when they just cash the checks with no investment. The Seminoles' issue is not nearly as much the amount of money as the idiots they have making the decisions on how money is spent.
I personally do not believe the malcontents should be rewarded for their actions with anything more than payments for performance. If they do decide on viewing metrics they should attempt to normalize the effects by using similar time slots, similar network placements, etc. to reduce the noise, however, even that is not great as not all programs have similar chances to attract marquee matchups.
(In response to this post by CobbCountyHokie)
1y
No individual program can control what network ESPN puts their game on, or if people watch their games. But they can control whether they win or not. By winning and continuing to win, they can control the post-season exposure they get. By beating OOC opponents, they can control the narrative that the ACC sucks.
It's all about winning. You want more money? Win. One of the big reasons FSU and Clemson are crossways with the ACC is because Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Northwestern and Purdue will be making 30-40 million more than them a year. Why does that make them mad? Because nobody cares about those programs. Why does nobody care about those programs? Because they don't win. But, obviously, FSU and Clemson have no problem not winning themselves, and still getting paid more for it. It's hypocrisy at its finest.
I have no problem with a success-based payout structure, even if they wanted to distribute 100% of the conference's media rights money based upon winning, bowl placement, etc. But, a payout structure based on TV ratings is an asinine idea, no matter how you bake the cupcake.
** Edited by Baltimore_Hokie at 9/20/2024, 12:50:02 PM
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
1y
both that we rarely agree and that we agree on this issue. My personal opinion is that a very large, significant portion of distributions could be performance and/or incentive based. I do believe that some minimal baseline needs to exist for purely competitive reasons for the conference. I do not believe we disagree as much on what needs to happen going forward as you think but, our differences arise more in what could have been done prior and how the conference might/should go about getting things done going forward. Regardless, we agree that strictly on TV ratings is a bad idea.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
V
Vippie1
1y
is IMO fraught with so many hard to quantify variables that it is of little value.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
1y
if possible at all. However, I have not bought FSU's dog and pony show of numbers representing their value and as this drags on and people look at the FSU assumptions others appear to be backing off as well.
(In response to this post by Vippie1)
1y
existing conference schools when Clemson of FSU plays an in conference road game. Do FSU and Clemson bring in higher attendance? Does that game get better viewing windows?
It's no different than ND. Would you drop your FSU, Clemson, and ND games to play other conference members? Because, if they don't get the money, it's exactly what you will be doing.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
1y
If that was the case, Virginia Tech and NC State, who sell out their stadia every home game would be on ABC or ESPN weekly along with Clemson and FSU. Pitt and Miami would never be on the big channels with their horrible home attendance.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2
2hhoop3
1y
the point. Yes FSU and Clemson are bigger draws but, the point is separating the effect due to the draw from the other factors of time slot, network, etc..
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
them in your conference? You can nitpick on networks, time slots, etc. all you want, but VT, BC, and all the others have no control on those issues, which is why you don't wanna go down that road.
Are you better off with, or without them? The answer is obvious. Give them the money, keep your conference together, and fight another day.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
1y
more money "just because." This isn't Big 12 country. We don't capitulate to whiny cry babies who think they drive the bus.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
1y
The going rate is the going rate. If FSU or Clemson don't like it, they can go independent, set their own schedules, and negotiate their own media rights deals. Since they're such gigantic TV draws no matter what, win or lose, rain or shine, they should have no issues at all whatsoever making more money on their own.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
the heck of it. ESPN is at the table, and is most likely directing traffic on the contract issue. The ACC may have no choice in the matter.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
1y
I'd rather see the ACC burned to the ground, and that ground salted, than to capitulate and agree to give FSU and Clemson (ESPECIALLY Clemson) more money in exchange for basically nothing in return. Whether the ACC exists tomorrow or not really doesn't affect VT's position in the grand overall scheme of things, and, again, God hates a coward.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
VT to be? what gives them the best exposure, the best recruiting, and the best money possible in the next 5 years?
I mean, a P2 invite is what fans think they want, but it's the ability to compete that they really want. How would you position VT moving forward with all of this realignment, FSU lawsuits, B12 expansion, money gap stuff going on. Most of those things, the school or athletic department has no control over.
Do you think keeping the ACC together the next five years is better for VT, or do you think that if it's going to end (as we know it), then let it end?
I have my opinion, but I'm clearly not a diehard VT fan.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
1y
move available on the board, which is keep its mouth shut and see where the cards fall. For those paying attention, this is also what UNC, Miami, and several others are obviously doing. If the ACC survives, great, nothing changes. If it doesn't, either the Big 12 or, even better, a P2 will pick VT up, there's no question. VT and similarly situated programs are not in the same position as Wake Forest, Boston College, SMU, etc. For those sad sacks, i get that this is a tooth and nail fight for survival. For VT, it's just wait and see. There's around a zero percent chance they end up worse off than they are now either way.
That calculus changes, at least it does in my mind, if VT has to give up some portion of its remuneration to go to FSU and Clemson based upon TV ratings, something that can easily be juiced by outside intermediaries, and that no ACC member really has any measure of control over. If you're Boston College, you can go 13-0, undefeated against an OOC slate made up entirely of top shelf B1G and SEC opponents, win the ACC 7 years in a row, and win 2-3 CFP titles in that time frame, while FSU and Clemson go 0-12 every year, and it doesn't guarantee Boston College will garner high Nielsen ratings. Should FSU and Clemson really get more ACC media rights money than Boston College in that hypothetical?
Again, if FSU and Clemson think they are worth so much, even if they go 0-12, then they can negotiate their own media rights deals. F 'em.
** Edited by Baltimore_Hokie at 9/20/2024, 5:14:55 PM
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
money for that additional pile of money that would then be used for this uneven distribution. That means that the other schools that do not perform, do not lose any money. If that is indeed the case, would it change your mind?
With the February deadline approaching I speculate the reason the ACC is even considering uneven distributions, is that ESPN has made a few offers. We give you this much if the conference stays together - we give you this much if FSU/Clemson leave - we will not extend the contract unless you have your house in order.
I don't know Baltimore, none of this sounds really good. I sincerely think that college football is better off with a strong ACC, but I also thought the same about the PAC.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
2
2hhoop3
1y
we disagree on how obvious that answer really is and it depends what the true costs might actually be. You are right that it COULD make sense to fight another day but, it could make just as much, if not more, sense to rip the bandaid off and fight today. The terms are important as is the relative conditions and alternatives for each program.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
be a hollow moral victory.
You guys won't negotiate a realistic exit for them, then you won't give them an opportunity to want to stay. From my position, it's a lose lose.
Give them the money, but keep the 2036 date in place. It seems to me, that many are missing that ESPN and Phillips are in actual negotiations with the contract. It has been reported that ESPN might be supplying the money for some, if not all of this. I think it's an offer you can not refuse.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
H
HouClone
1y
due to the 3rd tier rights. Texas was making $12-$15 million per year due the Longhorn Network and Oklahoma was making much more with their own agreement. It didn't matter at the end. The SEC offered more and off they went. ACC can give in now but if they can make more in another conference even in 2036, they will leave. FSU and Clemson won't care that the ACC helped them out by unequal revenue sharing years earlier.
Saying that, different situation. There is a lawsuit where FSU and Clemson could win. If the ACC thinks they have a great chance in winning, then I say fight it out.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2
2hhoop3
1y
the decision depends on terms and other factors and you have absolutely no idea, nor do I, as to what the outcome may actually represent. They were given an option to exit and whether they might see an option to stay is up to the decision of all conference member schools. FSU and, to a lesser extent, Clemson created the situation with their actions and actions have consequences. Everybody is aware of what is going on and I just happen to disagree with your thinking. Others may agree with you but, so far I am unpersuaded by your arguments.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
commenting on things that neither one of us knows. I'm also aware of what FSU has done to create this situation.
Getting that contract extension, and keeping the conference together is a win win. Even if they get a larger slice of the pie.
* I have no dog in this hunt. * A breakup of the ACC would be fantastic for my conference. At the end of the day, ESPN apparently has given some options, and the Presidents will act accordingly to give their schools the best chance to compete.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
1y
so they can be in a fortified situation when the GOR expires? Making an nonlevel playing field in your own league only makes the gap between the Haves and the Have Nots even worse.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
(In response to this post by CobbCountyHokie)
TV ratings will benefit FSU, Clemson and likely Miami....
in football and Duke and UNC in men's hoops. I kind of see Tech, UVA, NC State and Louisville in the middle followed by Pitt, Cuse, GT and then BC and Wake at the bottom. Cuse could join the group with Virginia Tech if men's basketball is Top 25 again. Not sure where Stanford, Cal and SMU fit in.
I agree with what you wrote but Tech is responsible for the product they put on the football field and basketball court. Tech is going to get a lot of ACCN and CW time with what they have now. The ACC needs to do a better job promoting the CW football and basketball games. SMU-TCU is actually a nice game for The CW.
IMHO, I think Jim Phillips is trying his best to bring stability to the ACC is reaching out to FSU and Clemson. I expect most of the ACC presidents will agree to "pay" FSU, Clemson and UNC more money if it can bring stability to the ACC for the rest of this decade. I just wonder how many ACC schools will take a paycut?
(In response to this post by CobbCountyHokie)
O
obguthr
1y
other than having lived in TX briefly in 96-97, but that game was a big deal when I was a kid. I'm stoked that the ACC is now a part of it. The XII-ACC are now rival conferences and these schools are the standard bearers in the rivalry. Pony Up!
(In response to this post by Old Line Hokie)