but the reason the SEC is such a "ratings machine" is because their games are broadcast in the most prime spots on the most prime channels, including free OTA broadcast on ABC. It's absolutely insane to put Tennessee vs. Arkansas at noon on ABC, and also put FSU vs. Miami on ESPN2 in the same time-slot, and then try to trumpet about how many more people watched Tennessee-Arkansas. Of course they did, it was on free OTA ABC, while the ACC game was buried on ESPN2. I consistently am amazed at how the SEC propaganda machine is always running at 300%, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to convince everyone that 3 loss SEC teams are always going to be better (and thus worth paying more $$$$$$$$$) than 1 loss teams from other conferences. This system is untenable.

Yes, the SEC game is on a broadcast that will get more viewers, BUT, they got that game because they are expected to get more viewers than the ACC matchup if it were on that broadcast. ESPN is a for profit company. There are a limited number of slots and they are going to put the games that will best monetize those slots, thus they don't put ACC teams in them because no one gives a crap about ACC football games that their school isn't playing in. You may not like it and it may burst your ESPN and SEC are colluding to kill the ACC pity party, but the fact is... The SEC is more interesting and draws more viewers than the ACC and thus will get the prime TV slots. It's not a conspiracy, it's good business. The ACC sucks at football AND is uninteresting in doing it.

Did I miss something? Did I insult your mother, or your dog? Are you employed by ESPN and/or the SEC? Or, did you miss something - like that I'm clearly not some ACC apologist. You can check my post history and quickly deduce exactly where I stand when it comes to the ACC, and VT's future as a member of it. I think maybe you should calm down, take some deep breaths, take your blood pressure medicine, and have a nap, before you give yourself a stroke. Nobody wants to see any of the veins in your forehead pop open and spray acid everywhere. And, frankly, I'm not missing a key point at all. I assure you that I'm not some slobbering mouth breather. I clearly understand why they decide to put who they decide to put in those time slots. But it's a pretty obvious fallacy to then turn around and say, "SEE? LOOK AT THE NUMBERS! WE WERE RIGHT! MORE PEOPLE WATCH THE SEC THAN THE ACC!" Yeah, no kidding, of course they do, you put one on ABC, which is broadcast over the air, for free, and the other on the ACCN, which is so niche, and buried so deep in the channel selection, that people have to actively seek it out on their own to even know it exists.

There is a convenient place to put the games that otherwise would push out lower level B12, and G5 games. #10 Clemson played on the ACCN Saturday. I have no idea the ratings they received, but ESPN has to get an ROI on their investment. Question: Has a ND game ever appeared on the ACCN?

The ACCN has its place in the context of live football game broadcasts, but that place is to broadcast 3rd or 4th tier ACC games that basically only fans of those teams would care to watch. It was never contemplated, and is not distributed widely enough to be any kind of destination for prime match-ups. Nobody is checking the ACCN "just to see what's on." If your game gets slotted there, you have been relegated to the consumption wasteland; you may as well be on ESPN+.

what games are on, where, and what time. Of course I'll know where my teams are, but I'm a fan of the game itself. I'll watch the scores, and would much rather watch a close game with 3rd or 4th tier games of just about any conference. I will admit, it's VERY hard to watch a G5 game if there are no fans in the stands, but those too are fun to watch. Take the Clemson game as an example. They did not have to put them on ESPN because they had a slot on the ACCN. I'm willing to bet that there was a B12 game (3rd tier) on at the same time as that Clemson game - either ESPB, 2, FS1, or some other broadcast network. The prime slots have always been reserved for the blue bloods, or the teams that are hot that year. Indiana this year, TCU a couple of years ago. The top names will get those time slots, even if they are having an off year. The only way anyone else gets in those slots, is if they are in the polls, and the game has conference or national championship implications. The Duke - SMU, a game of one loss teams, should be on a network in a decent time slot - but they are relegated to the ACCN. Why?

the most prominent of which is that you, the die hard football fan who loves the sport and will watch any exciting game no matter who it is playing, are not the target audience for games that receive prime broadcast slots. Neither Disney, nor Fox, nor NBC, nor CBS, nor anyone else cares one iota about you and what your preferences are. They know you will actively seek out what you want to see, and, accordingly, they don't have to cater to you at all. Yes, the media conglomerates take into account which games they predict will draw the most fans, but what they're really aiming for is casuals, and most prominently among the casuals, the casual gamblers who have a $20 FanDuel bet on the game. And casuals who are not die hard college football people do not want to see Duke-SMU, because they associate Duke with basketball, and they don't even know what SMU is. What your Clemson example fails to take into consideration is that Disney pays peanuts for Clemson. Why are they going to put Clemson on ABC unless they're playing Notre Dame or an SEC team at home, when they could otherwise put on literally any top-half SEC teams? Disney didn't pay eleventy billion dollars for Texas and Alabama and half that for the ACC so they could turn around and put one-loss Clemson vs. two-loss Syracuse on ABC instead of Texas or Alabama. They're not leaving the Ferrari in the garage so they can drive their 8-year-old Jetta to the club, even if they just replaced the transmission and reupholstered the Jetta with rich, Corinthian leather. Finally, even when teams are "hot" like Indiana this year - they're only getting prime slots when they're playing Michigan, USC, Oregon, Ohio State, etc. You will note that they did not put 5-0 Indiana vs. Maryland or 6-0 Indiana vs. Northwestern on Fox at noon. You can probably guess which channel those games were played on. ** Edited by Baltimore_Hokie at 10/23/2024, 10:14:49 AM ** Edited by Baltimore_Hokie at 10/23/2024, 10:15:52 AM

damn, as a consumer of those games, I don't like it - and they are in danger of losing me as a consumer. Like you said though, they really don't care.

The sport is actively being ruined before our eyes. It's a travesty, honestly. Disney, FOX, and the rest are very quickly morphing college football into something resembling the NBA, where only major national brands receive any exposure beyond their immediate region, 90% of the games are on streaming or buried on specialized cable channels, the officiating very brazenly maneuvers to create the narrative the leagues want, and casual fans and square gamblers are catered to exclusively in presentation. For the vast majority of the history of the sport, no games were on TV, and only big brands got national exposure. That's fine, I get it. But there was a very brief window of time, probably the early 90's through the advent of the CFP, where college football had a very egalitarian feel, and the sport was covered by the major networks in a way where you felt like the actual college football fan was being catered to, as opposed to now, where it feels like they're just trying to have a new "GAME OF THE CENTURY" every single week that's actually just another SEC or B1G conference game, and create clips for TikTok.

FSU rolling last year the reason ?

to get better in the future but, in the glass is half full vein, there is not a whole lot of room left for it to get worse. ;-)

Boy do we need to keep winning to give our ratings a chance and maybe one day get in a P2.