5 million+ viewers through week 8 by network and by conference
Through CFB Week 8, there have been 27 games that got 5 million+ viewers.
Distribution of games by network:
ABC: 19
CBS: 3
FOX: 2
ESPN: 2
NBC: 1
Distribution of teams by conference:
SEC: 32
B1G: 12
ACC: 7
ND: 2
Big 12: 1 (TCU vs. UNC)
__________
My thoughts:
1. ABC/ESPN is still the gold standard.
2. The SEC is king.
3. With Colorado hype gone, the B12 viewership numbers came down
Link:
Mandel
45 Replies
9mo
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
9mo
I was going to wait until after the season was over. But if people need the full data to clearly see how conferences and schools compare, then I suppose I could start putting in the data now.
Always remember, the summary numbers that are reported only tell part of the story.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
S
SMU Pony
9mo
...if/when top ACC brands leave the conference, then it will be on par with the Big 12. But not now.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
9mo
Basically,
New B12 = Old B12 - top brands (Texas, OU, A&M, Neb, etc) + G5 schools + C4.
Not a good landing spot
(In response to this post by SMU Pony)
9mo
The reason the BigXII has better TV ratings than the ACC is because the worst rated BigXII game has twice the viewers of the 10th place ACC team. The floor is simply too high in the BigXII for the ACC to keep up. Measuring only games with 4+ million viewers is not a good representation of the mean and UNC has already lost it's luster, unfortunately.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
2
2hhoop3
9mo
they will be the tallest midget? How do you define better TV numbers?
(In response to this post by thebluelot)
9mo
From top to bottom the Nielsen ratings for the BigXII are cumulatively stronger than the ACC. Kansas vs UCF (a middling game with zero rival history) had better numbers than Virginia Tech and VT is one of the better draws in the ACC, even when they're bad. Nobody watches the bottom 10 ACC teams. It's a G5 league.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
9mo
coming from an 'eer troll. Trot along sport.
(In response to this post by thebluelot)
8mo
Not rooting for VT's demise here. VT was duped into joining a basketball conference that's no longer good at basketball.
If the two leagues were merged, the ACC makes up 12 of the bottom 15 teams ratings. That's with ACC's propped up ratings from the 6 ND games. The only way VT remains in the ACC is if the Big10/SEC poach the BigXII before they poach UNC/UVA/Clemson/FSU. Otherwise, VT is SEC or BigXII bound.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
8mo
nothing you posted is factual and if that is the best you got after 12 days everybody can see you are a joke. You are an embarrassment to the actual decent mountaineer fans that post here from time to time.
(In response to this post by thebluelot)
8mo
Edit: Read this with a positive tone. I'm trying to be constructive here and not condescending.
There's a reason the ACC is adding a 9th conference game and received zero compensation. The SEC added a 9th game and are getting bank. The BigXII had 3 million more views last year than the ACC. Medium ran a story about TV viewership last year (it was just an accumulation of tv ratings), maybe you should read it. The BigXII having better tv ratings than the ACC this season is factual. You're more than welcome to look it up and provide me evidence of the contrary. I assume College Gameday in Lubbock this week is going to wrap up that argument, cleanly.
My understanding is that the ACC is bottom heavy. More people watch the 12th place BigXII team than the 12th through 17th place inclusive ACC teams.
I believe you're responding through hubris just as the PacXII teams did before their exit. I'll say this in response to your (perceived by me) hubris. More people watched Oregon State and Wazzu than about 8 current ACC members, and they were left behind. You won't find more than 5 power conference teams that gets less viewership numbers than the bottom 12 ACC teams
Virginia Tech still has a strong brand and I mentioned that in my reply as I believe despite poor performance they're still SEC worthy, however, VT's brand is whittling away by playing schools like WF, BC, UNC, UVA, Cuse, and Duke. I'm not fighting you or telling you that VT is unworthy. VT is absolutely worth their weight and then some. I'm telling you that the ACC is unworthy.
** Edited by thebluelot at 11/7/2025, 11:51:18 PM
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
8mo
First, in week 10 the ACC had five top games compared to 3 for the Big 12 and one of the 3 Big 12 games was at the bottom below multiple G5 games. Second, you conveniently omit how the Big 12 stacked up even worse to the Wazzup/Oregon State numbers than your attempted swipe at the ACC. Third, your reading of the ACC to a ninth game is a cherry picked misinterpretation and you know or at least should know it. You should call up Yormark and apply for a position in his spin department, your fantasies would fit right in. I do not buy your latest claims and stand by my original characterization of your intent.
(In response to this post by thebluelot)
8mo
It's literarily just Nielsen television ratings for ****s sake. It's not a discussion or an argument. It's factual.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
8mo
could produce a link to them. Given you recently just joined you look more and more like a former troll now reappearing with a new username.
(In response to this post by thebluelot)
8mo
But here it is
https://medium.com/run-it-back-with-zach/which-college-fo...
I'm not your professor, I'm not getting paid to hold your hand to prove that nobody watches the ACC. It's factual. From now on, because I'm the only one between the two of us that has shown evidence, my word will be taken at value and yours will be taken with speculation.
Do you understand? Anything you say from this moment must have citation, otherwise, it means nothing to me. Do not refute me again without something to back it up.
** Edited by thebluelot at 11/8/2025, 11:09:21 PM
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
8mo
you're right you do owe me nothing, however, you owe yourself the time and effort to actually craft an intelligent and relevant response. You're also right that your words will be judged on their actual value.
I am not sure what is funnier, the fact you believe your eight months here, less than 50 posts and one citation would substantiate your credibility or that your citation is from a site of dubious credibility, from an author with even less credibility and based on a flawed methodology with more holes than a block of Swiss cheese. The results of which have numerous inconsistencies with facts and figures reported by reputable sites such as Sports Business Journal, USA Today, Sports Media Watch and a host of other industry sources.
I understand. You are not my professor and you are not getting paid. That's a good thing given the actual value that you bring. I also understand the hubris of your command to not refute you going forward without citation but, hanging you with your own words and citation really requires nothing else.
(In response to this post by thebluelot)
8mo
post and responses were well thought out.
I come here for the relevant, and usually good content. Why would you want to run him off? This is a conference realignment board, and good content is a plus for this community and Will's business.
Don't run off dissenting views, or ones that do not meet your self proclaimed criteria. It certainly make things more interesting, and his posts provided decent content IMO.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
8mo
even if blinded by the error of his content. I disagree his posts were well thought out and we both know you liked them because they fit your world view as opposed to the actual accuracy of the content. Nobody minds dissenting views if well thought out and substantiated but, trolls and propagandists get what they deserve. Longevity is not the only criteria but, both longevity and membership do carry standing. Do ACC posters spam Big 12 boards like some with Big 12 ties, including you, do here from time to time?
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
8mo
don't this guy was, but your right, it's an opinion.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
8mo
you reread the thread. It might have been more passive/aggressive but, I believe the intent was clear. I noticed you did not answer or ignored my question on whether there was similar behavior by ACC posters on Big 12 boards. Why? You have your moments but, unlike the constant offenders you do contribute to the discussion from time to time as well. I see the poster we are now discussing as a reincarnation under a new username and, so far, his responses have done nothing to change that opinion.
I have a couple of more questions for you. Have you read the article in the link provided? Do you consider an unregulated publishing platform as something to be cited as factual content? Do you accept a methodology that doesn't account for all data and arbitrarily assigns a ”0" value to unavailable data as a complete presentation?
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
8mo
announcements were made, there was a lot of back and forth from the ACC trolls, but that has subsided considerably. It's not even a thing anymore really.
I did.
I read them as opinion - which almost all of this is.
Don't care about the methodology. There are enough supporting articles - and numbers - that I have seen to support his argument. Are they fact? Who the hell knows, and really, I'm not sure it really matters.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
8mo
were made and what ACC trolls on what boards? Seems to me you are sidestepping the question. Opinions are fine but, when somebody says it is factual or that's a fact that is not an opinion. Your generality on enough articles and numbers tells me you really got nothing and are just trying to defend the indefensible as you often do when you are in one of your moments and get called out. We will disagree as we often do in those situations.
** Edited by 2hhoop3 at 11/10/2025, 5:36:37 PM
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
9mo
stay in the ACC if the top 4 brands leave? I'm OK if you do, but VT is a football brand, and the leftovers will not be a football conference anymore. The B12, even without their brands, plays a very tough brand of football that continues to bring in the ratings. It's only a matter of time before some new "brands" emerge - like BYU, TT, and don't forget Utah.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
S
Stech
9mo
I still think ESPN will want to protect their ACC Channel where they make 50% of the profit. All of this Conference Realignment is about making money.
The Arizona schools, Utah and Colorado would create a strong group of Western schools. I also would like Kansas so we can have 18 football schools instead of 17. I think those 5 schools would make ESPN money in the ACC. I also think Notre Dame would like to play in those markets for recruiting purposes.
** Edited by Stech at 10/25/2025, 7:42:33 PM
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
9mo
just move a few to the Big 12, and then also not have to pay Wake Forest, SMU, Syracuse, Duke, Boston College, and the rest more money to stream/broadcast football games that nobody watches?
Folks on here think about conference realignment backwards. It's fairly simple - the entities that are causing the movement really have one and only one question ultimately in mind - will they be able to sell ad time for more money if they move this program from here to there. They are not going to pay all that money to move Utah and Arizona to the ACC when the majority of the created football content will be games against the schools mentioned above. Why would they? Nobody wants that content.
Frankly, I think they've got more content than they can realistically use already. ABC and ESPN1 are basically all SEC, all the time. There's no room for more ACC or Big 12 content on those networks, and if it's not going on those networks, then the ad money isn't going to move any needles. FOX, CBS, and NBC are clearly having buyer's remorse from the Big 10, because the numbers make clear that almost nobody is watching those games unless they involve Ohio State, Michigan, or Oregon. Nobody is watching USC-Rutgers. Nobody is watching Indiana-UCLA. Nobody is watching Washington-Maryland.
Frankly, it wouldn't shock me if there was no further conference realignment, at least not driven by the current big players, FOX and Disney. Somebody new with a lot of money is going to have to jump into the fray.
(In response to this post by Stech)
H
HouClone
9mo
Seemed like a good fit. ACCN could have had all those states.
This merger was brought up by a lot of people when the Pac was struggling for a new media contract, but the schools never pulled the trigger. My assumption is that the combination didn't bring any extra money and the time difference was a big factor for tv ratings. Most conference schools will watch other conference schools. Hard to do when the west coast games per tv preference start at 10 p.m. EST and vice versa for 9 a.m. PST ACC games. The other factor is travel cost and the stress on the athletes. I haven't seen Cal and Stanford's travel expenses leaked, but I am sure they are enormous that they want to keep it quiet. A western wing would help but is it really a conference if the teams rarely play the other wing (eastern or western) schools?
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
9mo
** Edited by Stech at 10/26/2025, 8:34:36 AM
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
9mo
an academic "power conference" - it's kind of an East Coast thing. Louisville, who the ACC never really wanted, will look at the B12. It's possible that others will as well, but the ACC media contract is secure until 2036, so unless the B12 gets a significantly higher media contract, we will stay at 4 "power" conferences and there will be little movement.
(In response to this post by Stech)
9mo
If the ACC loses its top brands, it will be on par with the current Big 12 in my opinion.
Of course you are entitled to your own opinion.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
9mo
Cal and Stanford, are you questioning these are not some of the top universities in the nation???
UNC, Duke UVA, GT Everying national ratings indicate top in the nation.
VT, Miami Pitt, SMU, NC State, BC, Syracuse, FSU RIght up with the best.
And compare with WVU, well..... Iowa State,. nice regional schools, no real market. I always like the term, in most ACC schools they train some of the best in the future to be the future CEO, who manage the rest., and the SEC and Big 10 know it.
Right now, they dont need anything now, and frankly ACC is stabiliziing and dont need anything now
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
9mo
full of outstanding schools, no doubt.
Ask Mississippi State if that matters when it comes to media contracts in college athletics. Heck, ask Stanford.
Rice, Tulane and UMass are some fine academic schools that would salivate at the chance to be in an academic conference like you just described.
(In response to this post by 1947Sunbowl)
2
2hhoop3
9mo
Big 12 fans that would agree with your opinion but, likely not many, if any, from outside the Big12. One team by your conference so far is really nothing to hang a hat on and you may not want to hold your breath in anticipation of better full season numbers.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
9mo
and not subjective. I don't know how they will play out, except that they will be much better than most on this board think.
Ya, I'll hold my breath, and it is my opinion that even with the ACC brands, the B12 will be right there with them on ratings numbers - maybe even a tad better.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
9mo
This year he hasn't drawn as many eyeballs, and the B12 didn’t have many highly watched games.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
9mo
He was THE story, the first half of the 2024 season
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
9mo
the viewership numbers las year, Colorado had blue blood type of viewership numbers.
(In response to this post by MrBayAreaHokie)
2
2hhoop3
9mo
we’ll see if this one turns out more accurate than your past efforts.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
9mo
I would wait for the entire season numbers to come out for the entire conference. There is no doubt that the ACC with Miami, FSU, Clemson, and ND will get many top games in the better networks and time slots. The assumption is that if the top schools leave, then the ACC will be even with the B12. Umm, I don't think so. The very second that schools like NCSU do not have the top brands on their schedule, the ratings numbers will tank, and NCSU's (example) numbers are not good even with the brands.
While there is no "brand" in the B12, top to bottom, their numbers are strong and healthy.
(In response to this post by SMU Pony)
S
Stech
9mo
How does the B10 make more TV money than the SEC?
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)