Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)

[AuH2O]

If the top of that league was worth 30 and the bottom is worth...30 then they all are still worth 30.

I think this is closer to reality than Oregon and Washington being worth 70 and Stanford is worth 10.

If the top value teams Oregon and Washington were worth that much more, then the B1G would have been more willing to add them and at more than the half share or below they are getting.

My guess is the top of that conference was valued at 35ish middle teams including Stan and Cal were believed to be worth all about 30, and the bottom 2, in OSU and Wazzu being worth 25.

I just dont believe there is that big of a difference in the Pac 10 after USCLA, and also an ACC after the top few leave.

The big ten offered Wash and Oregon half share because they could. They had all the leverage, and could offer the best deal available to those schools while still making it profitable for the current members. All that tells us is a likely floor of their value. If Wash and Oregon were worth 35 they probably wouldn’t be in the Big 10.

Also, the 30 mil offer was before the new Big 12 deal with the expanded conference. Not only was that offer with Oregon and Wash, it was when ESPN and Fox were still looking for some second tier inventory. I’m not sure how that translates to future negotiations, but I think most overestimated just how much CFB inventory these networks need, or at least how much it’s worth to them.

 

[SEIOWA CLONE]

This was the point I was making to the post I replied to. They stated that the only thing that mattered was viewership. To which I replied if that was the case Stanford would be a top add, but they are not, so things beyond viewership matter too. Travel is an issue but as we have seen with recent realignment, not as much of an issue as some like to claim.


The numbers for I quoted for Stanford and others was from the last 2 years.

Here are last 2 years numbers, not even close to what you are saying.

 

[FriendlySpartan]

It'll be interesting to see if players sit out of the expanded playoffs. Short term fame or stay injury free for the draft.

I highly doubt it but you never know for sure.

 

[heitclone]

Take that logic one step further and why should a high first draft pick like Caleb Williams even play a regular season game at USC this season? Let alone playoff games.

IMO at some point an elite college player is going to test the 3 year draft eligibility rule and win. If there is pay for play for college-athletes(NIL), seems like some are ready to be NFL professionals.

If I were in Williams shoes, I wouldn't play either. I'm looking at what happened to Trey Lance. People will focus more on him being a bust but he played the system perfect, sat out bc he had nothing to gain, got picked 4th and will make about $80 million this contract. Not bad for a guy who only played in18 FCS games.

 

[2speedy1]

Here are last 2 years numbers, not even close to what you are saying.

So why does your link for 2021 from same source have such different numbers than mine?



Edit: nvm my data was an average of 2015-19, reported in 21. I read a list linking to this info that said it was from 21, Which it was, but only reported in 21. But an average over several years.

So which is more accurate an average over several years.. you could add the last 2 years in and average them in as well. Or is 1 single year more accurate of a schools ratings?

Edit2: Doing the Math Stanfords average from 2015-2022, minus 2020, would be 1.02M, still higher than many.

 

[SEIOWA CLONE]

So why does your link for 2021 from same source have such different numbers than mine?



Edit: nvm my data was an average of 2015-19, reported in 21. I read a list linking to this info that said it was from 21, Which it was, but only reported in 21. But an average over several years.

So which is more accurate an average over several years.. you could add the last 2 years in and average them in as well. Or is 1 single year more accurate of a schools ratings?

Easy you just have to look at their record to see the difference.

2022 3-9
2021 3-9
2020 Covid, not included
2019 4-8
2018 9-4
2017 9-5
2016 10-3
2015 12-2

Like many schools when they were rolling from 15 to 18 their ratings were great, but since then, they have fallen off along with their attendance, and their ratings are showing that.

 

[Stormin]

I guess we'll see. If top picks start foregoing entire seasons we'll know you were right. I don't see it happening because I can't imagine those top guys wanting to take themselves out of the spotlight for their junior or senior season and allow someone else to emerge and position themselves higher.

I actually think they’ll play in all games. CFP is a dream to win a Natty. Sitting out a ceremonial bowl game is a different thing entirely.

 

[isucy86]

Like I said, when we start seeing top picks foregoing entire college seasons (and not just bowl/CFP games), we'll know you were right. I don't see it happening.

Well, when we start seeing players skip playoff games, we'll know you were right. Can you recall a player who skipped a playoff game during the 4 team era?

Big difference in importance between NY6 Bowl & playoff games for the last 8 years.

 

[2speedy1]

Easy you just have to look at their record to see the difference.

2022 3-9
2021 3-9
2020 Covid, not included
2019 4-8
2018 9-4
2017 9-5
2016 10-3
2015 12-2

Like many schools when they were rolling from 15 to 18 their ratings were great, but since then, they have fallen off along with their attendance, and their ratings are showing that.

Except when you do the same with the other teams mentioned it doesnt really change where they stand in the list.

Look at a few on the list and average them out. You will find Stanford is still ahead of many, and some of the higher ones also come down.

By your list Stan has had a poor 3 years, and still has views higher than some in a good year.

Ultimately what I am trying to say is if it is all about viewership, and that is what matters, when you compare Stanford, to many that we already took, and what may be available for us from the ACC, they have as good of views or better than any of them. This is not saying Stan is some juggernaut of views, but they are easily upper middle in most conferences when comparing views.

The comes back to the point. Why is someone like Syracuse or Virginia Tech, so much better than adding Stanford. I mean look at Virginia Techs numbers in the last 2 years in the 2 links you shared. They averaged like 350k views over those 2 years. Louisville averaged like 500k for those last 2 years. Stanford is at about 800K for 21 and 22. So even in the bad years of the last 2 seasons they still are well ahead of some of peoples preferred picks from the ACC. This is what I am trying to say, when everyone says all those ACC schools would be better than the remnants of the PAC. I just dont understand how people look at Louisville, and Syracuse and BC and Wake and VT etc and say they are so much better. Besides the pompous attitude of Stan and Cal, I cant see where they are worse adds than several of the ACC schools, from a purely business aspect, taking "feelings" out of it.

 

[Gonzo]

Well, when we start seeing players skip playoff games, we'll know you were right. Can you recall a player who skipped a playoff game during the 4 team era?

Big difference in importance between NY6 Bowl & playoff games for the last 8 years.

JSN last year, but I think he was saying he wasn't 100% even though there were reports otherwise. The # of players skipping bowl season continues to increase, won't surprise me if a projected top NFL pick from a low-seeded CFP team skips it. We'll see.

 

[Nolaeer]

Except when you do the same with the other teams mentioned it doesnt really change where they stand in the list.

Look at a few on the list and average them out. You will find Stanford is still ahead of many, and some of the higher ones also come down.

By your list Stan has had a poor 3 years, and still has views higher than some in a good year.

Ultimately what I am trying to say is if it is all about viewership, and that is what matters, when you compare Stanford, to many that we already took, and what may be available for us from the ACC, they have as good of views or better than any of them. This is not saying Stan is some juggernaut of views, but they are easily upper middle in most conferences when comparing views.

The comes back to the point. Why is someone like Syracuse or Virginia Tech, so much better than adding Stanford. I mean look at Virginia Techs numbers in the last 2 years in the 2 links you shared. They averaged like 350k views over those 2 years. Louisville averaged like 500k for those last 2 years. Stanford is at about 800K for 21 and 22. So even in the bad years of the last 2 seasons they still are well ahead of some of peoples preferred picks from the ACC. This is what I am trying to say, when everyone says all those ACC schools would be better than the remnants of the PAC. I just dont understand how people look at Louisville, and Syracuse and BC and Wake and VT etc and say they are so much better. Besides the pompous attitude of Stan and Cal, I cant see where they are worse adds than several of the ACC schools, from a purely business aspect, taking "feelings" out of it.

There's a reason VT will probably end up in the SEC and stanford is taking discounted shares to get into the acc. that reason is eyeballs and diehard fans willing to pay to see their team play.

Why VT over stanford? Rivalry with wvu. both sucked last year but still had good viewers in a blowout game.

VT has market share in va and dc.

VT is in a good football state, is the football school in the state of Virginia, and has won the acc 5 times since joining. VT will rise again. Stanford not so much.

Culture! has anyone been to Blacksburg? I have. they fit the big 12 culture--Stanford thinks they're too good for the big 12.

travel. vt would give wvu a close rival, stanford would be as far as possible from orlando (UCF). and the bay area isnt close for anyone. Big 12 needs to focus its expansion east.

Stanford wont do nil--they refuse. so they'll be bad to very bad.
cal sucks and doesnt care that they suck.

Despite various reports to the contrary, Big 12 has not had conversations w/any of the Pac-4 schools & has no intention in engaging w/those schools, multiple Big 12 sources told @ActionNetworkHQ
— Brett McMurphy (@Brett_McMurphy) August 27, 2023

 

[Klubber]

I like the Cincy and BYU adds. I'd trade Houston or UCF for those 2 in a heartbeat though.

Why? Houston's like the 7th largest media market. They have a huge alumni base that's engaged (famous alumni as well), are a good school academically, and a top hoops program.

There's no reason they won't now become a football power too.

OSU and Wazzu, outside of academics, offer none of that to the Big XII.

 

[CyCrazy]

Why? Houston's like the 7th largest media market. They have a huge alumni base that's engaged (famous alumni as well), are a good school academically, and a top hoops program.

There's no reason they won't now become a football power too.

OSU and Wazzu, outside of academics, offer none of that to the Big XII.

As long as Skulletor is the head coach, UH will be average.

 

[SEIOWA CLONE]

Except when you do the same with the other teams mentioned it doesnt really change where they stand in the list.

Look at a few on the list and average them out. You will find Stanford is still ahead of many, and some of the higher ones also come down.

By your list Stan has had a poor 3 years, and still has views higher than some in a good year.

Ultimately what I am trying to say is if it is all about viewership, and that is what matters, when you compare Stanford, to many that we already took, and what may be available for us from the ACC, they have as good of views or better than any of them. This is not saying Stan is some juggernaut of views, but they are easily upper middle in most conferences when comparing views.

The comes back to the point. Why is someone like Syracuse or Virginia Tech, so much better than adding Stanford. I mean look at Virginia Techs numbers in the last 2 years in the 2 links you shared. They averaged like 350k views over those 2 years. Louisville averaged like 500k for those last 2 years. Stanford is at about 800K for 21 and 22. So even in the bad years of the last 2 seasons they still are well ahead of some of peoples preferred picks from the ACC. This is what I am trying to say, when everyone says all those ACC schools would be better than the remnants of the PAC. I just dont understand how people look at Louisville, and Syracuse and BC and Wake and VT etc and say they are so much better. Besides the pompous attitude of Stan and Cal, I cant see where they are worse adds than several of the ACC schools, from a purely business aspect, taking "feelings" out of it.

Look you can back Stanford all you want, but if the Big Easy conference thought Stanford was a great choice to pick up, they would be in that conference now. What does Fox and the Big Easy know that everyone doesn't. Its real simple, they do not add more money to that conference.

They also do not want to be in the B12, they think its beneath them to be in a conference that promotes athletics over academics. Without a doubt if Stanford had said they wanted to join the B12 along with the four corner schools the invite would have been there. They do not want the B12.

The SEC wants to stay regional, otherwise they would have grabbed Oregon and Washington when the Big Easy was slow playing them, but they did not. So that leaves only the ACC which has strong academic schools that would meet the requirements that Stanford wants. But the ACC has enough problems of their own, and does not want to expand now, with most of that being pushed by Clemson and FSU that want out of the conference.

In the end, Stanford will go independent along with Cal for a few years and see how it all shakes out, they will park the rest of their sports team in the MWC, just like BYU did. If BYU can pull it off, I have little doubt that Stanford will do the same.

 

[sunset]

ASU self imposed a bowl ban for this year.


The football coach is not happy.

 

[isucy86]

I never said Academics matter that much....just maybe a little.

Stanford being the #1 academic school, and also the #1 athletics school at least matters "A LITTLE" Especially to the academic types that make the final decisions.

But ultimately the real matter is who the media partners want, or will pay for.

I never said that the PAC 4 were great adds, that we should add them, or that we will add them.

What I said is the value of those schools really is not much different than the value of the bottom 4 of the ACC. And holding on to spots for the bottom of the ACC is not that great of a strategy. As in the end if we end up at 24 teams it wont matter.

I also have repeatedly said that beyond the top few in the ACC, there really is not that much difference in Value. Which means FSU, Clem, UNC etc are not who I am talking about, as the B12 will never have a chance for them. And my point on FSU is that they continue to throw their weight around but have not mattered in over a decade.

You are right FSU has great viewership, but that has declined over the years they have been mediocre.

Everyone says UNC is a huge add that everyone wants... yet their viewership is almost identical to ISU, and about middle of the ACC in that respect. Louisville has almost double the viewership of UNC yet no one says the SEC and B1G are lining up for Louisville.

Point being Viewership is a huge part of this, but there are other aspects that at least play a small part in it.

And by the way Stanfords viewership is above everyone in the new B12 except OkSt. And above every possible add for the B12, from the ACC. They would be 4th in the ACC behind Clem, FSU, and Miami. They are 2nd in the current pac 12 behind USC. So if viewership is all that matters, B10, ACC and B12 would be begging for them to join.

IMO people have to be careful when comparing viewership #'s between schools. I don't think I have seen a valid apples to apples analysis published. Aggregate numbers are very misleading. There's a saying "Statistics can Lie and Liars Use Statistics."

Viewership #'s have to be normalized based on Network & Time Slot. And maybe even omit certain games. Aka If Iowa State played Alabama at 3pm I bet there would be 7M plus viewers. Should that game be used to say Iowa State brings a lot of viewers?

Also, certain networks don't report viewership #'s. Last year ISU's Big12 game against WVU was on ESPN+ so that's 1 missing data point. Compare that to Stanford Pac12 games (ASU, WSU and Cal) on Pac12 Network which didn't report viewership.

I am sure there are some brilliant statistics folks (I am not one), but it seems like a good way to compare viewership #'s would be similar to using Beta to measure and compare stock return volatility. Compare a schools viewership against the average viewership (score of 1) for each network time slot. AKA if average viewership for ABC 3pm game is 4M and Iowa State vs Alabama was 7M, that would be a value of 1.75. It seems like that methodology would largely eliminate "network" bias in viewership #'s

Just look at ISU vs. Stanford games for the 2022 season

Network Games

• ISU (2 Games) : Avg. 3.35M (TCU@3p: 4.34M & UT@11a: 2.35M)
• Stanford (2 Games): Avg 2.56M (USC@6:30p: 2.96M & ND@6:30p: 2.15M)

FS1 Games

• ISU (2 Games): Avg. 630k (OU@11a: 711k & TT@6:30p: 545k)
• Stanford (3): Avg. 550K (UW@9:30p: 532k & UO@10p: 672k & BYU@10p: 453k)

Other Network Games for each School:

• ISU: ESPN2: 2 games @ 810k, ESPNU: 2 games @ 320k, BTN: 1 game @ 1.47M
• Stanford: ESPN: 3 games @ 1.13M

It's amazing how low ISU viewership was on ESPNU! 373k for KSU and 272k for OSU

 

[2speedy1]

There's a reason VT will probably end up in the SEC and stanford is taking discounted shares to get into the acc. that reason is eyeballs and diehard fans willing to pay to see their team play.

Why VT over stanford? Rivalry with wvu. both sucked last year but still had good viewers in a blowout game.

VT has market share in va and dc.

VT is in a good football state, is the football school in the state of Virginia, and has won the acc 5 times since joining. VT will rise again. Stanford not so much.

Culture! has anyone been to Blacksburg? I have. they fit the big 12 culture--Stanford thinks they're too good for the big 12.

travel. vt would give wvu a close rival, stanford would be as far as possible from orlando (UCF). and the bay area isnt close for anyone. Big 12 needs to focus its expansion east.

Stanford wont do nil--they refuse. so they'll be bad to very bad.
cal sucks and doesnt care that they suck.

Except most of what you are saying is not true. VT viewership last 2 years has been on par with G5 schools. Averaging 350K views is not good and it seems no-one really cares. If they have such a great fanbase, and demand, they would have viewership numbers to match.

Pitt-WVU is a better rivalry. You a WVU fan and are by far biased for the eastern teams especially those in close prox to WVU. But that does not make the numbers any better.

If they had market share those numbers would show up.

Travel for the Eastern schools sure is better with eastern schools, but travel for the western schools is better to Stanford than to VT.

Cal sucks and still has better viewership than VT when you average the last 2 years. And VT isnt even the bottom of the ACC. Which says something. Hell Kansas has had double the views as VT over the last 2 years, and they are the bottom of the irate 8. Kansas is on par with Pitt.....FOR FOOTBALL!! Damn close to half the ACC is below Kansas, frickin KANSAS in viewership for football. Duke is lucky to get 100K viewership. Great basketball but their football is all but nonexistent, and we say KU is bad. KU looks like a rockstar to half the ACC.

So again tell me what VT has?

You are obviously biased to want eastern schools, And I am not saying we should not take some of those eastern schools, but saying the bottom half of the ACC is somehow superior to whats left in the Pac is not true. And Stanford while I dont think they are a great add has better stats than most.

 

[2speedy1]

IMO people have to be careful when comparing viewership #'s between schools. I don't think I have seen a valid apples to apples analysis published. Aggregate numbers are very misleading. There's a saying "Statistics can Lie and Liars Use Statistics."

Viewership #'s have to be normalized based on Network & Time Slot. And maybe even omit certain games. Aka If Iowa State played Alabama at 3pm I bet there would be 7M plus viewers. Should that game be used to say Iowa State brings a lot of viewers?

Also, certain networks don't report viewership #'s. Last year ISU's Big12 game against WVU was on ESPN+ so that's 1 missing data point. Compare that to Stanford Pac12 games (ASU, WSU and Cal) on Pac12 Network which didn't report viewership.

I am sure there are some brilliant statistics folks (I am not one), but it seems like a good way to compare viewership #'s would be similar to using Beta to measure and compare stock return volatility. Compare a schools viewership against the average viewership (score of 1) for each network time slot. AKA if average viewership for ABC 3pm game is 4M and Iowa State vs Alabama was 7M, that would be a value of 1.75. It seems like that methodology would largely eliminate "network" bias in viewership #'s

Just look at ISU vs. Stanford games for the 2022 season

Network Games

• ISU (2 Games) : Avg. 3.35M (TCU@3p: 4.34M & UT@11a: 2.35M)
• Stanford (2 Games): Avg 2.56M (USC@6:30p: 2.96M & ND@6:30p: 2.15M)

FS1 Games

• ISU (2 Games): Avg. 630k (OU@11a: 711k & TT@6:30p: 545k)
• Stanford (3): Avg. 550K (UW@9:30p: 532k & UO@10p: 672k & BYU@10p: 453k)

Other Network Games for each School:

• ISU: ESPN2: 2 games @ 810k, ESPNU: 2 games @ 320k, BTN: 1 game @ 1.47M
• Stanford: ESPN: 3 games @ 1.13M

It's amazing how low ISU viewership was on ESPNU! 373k for KSU and 272k for OSU

But the numbers just take the averages. Its not perfect, but it at least gives a ballpark.

If you look at the subscriber numbers for ESPNU compared to the rest it at least explains why the numbers are so much lower.

But yes you are right, playing at 3pm on ABC no matter who the opponent is, is going to draw better than something on ESPNU at anytime. What really throws the data off is when teams like Michigan are always on great stations and times, vs the rest that get a good slot every so often. As far as the middle and lower teams those outlying numbers dont skew them against each other. Because they all have similar outlying games so it should average out. But comparing ISU, VT, or Cal to Ohio state, Clemson, or Alabama will never work when looking at averages, because those schools are always on the best slots. So you have to look at ISU on its best slot, when comparing it to the Top programs that are always on those.

 

[2speedy1]

IMO people have to be careful when comparing viewership #'s between schools. I don't think I have seen a valid apples to apples analysis published. Aggregate numbers are very misleading. There's a saying "Statistics can Lie and Liars Use Statistics."

Viewership #'s have to be normalized based on Network & Time Slot. And maybe even omit certain games. Aka If Iowa State played Alabama at 3pm I bet there would be 7M plus viewers. Should that game be used to say Iowa State brings a lot of viewers?

Also, certain networks don't report viewership #'s. Last year ISU's Big12 game against WVU was on ESPN+ so that's 1 missing data point. Compare that to Stanford Pac12 games (ASU, WSU and Cal) on Pac12 Network which didn't report viewership.

I am sure there are some brilliant statistics folks (I am not one), but it seems like a good way to compare viewership #'s would be similar to using Beta to measure and compare stock return volatility. Compare a schools viewership against the average viewership (score of 1) for each network time slot. AKA if average viewership for ABC 3pm game is 4M and Iowa State vs Alabama was 7M, that would be a value of 1.75. It seems like that methodology would largely eliminate "network" bias in viewership #'s

Just look at ISU vs. Stanford games for the 2022 season

Network Games

• ISU (2 Games) : Avg. 3.35M (TCU@3p: 4.34M & UT@11a: 2.35M)
• Stanford (2 Games): Avg 2.56M (USC@6:30p: 2.96M & ND@6:30p: 2.15M)

FS1 Games

• ISU (2 Games): Avg. 630k (OU@11a: 711k & TT@6:30p: 545k)
• Stanford (3): Avg. 550K (UW@9:30p: 532k & UO@10p: 672k & BYU@10p: 453k)

Other Network Games for each School:

• ISU: ESPN2: 2 games @ 810k, ESPNU: 2 games @ 320k, BTN: 1 game @ 1.47M
• Stanford: ESPN: 3 games @ 1.13M

It's amazing how low ISU viewership was on ESPNU! 373k for KSU and 272k for OSU

So you disagree with me saying you are right.... ok.

edit: I also never compared Stan to ISU....ISU has better overall numbers than Stan, and never said they didnt. ISUs number are in the top of the NewB12, I never said Stanford was. I said they were as good as or better, than those that we have taken already and those that would be available from the ACC for the B12.

 

[SEIOWA CLONE]

Except most of what you are saying is not true. VT viewership last 2 years has been on par with G5 schools. Averaging 350K views is not good and it seems no-one really cares. If they have such a great fanbase, and demand, they would have viewership numbers to match.

Pitt-WVU is a better rivalry. You a WVU fan and are by far biased for the eastern teams especially those in close prox to WVU. But that does not make the numbers any better.

If they had market share those numbers would show up.

Travel for the Eastern schools sure is better with eastern schools, but travel for the western schools is better to Stanford than to VT.

Cal sucks and still has better viewership than VT when you average the last 2 years. And VT isnt even the bottom of the ACC. Which says something. Hell Kansas has had double the views as VT over the last 2 years, and they are the bottom of the irate 8. Kansas is on par with Pitt.....FOR FOOTBALL!! Damn close to half the ACC is below Kansas, frickin KANSAS in viewership for football. Duke is lucky to get 100K viewership. Great basketball but their football is all but nonexistent, and we say KU is bad. KU looks like a rockstar to half the ACC.

So again tell me what VT has?

You are obviously biased to want eastern schools, And I am not saying we should not take some of those eastern schools, but saying the bottom half of the ACC is somehow superior to whats left in the Pac is not true. And Stanford while I dont think they are a great add has better stats than most.

The difference is VT is in a conference while Stanford is in a group along with 3 other schools in what used to be a conference. I can feel sorry for OSU and WSU, no fault of their own, they are going to get left out. But Stanford and Cal could be members of the B12 right now but refuse to do so. That to me is a huge difference.