Story Poster
Photo by Pat Kinnison - Chief Photographer

Oklahoma State Better Alone Than With Rest of Big 12?

August 17, 2021
18,951

STILLWATER – This may surprise you, but I agree with some of the recent opinions thrown out there by CBS sportswriter Dennis Dodd. A long-time observer of college football and college sports in the middle of America, Dodd and I were once fellow skywriters on the Big Eight Skywriters Tour. Dodd is an award-winning writer, and I’m sure that his story last weekend in the wake of Texas and Oklahoma making reservations to be in the Southeastern Conference and the rumored (far from happening) alliance with the ACC, Big Ten, and Pac-12 was not welcomed by most Oklahoma State and remaining Big 12 schools’ fans.

Dodd drove it home that the meeting and discussion of the ACC, Big Ten, and Pac-12 leaving out the rest of the Big 12 meant the Big 12 is not desired.

ESPN 700
Dodd has covered the Big 12 and college football nationally for a long time.

Dodd wrote:

“Of course, even the hint of an alliance is a bad sign for the Big 12. It signals that the Big Ten, ACC and Pac-12 do not believe the Big 12's eight remaining programs -- in any form -- bring substantial value to their conferences. Taken a step further, it suggests a reality that could see the Big 12 or American fade away with one likely absorbing the other.”

Dodd added that the remaining Big 12 schools would be in for doom and gloom. Dodd called it a nuclear winter for those school’s athletic budgets. He is right if all those schools die on the vine, but my contention is a few will die and a few will be picked up in other conferences. We have stated that if the SEC and Greg Sankey want to see Texas and Oklahoma playing in the SEC before the grant-of-rights are up then the simplest solution is to pick up a couple of other Big 12 schools and help the conference dissolve earlier. There are also some spots, even with an alliance, that could open up in the Big Ten and the Pac-12. The one league I see standing pat is the Atlantic Coast Conference.  

Here is where I disagree with Dodd as he hinted that Oklahoma State could fall from being a Power Five or major conference member.

Dodd wrote:

“Who absorbs who doesn't really matter at this point. We're almost assured of dropping from 10 to nine FBS conferences. Ten years ago, realignment offered a step up for the likes TCU (Big 12) and Utah (Pac-12). This time, it threatens to thin the herd with the likes of Oklahoma State, Kansas State and Baylor no longer being major-conference members. Kansas could wind up playing basketball in the Mountain West.

Cut from that herd would be eight Big 12 athletic departments with a combined nine national championships in football and basketball and 44 major bowl berths.

"That's a massive, massive blow," one high-profile sports TV industry source said.”

Why I don’t see that happening is this. Based on the television numbers from Sports Media Watch.

Texas and Oklahoma combined over the 2015-19 seasons we used on average viewers per week (game) for 41 percent of the viewers watching all of Big 12 football contests. Oklahoma State accounted for just under 12 percent of viewers per week, meaning that those three Texas, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State accounted for 53 percent of the viewers per week.

Big 12 Schools by average viewers per week and percentage (2015-19) Viewers in millions Percentage
1. Oklahoma 2.9 21 percent
2. Texas 2.7 20 percent
3. Oklahoma State 1.64 12 percent
4. TCU 1.5 11 percent
5. West Virginia 1.3 9.2 percent
6. Baylor 1.1 8 percent
7. Texas Tech .921 7 percent
8. Iowa State .747 5.1 percent
9. Kansas State .682 4.9 percent
10. Kansas .346 2.5 percent

TCU was next at 11 percent, West Virginia at 9.2 percent, and Baylor at eight percent.

I would say any of those schools would be candidates to get picked up. The other schools in Texas Tech, Iowa State, Kansas State, and Kansas are not where you would want to be in television viewers.

These games do include all teams’ games including the games they play against Texas and Oklahoma. It is fair as in other conferences you play big draw teams such as Alabama and Georgia in the SEC, Ohio State and Michigan in the Big Ten, etc. 

Discussion from...

Oklahoma State Better Alone Than With Rest of Big 12?

18,252 Views | 44 Replies | Last: 3 yr ago by CaliforniaCowboy
CaliforniaCowboy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Dennis Dodd is a freaking moron. Always has been.

Nobody has died on the vine, ever. Boise still competes, BYU still competes, UCF, Louisville, Memphis.. all of them. Teams continue to move to the FBS league... Buffalo, Coastal Carolina, etc.

the $$$ may not be as great as they had been, but that does not mean that any program could not be more successful than Vandy, or AZ, or Wash St., or Illinois, or Miss ST, or Rutgers, or (name your ACC school), who do get those megabucks.

Freaking preposterous.

Who among you wants to play Louisville or ULaLa this year? (those died on the vine teams).

nobody knows what's going to happen, this chicken little type reporting is annoying.
osucowboymatt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Robert, spot on with the article, but the TCU data is biased by one game versus Ohio State, take that one game out and the TCU numbers decline to the TT level. No conference would want to take just one team and have an uneven number of schools, and this is the major problem for our future in that there is no viable partner to go to another conference.
Danny Deck
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The thing that would hurt is how we've budgeted based on one media rights number and having that halve would be disastrous and take a long while to work through.

None of the teams you've listed have had to go through that, and one of them, Louisville, has seen a windfall joining the ACC.

CaliforniaCowboy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I would agree that halving our media revenue would hurt somewhat (disaster is probably overstated), but I have not seen any reliable numbers that suggest that it would be half.

There are still too many unknowns, like the 12-team playoff, like Big 8 or Big 12 expanded, like lots of variables.

NJAggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Well considering where the other contracts go we might not see a loss of revenue. But one thing that is clearly evident is the ESPN talking point of $10M is junk.

The numbers for the games of all the schools match up with the numbers for the ACC & PAC in any time slot on any network. So our games would definitely be in the ball park of those two networks. At worst slightly behind them with a few new schools added, and a playoff spot available regularly or guaranteed.

The new hurdle that the anti-Big 8 media have come up with is 4M+ viewer games. And yes we don't have a lot of those outside of games with UT or OU, but to be honest everytime the Big 8 schools met when the game had championship implications that mark was made. We also have to remember that everyone's ratings were hurt by the fact that OU & UT typically got the best time slots (11 am ABC/ESPN games) so having those slots where we did well when we got them would mean higher ratings for all the 8 teams.

ESPN is putting a lot of time into low balling the Big 8, but there is good value there, and we may have to prove it taking a haircut, but I do think sticking together is a viable option.
CaliforniaCowboy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
NJAggie said:



ESPN is putting a lot of time into low balling the Big 8, but there is good value there, and we may have to prove it taking a haircut, but I do think sticking together is a viable option.
sticking together and/or expanding are both viable options, there are not a whole lot of options ATM.

Lots of hoping and wishing, but hopes and wishes my not be options...

NJAggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Right things are not changing anytime soon. We have 4 years to work on ways to stay in place or go elsewhere. OU & UT are pretty much stuck at either paying more to get out early, and ESPN probably would have to come in with some sweetening of the pot to get there as well so that we could expand and hold even on money. The GOR is what is holding OU & UT in place the exit fee is due regardless of when they leave next week or in spring 2025. They have to get the other schools to let them out of it, or the SEC may have to sweeten the deal to get them out earlier. But the basic facts are that the GOR means the Big XII owns their TV rights for the next 4 years, and they'll have to pay beyond the $80M each owe for the exit fee to get them back before 2025.

So the Big XII has options like getting SEC to support the conference maintaining autonomous status. Keeping the Sugar Bowl deal in place and extending it. Setting up a scheduling alliance that guarantees the Big XII at least 1 and maybe 2 quality ooc games a year for each school that would be half on our TV package (the others would be on the road at SEC which means we'd get payouts from their higher paying package). The SEC put pressure on ESPN to allow us to take our offering to market prior to 2024-5 to give us more time to figure out whether to expand and who with.

The Big 8 has some leverage and they need to use every bit of it.

Now the SEC may find its cheaper and easier to just offer 4 more Big XII schools seats at the table and get a dissolution vote.

I just think we have to stay the course and play our hand. Its really not that bad, and see if we can force a better outcome. We also have to quit listening to the ESPN minions that want to devalue the Big 8 for their own benefit.
Orangeheart72
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I can't imagine that a Big (8) adding Houston, Cincinnati, Colorado State, Memphis, Boise and USF (thus adding a decent portion of viewership in Denver/Colorado, Tampa/Sarasota/Florida, Idaho, Houston and Cincinnati/Ohio) isn't a fair market share conference and seemingly would annually give a pretty good BCS playoff team or two....thus expanding the brand. Whoever became the conference leadership would do so without the advantages or shadow of a mega-rich team to play every year as well. Certainly that would be an "above the AAC" type of conference IMO. And OSU, ISU and USF would likely have a step up on leading that pack.
GumbyFromPokeyLand
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FWIW

If you take the total B12 viewership for 2015-2019, remove all the OU/UT games, and reduce the total inventory of games by 24, the result would be a roughly 50% reduction in total viewership - thus the 50% reduction in media revenue.

Would seem to be the directional number to use when evaluating alternatives and planning for the future.
CaliforniaCowboy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

FWIW

If you take the total B12 viewership for 2015-2019, remove all the OU/UT games, and reduce the total inventory of games by 24, the result would be a roughly 50% reduction in total viewership - thus the 50% reduction in media revenue.

Would seem to be the directional number to use when evaluating alternatives and planning for the future.
there is an entire thread discounting this type of averaging averages math.



GumbyFromPokeyLand
How long do you want to ignore this user?
CaliforniaCowboy said:

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

FWIW

If you take the total B12 viewership for 2015-2019, remove all the OU/UT games, and reduce the total inventory of games by 24, the result would be a roughly 50% reduction in total viewership - thus the 50% reduction in media revenue.

Would seem to be the directional number to use when evaluating alternatives and planning for the future.
there is an entire thread discounting this type of averaging averages math.




Total viewership is what it is. No reasonable person disputes OU and UT make up roughly 40% of the total viewership of the B12. Just simply looking at their exit as 40% reduction in eyes combined with a 20% reduction in inventory would lead anyone to the reasonable conclusion total viewership would decrease by roughly 50%.

But hey, if you have better math, or just want to simply dismiss the best available data - Happy Trails to you.
CaliforniaCowboy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GumbyFromPokeyLand said:



Total viewership is what it is. No reasonable person disputes OU and UT make up roughly 40% of the total viewership of the B12. Just simply looking at their exit as 40% reduction in eyes combined with a 20% reduction in inventory would lead anyone to the reasonable conclusion total viewership would decrease by roughly 50%.

But hey, if you have better math, or just want to simply dismiss the best available data - Happy Trails to you.
it's not my thread, and it's not my math..... but hey... keep spouting the same lazy media numbers... go for it, I'm certain most understand the fallacy of averaging averages.

you can claim that author's analysis is not reasonable or their analysis is not better than your simply "available data", go for it. Happy Trails to you.



NJAggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

CaliforniaCowboy said:

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

FWIW

If you take the total B12 viewership for 2015-2019, remove all the OU/UT games, and reduce the total inventory of games by 24, the result would be a roughly 50% reduction in total viewership - thus the 50% reduction in media revenue.

Would seem to be the directional number to use when evaluating alternatives and planning for the future.
there is an entire thread discounting this type of averaging averages math.




Total viewership is what it is. No reasonable person disputes OU and UT make up roughly 40% of the total viewership of the B12. Just simply looking at their exit as 40% reduction in eyes combined with a 20% reduction in inventory would lead anyone to the reasonable conclusion total viewership would decrease by roughly 50%.

But hey, if you have better math, or just want to simply dismiss the best available data - Happy Trails to you.
Yeah that is invalid math. Much of the big number games that go to OU or UT (and almost all were OU games with someone other than UT) are situational. They get the time slots (OU cries about all those 11am kickoffs, but that's the best ratings slot) that boost their numbers. Also the other key to big numbers for a game are if it has championship implications. Thus OU got a lot of games where they were playing for the championship which pushed up the numbers (also probably had an 11am or prime time slot on ABC/FOX).

So if you remove OU and UT but you put OSU/ISU in one of those prime slots and it has championship implications then guess what you get big numbers. OSU/BU in 2015 was one of the biggest rating games FOX ever got for a prime time game. BU/TCU & BU/OSU in 2014 when it was for the BCS both were the two biggest rating games of the year for the league.

doing that averaging also misses the fact that OU and UT only play each other once each year, so your totally wrong to assume that all the people watching a game in which OU or UT participated were just watching OU or UT. So if you want to walk that back to OU and UT represent 25% of the total viewers then you might be in the ballpark.
GumbyFromPokeyLand
How long do you want to ignore this user?
NJAggie said:

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

CaliforniaCowboy said:

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

FWIW

If you take the total B12 viewership for 2015-2019, remove all the OU/UT games, and reduce the total inventory of games by 24, the result would be a roughly 50% reduction in total viewership - thus the 50% reduction in media revenue.

Would seem to be the directional number to use when evaluating alternatives and planning for the future.
there is an entire thread discounting this type of averaging averages math.




Total viewership is what it is. No reasonable person disputes OU and UT make up roughly 40% of the total viewership of the B12. Just simply looking at their exit as 40% reduction in eyes combined with a 20% reduction in inventory would lead anyone to the reasonable conclusion total viewership would decrease by roughly 50%.

But hey, if you have better math, or just want to simply dismiss the best available data - Happy Trails to you.
Yeah that is invalid math. Much of the big number games that go to OU or UT (and almost all were OU games with someone other than UT) are situational. They get the time slots (OU cries about all those 11am kickoffs, but that's the best ratings slot) that boost their numbers. Also the other key to big numbers for a game are if it has championship implications. Thus OU got a lot of games where they were playing for the championship which pushed up the numbers (also probably had an 11am or prime time slot on ABC/FOX).

So if you remove OU and UT but you put OSU/ISU in one of those prime slots and it has championship implications then guess what you get big numbers. OSU/BU in 2015 was one of the biggest rating games FOX ever got for a prime time game. BU/TCU & BU/OSU in 2014 when it was for the BCS both were the two biggest rating games of the year for the league.

doing that averaging also misses the fact that OU and UT only play each other once each year, so your totally wrong to assume that all the people watching a game in which OU or UT participated were just watching OU or UT. So if you want to walk that back to OU and UT represent 25% of the total viewers then you might be in the ballpark.
I disagree completely.

Nobody can argue that OU and UT leaving results in a 20% reduction in games. So that's 20% right off the top.
Ignoring the absolute viewer numbers presented for each school but instead focusing on the relationship of the viewers for OU and UT vs the other schools, there's no way you could conclude anything but OU and UT have at least 2-3 times the viewership of the average of the rest of the league. If you just simply assume both OU and UT have 2.5 eyes for every 1.0 eye for each of the reaming 8 teams, that's 5 eyes out of a total of 13, or 38%. Heck, just call it 30% to account for time slot differences. (I don't think time slot differences account for any big differences in viewer numbers. But if you make a 25% haircut to OU/UT's numbers for time slot differences, you still get to roughly 30% OU/UT)

So, it's easy to get to a 50% reduction if OU and UT viewers don't tune in, plus 20% fewer games.

Here's some different math. OU and UT accounted for 31% of total B12 attendance in 2019. If you use that as a proxy for the % viewership, you get right back to a 50% (31% + 20% reduction in games) reduction in total eyes

If you have better math, pony up and show me the numbers.
CaliforniaCowboy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GumbyFromPokeyLand said:


I disagree completely.

Nobody can argue that OU and UT leaving results in a 20% reduction in games. So that's 20% right off the top.

Ignoring the absolute viewer numbers presented for each school but instead focusing on the relationship of the viewers for OU and UT vs the other schools, there's no way you could conclude anything but OU and UT have at least 2-3 times the viewership of the average of the rest of the league. If you just simply assume both OU and UT have 2.5 eyes for every 1.0 eye for each of the reaming 8 teams, that's 5 eyes out of a total of 13, or 38%. Heck, just call it 30% to account for time slot differences. (I don't think time slot differences account for any big differences in viewer numbers. But if you make a 25% haircut to OU/UT's numbers for time slot differences, you still get to roughly 30% OU/UT)

So, it's easy to get to a 50% reduction if OU and UT viewers don't tune in, plus 20% fewer games.

Here's some different math. OU and UT accounted for 31% of total B12 attendance in 2019. If you use that as a proxy for the % viewership, you get right back to a 50% (31% + 20% reduction in games) reduction in total eyes

If you have better math, pony up and show me the numbers.
several are arguing the bad math.... the numbers have been shown and discussed... you're simply not interested in listening to real analysis.

It's probably moot anyway, because the networks are going to use what ever numbers they want, and likely make the decisions that they want to make regardless of any numbers. It's currently a take it or leave it poposition when dealing with the networks, unless and until some other conference's contract come up.
GumbyFromPokeyLand
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm not interested in listening to real analysis? If only there was another analysis to listen to.

You got one? Not words, but numbers that support something. All I've seen from you is a poo-poo show on anyone's analysis or even opinion.
CaliforniaCowboy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

I'm not interested in listening to real analysis? If only there was another analysis to listen to.

You got one? Not words, but numbers that support something. All I've seen from you is a poo-poo show on anyone's analysis or even opinion.
tisk, tisk, tisk... more personal attacks. So very sad.

I already said there is another thread.... do your own homework.
GumbyFromPokeyLand
How long do you want to ignore this user?
CaliforniaCowboy said:

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

I'm not interested in listening to real analysis? If only there was another analysis to listen to.

You got one? Not words, but numbers that support something. All I've seen from you is a poo-poo show on anyone's analysis or even opinion.
tisk, tisk, tisk... more personal attacks. So very sad.

I already said there is another thread.... do your own homework.
Thought so. Ridin someone else's horse. You got nuthin. Zero. Nada. Zilch.

lol
CaliforniaCowboy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

CaliforniaCowboy said:

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

I'm not interested in listening to real analysis? If only there was another analysis to listen to.

You got one? Not words, but numbers that support something. All I've seen from you is a poo-poo show on anyone's analysis or even opinion.
tisk, tisk, tisk... more personal attacks. So very sad.

I already said there is another thread.... do your own homework.
Thought so. Ridin someone else's horse. You got nuthin. Zero. Nada. Zilch.

lol
see... you're just not interested in other math or other's analysis.... (hint it's from a national journalist)

(and he says essentially the same thing I've been saying all along... just with much more detail and in-depth analysis)

like I said, it probably doesn't matter anyway, go ahead, stick with your simple out of context numbers.
GumbyFromPokeyLand
How long do you want to ignore this user?
What other math? I've not seen anything. I guess you can't produce it. Just lazy, I guess.
NJAggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GumbyFromPokeyLand said:


I disagree completely.

Nobody can argue that OU and UT leaving results in a 20% reduction in games. So that's 20% right off the top.
Ignoring the absolute viewer numbers presented for each school but instead focusing on the relationship of the viewers for OU and UT vs the other schools, there's no way you could conclude anything but OU and UT have at least 2-3 times the viewership of the average of the rest of the league. If you just simply assume both OU and UT have 2.5 eyes for every 1.0 eye for each of the reaming 8 teams, that's 5 eyes out of a total of 13, or 38%. Heck, just call it 30% to account for time slot differences. (I don't think time slot differences account for any big differences in viewer numbers. But if you make a 25% haircut to OU/UT's numbers for time slot differences, you still get to roughly 30% OU/UT)

So, it's easy to get to a 50% reduction if OU and UT viewers don't tune in, plus 20% fewer games.

Here's some different math. OU and UT accounted for 31% of total B12 attendance in 2019. If you use that as a proxy for the % viewership, you get right back to a 50% (31% + 20% reduction in games) reduction in total eyes

If you have better math, pony up and show me the numbers.
You need to quit drinking that gooner gool-aid. The numbers show there games average about a million more than OSU, and again much of that million is due to being put in time slots that draw 4 to 5 more viewers than the ones we get put in. So do they really have more viewers or are they just a creation of ESPN's favorable scheduling?
GumbyFromPokeyLand
How long do you want to ignore this user?
NJAggie said:

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:


I disagree completely.

Nobody can argue that OU and UT leaving results in a 20% reduction in games. So that's 20% right off the top.
Ignoring the absolute viewer numbers presented for each school but instead focusing on the relationship of the viewers for OU and UT vs the other schools, there's no way you could conclude anything but OU and UT have at least 2-3 times the viewership of the average of the rest of the league. If you just simply assume both OU and UT have 2.5 eyes for every 1.0 eye for each of the reaming 8 teams, that's 5 eyes out of a total of 13, or 38%. Heck, just call it 30% to account for time slot differences. (I don't think time slot differences account for any big differences in viewer numbers. But if you make a 25% haircut to OU/UT's numbers for time slot differences, you still get to roughly 30% OU/UT)

So, it's easy to get to a 50% reduction if OU and UT viewers don't tune in, plus 20% fewer games.

Here's some different math. OU and UT accounted for 31% of total B12 attendance in 2019. If you use that as a proxy for the % viewership, you get right back to a 50% (31% + 20% reduction in games) reduction in total eyes

If you have better math, pony up and show me the numbers.
You need to quit drinking that gooner gool-aid. The numbers show there games average about a million more than OSU, and again much of that million is due to being put in time slots that draw 4 to 5 more viewers than the ones we get put in. So do they really have more viewers or are they just a creation of ESPN's favorable scheduling?
Have you ever been to Oklahoma? Can you argue with a straight face that Oklahoma fans do not outnumber OSU fans 3:1, or thereabouts? And it's not just about OSU. It's how fans of OU and UT fans outnumber the fans of individual schools by 3:1, or more. That equates to viewers. Give me a logical argument that fans OU/UT don't significantly outnumber the fans of every other B12 school.

Once you get your head around that, it's easy to conclude a 50% media value hit to the B12 when OU/UT leave.
NJAggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

NJAggie said:

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:


I disagree completely.

Nobody can argue that OU and UT leaving results in a 20% reduction in games. So that's 20% right off the top.
Ignoring the absolute viewer numbers presented for each school but instead focusing on the relationship of the viewers for OU and UT vs the other schools, there's no way you could conclude anything but OU and UT have at least 2-3 times the viewership of the average of the rest of the league. If you just simply assume both OU and UT have 2.5 eyes for every 1.0 eye for each of the reaming 8 teams, that's 5 eyes out of a total of 13, or 38%. Heck, just call it 30% to account for time slot differences. (I don't think time slot differences account for any big differences in viewer numbers. But if you make a 25% haircut to OU/UT's numbers for time slot differences, you still get to roughly 30% OU/UT)

So, it's easy to get to a 50% reduction if OU and UT viewers don't tune in, plus 20% fewer games.

Here's some different math. OU and UT accounted for 31% of total B12 attendance in 2019. If you use that as a proxy for the % viewership, you get right back to a 50% (31% + 20% reduction in games) reduction in total eyes

If you have better math, pony up and show me the numbers.
You need to quit drinking that gooner gool-aid. The numbers show there games average about a million more than OSU, and again much of that million is due to being put in time slots that draw 4 to 5 more viewers than the ones we get put in. So do they really have more viewers or are they just a creation of ESPN's favorable scheduling?
Have you ever been to Oklahoma? Can you argue with a straight face that Oklahoma fans do not outnumber OSU fans 3:1, or thereabouts? And it's not just about OSU. It's how fans of OU and UT fans outnumber the fans of individual schools by 3:1, or more. That equates to viewers. Give me a logical argument that fans OU/UT don't significantly outnumber the fans of every other B12 school.

Once you get your head around that, it's easy to conclude a 50% media value hit to the B12 when OU/UT leave.
OK, so you've been totally brainwashed by the OU/UT media. I don't have to imagine it, I've seen the numbers OU avgs 2.5 M viewers a game, UT avgs about 2.2M viewers a game OSU avgs about 1.9M viewers a game. I guess all those OU fans you imagine exist aren't able to figure out how to turn on their TV, because their not showing up in the ratings numbers. That's fine if you want to believe the myth, and give them more value than they have, but the numbers don't back up your imagination. Now having grown up in Oklahoma and been pummeled by the OU fans my whole life I get how you can feel that way, but the numbers tell a different story.
Danny Deck
How long do you want to ignore this user?
One of the things I have been thinking about is that if we get stuck in the Big 12, we will really need for CBS to want to stay in the CFB business. Otherwise, our opportunities for network games will really diminish. And with it some of our respectable ratings.

ABC/ESPN will have the SEC on CBS game soon in addition to adding OU and Texas. So one game a week that used to get a network audience won't anymore and so everyone will be pushed down the priority list. Where we used to get between 3-4 games on a network a year, we will be down to maybe 1 or 2.

CaliforniaCowboy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Danny Deck said:

One of the things I have been thinking about is that if we get stuck in the Big 12, we will really need for CBS to want to stay in the CFB business. Otherwise, our opportunities for network games will really diminish. And with it some of our respectable ratings.

ABC/ESPN will have the SEC on CBS game soon in addition to adding OU and Texas. So one game a week that used to get a network audience won't anymore and so everyone will be pushed down the priority list. Where we used to get between 3-4 games on a network a year, we will be down to maybe 1 or 2.


I was thinking that all we really need is to step up our winning, and get on the schedules of some other teams that the Big networks love to broadcast.

If we don't have the goons and horns to play, then we will need to add some big name games to our OOC schedule. It shouldn't be that hard to get noticed or covered .... just win baby
NJAggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I agree that CBS is the best option, and unless they can cut in on the B1G or PAC, we would be the next property up that they would have interest in. But, there is also a lot of streaming services poised to enter the market including NBC & Amazon so not as good, but they may be willing to pay well to get content.
GumbyFromPokeyLand
How long do you want to ignore this user?
NJAggie said:

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

NJAggie said:

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:


I disagree completely.

Nobody can argue that OU and UT leaving results in a 20% reduction in games. So that's 20% right off the top.
Ignoring the absolute viewer numbers presented for each school but instead focusing on the relationship of the viewers for OU and UT vs the other schools, there's no way you could conclude anything but OU and UT have at least 2-3 times the viewership of the average of the rest of the league. If you just simply assume both OU and UT have 2.5 eyes for every 1.0 eye for each of the reaming 8 teams, that's 5 eyes out of a total of 13, or 38%. Heck, just call it 30% to account for time slot differences. (I don't think time slot differences account for any big differences in viewer numbers. But if you make a 25% haircut to OU/UT's numbers for time slot differences, you still get to roughly 30% OU/UT)

So, it's easy to get to a 50% reduction if OU and UT viewers don't tune in, plus 20% fewer games.

Here's some different math. OU and UT accounted for 31% of total B12 attendance in 2019. If you use that as a proxy for the % viewership, you get right back to a 50% (31% + 20% reduction in games) reduction in total eyes

If you have better math, pony up and show me the numbers.
You need to quit drinking that gooner gool-aid. The numbers show there games average about a million more than OSU, and again much of that million is due to being put in time slots that draw 4 to 5 more viewers than the ones we get put in. So do they really have more viewers or are they just a creation of ESPN's favorable scheduling?
Have you ever been to Oklahoma? Can you argue with a straight face that Oklahoma fans do not outnumber OSU fans 3:1, or thereabouts? And it's not just about OSU. It's how fans of OU and UT fans outnumber the fans of individual schools by 3:1, or more. That equates to viewers. Give me a logical argument that fans OU/UT don't significantly outnumber the fans of every other B12 school.

Once you get your head around that, it's easy to conclude a 50% media value hit to the B12 when OU/UT leave.
OK, so you've been totally brainwashed by the OU/UT media. I don't have to imagine it, I've seen the numbers OU avgs 2.5 M viewers a game, UT avgs about 2.2M viewers a game OSU avgs about 1.9M viewers a game. I guess all those OU fans you imagine exist aren't able to figure out how to turn on their TV, because their not showing up in the ratings numbers. That's fine if you want to believe the myth, and give them more value than they have, but the numbers don't back up your imagination. Now having grown up in Oklahoma and been pummeled by the OU fans my whole life I get how you can feel that way, but the numbers tell a different story.
Uh, it's not about the viewers of OU v OSU, and I don't read or hear the OU media. It's about the the viewers of OU and UT v the remaining 8. The average number of viewers of OU/UT outnumber the average number of viewers/school of the remaining 8 3:1. It's simple math beyond that. If OU and UT each have 3 eyes, and each of the remaining 8 have 1 eye, that's 13 total eyes. OU and UT have a combined 6 eyes, the remaining 8 have 8 eyes. 6/14 = 43%. OU and UT leaving results in a 43% reduction in eyes. But let's say it's not 3:1, but 2.5:1. that's 5/13 = 38%. Ok, if it's 2:1 thats 4/12 = 33%. No matter how you slice it, OU and UT represent at least 30% of viewership. (don't forget the 20% reduction in games)

Let's see. 1. Bowlsby says it's a 50% reduction. 2. Most of the national media believes its a 50% reduction. 3. The viewership numbers suggest a 50% reduction. 4. Attendance as a proxy for viewership suggests a 50% reduction. 5. Common sense suggests its a 50% reduction.

Give me some math (instead of verbal critique) that suggests it's not close to a 50% reduction.

BTW - OU 2.9mm viewers, UT 2.3mm, OSU 1.6mm, TCU 1.5mm, WVU 1.3mm, BAY 1.1mm, TT 900k, ISU 750k, KSU 680k, KU 350k

CaliforniaCowboy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LOL - he said Bowlsby says....

then followed it with "media says"... (not even investigative journalists, but sports reporters... ha, ha ha)

ROTFLMAO

pure comedy....

your whole position is based on what Bowlsby says? The math was given to you. It's there. the journalist listed it, I said it, NJ has said it..... you're simply not interested in indept analysis, if you were, you would be telling us what you find wrong about that analysis, instead of simply repeating the same shallow average of averages math that you keep posting over and over and over and over....

GumbyFromPokeyLand
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bowlsby's words are but 1 of 5 different paths I use to get to 50%, or can't you read.

Nobody gave me any meaningful math,. NJ gave me OU and OSU math (which is wrong) but nothing more.

Of course you can't and won't give me any math, because all the math says I'm right.
CaliforniaCowboy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
say it one more time... maybe even you will start to believe that stuff...

I believe it was NJ that posted the other article (with the real math), which is what I'm referring too.. and he also followed it up with a somewhat summarized version

averaging averages... good lord.... good luck with that.

GumbyFromPokeyLand
How long do you want to ignore this user?
CaliforniaCowboy said:

say it one more time... maybe even you will start to believe that stuff...

I believe it was NJ that posted the other article (with the real math), which is what I'm referring too.. and he also followed it up with a somewhat summarized version

averaging averages... good lord.... good luck with that.


NJ didn't post an article, didn't provide any numbers. Of course you're hiding behind someone else. Got nothing of your own. You continue to ride someone else's horse. lol
CaliforniaCowboy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GumbyFromPokeyLand said:


NJ didn't post an article, didn't provide any numbers. Of course you're hiding behind someone else. Got nothing of your own. You continue to ride someone else's horse. lol
there ya go.... that's more like you... back to the personal attacks... that's what your best at.


.... and I just went back and checked... the post by NJ is there with a link to the article... enlightenment awaits you
NJAggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

CaliforniaCowboy said:

say it one more time... maybe even you will start to believe that stuff...

I believe it was NJ that posted the other article (with the real math), which is what I'm referring too.. and he also followed it up with a somewhat summarized version

averaging averages... good lord.... good luck with that.


NJ didn't post an article, didn't provide any numbers. Of course you're hiding behind someone else. Got nothing of your own. You continue to ride someone else's horse. lol
https://sicem365.com/s/10313/stop-the-slander-aac-tv-viewership-doesnt-equal-to-the-big-12-remains

Here you go I'll post it again.

And if you would just go back to you're thread and add the 8 and the 2's viewers up and you'll see that the 2 are maybe 1/3 at the most as they have about 5.8M avg combined and the Big 8 have about 12M viewers on avg. So you can stretch that to 1/3 based on them bringing their game which usually makes the ESPN people overly excited.
GumbyFromPokeyLand
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Well, there you go. OU and UT represent 1/3 of the viewership. Thanks for the confirmation. Now add the 20% fewer games and what do you have? OU and UT leaving cuts the value of the B12 media deal in half.

Did you even read my posts?
CaliforniaCowboy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

Well, there you go. OU and UT represent 1/3 of the viewership. Thanks for the confirmation. Now add the 20% fewer games and what do you have? OU and UT leaving cuts the value of the B12 media deal in half.

Did you even read my posts?
It's only 20% of the games, but it accounts for 1/3 of the viewership.... right?

That 1/3 of viewership doesn't already make up that 20% of games?

can you count that viewership twice?

I think NJ was saying the remaining Big8, make up 80% of the games and 2/3 of the viewership, so likely NOT a 50% reduction?


Using that math, OSU looses 33% of our viewership numbers because the goons / horns will not be tuning in to watch us play WVU.... so, we are not all that popular nationally, right, and our total viewership numbers must be lowered by 33% and then re-ranked along with the Vandy's, Indiana's and Oregon's' of the world.

Page 1 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.