Story Poster
Photo by USA Today Sports
Oklahoma State Football

Numbers Can Show What You Want, But Seven Pac-12 Teams Topping Cowboys on TV?

July 25, 2022
17,112

STILLWATER – Okay, the numbers were there and I read them, but I take issue with the story in The Athletic authored by Stewart Mandel and titled: Mandel: TV numbers show Pac-12 might be healthier than we think (for now)

Like most of the stories on television attraction here in the wrath of college conference realignment the story uses Sports Media Watch for the research. Here is what Mandel’s story floated on numbers. He went back a fair reach using all games from 2015-2019 and 2021. You skip the COVID-19 pandemic season, although there was more captive audience in that season, but it was unevenly played by the various conferences. He used games not involving blueblood draws of Oklahoma and Texas in the Big 12 and USC and UCLA in the Pac-12.

School

Avg. Viewers per Televised Games (in Millions)

Oregon 1.96
Stanford 1.83
Washington 1.73
Washington State 1.59
Colorado 1.49
Utah 1.44
Oklahoma State 1.28

Where these numbers could become skewed is Oklahoma State is on a major carrier in the ESPN or FOX family virtually every week. The networks pick the games and the time slots. Selections alone tell you what the networks think.

The Cowboys have been carried on ESPN+/Big 12 Now streaming once a year on their third tier non conference game and two total conference games where the Big 12 and ESPN were trying to promote the streaming network. Oklahoma State has a larger sample size because fewer Pac 12 games are shown on over-the-air television or cable that draws ratings. Many Pac-12 games are on the Pac-12 Networks and don’t get ratings. 

Also, as one of my radio listeners pointed out, virtually all Oklahoma State games kickoff in either the noon, 3:30 p.m., or prime time Saturday slots and face competition from all other networks. Many of the Pac-12 games kick off at 10:30 p.m. (ET) and face competition from maybe one or two other networks. I’ll agree that the Pac-12 after dark increases viewers because if you are a football fan, you have few choices in that time slot. 

Here is my latest sample to go along with others we have presented including the Sports Media Watch own numbers that had Oklahoma State at 18th nationally over the past seven years minus 2020. I went back last season to November, when the most crucial football is played and I took November to the bowl games and here is what it shows. This is a lot of material, but it is hard to put all of those Pac-12 teams over Oklahoma State in television watchability. In fact, you can make a strong case that America would rather watch Oklahoma State play football right now over USC and UCLA. The play on the field makes that a definite.

Bowl Games and Match-Up Network Time Viewers
Rose Bowl - Ohio State vs. Utah ESPN 5 p.m. 16.63
Fiesta Bowl - Oklahoma State vs. Notre Dame ESPN 1 p.m. 7.96

Rose Bowl wins big, but Ohio State is a bigger draw than Notre Dame, The numbers show that weekly.

Conference Championship and Match-Up Network Time Viewers
Big 12 Championship - Baylor vs. Oklahoma State ESPN Sat. Noon 8.02
Pac-12 Championship - Oregon vs. Utah ESPN Fri. 8 p.m. 4.25

Big 12 crushes Pac-12 and Pac-12 had primetime on Friday night all to themselves.

Rivalry Week (Week 13) and Match-Up Network Time Viewers
OU at Oklahoma State ABC 7:30 p.m. 6.49
Notre Dame at Stanford FOX 8 p.m. 2.74
Colorado at Utah FOX 4 p.m. 1.55
BYU at USC ESPN 10:30 p.m. 1.46
Oregon State at Oregon ESPN 3:30 p.m. 1.34
Washington State at Washington FS1 Fri. 8 p.m. 1.21
California at UCLA  FS1 10:30 p.m. 386,000

I know, it was Bedlam and a birth in the Big 12 Championship was on the line. That game pretty much tripled any offering from the Pac-12 including Notre Dame at Stanford.

Week 12 Match-Up Network Time Viewers
Oregon at Utah ABC 7:30 p.m. 4.82
Oklahoma State at Texas Tech FOX 8 p.m. 1.91
UCLA at USC FOX 4 p.m. 1.84
Arizona State at Oregon State ESPN 10:30 p.m. 1.11

Hand it to the Ducks and Utes in the first meeting previewing the Pac-12 Championship as they win by more than double. However, Oklahoma State at Texas Tech beats UCLA and USC on the same network. Oklahoma State increased viewers after the battle for LA.

Week 11 Match-Up Network Time Viewers
Washington State at Oregon ESPN 10:30 p.m. 1.99
TCU at Oklahoma State FOX 8 p.m. 1.37
Arizona State at Washington  FS1 Fri. 7 p.m. 538,000

Pac-12 had little to offer. TCU was in the midst of a poor season and the game was a rout.

Week 10 Match-Up Network Time Viewers
Oregon at Washington ABC 7:30 p.m. 2.73
USC at Arizona State ESPN 10:30 p.m. 1.61
Oklahoma State at West Virginia ESPN 3:30 p.m. 1.14

No excuses, this is why Big 12 Commissioner Brett Yormark needs to go after the Ducks and the Huskies. The next two games on the board show the lack of competition in the 10:30 p.m. slot. There was NO competition  for USC-Arizona State. No other games at all. Oklahoma State at West Virginia was up against Michigan State at Purdue (4.4) on ABC, Auburn at Texas A&M (3.79) on CBS, Navy at Notre Dame (1.86) on NBC, Baylor at TCU (1.80) on FOX, Penn State at Maryland (936,000) on FS1, and Tulsa at Cincinnati (786,000) on ESPN2. 

Again, this is a fair look at the television games in the hottest month of the season. I like Oregon and Washington. TV Networks like Oklahoma State. I’ve said Utah is a good draw and they play good football. The rest I can’t make a case for.

Discussion from...

Numbers Can Show What You Want, But Seven Pac-12 Teams Topping Cowboys on TV?

16,461 Views | 54 Replies | Last: 2 yr ago by GumbyFromPokeyLand
CaliforniaCowboy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

The ACC is not riding their GOR agreements. If anyone is riding those agreements it's (1) ESPN with a binding tv deal until 2036, and (2) the 8 or 10 ACC schools that are not likely to be coveted by other conferences. Absent something like a new CFP format that excludes the ACC, the GOR agreements will remain valid and binding for all 14 member schools through 2033, earliest.
you're wrong, you're always wrong.

I have no idea whether the ACC GOR will remain valid, but not all 14 teams will still be in the conference if the media money is not sweetened considerably, it's called a buyout. I've already offered a pizza bet with you over that issue.

it is 100% impossible to determine the fiscal impact of remaining in the ACC versus bolting for another conference, especially after 4-5 more years, when such a move could become more likely than it is now. As time goes by, the total buy-out decreases, and as the other conferences sign contracts that define how much further teams will fall behind.


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

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

The ACC is not riding their GOR agreements. If anyone is riding those agreements it's (1) ESPN with a binding tv deal until 2036, and (2) the 8 or 10 ACC schools that are not likely to be coveted by other conferences. Absent something like a new CFP format that excludes the ACC, the GOR agreements will remain valid and binding for all 14 member schools through 2033, earliest.
you're wrong, you're always wrong.

I have no idea whether the ACC GOR will remain valid, but not all 14 teams will still be in the conference if the media money is not sweetened considerably, it's called a buyout. I've already offered a pizza bet with you over that issue.

it is 100% impossible to determine the fiscal impact of remaining in the ACC versus bolting for another conference, especially after 4-5 more years, when such a move could become more likely than it is now. As time goes by, the total buy-out decreases, and as the other conferences sign contracts that define how much further teams will fall behind.



Do you have any earthly idea how much it would cost a school to buy out of the conference?

I don't think you do.
CaliforniaCowboy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GumbyFromPokeyLand said:



Do you have any earthly idea how much it would cost a school to buy out of the conference?

I don't think you do.
Try reading what I wrote, then get back to me.

SMH.

buy out of the ACC when? I said not before the other media deals are signed and in place, and the ACC network matures (about 4-5 years).

Do you have any earthly idea how much it would cost a school to NOT buy out of the conference if they are falling behind by more than double the amount than they are making by staying?

I don't think you do.

come on man, this stuff is not that hard to follow.
GumbyFromPokeyLand
How long do you want to ignore this user?
CaliforniaCowboy said:

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:



Do you have any earthly idea how much it would cost a school to buy out of the conference?

I don't think you do.
Try reading what I wrote, then get back to me.

SMH.

buy out of the ACC when? I said not before the other media deals are signed and in place, and the ACC network matures (about 4-5 years).

Do you have any earthly idea how much it would cost a school to NOT buy out of the conference if they are falling behind by more than double the amount than they are making by staying?

I don't think you do.

come on man, this stuff is not that hard to follow.
Let me help you out.

To exit the ACC a school would owe an exit fee of 3x the previous year's distribution plus either forgoing media revenue through 2036, or, buying out the GOR. Let's assume a school is prepared to buyout the GOR. If you escalate projected 2021 league revenues of $31mm/school at 6% per year through 2036, then discount the future media revenues (beginning in 2021 at $35mm/yr) at 6%, the Present Value of the buyout number would be:

2023 - $616mm
2024 - 611
2025 - 603
2026 - 593
2027 - 579
2028 - 560
2029 - 539
2030 - 512
2031 - 480
2032 - 442
2033 - 398

That's the starting point for negotiation and assumes the rest of the ACC would be willing to accept a new tv deal without one or more of their most valuable teams leaving. Even if I've over-estimated by 50-75%, no school could begin to afford that kind of cash payment, much less foregoing media revenue through 2036.

The ACC and all the schools in the ACC are screwed.
CaliforniaCowboy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

CaliforniaCowboy said:

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:



Do you have any earthly idea how much it would cost a school to buy out of the conference?

I don't think you do.
Try reading what I wrote, then get back to me.

SMH.

buy out of the ACC when? I said not before the other media deals are signed and in place, and the ACC network matures (about 4-5 years).

Do you have any earthly idea how much it would cost a school to NOT buy out of the conference if they are falling behind by more than double the amount than they are making by staying?

I don't think you do.

come on man, this stuff is not that hard to follow.
Let me help you out.

To exit the ACC a school would owe an exit fee of 3x the previous year's distribution plus either forgoing media revenue through 2036, or, buying out the GOR. Let's assume a school is prepared to buyout the GOR. If you escalate projected 2021 league revenues of $31mm/school at 6% per year through 2036, then discount the future media revenues (beginning in 2021 at $35mm/yr) at 6%, the Present Value of the buyout number would be:

2023 - $616mm
2024 - 611
2025 - 603
2026 - 593
2027 - 579
2028 - 560
2029 - 539
2030 - 512
2031 - 480
2032 - 442
2033 - 398

That's the starting point for negotiation and assumes the rest of the ACC would be willing to accept a new tv deal without one or more of their most valuable teams leaving. Even if I've over-estimated by 50-75%, no school could begin to afford that kind of cash payment, much less foregoing media revenue through 2036.

The ACC and all the schools in the ACC are screwed.
those numbers are complete nonsense (if this, if that, 6% out of thin air ... SMH), and you neglected to include how much they would be falling behind by continuing to accept that level of mediocrity.

The whole dang conference could collapse by then, why would any of them consciously decide to continue like that? You don't know.

My conjecture would be that the ACC remains viable with new contract money (before the end of the 2036 contract). They are the 3rd best conference and the media companies simply cannot afford to have a league like that fail.

That post was about as goofy as what MrMcC posts over on the hate board.

I said I'd bet you a pizza. Crickets chirping.






GumbyFromPokeyLand
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ron, clearly you don't know how buyouts are reached. I have years of experience of valuing streams of cash flows. Even if their current cash flows are flat, the buyout in 2023 is over $400mm, and over $200mm in 2033.

What would cause the ACC collapse? Thay can't get a new TV contract. ESPN loves the ACC deal. It's the cheapest content in sports. Why would 8 or more schools with no prospect of a new home vote to disband without a new P5, or P4, P3 home? They wouldn't.

Think I'm wrong? Ask NJ
CaliforniaCowboy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

Clearly you don't know how buyouts are reached. I have years of experience of valuing streams of cash flows. Even if their current cash flows are flat, the buyout in 2023 is over $400mm, and over $200mm in 2033.

What would cause the ACC collapse? Thay can't get a new TV contract. ESPN loves the ACC deal. It's the cheapest content in sports. Why would 8 or more schools with no prospect of a new home vote to disband without a new P5, or P4, P3 home? They wouldn't.

Think I'm wrong? Ask NJ
future value and cash streams are not rocket science.

You have no freaking idea what ESPN would or would not do. None. Anything could happen.

you'd argue with a fence post. nothing is locked in stone. Everything is negotiable.

I'm curious where you developed this attitude that nothing can change in college football contracts. Ever.

Who said it would be 8 or more schools, it could be ALL OF THE SCHOOLS. Some might get considered for other conferences, but with the right deals they could just as easily stay where they are.

ESPN likely does not intend to make any of their "product" become obsolete or inferior, that is simply bad business.

I don't need to ask anybody, it's common sense.

frankly, I think discussions about breaking the GOR are moot anyway because the ACC won't be left behind financially.
NJAggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I don't think they have to pay $400M. They can get those for less than that. All of those schools had asked to come in at less than a full share, and that is how they are going to get in.
GumbyFromPokeyLand
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If they are willing to take a 50% share, the PAC and B12 are screwed.
NJAggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I didn't say you did say anything about USC. I said you would have had I brought those conversations over here. I'm very selective with what I post here because I know Robert and many of the readers don't like the full rumor mill, and frankly you have to discern through a lot to get any info. But USC to B1G was a major conversation for much of the year way before it hit the new and facts were known. And many of those you disparage were in front of that story.

You want to dismiss Jason Scheer, but he has said multiple times on radio that he has seen/heard the numbers from UA people and it's $245M a year for the league. I think he's credible and the fact that first the P12 begged for a merger, then went on a media attack spree against the B12 says he's putting out the truth. You have to judge information and use it when it is the best you can get.

While things posted in speculative articles by sports journalists are not guaranteed, they give a read of what is being discussed and thought at any time. And with any large and complex group of agreements and events there is no straight clear path. So sometimes you have to look at what is currently being considered even if if it could change drastically tomorrow.

I have no fear of facts, but when facts are unknowable I'll try to find what I can that is logical.
NJAggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Yeah a buyout would do it. However right now that would be in the range of $500M and so no one can do it. I'd say come 2030 or so someone may feel they can tackle it IF the B1G or SEC wants them.
NJAggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
We're not because they don't want the schools most likely to come our way even at P12 pricing.

I figure its only a matter of time before the top end schools start wanting all the Illinois & Mississippi States to also take less money to stay in the leagues. They've become obsessed with UT disease: They claim they had to pay for all the underperformers and they want their money, never realizing that without those schools they abused and forced into poor positions to prop up their chest beating were the basis for their claims to glory.

I do think its bad news for the P12, but I don't see it having much effect on the B12. We'll add a few of those left if they make sense.
GumbyFromPokeyLand
How long do you want to ignore this user?
NJAggie said:

We're not because they don't want the schools most likely to come our way even at P12 pricing.

I figure its only a matter of time before the top end schools start wanting all the Illinois & Mississippi States to also take less money to stay in the leagues. They've become obsessed with UT disease: They claim they had to pay for all the underperformers and they want their money, never realizing that without those schools they abused and forced into poor positions to prop up their chest beating were the basis for their claims to glory.

I do think its bad news for the P12, but I don't see it having much effect on the B12. We'll add a few of those left if they make sense.
Who is "we" and "they" in your first sentence?

If the B1G takes the 4 PAC teams, the SEC will certainly counter with some type of expansion. Whatever form the B12 takes thereafter will be much farther than a distant 3rd to 2 20-team mega-conferences in terms of financial rewards, credibility and visibility. In that case, I don't see any way the SEC or B1G would agree to the B12 (regardless of who they add) getting an automatic qualifier to a new CFP format.

I do think the SEC may entertain uneven sharing, especially if the B1G does so and the SEC invites more teams. I hear the ACC may be looking into it.
NJAggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The Big 12 is we, and the B1G is They.

I don't see any SEC move being made for PAC schools so it has no impact. And I don't see the SEC taking anyone until they can crack the ACC IF there are any schools in that league that make the grade.
GumbyFromPokeyLand
How long do you want to ignore this user?
NJAggie said:

The Big 12 is we, and the B1G is They.

I don't see any SEC move being made for PAC schools so it has no impact. And I don't see the SEC taking anyone until they can crack the ACC IF there are any schools in that league that make the grade.
If the B1G takes Ore, Wash, Cal and Stan, the SEC will want to get to 20, likely drawing from the B12.

I've listened to multiple national shows (limited to the guys that understand the real impediment the GOR presents) that think there is no chance the SEC can get an ACC school in the next 10 years.
NJAggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If the B1G goes to 20 its because it makes sense for them to add enough West Coast teams for scheduling, inventory, and territorial control. Those are valid reasons to expand. In fact taking those 4 will probably mean they have a lesser per team payout as those schools are each valued at less than half of the B1G per team value now. In fact I think they really only want Oregon & Washington, but are willing to take Cal & Stanford, because they need that to get the Presidents to feel it's about academics and not football.

If they do there's no reason for the SEC to match that unless there are 4 schools that bring enough dollars to get them equal to or ahead of the B1G. Or, some group of schools that give them some special option like control of a time zone. There's no one school available outside of ND that can be an equal share addition, and the rest are going to be dilutive. There's no group of schools that add a region for value. The SEC has no compulsion to match numbers, they'll wait until there is a school that has value to them.

I hear that matching numbers, or putting out number of teams as THE GOAL. It's not. there's no money in numbers by themselves, it has to be numbers that matter in the form of schools that add value equal to or greater than you're currently getting. They aren't coming for Big 12 or PAC 12 teams, there just aren't any that add enough value.
GumbyFromPokeyLand
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The B1G adding Cal and Stanford is not about value, not about scheduling and not about quality. If scheduling was a real factor, they wouldn't be sitting with only 2 west coast teams right now. I can see it might be about inventory or time-slot domination or academics. If the SEC expands it will be about perception and quality and maybe inventory. The B1G is big on academics. The SEC is big on quality, neither of which necessarily brings value. The SEC could grab 2 or 4 B12 teams (better than UCLA, Cal and Stanford) to enhance their quality and further bolster their perception as the premier league in college football. Don't discount the SEC's unquenchable need to dominate both on field quality and the national narrative.

Also, when the time comes for a new CFP, I would think the SEC doesn't want to be sitting at the table with 16 teams while the B1G is sitting there with at least 20 and maybe 21 or 22 if the B1G can lure ND. The SEC knows they're not getting ND, so they probably feel they have to add something to offset the real possibility ND and their quality winds up in the B1G. The fight over the ACC teams won't begin for another 10 years.
NJAggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Numbers are immaterial in the CFP as you vote by conference.

Reread what I wrote, Stanford & Cal are tag alongs to get the Presidents to vote for all 4 coming in so they get the two they want. As they need more than 2 schools on the West Coast for scheduling purposes. It also saturates the market, and they get more cable subs in North CA than they do in either WA or OR.

The SEC does not have any 4 schools in the Big 12 they could grab that would get them anywhere near that so they'll wait until the ACC schools are available.
GumbyFromPokeyLand
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

I know they vote by conference. But who and how many are in each conference impacts what's proposed and what's agreeable. For example, you think the B12 is gonna like what the B1G prefers as a new CFP format if the B1G has 22 teams and the B12 has only 12? The B12 with only 12 because they're hellbent on adding only teams that add value?

Value isn't the only consideration - the B1G is about to prove that. There are other considerations and the SEC is not gonna play second-fiddle for 10 years.
Refresh
Page 2 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.