Conference Realignment thread

[Reverend]

Not sure I'm a fan of the first round games being played at the higher rated teams stadium. That's gonna be a lot of games on The Blue.

[RSF]

On 9/2/2022 at 3:28 PM, Reverend said:

One good year? They are in the best recruiting area on the country and would be top 4 in attendence. They are also building a 10,000 seat basketball arena.

The basketball arena is long range and conceptual.  No funding.

[RSF]

On 9/2/2022 at 3:48 PM, East Coast Aztec said:

Show me another good year?  

2021 was their 1st season of more than 8 wins, and that season included wins over 2 D2 schools.

[Reverend]

On 9/2/2022 at 3:01 PM, RSF said:

The basketball arena is long range and conceptual.  No funding.

They were halfway there last December. 

 

 

 

[RSF]

On 9/2/2022 at 4:05 PM, Reverend said:

They were halfway there last December. 

https://www.utsa.edu/today/2021/12/story/utsa-athletics-launches-bold-champions.html

 

 

Thats not for the arena.

[Reverend]

On 9/2/2022 at 3:06 PM, RSF said:

Thats not for the arena.

Yep, you're correct. I thought I had posted the wrong article but I was wrong. I thought it was in this one.

https://thejbreplay.com/eighmy-says-utsa-is-planning-a-new-basketball-arena?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=eighmy-says-utsa-is-planning-a-new-basketball-arena

Still convinced they would be a good add.

[Jack Bauer]

Alright gang, lets close it up in here. New playoff format means no new expansion.

Everyone have a good life, see you on the other side.

[Pelado]

On 9/2/2022 at 9:36 AM, utenation said:

So you are vouching for this part time biased blogger? Your boy also had data from 2012–2021. Why is that? Usually when you are comparing against someone else’s work, you use the same comparison window to be accurate with the comparison. Did the B12 numbers look better in 2012? Maybe that’s why? Did the extra years bring up the averages for the B12?
 

Wilner used the most recent 5 years taking out 2020. I think this gives us the most recent data with enough to not cherry pick 1 or 2 years.  I hit a paywall for Mandel’s article, so not sure here. 

I’m certainly not going to take the time to look through all his crap since 2012 with the very basic link you provided. 

I haven't verified his data (and don't plan to) because that would be a shit-ton of work with little to no benefit.  So I'm not vouching for his data, but he's not exactly making huge claims.  He doesn't claim much if any disagreement with the data that Wilner is using, he just doesn't think it includes all the appropriate context:

Quote

 

Wilner has a long track record of reputable reporting and his numbers were in the ballpark of what I saw in my data with slight variances, but lacked the context that I believe ultimately makes his comparison pretty irrelevant. My goal here isn’t to attack him, his reporting, or anything of the sort. I intend to add more data and context to the conversation. 

Insights get better with more data and context, not less.

 

As far as why he went back to 2012 instead of just the last five years, I think that's just how far he's gone back with the database he's compiled of ratings by network and broadcast window.  This graphic from his response to Wilner shows the average rating for games in each broadcast window, how many games were played, and how many games were on competing networks simultaneously:

These numbers make sense.  The network and broadcast window play a big part in what the ratings will be.  Generally speaking, games on ABC, CBS, FOX, and NBC garner better ratings than games on ESPN.  Games on ESPN tend to perform better than games on ESPN2 and FS1.  Games on ESPN2 and FS1 tend to perform better than games on ESPNU.  Games on ESPNU perform better than games on CBS Sports, Pac-12 Networks, etc.

As such, the more games a team or conference has on broadcast networks and ESPN, the more likely they are to get ratings over 1.0 or 2.0.

Bradshaw suggests in his response to Wilner that the new Big 12 contract will still have broadcast windows on higher rated networks (though likely fewer than if they still had Oklahoma/Texas in conference).  Let's say they make another deal with ESPN and FOX.  All of those ABC, FOX, and ESPN spots will go to new Big 12 teams (unlike the last decade in which Oklahoma and Texas played in the majority of those games).  As such, the average rating for the remaining Big 12 teams is likely to increase over what they have been in the past for those teams.

In a different post/article, he shows the ratings for regular season conference games for each conference from 2014-2021 (sans 2020).  He said he picked that time frame because there weren't many conference membership changes during that time (just Navy joining the AAC and UConn leaving the AAC).  These numbers include USC/UCLA for the Pac 12 and also include Oklahoma/Texas for the Big 12.

And here's for Thursday and Friday games:

He also includes a chart that excludes USC/UCLA from the PAC and Oklahoma/Texas from the Big 12.  It also, curiously, excludes Florida State and Clemson from the ACC.  He says that's because there's been talk of the ACC being raided, but it's probably just to make the Big 12 look better compared to the ACC.  The AAC numbers have not been adjusted to reflect the loss of Cincinnati, Houston, and UCF.

And here's for Thursday and Friday games:

In broadcast windows they have in common, the remaining PAC and remaining Big 12 teams get very comparable ratings.  The PAC has advantages in the late games (as one might expect) that haven't typically faced much competition, but will likely face more competition going forward with B1G games and BYU conference games against the Big 12.  I still expect the PAC to continue to have the ratings advantage in the late games, just not as pronounced.

Like the PAC's late night advantage when the Big 12 hasn't typically been playing, the Big 12 has a big ratings advantage in the noon ET window when the PAC isn't playing any conference games (and probably still won't).

So, to reiterate, his beef with Wilner is:

Quote

Overall, Wilner’s article doesn’t really look at television window, network, or the likelihood of either to be unchanged as the after dark spot is likely to compete with USC and UCLA going forward either with them on FS1 splitting viewership or taking the ESPN windows that produce 1.0 ratings from them. 

In the end, he comes down to this as the differentiation between the Big 12 and PAC ratings:

Quote

we end up with any difference at this point amounting to splitting hairs. 

 

[utenation]

On 9/2/2022 at 3:48 PM, Pelado said:

I haven't verified his data (and don't plan to) because that would be a shit-ton of work with little to no benefit.  So I'm not vouching for his data, but he's not exactly making huge claims.  He doesn't claim much if any disagreement with the data that Wilner is using, he just doesn't think it includes all the appropriate context:

As far as why he went back to 2012 instead of just the last five years, I think that's just how far he's gone back with the database he's compiled of ratings by network and broadcast window.  This graphic from his response to Wilner shows the average rating for games in each broadcast window, how many games were played, and how many games were on competing networks simultaneously:

These numbers make sense.  The network and broadcast window play a big part in what the ratings will be.  Generally speaking, games on ABC, CBS, FOX, and NBC garner better ratings than games on ESPN.  Games on ESPN tend to perform better than games on ESPN2 and FS1.  Games on ESPN2 and FS1 tend to perform better than games on ESPNU.  Games on ESPNU perform better than games on CBS Sports, Pac-12 Networks, etc.

As such, the more games a team or conference has on broadcast networks and ESPN, the more likely they are to get ratings over 1.0 or 2.0.

Bradshaw suggests in his response to Wilner that the new Big 12 contract will still have broadcast windows on higher rated networks (though likely fewer than if they still had Oklahoma/Texas in conference).  Let's say they make another deal with ESPN and FOX.  All of those ABC, FOX, and ESPN spots will go to new Big 12 teams (unlike the last decade in which Oklahoma and Texas played in the majority of those games).  As such, the average rating for the remaining Big 12 teams is likely to increase over what they have been in the past for those teams.

In a different post/article, he shows the ratings for regular season conference games for each conference from 2014-2021 (sans 2020).  He said he picked that time frame because there weren't many conference membership changes during that time (just Navy joining the AAC and UConn leaving the AAC).  These numbers include USC/UCLA for the Pac 12 and also include Oklahoma/Texas for the Big 12.

And here's for Thursday and Friday games:

He also includes a chart that excludes USC/UCLA from the PAC and Oklahoma/Texas from the Big 12.  It also, curiously, excludes Florida State and Clemson from the ACC.  He says that's because there's been talk of the ACC being raided, but it's probably just to make the Big 12 look better compared to the ACC.  The AAC numbers have not been adjusted to reflect the loss of Cincinnati, Houston, and UCF.

And here's for Thursday and Friday games:

In broadcast windows they have in common, the remaining PAC and remaining Big 12 teams get very comparable ratings.  The PAC has advantages in the late games (as one might expect) that haven't typically faced much competition, but will likely face more competition going forward with B1G games and BYU conference games against the Big 12.  I still expect the PAC to continue to have the ratings advantage in the late games, just not as pronounced.

Like the PAC's late night advantage when the Big 12 hasn't typically been playing, the Big 12 has a big ratings advantage in the noon ET window when the PAC isn't playing any conference games (and probably still won't).

So, to reiterate, his beef with Wilner is:

In the end, he comes down to this as the differentiation between the Big 12 and PAC ratings:

 

I”m done looking at Bradshaw’s numbers and opinions. I’ve made many arguments on why.  The point is dead. 
 

Moving on. 

[Pelado]

On 9/2/2022 at 2:12 PM, utenation said:

But the B12 is stable right? LOL. If the SEC and B10 want more teams from any conference, they will get them despite B12 exit fees.

You're right that the B1G or SEC could take anyone they want from the B12 (or PAC).  The B12's stability is somewhat counterintuitive.  It's stable because it's unlikely that the B1G or SEC are going to try to take anyone else.  The threat of the B1G taking the most attractive PAC teams is why that league is threatened right now.

On 9/2/2022 at 3:30 PM, Jack Bauer said:

Alright gang, lets close it up in here. New playoff format means no new expansion.

Everyone have a good life, see you on the other side.

Of course you post that we need to close it up here just before I post a long response to @utenation

[Pelado]

On 9/2/2022 at 3:53 PM, utenation said:

I”m done looking at Bradshaw’s numbers and opinions. I’ve made many arguments on why.  The point is dead. 
 

Moving on. 

Ignorance is bliss.

[utenation]

On 9/2/2022 at 3:55 PM, Pelado said:

Ignorance is bliss.

You can call it what you want. Maybe you like to swallow the info from a part time blogger with zero support of his claims other than his opinion and a small snippet saying where he got data but I just can’t do it.

Nor do I have the patience to read posts that read like a 300 page book. 

[utenation]

On 9/2/2022 at 3:54 PM, Pelado said:

You're right that the B1G or SEC could take anyone they want from the B12 (or PAC).  The B12's stability is somewhat counterintuitive.  It's stable because it's unlikely that the B1G or SEC are going to try to take anyone else.  The threat of the B1G taking the most attractive PAC teams is why that league is threatened right now.

So to summarize, the conferences I mentioned can and will do whatever they want. I don't think anything in realignment is stable right now.  And you have no clue what conference leadership is saying in back rooms or in board meetings not for the public's eyes or ears.

[Mano]

It does seem that the 12 team playoff would reduce the chances of any current P5 conference expanding with G5 teams as they are all almost guaranteed a slice of the playoff pie that they won't want to share.

[818SUDSFan]

On 9/2/2022 at 2:54 PM, Pelado said:

Of course you post that we need to close it up here just before I post a long response to @utenation

Well, since he gives no rationale for why he thinks the expanded playoffs mean absolutely no more expansion, you're free to let him know he's full of baloney.

In the meantime, I'll diplomatically say his comment is 100% arbitrary.

[East Coast Aztec]

On 9/2/2022 at 1:54 PM, Reverend said:

I'm not your search engine.  They have only had a team for 11 Years. Not that hard to research.

If you aren't going to do research, don't try and argue against a statement.  Not that hard to understand.

[818SUDSFan]

On 9/2/2022 at 3:54 PM, Mano said:

It does seem that the 12 team playoff would reduce the chances of any current P5 conference expanding with G5 teams as they are all almost guaranteed a slice of the playoff pie that they won't want to share.

Reduce is synonymous with diminish and I'll buy that but Bauer's post was supported by zero logic and it's much too absolute.

[EvilPoke]

On 9/2/2022 at 2:55 PM, Reverend said:

Not sure I'm a fan of the first round games being played at the higher rated teams stadium. That's gonna be a lot of games on The Blue.

Whereas I'm looking forward to the mid-December night game in Laramie.

[Pelado]

On 9/2/2022 at 4:32 PM, utenation said:

So to summarize, the conferences I mentioned can and will do whatever they want. I don't think anything in realignment is stable right now.  And you have no clue what conference leadership is saying in back rooms or in board meetings not for the public's eyes or ears.

Correct, the B1G and the SEC can take pretty much whoever they want (except maybe Notre Dame).  To your other point, I never claimed to be privy to discussions among the conference decision makers. 

 

On 9/2/2022 at 4:02 PM, utenation said:

You can call it what you want. Maybe you like to swallow the info from a part time blogger with zero support of his claims other than his opinion and a small snippet saying where he got data but I just can’t do it.

Nor do I have the patience to read posts that read like a 300 page book. 

Apparently, I'm a lot more interested than you are in the intricacies of TV ratings and how they are evaluated by the TV networks offering the contracts.  Speaking of which, a really good follow on Twitter is Bob Thompson, the retired former president of Fox Sports Networks and Fox Sports International.

And potentially of interest to the MW posters here:

 

[Reverend]

On 9/2/2022 at 5:34 PM, Pelado said:

Correct, the B1G and the SEC can take pretty much whoever they want (except maybe Notre Dame).  To your other point, I never claimed to be privy to discussions among the conference decision makers. 

 

Apparently, I'm a lot more interested than you are in the intricacies of TV ratings and how they are evaluated by the TV networks offering the contracts.  Speaking of which, a really good follow on Twitter is Bob Thompson, the retired former president of Fox Sports Networks and Fox Sports International.

And potentially of interest to the MW posters here:

 

MWC teams are probably better off where they are now. More often than now the MWC should be the highest rated G5 and last year we were rated higher than the PAC. I'd we go we go. If not it's all good.