ACC and PAC are Discussing a Partnership

Sorry folks just like @Huskers4me been telling us.. it's Bevo's fault

I think they are the ones blackballing oregon and udub from the BiG
1657219089670.png
 
TheDayMan said:
We have a top 15 market and are a first rate research institution. I don't know what Oregon offers though...

But seriously, agree, the move for UW/oregon is to wait it out, but if everyone starts bailing, it's gonna force their hand.
Click to expand...
oregon as a brand is big. oregon brings Nike. Oregon has a samller tv market yet their games still get higher ratings than the rest of the pac
 
OlyDuck said:
oregon as a brand is big. oregon brings Nike. Oregon has a samller tv market yet their games still get higher ratings than the rest of the pac
Click to expand...
Reaction GIF
 
OlyDuck said:
oregon as a brand is big. oregon brings Nike. Oregon has a samller tv market yet their games still get higher ratings than the rest of the pac
Click to expand...

Ratings are largely based on nationally relevant programs. Oregon's an interesting team from expansion. They likely don't bring in as much value in the traditional cable packages. If the Big Ten were to add Oregon, it's a long term vision. We are transitioning from cable to streaming. This means the importance of markets is going down and the importance of eyeballs is going up. This transition isn't a light switch, it's not going to flip over night. But it's moving more in that direction every year.

When eyeballs start to outweigh markets, it's going to come down to having the best matchups. Outside of a handful of brands, this means who has the best programs. Oregon is fully invested in football and athletics in general, which makes it a smart team to bet on long term.
 
OlyDuck said:
oregon as a brand is big. oregon brings Nike. Oregon has a samller tv market yet their games still get higher ratings than the rest of the pac
Click to expand...
Oregon doesn’t bring Nike. Any team that wants to sign with Nike is free to do so. You’ve got Phil Knight money but if you don’t think these other major schools have Big money boosters your nuts.

Your ratings are OK but typically you are getting them in OOC games, rivalries or post season. It’s not like Oregon vs Cal is pulling numbers.
 
duckboy33 said:
Ratings are largely based on nationally relevant programs. Oregon's an interesting team from expansion. They likely don't bring in as much value in the traditional cable packages. If the Big Ten were to add Oregon, it's a long term vision. We are transitioning from cable to streaming. This means the importance of markets is going down and the importance of eyeballs is going up. This transition isn't a light switch, it's not going to flip over night. But it's moving more in that direction every year.

When eyeballs start to outweigh markets, it's going to come down to having the best matchups. Outside of a handful of brands, this means who has the best programs. Oregon is fully invested in football and athletics in general, which makes it a smart team to bet on long term.
Click to expand...
....and the desire for more of those 4 million + viewer games. Cable networks or streaming services want as much of an inventory of those games as they can get. And if they have to take thorns to get more of those roses, they will. At least that is what I've been told.
 
Deep Creek said:
....and the desire for more of those 4 million + viewer games. Cable networks or streaming services want as much of an inventory of those games as they can get. And if they have to take thorns to get more of those roses, they will. At least that is what I've been told.
Click to expand...

Correct and typically those kinds of games consist of 2 high quality teams. The best long term investment a conference can make is adding teams they believe are going to be high quality programs in the future.

However, expanding the geographical footprint of a conference is still important for cable packages. And that's not going away overnight.
 
Thiefery said:
i don't understand why the SEC would take Miami.. they already have UF.. and if they also get FSU in the boat too? No reason to grab UM
Click to expand...
Back to the Eastern Independents for Da U
 
duckboy33 said:
Correct and typically those kinds of games consist of 2 high quality teams. The best long term investment a conference can make is adding teams they believe are going to be high quality programs in the future.

However, expanding the geographical footprint of a conference is still important for cable packages. And that's not going away overnight.
Click to expand...
As you mentioned earlier, unless a team is a big brand name, that viewership number can fluctuate depending on how a team's season(s) is going. Teams like FSU, Texas, USC and Miami probably haven't drawn as good a viewership numbers against "lesser named" teams as they would when they are better. They've sucked lately. Back in their "hay day", I would imagine a game like FSU/Syracuse would have drawn a lot more viewers that such a game has lately.

The lack of those games is what is going to kill the Big 12 IMO. There aren't any "must see" games unless one team gets on a roll. Even then, it will only be one if they meet another team that is on a similar roll late in the season. I argued this with one of my TCU homer golfing buddies the other day. If you look at the 12 teams once OU and Texas leave, there aren't any attractive match ups or rivalries. Closest would be Kansas vs K-State....only because they are in the same two horse state. Next one MIGHT be TCU vs Baylor. I can't find any other ones. BYU vs Oklahoma State? Texas Tech vs Cincy? Iowa State vs Houston? No wonder their media payment is going drop off a cliff.
 
Last edited:
Deep Creek said:
As you mentioned earlier, unless a team is a big brand name, that viewership number can fluctuate depending on how a team's season(s) is going. Teams like FSU, Texas, USC and Miami probably haven't drawn as good a viewership numbers against "lesser named" teams as they would when they are better. They've sucked lately. Back in their "hay day", I would imagine a game like FSU/Syracuse would have drawn a lot more viewers that such a game has lately.
Click to expand...

Yup. There's no perfect way to predict how things are going to unfold. The best bet IMO is to look at who's the most financially invested in building up their program. Chances are those teams are going to make it ahead more often than not.
 
Wild Turkey said:
Oregon doesn’t bring Nike. Any team that wants to sign with Nike is free to do so. You’ve got Phil Knight money but if you don’t think these other major schools have Big money boosters your nuts.

Your ratings are OK but typically you are getting them in OOC games, rivalries or post season. It’s not like Oregon vs Cal is pulling numbers.
Click to expand...
sir i kindly ask you to leave my nuts out of it
 
duckboy33 said:
Yup. There's no perfect way to predict how things are going to unfold. The best bet IMO is to look at who's the most financially invested in building up their program. Chances are those teams are going to make it ahead more often than not.
Click to expand...
But even that won't help IMO. Texas Tech, TCU and Baylor dumped a shitpot full of Big 12 money into improving their athletic departments. Only because those are in my area, they have had pretty good success when you dig deeper than football....and Baylor's had fair success there. While those have some good donors, two of those three have always been small schools and thus a small alumni base.

The school that may have a huge alumni base in the future is UCF. Their enrollment is nuts now. Once that huge number of grads gets into the business world, they can't help but have quite a few BMDs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top