2024 College Football TV Ratings

[ralphiewvu]

Did you overlook my previous post? These would have been the matchups, in a 14 teamer, with the top 5 conference champions making it, and no auto byes:

#3 Texas vs. #14 Clemson
#4 Penn State vs. #13 Miami
#5 Notre Dame vs. #12 Arizona State
#6 Ohio State vs. #11 Alabama
#7 Tennessee vs. #10 SMU
#8 Indiana vs. #9 Boise State

This is the scenario you've been calling for. Do these 6 games avg more than 10.75 million? Idk, but there's your baseline for expansion.

Yes, so then we agree on the sublicensing part? That's what I've been saying this entire time. They're worried about cost, so have TNT pay them like $2 billion or whatever it was to recoup some of the cost.

Did you not read my first paragraph in what you just responded to? What about the first sentence? “This year isn’t the norm.” Again the ACC got 2 teams in and one wasn’t FSU, the G5 got a bye, teams like USC, Michigan and Oklahoma hovered around .500 . For Christ sakes Indiana and SMU made it without winning their conferences. That’s not going to happen often imo. I think there will be some years where the matchups first round get average 10.75 and other years where it will be tough. This being one of those years.

I agree with the argument subing games helps mitigate costs. But I’m also saying they did this as a safety net just incase these games bomb. They did this all before they knew what teams would be in. That’s why I’m totally not on board with these games are all losing them money that’s why they sub’d them out.

 

[ericd7633]

I don't think they've released the amount Warner Bros. is paying, but it's difficult to imagine it's more than $250 million per year. If WB was willing to pay more than that, they'd have been a competitor to just win the overall contract.

It hasn't been released, but TNT got 16 games so I just threw out a figure that was close to what ESPN is paying on a per game basis. If I had to guess overall, I'd probably say $1.5 billion ($300 million per year) over the course of the agreement.

 

[michaeljordan_fan]

It hasn't been released, but TNT got 16 games so I just threw out a figure that was close to what ESPN is paying on a per game basis. If I had to guess overall, I'd probably say $1.5 billion ($300 million per year) over the course of the agreement.

Since TNT isn't getting the premium games, I can't imagine they are paying close to what Disney paid.

 

[ericd7633]

Did you not read my first paragraph in what you just responded to? What about the first sentence? “This year isn’t the norm.” Again the ACC got 2 teams in and one wasn’t FSU, the G5 got a bye, teams like USC, Michigan and Oklahoma hovered around .500 . For Christ sakes Indiana and SMU made it without winning their conferences. That’s not going to happen often imo. I think there will be some years where the matchups first round get average 10.75 and other years where it will be tough. This being one of those years.

I agree with the argument subing games helps mitigate costs. But I’m also saying they did this as a safety net just incase these games bomb. They did this all before they knew what teams would be in. That’s why I’m totally not on board with these games are all losing them money that’s why they sub’d them out.

Yeah, I read your first paragraph. USC has been garbage for a decade and half now, OU has looked mediocre under Venables and Michigan minus Harbaugh has been pretty bad. The point is the SEC and B1G would have had 8 teams. You can't just guarantee big brands to make it. Even still you would have had 7 of 8 huge brands make it from the SEC and B1G, along with Clemson and ND. So 10 of the 14 are about as big as you can get (with Miami in the mid hypothetical) And Id argue ND vs. IU got boosted because of the in state angle. In the 14 team format that matchup doesn't happen. The B12 and G5 have no big brands, with their inclusion the best you can get is 12 big brands in a 14 teamer. It's unrealistic to think it's going to happen every year.

And yes, ESPN did this because they are worried about losing money. We can agree on that.

 

[ralphiewvu]

Yeah, I read your first paragraph. USC has been garbage for a decade and half now, OU has looked mediocre under Venables and Michigan minus Harbaugh has been pretty bad. The point is the SEC and B1G would have had 8 teams. You can't just guarantee big brands to make it. Even still you would have had 7 of 8 huge brands make it from the SEC and B1G, along with Clemson and ND. So 10 of the 14 are about as big as you can get (with Miami in the mid hypothetical) And Id argue ND vs. IU got boosted because of the in state angle. In the 14 team format that matchup doesn't happen. The B12 and G5 have no big brands, with their inclusion the best you can get is 12 big brands in a 14 teamer. It's unrealistic to think it's going to happen every year.

Of course it’s not going to guarantee big brands but it’ll give big brand matchups a better chance. And as we saw this year, 2 of those games topped the hypothetical 10.75 million you threw out. (Which I think is a fair benchmark) I don’t think it’ll happen every year, but to give the impression this thing is doomed to expand when no one here really knows the true benchmark of viewership numbers for the networks to expand is foolish.

And yes, ESPN did this because they are worried about losing money. We can agree on that.

Yes absolutely, but again that doesn’t mean they are losing money.

 

[ericd7633]

Since TNT isn't getting the premium games, I can't imagine they are paying close to what Disney paid.

$300 million isn't all that close to $1.3 billion though. Maybe 2024 and 2025 are less but 2026-2028 is more because they have more inventory those years. So if it's $300 ($150 million per year) million overall for the first two years and $1.2 billion for years 2026-2028 (400 million per year) I don't think that's out of question. WBD had an excess of money with losing the NBA rights.

 

[ericd7633]

Of course it’s not going to guarantee big brands but it’ll give big brand matchups a better chance. And as we saw this year, 2 of those games topped the hypothetical 10.75 million you threw out. (Which I think is a fair benchmark) I don’t think it’ll happen every year, but to give the impression this thing is doomed to expand when no one here really knows the true benchmark of viewership numbers for the networks to expand is foolish.

Yes absolutely, but again that doesn’t mean they are losing money.

The only way you can guarantee a better chance of big brands matchups is if FSU or Miami make it EVERY single year. Unless you do away with the AQ from the top 5 conferences. I mean this weekend you had 6 big brands playing, and ESPN was gifted a great matchup in IU/ND. The set up can't get much better than what ESPN/TNT got.

I just don't think there's much growth overall from a ratings standpoint expanding to 14. As laid out by what the hypothetical matchups would have been. Unless you want the B1G/SEC to get 5 auto bids and everyone else gets 1. But if that's the case then you get a team like Illinois making it this year. With that, this is your matchups:

#3 Texas vs. #14 Illinois
#4 Penn State vs. #13 Ole Miss
#5 Notre Dame vs. #12 Clemson
#6 Ohio State vs. #11 Arizona State
#7 Tennessee vs. #10 Alabama
#8 Indiana vs. #9 Boise State

That's two good matchups of big brands. Maybe 2 and a half with Clemson/ND.

 

[ralphiewvu]

The only way you can guarantee a better chance of big brands matchups is if FSU or Miami make it EVERY single year. Unless you do away with the AQ from the top 5 conferences. I mean this weekend you had 6 big brands playing, and ESPN was gifted a great matchup in IU/ND. The set up can't get much better than what ESPN/TNT got.

I just don't think there's much growth overall from a ratings standpoint expanding to 14. As laid out by what the hypothetical matchups would have been. Unless you want the B1G/SEC to get 5 auto bids and everyone else gets 1. But if that's the case then you get a team like Illinois making it this year. With that, this is your matchups:

#3 Texas vs. #14 Illinois
#4 Penn State vs. #13 Ole Miss
#5 Notre Dame vs. #12 Clemson
#6 Ohio State vs. #11 Arizona State
#7 Tennessee vs. #10 Alabama
#8 Indiana vs. #9 Boise State

That's two good matchups of big brands. Maybe 2 and a half with Clemson/ND.

The setup could have absolutely been better. Alabama (not advocating for it) getting in over SMU and playing at PSU would have generated better ratings imo. It was still a good weekend though. There was 2 games that got over 13 million viewers. Plus lord knows how much the two nfl games that involved 4 playoffs teams hurt the first two games Saturday.
But again you have teams like Indiana and SMU making it without Winning their conferences. Thats likely not happening much. Im not advocating for the P2 to get over 1 autobid but the networks might want them to get 4. In no way am I saying the P2 should get 5 each in.

 

[ericd7633]

The setup could have absolutely been better. Alabama (not advocating for it) getting in over SMU and playing at PSU would have generated better ratings imo. It was still a good weekend though. There was 2 games that got over 13 million viewers. Plus lord knows how much the two nfl games that involved 4 playoffs teams hurt the first two games Saturday.
But again you have teams like Indiana and SMU making it without Winning their conferences. Thats likely not happening much. Im not advocating for the P2 to get over 1 autobid but the networks might want them to get 4. In no way am I saying the P2 should get 5 each in.

Yes, Bama playing PSU would have been great ratings. However, that hypothetical matchup wouldn't have happened in a 14 team field the way you want it set up. Auto bids, no auto bids, it's statistically impossible.

You'd have a much better argument for 4 SEC and 4 B1G and staying at 12, but that's not what you're arguing for. That's why I'm saying unless FSU or Miami make it every year out of the ACC you're not getting big brands vs big brands. It is impossible given the B12 and G5 inclusion.

Also, as far as the NFL, that's unavoidable. It's going to happen given the current calendar. Expand to 6 first round games you're playing games on Friday at Noon and 4:00.

 

[ralphiewvu]

Yes, Bama playing PSU would have been great ratings. However, that hypothetical matchup wouldn't have happened in a 14 team field the way you want it set up. Auto bids, no auto bids, it's statistically impossible.

You'd have a much better argument for 4 SEC and 4 B1G and staying at 12, but that's not what you're arguing for. That's why I'm saying unless FSU or Miami make it every year out of the ACC you're not getting big brands vs big brands. It is impossible given the B12 and G5 inclusion.

Also, as far as the NFL, that's unavoidable. It's going to happen given the current calendar. Expand to 6 first round games you're playing games on Friday at Noon and 4:00.

No one is arguing it’s always going to be big brand vs big brand in every CFP game. We have B12 and G5 games already. It’s not likely ether is going to add more than one team.
SMU got in over Alabama. In a 12 team playoff which is what is happening Alabama is playing at PSU.
Again SMU and Indiana making it when they aren’t winning their conference isn’t likely going to be the norm. Perhaps getting 5 and 5 from the P2 is what the networks will want to go to 14. This is why I bring up teams like Oklahoma and Michigan being .500 teams this year. And I think it’s unfair to not call Clemson a big brand. They won 2 National Championships and played for 2 more within the last decade.

 

[ericd7633]

No one is arguing it’s always going to be big brand vs big brand in every CFP game. We have B12 and G5 games already. It’s not likely ether is going to add more than one team.
SMU got in over Alabama. In a 12 team playoff which is what is happening Alabama is playing at PSU.
Again SMU and Indiana making it when they aren’t winning their conference isn’t likely going to be the norm. Perhaps getting 5 and 5 from the P2 is what the networks will want to go to 14. This is why I bring up teams like Oklahoma and Michigan being .500 teams this year. And I think it’s unfair to not call Clemson a big brand. They won 2 National Championships and played for 2 more within the last decade.

What are you talking about?? We are in a 12 team playoff and Bama didn't make it. If you just wanna put them in bc they're a big brand and not deserving, fine. That's why I said you'd have a better argument to keep it at 12 and just get 4 from the SEC/B1G.

And yeah SMU and IU making it isn't the norm, which is why I said if it's not FSU or Miami from the ACC you're not getting a big brand anyway as a 2nd team. Yes, Clemson is a big brand, as is Texas and we saw what that rating was.

If you want big brands the only way to do that is to guarantee 5 from the SEC/B1G, which yeah if that happens expansion makes more sense. I tend to think that wouldn't happen so it's extremely unlikely. If you do the 4/4 model, which I think is likely, you still have 6 schools outside those leagues. The G5/B12 champ won't be a big brand. The ACC winner if it's Clemson/FSU/Miami will be. If it's not one of those two as the 2nd team it won't be. Given the inconsistency of Miami and FSU assuming they will make a 14 teamer is a bad assumption IMO.

 

[ralphiewvu]

What are you talking about?? We are in a 12 team playoff and Bama didn't make it. If you just wanna put them in bc they're a big brand and not deserving, fine. That's why I said you'd have a better argument to keep it at 12 and just get 4 from the SEC/B1G.

You said it couldn’t have gotten better this weekend and I said no it could have (from a ratings perspective) if Alabama would have made it in instead of SMU. I’m not at all advocating for Alabama but there is little doubt a game vs PSU tops what SMU/PSU did.

And yeah SMU and IU making it isn't the norm, which is why I said if it's not FSU or Miami from the ACC you're not getting a big brand anyway as a 2nd team. Yes, Clemson is a big brand, as is Texas and we saw what that rating was.

While we agree, still no one is arguing every CFP game will be big brand vs big brand. And yes we do agree IU/ND was an intriguing matchup that did well so there isn’t a necessity for that.

If you want big brands the only way to do that is to guarantee 5 from the SEC/B1G, which yeah if that happens expansion makes more sense. I tend to think that wouldn't happen so it's extremely unlikely. If you do the 4/4 model, which I think is likely, you still have 6 schools outside those leagues. The G5/B12 champ won't be a big brand. The ACC winner if it's Clemson/FSU/Miami will be. If it's not one of those two as the 2nd team it won't be. Given the inconsistency of Miami and FSU assuming they will make a 14 teamer is a bad assumption IMO.

Will ESPN demand this (5 from each P2 minimum ) if they are to expand? I think so and that’s to have better shots at getting more big brands matchups in. We agree on FSU/Miami inconsistency

 

[Red_Alert]

 

[ericd7633]

You said it couldn’t have gotten better this weekend and I said no it could have (from a ratings perspective) if Alabama would have made it in instead of SMU. I’m not at all advocating for Alabama but there is little doubt a game vs PSU tops what SMU/PSU did.

While we agree, still no one is arguing every CFP game will be big brand vs big brand. And yes we do agree IU/ND was an intriguing matchup that did well so there isn’t a necessity for that.

Will ESPN demand this (5 from each P2 minimum ) if they are to expand? I think so and that’s to have better shots at getting more big brands matchups in. We agree on FSU/Miami inconsistency

No shit a Bama vs. PSU would have generated a better matchup, so would have Michigan vs. PSU. You just can't throw a team in, if they don't deserve it. That's why I said all things considered, ESPN/TNT made out pretty good in the matchups, if you expand and go to 14, you'd be hard pressed to top 10.75 million, which was done this weekend.

If you want 10 from the P2, then fine that will affect ratings for the positive. But if you go to 14 and it's just 8 from the P2, I'm telling you the increase from 10.75 simply won't be there. Even with better matchups overall, you have huge scheduling issue.

 

[ralphiewvu]

No shit a Bama vs. PSU would have generated a better matchup, so would have Michigan vs. PSU. You just can't throw a team in, if they don't deserve it. That's why I said all things considered, ESPN/TNT made out pretty good in the matchups, if you expand and go to 14, you'd be hard pressed to top 10.75 million, which was done this weekend.

SMU barely got in over Alabama. I’m not just throwing any old team in there. I’m using the team that was next in line to say how this weekend could have gone better. That’s all. And Jesus Christ dude, what got this discussion with us kicked off is how ESPN wouldn’t expand because they are losing money on this. Now suddenly they made out pretty good?

If you want 10 from the P2, then fine that will affect ratings for the positive. But if you go to 14 and it's just 8 from the P2, I'm telling you the increase from 10.75 simply won't be there. Even with better matchups overall, you have huge scheduling issue.

It’s what espn will want imo if they expand to 14 teams. 5 from each (minimum) to maximize that ratings potential. While it’s not at all what I want I get it. Yes not every game will have big brands but the potential to get those matchups will be better. But maybe espn is losing money on this deal and will keep it at 12 until 2031 when the contract expires.

 

[ericd7633]

SMU barely got in over Alabama. I’m not just throwing any old team in there. I’m using the team that was next in line to say how this weekend could have gone better. That’s all. And Jesus Christ dude, what got this discussion with us kicked off is how ESPN wouldn’t expand because they are losing money on this. Now suddenly they made out pretty good?

It’s what espn will want imo if they expand to 14 teams. 5 from each (minimum) to maximize that ratings potential. While it’s not at all what I want I get it. Yes not every game will have big brands but the potential to get those matchups will be better. But maybe espn is losing money on this deal and will keep it at 12 until 2031 when the contract expires.

I know Alabama was the first team out. But they didn't deserve it.

Last time. If you expand to 14 without going to 10 P2, IMO, the ratings won't increase enough to justify spending more for the extra games.

I didn't say ESPN/TNT did good. I thought the ratings would be better. With that, if the above doesn't happen the ratings won't increase enough to justify the additional cost.

 

[ralphiewvu]

I know Alabama was the first team out. But they didn't deserve it.

I never said they deserved it. I said what would have made the weekend better. (Ratings wise)

Last time. If you expand to 14 without going to 10 P2, IMO, the ratings won't increase enough to justify spending more for the extra games.

We agree on this, but I think espn will make it a requirement to expand. The Mid2 and G5 will hate it but what can they really do besides start winning games that matter?

I didn't say ESPN/TNT did good. I thought the ratings would be better. With that, if the above doesn't happen the ratings won't increase enough to justify the additional cost.

You said they made out pretty good but whatever. We agree it’ll have to be 5 each for them to expand and I think ESPN will demand it. Have a lovely evening.

 

[ericd7633]

I never said they deserved it. I said what would have made the weekend better. (Ratings wise)

We agree on this, but I think espn will make it a requirement to expand. The Mid2 and G5 will hate it but what can they really do besides start winning games that matter?

You said they made out pretty good but whatever. We agree it’ll have to be 5 each for them to expand and I think ESPN will demand it. Have a lovely evening.

I said ESPN/TNT did pretty good, all things considered (format) with the matchups, the ratings not so much. Sure inserting Bama will make ratings better, but that's an impossibility.

 

[michaeljordan_fan]

I said ESPN/TNT did pretty good, all things considered (format) with the matchups, the ratings not so much. Sure inserting Bama will make ratings better, but that's an impossibility.

You are too patient with the dolt

 

[ralphiewvu]

I said ESPN/TNT did pretty good, all things considered (format) with the matchups, the ratings not so much. Sure inserting Bama will make ratings better, but that's an impossibility.

2 of the 4 games went well over your benchmark threshold of 10.75. Take out the game of the newly promoted G5 team going against an nfl game with two playoff teams and you'd go over the average of that threshold. What exactly were you expecting?

And you are acting like bama finished outside the top 25. Before the acc preemptive strike to garner public support for SMU, the committee likely puts in bama. Which they would have played Penn state. Not impossible Eric.