NFL ratings blow CFB ratings out of the water
There are only 32 NFL teams, and there are probably 10 total CFB programs that could achieve the same ratings from casual fans
Every other program relies on alums or conference affiliates
1 Like
And even then, those 10 wonât get the casual fans or viewership that the NFL gets.
Not even close.
College football is considered, justifiably, to be an inferior good by the bigger viewing public, and as such, will never get the same ratings or fan following as pro football.
And even looking just at the college gameâŠG-level is considered inferior to P-level. Only P-level is considered high value, so it behooves the networks to have a larger number of P-level teams: more HIGH VALUE matchups. You canât make it too big, or you dilute/water down value. Likewise, you canât make it too small or you wonât be able to fill all the desired slots and wonât get the optimum number of high value matchups needed to maximize ad revenue in those slots.
Thatâs whyâŠ
60-70 âpowerâ teams is optimal. And that takes at least three, maybe four âpowerâ leagues.
To his credit (UH1927), though, I donât think a 48-team league is necessarily that unreasonable.
Even a 20 team league with nothing but blue bloods isnât unreasonable.
When or if either scenario ever happened, then the concept of âPower Conferenceâ or âG5â would not exist anymore. It would be a totally different thing, and there would still be value in conferences not included in that elite league.
The problem with his arguments though is that heâs assuming the SEC/B1G/Big 12 are all working together to achieve some sort of end goal when thatâs far from the case
See thatâs the thing. There would be FAR LESS value in those. Instead of a G6, youâd have a G8 or G9âŠand ALL the G8-G9 teams demoted from the âpowerâ ranks would make less and get less fan interest and ratings (which, in turns, makes them less valuable to the networks from a ratings/revenue standpoint) than before.
Theyâd still be used to fill the slots, but wouldnât make the networks as much as they would as âpowerâ conference teams with more interest and better ratings.
Thatâs why I donât see a P2 âbreakawayâ as very likely. As Iâve said before, I canât rule it out, but Iâd say the odds are against it, for that reason.
Lessons learned from the CFA era forward show that 60-70 âpowerâ conference teams are optimal to the networks for filling the greatest number of slots with the greatest amount of value. I donât see that changing.
And if there were ever a âsuper-powerâ breakaway, UH almost certainly WOULD NOT be a part of it, given how poor our attendance, viewership, and fan following are by P4 standards. We would NOT be selected (forget about basketball; if that were all it took, then UConn would already be in the B1G; as it stands, their football brand is so small and bad that they canât get into ANY power conference; football brand size, as measured by attendance, viewership, and fan following, drives the train).
Thatâs why Cullen needs to stop wishing for such a breakaway and talking about it.
Heâs likely to âjinxâ us in a bad way.
Stanford will likely be excluded on the very same basis. They rate even lower in those measures (attendance, viewership, and fan following in football) than UH. If the B1G truly thought that bringing in Stanford would help them bring in ND, then the B1G would have invited Stanford already. The fact that they havenât shows that a) adding Stanford probably doesnât really help the B1G get ND, even if it might, the B1G isnât willing to dilute the value of adding ND with by taking on parasitic Stanford. Stanford is AAU, but to get in the B1G in todayâs world, you need BOTH AAU AND large enough football brand size. Unlike 2012, markets arenât a determinative factor.
If some type of breakaway hypothetically happen occurs, it doesnât mean those other slots arenât filled.
Yes the value would possibly go down, but thatâs really up to the networks. Conferences have no control over that, and itâs up to the free market to determine the value. Not conferences themselves.
Itâs not much different as to the SEC/B1G attempting to turn the CFP into the SEC/B1G invitational
With that said, what the conferences do have control over is who they want in their conferences. And as of today, I personally think there are still valuable brands outside the P2. Even the G5 has some valuable brands such as Boise St and various basketball schools
And youâre telling me theyâd rather risk filling those slots with lower value than stay with higher value?
Come on now. Thatâs SILLY.
They wonât do ANYTHING that would risk creating more low value matchups when they can be certain of having more high value matchups. Thatâs why I donât see a breakaway as likely.
Until the B1G and SEC can come to an agreement on how to make it a SEC/B1G invitational (so far, they CANâT), I donât see a breakaway as imminent.
What would be a lower value matchup?
As I said, just because a breakaways occurs doesnât meant that there isnât value in schools that donât make it into an elite league. Will they be paid $50 Million+? Probably not. That doesnât mean the networks donât want them on their slots.
I donât see a breakaway imminent either, but the SEC/B1G have all the leverage in college sports. Big 12 and ACC are in a slow death match against each other (with the Big 12 likely to win that match.)
The media deals for the SEC/B1G by the sheer nature of capitalism would be expected to continue rising to unsustainable levels without major cuts to networksâ balance sheets especially given the way the CFP is going to lend to record ratings.
In other words, it will get to the point where the networks are going to have to do whatever it takes to pay the SEC/B1G money at the expense of other conferences (in this case, Big 12).
Like I said, thereâs a reason that a single network wonât partner with the Big 12, and thereâs a reason the ACC is failing (because theyâre partnered with a single network)
Arguing, discussing, âdebatingâ with law97 is inane.
The guy canât stay on point. He shifts, pivots, and strays whenever a point he âstoodâ on becomes weak or non-factual.
He throws out strawmen like theyâre a dime a dozen.
He freely contradicts himself over time and has amnesia when it comes to his bad takes that have been exposed.
Heâs not debating, discussing to make a point, educate, learn or even find common ground, heâs doing it to fill some hole in his mind that I donât have the ability or time to figure out.
4 Likes
I beg your pardon.
Iâd like to know when YOU have ever outdebated me.
I havenât contradicted myself once in this debate, and rarely do in any other. Iâve always been consistent on all the points on this thread. And Iâd like to know what you consider to be a âstrawmanâ here. Please be candid in your response.
I can certainly find common ground on this. In fact, I even said I couldnât RULE OUT a P2 breakaway, given how much power the P2 have.
I simply said it isnât likely given a) that the networks have too many slots to fill; just look at how many games all the content providers broadcast each week, b) they can either fill them with higher value or lower value content, and c) having more âpowerâ teams gives them more higher value matchups; demoting a bunch would devalue them and give them fewer such matchups, which would presumably affect their revenues and bottom line.
If youâd like to contest any of those points, fine. Go ahead. But lay off the personal attacks and accusations.
I doubt youâll be able to contest any of them.
And given that UH will almost certainly NOT be a part of any P2 breakaway (you and I both know that we are one of the smallest football brands in the P4 when it comes to attendance, fan following, and viewership, and football drives the train), NOBODY here should be talking about it.
Itâll jinx us.
In fact, if you go back and look above, I have even said that if a P2 breakaway did occur, it wouldnât include 48 teams; there simply arenât 14 more teams with big enough football brands to add value to the P2. Iâve even said that I can imagine the P2 jettisoning a few of their weaker brands (my own Illinois Fighting Illini might be one of them; thatâs why Illinoisâ administration has spoken out against such a thing).
So even on that, I can find âcommon groundâ with 3rdWard. He talks about a âblue bloodâ league, and even that seems plausible; of course, to have such a thing, they would have to do exactly what I said: KICK OUT the parasites. Cullen, by contrast, seems to think that the P2 breakaway will not only NOT kick out parasites, but, even more implausibly, bring in some more.
Youâre not siding with HIM on that, are you? Come on now. We all want what is best for UH. We all dream about UH one day being in a P2. But without AAU and a bigger brand, the B1G seems like a non-starter, and I canât imagine UT or aTm ever allowing us in the SEC.
But back to a breakawayâŠ
Given that the P2 canât even come together on a playoff format, I donât really see them getting together on anything bigger (like a breakaway) in the near future, though I canât rule anything out.
Counter this if you wish. Best of luck!
Whatâs so funny?
Iâm not the one talking about a P2 breakaway in a positive way.
Thatâs Cullen.
I donât know why he does. Itâll jinx us. Thatâs why he and others shouldnât be talking about it.
I only criticize it, which is appropriate for that very same reason.
you gettin supersticious now?
- jinxes
- imaginary censorship authority
- juvenile use of capitalization of entire words
- complete disregard of other opinions
- clear overvaluation of oneâs own opinion
- total lack any objectivity
- narcissism
- zero appreciation for brevity
- lack of logic
3 Likes
Damn straight!!!
If even an established B1G member like Illinois is terrified by such a thing, then a small brand like ours should definitely be.
Arenât you supposed to working on the public dime?
2 Likes
Imaginary censorship authority?
Huh???
I didnât say that he or anyone else COULDNâT say it. Only that we SHOULDNâT talk about it, because itâll jinx us. Believe me, weâve been left out before. I get skiddish.
Capitalization. HmmmâŠGET OVER IT!!!
I donât disregard anyone else opinions. But I have every right to criticize them, and will do so when I feel that it is warranted. Would you dare say otherwise? If so, then you may have more âimaginary censorship authorityâ than I ever imagined having (and I never imagined having any). This is a forum where people post opinions, and have them criticized. People are free to criticize mine as well, and Iâll do my best to answer said criticisms. Iâd expect nothing else and nothing less from anybody else. Any issues with that?
Overvaluation of my own opinion? Hey bro, I canât help it if Iâm right 99.9999999% of the time.
Total lack of objectivity? How so?
If someone can make a good objective argument as to why a 48 team P2 breakaway including small brands like UH is likely, fine. So far, I havenât heard one. All Iâve heard is â48 feels like the right numberâ or words to that effect (why? no good reason I can see; no pro league has that many, and I cannot imagine that there are 14 brands out there big enough to add value to the P2), âthe B1G will want/need/should have a TX schoolâ (again, why? theyâve never needed one in the past and thatâs never prevented them from being the top money conference, so why add one that they apparently donât need, you know, just because?..Iâm sure theyâd happily add UT or aTm if they had a chance; I canât see any TX team other than those that would have a big enough brand to add value to the B1G, and if those two teams are already a part of P2 breakaway with the SEC, which they would be, then thereâs no need for the P2 to add anyone else)âŠâthe B1G will add us for the Houston marketâ (markets donât mean what they did in the past; thanks to cable cord cutting, brands matter more, and we donât have a big enough one; in any event, to the extent that markets do matter, any P2 breakaway would already have UT and aTm which, combined, would deliver the Houston market better than UH would, thus, little need to desire to add us on that basis). Thatâs why I objectively say that we will most likely be left out of any such breakaway, and shouldnât hope for such a thing, though I canât rule it out.
Thereâs nothing âunobjectiveâ about that. If you disagree, fine. Explain why. I doubt itâll be convincing in light of what I said.
narcissismâŠ??? Iâve never seen you back down on anything; even when I posted two reliable sources saying that Abbott/Patrick were involved in getting us in the Big 12, you were apparently too proud to back down. Now who is narcissistic?
zero appreciate for brevity? I use the number of words needed to adequately explain. Would you rather I not? That would only leave holes open and create confusion.
lack of logic? Find an example.
I doubt anyone will read all that and arenât you on the public payroll? A little brevity would be in order in that case.
2 Likes
I doubt seriously that anything discussed on this board will âjinxâ UHâs realignment outcomes lmao
Weâre going to land where we land. As a fan Iâm along for the ride regardless.
I am too.
But given that weâve been left out in the past, I donât discuss any proposal that would likely exclude UH, (like that one) and leave us out again, in a positive or desirable way, as he does.
Itâs bad luck.
Again, didnât say that he or anyone else couldnât, only that they shouldnât for that reason. And if they do, criticism is completely appropriate.
1 Like