Why Pitt is screwed because of TV

[Voice of Danno]

In the other thread people were saying things that make no sense. Hope to clarify things and show why we are screwed.
ACC current network deal pays each school $17/year and runs until 2036. As a comparison Big 12 is $20 yr but the contract is up next year. Pac 12 is $21 million and is up in 2024. For the ACC to exceed either of these conferences today it must add a team that is worth about $92 million a year ($17 million each school is already getting + $75 million ($5 million/team for 15 teams now). The only team with this much juice is ND and if you are ND will you say we're worth $90 million but only take $22 million so our basketball/non revenue sports conference can survive. And if we really do need a conference is there one out there (Big 10 whose media rights is already over $50 million/team before adding USC and UCLA). So what do you think will happen?

As for Pitt being marketable. Maybe on the field but not off. I currently pay $1.86/month for the Big 10 network. Don't want it. Barely watch it except for an occasional hockey game and maybe a hoop game. But it's part of the sports package of FS1, NBA, NHL, MLB etc. Can't opt out Now compare us to Minnesota. Let's be real conservative that Big 10 network is only in 2 million homes across the state. So Minnesota is generating $4 million/month or $50 million/year. Big 10 already has PA TVs so Pitt adds nothing. Maybe a few eyeballs that ticks up the Nielsen numbers but the contracts are signed for multiple years and Pitt is not bringing $50 million a year eyeballs to ESPN or whoever gets the contract.

The only way to get out of the contract is for something big to happen. It's only ND and like I said above. Not happening. Most likely others will jump and the ACC will be happy to keep its deal. And if the Big 10 expands more, and they will. AZ, Utah CO and OR are the best candidates because of the Big 10 network. Maybe not in Oregon but they have an alumnus who has considerable sway with a lot of athletic departments so they will be fine when this is done.

My guess is two 20 team conferences (SEC and Big 10) so the four schools I mention previously those 4 to the Big 10. SEC poaches 4 from the ACC and we are behind UNC, FSU, Miami, VA Tech, Clemson and at least VA. Any of those schools get approached. Bye. Bye.

So the best we can do is that the two giants are done. Big 12 and Pac 10 (can say that now) media deals stay within a few million of the $17 million the ACC will be getting so were not blown out of the water. And a ton of NIL flows in.

Sorry guys.

 

[cashisking884]

A bunch of schools that really didn’t care about football let a commish force into into a sh*tty tv because what did he care, nobody in the conference cared anyway?

 

[cbraszo]

I don't agree with your assumption that Pitt does not add TV revenue. If anything people do watch Pitt in the Western PA area, and may not go to to the stadium. Football is still king in Western Pa. Do you have Nielsen ratings on what Pitt draws comparative to Penn State. Penn State may have more alumni and a bigger fan base for games in person, but TV viewership is wholel different ball game.

 

[curtis0620]

AAU membership makes Pitt an attractive add to other conferences

 

[pittdan77]

In the other thread people were saying things that make no sense. Hope to clarify things and show why we are screwed.
ACC current network deal pays each school $17/year and runs until 2036. As a comparison Big 12 is $20 yr but the contract is up next year. Pac 12 is $21 million and is up in 2024. For the ACC to exceed either of these conferences today it must add a team that is worth about $92 million a year ($17 million each school is already getting + $75 million ($5 million/team for 15 teams now). The only team with this much juice is ND and if you are ND will you say we're worth $90 million but only take $22 million so our basketball/non revenue sports conference can survive. And if we really do need a conference is there one out there (Big 10 whose media rights is already over $50 million/team before adding USC and UCLA). So what do you think will happen?

As for Pitt being marketable. Maybe on the field but not off. I currently pay $1.86/month for the Big 10 network. Don't want it. Barely watch it except for an occasional hockey game and maybe a hoop game. But it's part of the sports package of FS1, NBA, NHL, MLB etc. Can't opt out Now compare us to Minnesota. Let's be real conservative that Big 10 network is only in 2 million homes across the state. So Minnesota is generating $4 million/month or $50 million/year. Big 10 already has PA TVs so Pitt adds nothing. Maybe a few eyeballs that ticks up the Nielsen numbers but the contracts are signed for multiple years and Pitt is not bringing $50 million a year eyeballs to ESPN or whoever gets the contract.

The only way to get out of the contract is for something big to happen. It's only ND and like I said above. Not happening. Most likely others will jump and the ACC will be happy to keep its deal. And if the Big 10 expands more, and they will. AZ, Utah CO and OR are the best candidates because of the Big 10 network. Maybe not in Oregon but they have an alumnus who has considerable sway with a lot of athletic departments so they will be fine when this is done.

My guess is two 20 team conferences (SEC and Big 10) so the four schools I mention previously those 4 to the Big 10. SEC poaches 4 from the ACC and we are behind UNC, FSU, Miami, VA Tech, Clemson and at least VA. Any of those schools get approached. Bye. Bye.

So the best we can do is that the two giants are done. Big 12 and Pac 10 (can say that now) media deals stay within a few million of the $17 million the ACC will be getting so were not blown out of the water. And a ton of NIL flows in.

Sorry guys.

None of that explains UCLA, does it?

 

[Burgh15]

I don't agree with your assumption that Pitt does not add TV revenue. If anything people do watch Pitt in the Western PA area, and may not go to to the stadium. Football is still king in Western Pa. Do you have Nielsen ratings on what Pitt draws comparative to Penn State. Penn State may have more alumni and a bigger fan base for games in person, but TV viewership is wholel different ball game.

Here are the numbers from 2021. Really not close in terms of viewership as Penn State is one of the most watched teams in the country.



#4 Penn State 3.87M average viewers for the 12-week season.
#40 West Virginia 948k
#53 Pitt 550k

College Football TV Ratings

College football TV ratings for the 2024 regular season, bowls, College Football Playoff and National Championship.

www.sportsmediawatch.com

Week 0-1
Penn State-Wisconsin 5.409M (5th most watched for the week) 3.0

Week 2
Pitt-Tennessee 1.739M (6th most watched for the week) 1.0
Penn State-Ball State 881k (13th most watched for the week) 0.46

Week 3
Penn State-Auburn 7.606M (2nd most watched for the week) 4.1

Week 4
PSU-Villanova or Northwestern-Ohio on BTN 570k n/a

Week 5
Penn State-Indiana 3.996M (3rd most watched for the week) 2.3

Week 6
Penn State-Iowa 6.904M (2nd most watched for the week) 3.7

Week 7
Pitt-Virginia Tech 640k (16th most watched for the week) 0.33

Week 8
Penn State-Illinois 3.765M (3rd most watched for the week) 2.1
Pitt-Clemson 2.162M (10th most watched for the week) 1.2

Week 9
Penn State-Ohio State 7.051M (2nd most watched for the week) 3.7

Week 10
Penn State-Maryland 936k (16th most watched for the week) 0.52

Week 11
Penn State-Michigan 5.942M (1st most watched for the week) 3.45
Pitt-UNC 1.213M (12th most watched for the week) 0.7

Week 12
Pitt-Virginia 851k (15th most watched for the week) 0.45

Week 13
Penn State-Michigan State 3.893M (5th most watched for the week) 2.0

Conference Championship
Pitt-Wake Forest 2.661M (6th most watched for the week) 1.5

 

[cbraszo]

Ranking the most watched college football programs​

Pitt is 44 on this list. WVU is 30. We are ahead of NC, NC State, VA MD Syracuse ASU Kentucky, and we just started getting good!

 

[cbraszo]

Based on these numbers, I have to believe they have to looking at more then TV Viewership. These numbers are skewed based on recent success, what time your on TV, Who you are playing, What games are you up against.

Like the saying goes there are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics.

 

[pittdan77]

Based on these numbers, I have to believe they have to looking at more then TV Viewership. These numbers are skewed based on recent success, what time your on TV, Who you are playing, What games are you up against.

Like the saying goes there are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics.

Yeah. The methodology sucks when it comes to most of the ACC because that time period was before the ACCN existed or it wasn't on many TV sets. Keep in mind that the ACCN deal hasn't had a full football season broadcast over Comcast, yet.

 

[Pitt grad and dad]

None of that explains UCLA, does it?

We won't know how or if we're screwed for a while - a year or two at most perhaps. My biggest fear is how much influence PSU will have to block any possible entry into the BIG if that becomes our best pathway. Remember these weasels never go away.

My guess is that USC was the prize, but they negotiated to have UCLA as part of the deal. On their own, UCLA is further down the list. Certainly, below Oregon and Washington. I would not be surprised if ND joins the BIG and drags Stanford with them. That's a series they want to keep.

 

[pittdan77]

We won't know how or if we're screwed for a while - a year or two at most perhaps. My biggest fear is how much influence PSU will have to block any possible entry into the BIG if that becomes our best pathway. Remember these weasels never go away.

My guess is that USC was the prize, but they negotiated to have UCLA as part of the deal. On their own, UCLA is further down the list. Certainly, below Oregon and Washington. I would not be surprised if ND joins the BIG and drags Stanford with them. That's a series they want to keep.

At this point, I think TV is driving the bus. I'm not sure it's as simple as Penn State not wanting someone. Who knows?

USC was always the prize. UCLA came along for recruiting and the gigantic media market.

ND will cling to independence as long as they can. My thoughts on them is, we'll see.

 

[lilspainishflea]

If we ultimately end up with 64 teams, I think Pitt will be in fairly easily. We were on the bubble when we joined the ACC 10 years ago but all we've done since then is be one of two teams to beat Clemson more than once, win the second most ACC games, and be one of three teams to win an ACC Championship.

Pitt will be fine. It's not 2011 anymore.

If we end up with 48 or less teams, all bets are off. Not that there are 48 teams that are better than Pitt in football, but a lot of teams who don't do much on the field will get in because they're big and have a lot of alums. Looking at you, half of the Big Ten.

 

[pittdan77]

If we ultimately end up with 64 teams, I think Pitt will be in fairly easily. We were on the bubble when we joined the ACC 10 years ago and all we've done since then is be one of two teams to beat Clemson more than once, win the second most ACC games, and be one of three teams to win an ACC Championship.

Pitt will be fine. It's not 2011 anymore.

I'm in the, "why are Pitt fans panicking," camp. We should know this school well enough by now that it will only do what it sees as best for the school. It's not going to lower academic standards and it's not going to jeopardize its reputation. Plus the ACC isn't dead, yet. Just wait and see. We're at the mercy of the TV people.

 

[CJsE]

Based on these numbers, I have to believe they have to looking at more then TV Viewership. These numbers are skewed based on recent success, what time your on TV, Who you are playing, What games are you up against.

Like the saying goes there are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics.

I mean come on, those are poor excuses. Everyone had to deal with those same issues during the 5-year period they pulled these numbers from. If a team didn't get a good timeslot it's because they wouldn't have pulled in good ratings, networks' entire business is putting the most eyes on their product.

FSU is #14 - Period includes their worst 3-year stretch since the 60s
Tennessee is #18 - Not a lot of success during that period
Nebraska is #22 - 4/5 years they were under .500
WVU is #30 - Lots of recent success for WVU right?

Pitt doesn't merit any consideration for the top 30 on that list. Pitt played 8 games vs Clemson, PSU, or ND during that 5-year stretch, all top-10 in viewership. At best they could move up a few spots, but let's be realistic.

 

[pittdan77]

Pitt doesn't merit any consideration for the top 30 on that list. Pitt played 8 games vs Clemson, PSU, or ND during that 5-year stretch, all top-10 in viewership. At best they could move up a few spots, but let's be realistic.

Right, but as the article states, if they couldn't find data for a game, it got a zero which drags down the average. That means Pitt vs Duke probably drew a zero because it wasn't broadcast anywhere.

 

[Duneaux Harm]

In the other thread people were saying things that make no sense. Hope to clarify things and show why we are screwed.
ACC current network deal pays each school $17/year and runs until 2036. As a comparison Big 12 is $20 yr but the contract is up next year. Pac 12 is $21 million and is up in 2024. For the ACC to exceed either of these conferences today it must add a team that is worth about $92 million a year ($17 million each school is already getting + $75 million ($5 million/team for 15 teams now). The only team with this much juice is ND and if you are ND will you say we're worth $90 million but only take $22 million so our basketball/non revenue sports conference can survive. And if we really do need a conference is there one out there (Big 10 whose media rights is already over $50 million/team before adding USC and UCLA). So what do you think will happen?

As for Pitt being marketable. Maybe on the field but not off. I currently pay $1.86/month for the Big 10 network. Don't want it. Barely watch it except for an occasional hockey game and maybe a hoop game. But it's part of the sports package of FS1, NBA, NHL, MLB etc. Can't opt out Now compare us to Minnesota. Let's be real conservative that Big 10 network is only in 2 million homes across the state. So Minnesota is generating $4 million/month or $50 million/year. Big 10 already has PA TVs so Pitt adds nothing. Maybe a few eyeballs that ticks up the Nielsen numbers but the contracts are signed for multiple years and Pitt is not bringing $50 million a year eyeballs to ESPN or whoever gets the contract.

The only way to get out of the contract is for something big to happen. It's only ND and like I said above. Not happening. Most likely others will jump and the ACC will be happy to keep its deal. And if the Big 10 expands more, and they will. AZ, Utah CO and OR are the best candidates because of the Big 10 network. Maybe not in Oregon but they have an alumnus who has considerable sway with a lot of athletic departments so they will be fine when this is done.

My guess is two 20 team conferences (SEC and Big 10) so the four schools I mention previously those 4 to the Big 10. SEC poaches 4 from the ACC and we are behind UNC, FSU, Miami, VA Tech, Clemson and at least VA. Any of those schools get approached. Bye. Bye.

So the best we can do is that the two giants are done. Big 12 and Pac 10 (can say that now) media deals stay within a few million of the $17 million the ACC will be getting so were not blown out of the water. And a ton of NIL flows in.

Sorry guys.

I can tell you Arizona folks are pooping bricks right now because they have zero influence. Also, apparently there is a great deal of political interest in keeping UA and ASU together no matter what when it comes to conferences.

 

[CJsE]

Right, but as the article states, if they couldn't find data for a game, it got a zero which drags down the average. That means Pitt vs Duke probably drew a zero because it wasn't broadcast anywhere.

Yeah, I can't imagine why networks didn't pick up that battle of ratings juggernauts. If either team belonged in the top 30 or so, the game would have had a better chance of being televised.

 

[lilspainishflea]

If we ultimately end up with 64 teams, I think Pitt will be in fairly easily. We were on the bubble when we joined the ACC 10 years ago but all we've done since then is be one of two teams to beat Clemson more than once, win the second most ACC games, and be one of three teams to win an ACC Championship.

Pitt will be fine. It's not 2011 anymore.

If we end up with 48 or less teams, all bets are off. Not that there are 48 teams that are better than Pitt in football, but a lot of teams who don't do much on the field will get in because they're big and have a lot of alums. Looking at you, half of the Big Ten.

If Pitt isn't invited to the club it is because the club is so small that only the true powerhouses are invited. At that point college football won't be worth watching anymore.

They would be left on the sidelines with millions of other fans from similar schools that all have had profitable TV deals for decades - Boston College, Illinois, Minnesota, Washington, Vanderbilt, etc. It makes no sense to do a deal that excludes potentially millions of TV viewers. That's why I think we ultimately end up with 64ish teams rather than a really small and more "elite" subset and under that set of assumptions Pitt has to get in.

 

[The Ole Six-Fiver]

If Pitt isn't invited to the club it is because the club is so small that only the true powerhouses are invited. At that point college football won't be worth watching anymore.

They would be left on the sidelines with millions of other fans from similar schools that all have had profitable TV deals for decades - Boston College, Illinois, Minnesota, Washington, Vanderbilt, etc. It makes no sense to do a deal that excludes potentially millions of TV viewers. That's why I think we ultimately end up with 64ish teams rather than a really small and more "elite" subset and under that set of assumptions Pitt has to get in.

The big programs (their coaches and fans more specifically) won’t want to exclusively play other powerhouse programs. They will still want their chances at 10+ Wins every season, and they likely will have to curtail playing MAC and other small programs for guarantees early season wins. So some of the current P5 ditch diggers will find a place in the big league. Will Pitt be one? I can’t guess that, but we have a national brand of sorts yet likely with the national perception of a fairly easy win for most of the big programs. So that might help us. Just my opinion.

 

[4Mark_Marty]

Yeah. The methodology sucks when it comes to most of the ACC because that time period was before the ACCN existed or it wasn't on many TV sets. Keep in mind that the ACCN deal hasn't had a full football season broadcast over Comcast, yet.

Bingo!!!!

 

[pittdan77]

Yeah, I can't imagine why networks didn't pick up that battle of ratings juggernauts. If either team belonged in the top 30 or so, the game would have had a better chance of being televised.

You really missed the point. There are plenty of shitty conference games that got something better than a zero because they were on BTN or SEC network and that swings the data but Pitt wasn't on anywhere for a game like that in 2015. Illinois and Rutgers was at least on TV where a casual fan could easily watch.

Edit: I'll go one step beyond that. Do you think it's a little coincidental that the conferences with networks are in a bit better shape today? People crap on the ACC but they got a network in place. Maybe it wasn't fast enough but the Big12 and Pac12 didn't really have anything.

 

[CJsE]

You really missed the point. There are plenty of shitty conference games that got something better than a zero because they were on BTN or SEC network and that swings the data but Pitt wasn't on anywhere for a game like that in 2015. Illinois and Rutgers was at least on TV where a casual fan could easily watch.

Edit: I'll go one step beyond that. Do you think it's a little coincidental that the conferences with networks are in a bit better shape today? People crap on the ACC but they got a network in place. Maybe it wasn't fast enough but the Big12 and Pac12 didn't really have anything.

No, I don't think that I am. No study is going to have perfect numbers to work with, so this is the best that we have. Illinois is #70 and Rutgers is #75 out of 89 teams, so how big of a bump did the really get from having those extra few games?

Do you believe that everything else being equal, Pitt football has been a top-25 draw in the past decade? Top 30? 40? Do you have literally any numbers to back up your position that can disprove or remotely discredit his rankings? His rankings aren't going to be perfect, but they will give a fairly good idea of where teams stand.

 

[pittdan77]

No, I don't think that I am. No study is going to have perfect numbers to work with, so this is the best that we have. Illinois is #70 and Rutgers is #75 out of 89 teams, so how big of a bump did the really get from having those extra few games?

Do you believe that everything else being equal, Pitt football has been a top-25 draw in the past decade? Top 30? 40? Do you have literally any numbers to back up your position that can disprove or remotely discredit his rankings? His rankings aren't going to be perfect, but they will give a fairly good idea of where teams stand.

The disclaimers about how the data was disseminated was in the article so yes, I can prove it. And it doesn't matter if you're talking about Pitt football or the number of furies that walk past a specific corner in Pittsburgh in an hour. An automatic zero in your data set because of an absence of data crushes your average. It's not that I have some kind of misinformed belief in Pitt's value but I'm not about to make any bold pronouncements off of a data set that it so heavily skewed.

Eight of the schools above Pitt won't have a major network TV contract or a conference network in two years and two of them (Army and Navy) aren't really part of the math because of their affiliations and their one massive data point every year. Who do you think is better off by 2024, Pitt or those eight other schools?

 

[CJsE]

The disclaimers about how the data was disseminated was in the article so yes, I can prove it. And it doesn't matter if you're talking about Pitt football or the number of furies that walk past a specific corner in Pittsburgh in an hour. An automatic zero in your data set because of an absence of data crushes your average. It's not that I have some kind of misinformed belief in Pitt's value but I'm not about to make any bold pronouncements off of a data set that it so heavily skewed.

Eight of the schools above Pitt won't have a major network TV contract or a conference network in two years and two of them (Army and Navy) aren't really part of the math because of their affiliations and their one massive data point every year. Who do you think is better off by 2024, Pitt or those eight other schools?

Again, if you are waiting for perfect data then there is literally no possible way to make any claim about marketability. The author's rankings were to give an idea of each team's potential television marketability, their conferences' television affiliation 2 years in the future has absolutely nothing to do with that. No one is saying his numbers are perfect, especially not the author himself, but it is a good starting point.

 

[pittdan77]

Again, if you are waiting for perfect data then there is literally no possible way to make any claim about marketability. The author's rankings were to give an idea of each team's potential television marketability, their conferences' television affiliation 2 years in the future has absolutely nothing to do with that. No one is saying his numbers are perfect, especially not the author himself, but it is a good starting point.

Come on, this is like SMF "compiling" data. It's not really a great starting point either. It's anecdotal, at best because you're trying to make a pronouncement about the future state based on old data that either didn't exist or bears zero influence over the current state.

ESPN puts it own data out. For 2020 Richmond is their third best market. Louisville and the three biggest NC markets are also in the top ten. So five of ESPN's top ten TV markets (based on ratings) are anchored in the ACC footprint. Really runs counter to Virginia, Duke, NC State, and UNC are all being worse off than Pitt. Or did something change?

 

[pafootballguy]

If Pitt isn't invited to the club it is because the club is so small that only the true powerhouses are invited. At that point college football won't be worth watching anymore.

They would be left on the sidelines with millions of other fans from similar schools that all have had profitable TV deals for decades - Boston College, Illinois, Minnesota, Washington, Vanderbilt, etc. It makes no sense to do a deal that excludes potentially millions of TV viewers. That's why I think we ultimately end up with 64ish teams rather than a really small and more "elite" subset and under that set of assumptions Pitt has to get in.

I am just not sure the money is there to pay 64 teams what the Big Ten and SEC are going to be paying teams.

 

[9nationalchampionships]

I am just not sure the money is there to pay 64 teams what the Big Ten and SEC are going to be paying teams.

Enabler is back .... go away

 

[CJsE]

Come on, this is like SMF "compiling" data. It's not really a great starting point either. It's anecdotal, at best because you're trying to make a pronouncement about the future state based on old data that either didn't exist or bears zero influence over the current state.

ESPN puts it own data out. For 2020 Richmond is their third best market. Louisville and the three biggest NC markets are also in the top ten. So five of ESPN's top ten TV markets (based on ratings) are anchored in the ACC footprint. Really runs counter to Virginia, Duke, NC State, and UNC are all being worse off than Pitt. Or did something change?

Well at least now I know you don't know the definition of anecdotal, although I was pretty certain of that about 2 posts into this argument. I'm sure the actual networks wouldn't use 5-year rating trends when determining the value of their properties and future scheduling.

Then you give some claim about a publicized ranking that provides no points of data. Not what teams or even what sports they are taking into account, likely all. I'm sure that's a much better metric than looking at 1,200+ individual games and drawing a conclusion from that. Here's a crazy conclusion, markets that are heavily saturated with ESPN's contracted teams are going to be the largest markets for ESPN. It's shocking, just shocking that LA, NY, CHI, PHI, and DAL didn't make the list. Birmingham is #1, so UAB must be one of the most marketable teams then.

 

[pittmeister]

I am just not sure the money is there to pay 64 teams what the Big Ten and SEC are going to be paying teams.

Listen jack, You don’t know anymore than the rest of us concerning realignment. All you know is how to troll, support enablers and say stupid uninformed drivel…
Take your opinions, wishful thinking, and tidings of doom elsewhere…

 

[pittdan77]

Well at least now I know you don't know the definition of anecdotal, although I was pretty certain of that about 2 posts into this argument. I'm sure the actual networks wouldn't use 5-year rating trends when determining the value of their properties and future scheduling.

Then you give some claim about a publicized ranking that provides no points of data. Not what teams or even what sports they are taking into account, likely all. I'm sure that's a much better metric than looking at 1,200+ individual games and drawing a conclusion from that. Here's a crazy conclusion, markets that are heavily saturated with ESPN's contracted teams are going to be the largest markets for ESPN. It's shocking, just shocking that LA, NY, CHI, PHI, and DAL didn't make the list. Birmingham is #1, so UAB must be one of the most marketable teams then.

Okay, you believe the data some guy who is the "deputy sports editor" for the Bergen Record (?) and his whacky methodology. I mean, it has to be rock solid, despite all of the admitted flaws and irrelevant time period. Absolutely insane that I wouldn't roll with that over the company that is paying for the college football games that we're talking about.

And Birmingham is Bama's TV market so good job on the hyperbole.

 

[CJsE]

Okay, you believe the data some guy who is the "deputy sports editor" for the Bergen Record (?) and his whacky methodology. I mean, it has to be rock solid, despite all of the admitted flaws and irrelevant time period. Absolutely insane that I wouldn't roll with that over the company that is paying for the college football games that we're talking about.

And Birmingham is Bama's TV market so good job on the hyperbole.

Wow, 5 of the top 10 ESPN markets are in ACC territory, that must explain why the ACC is leading college football in television ratings and signed a television contract that the rest of college football is jealous about.

Who wants to watch OSU-Mich when you can watch UVA-NC State?

 

[Voice of Danno]

AAU membership makes Pitt an attractive add to other conferences

Means absolutely nothing. Rice is one of the best academic schools in America. Is in a top 10 TV market and yet none of the conferences want this academic powerhouse.

 

[Voice of Danno]

Nielsen numbers are absolutely useless. Contracts are signed for multiple years. There's an expectation but that's it. When the season is over, ESPN doesn't sit down with a conference and say "hey team X sucks for ratings drop them and replace them with Team Y." The big conferences have added teams but who has been dumped?

And as I said earlier. It is TVs with say the SEC or Big 10 Networks. Approximately $2 a household a month. Minnesota say has 2 million households. That's about $48 million a year to the conference. What Nielsen rating is needed for Pitt to add to the network contract to make up the $48 million? I have the BTN in Pittsburgh so the only way for the Big 10 to make money if it switches out MN for Pitt is for ESPN to believe Pitt is worth $48 million more in the contract. And that's just to break even

 

[Voice of Danno]

You really missed the point. There are plenty of shitty conference games that got something better than a zero because they were on BTN or SEC network and that swings the data but Pitt wasn't on anywhere for a game like that in 2015. Illinois and Rutgers was at least on TV where a casual fan could easily watch.

Edit: I'll go one step beyond that. Do you think it's a little coincidental that the conferences with networks are in a bit better shape today? People crap on the ACC but they got a network in place. Maybe it wasn't fast enough but the Big12 and Pac12 didn't really have anything.

Pac 12 has a network.

 

[TheSpecialSauce]

Wow, 5 of the top 10 ESPN markets are in ACC territory, that must explain why the ACC is leading college football in television ratings and signed a television contract that the rest of college football is jealous about.

Who wants to watch OSU-Mich when you can watch UVA-NC State?

Get lost troll.

 

[rutgersdave]

If we ultimately end up with 64 teams, I think Pitt will be in fairly easily. We were on the bubble when we joined the ACC 10 years ago but all we've done since then is be one of two teams to beat Clemson more than once, win the second most ACC games, and be one of three teams to win an ACC Championship.

Pitt will be fine. It's not 2011 anymore.

If we end up with 48 or less teams, all bets are off. Not that there are 48 teams that are better than Pitt in football, but a lot of teams who don't do much on the field will get in because they're big and have a lot of alums. Looking at you, half of the Big Ten.

There’s not enough money for 64 teams. Big Ten equally distributes the TV money to all team members. We heard there was a billion dollar contract before USC UCLA to be divided by 14 teams or $71 million a year per team. It’s all about the money. The ACC, PAC 10 and BIG 12 can still exist but getting more like $10-15 million a year per team.

 

[PittPanther44]

Here are the numbers from 2021. Really not close in terms of viewership as Penn State is one of the most watched teams in the country.

View embedded media

#4 Penn State 3.87M average viewers for the 12-week season.
#40 West Virginia 948k
#53 Pitt 550k

College Football TV Ratings

College football TV ratings for the 2024 regular season, bowls, College Football Playoff and National Championship.

www.sportsmediawatch.com

Week 0-1
Penn State-Wisconsin 5.409M (5th most watched for the week) 3.0

Week 2
Pitt-Tennessee 1.739M (6th most watched for the week) 1.0
Penn State-Ball State 881k (13th most watched for the week) 0.46

Week 3
Penn State-Auburn 7.606M (2nd most watched for the week) 4.1

Week 4
PSU-Villanova or Northwestern-Ohio on BTN 570k n/a

Week 5
Penn State-Indiana 3.996M (3rd most watched for the week) 2.3

Week 6
Penn State-Iowa 6.904M (2nd most watched for the week) 3.7

Week 7
Pitt-Virginia Tech 640k (16th most watched for the week) 0.33

Week 8
Penn State-Illinois 3.765M (3rd most watched for the week) 2.1
Pitt-Clemson 2.162M (10th most watched for the week) 1.2

Week 9
Penn State-Ohio State 7.051M (2nd most watched for the week) 3.7

Week 10
Penn State-Maryland 936k (16th most watched for the week) 0.52

Week 11
Penn State-Michigan 5.942M (1st most watched for the week) 3.45
Pitt-UNC 1.213M (12th most watched for the week) 0.7

Week 12
Pitt-Virginia 851k (15th most watched for the week) 0.45

Week 13
Penn State-Michigan State 3.893M (5th most watched for the week) 2.0

Conference Championship
Pitt-Wake Forest 2.661M (6th most watched for the week) 1.5

This is bullshit. It speaks more to how the TV contracts were set up, not people who would be wanting to watch PItt if they were in a normal channel.

 

[RaleighPittFan]

There’s not enough money for 64 teams. Big Ten equally distributes the TV money to all team members. We heard there was a billion dollar contract before USC UCLA to be divided by 14 teams or $71 million a year per team. It’s all about the money. The ACC, PAC 10 and BIG 12 can still exist but getting more like $10-15 million a year per team.

So, how long before Rutgers is politely asked to leave the BeeoneGee, because they are taking more than they bring in to the conference?

 

[rutgersdave]

So, how long before Rutgers is politely asked to leave the BeeoneGee, because they are taking more than they bring in to the conference?

I hear it would take 10-11 members to vote a team out. I don’t think it would happen because there are at least 5 other teams in the same boat. I had mentioned Rutgers is now competitive in quite a few sports but just 2-3 years ago not so much. The football team can change, it only take a good QB. Your team did well this last year for the first time in a long time because of the QB.

 

[Manster]

I don't agree with your assumption that Pitt does not add TV revenue. If anything people do watch Pitt in the Western PA area, and may not go to to the stadium. Football is still king in Western Pa. Do you have Nielsen ratings on what Pitt draws comparative to Penn State. Penn State may have more alumni and a bigger fan base for games in person, but TV viewership is wholel different ball game.

There was a published article on this just about a week ago:
Penn State = 10th in viewership: 2.55m avg
WVU = 30th: 1.27m avg
VT = 31st: 1.26m avg
Pitt = 44th: 781k avg.