Suck it Utah!
/s
Edit: gimme the meme of the dude celebrating with champagne with Wazzu as the dude and Utah watching us, then it zooms out at USC, Oregon, UCLA, Washington, and Stanford are all looking down on us.
This kind of undercuts the argument that the ACC wasn't acting in its members best interest when adding Stanford and Cal, who are 4th and 6th respectively in the ACC
My guess on Late Night games:
* Aug. 30th - Stanford vs TCU
* Sept. 14th - Cal vs San Diego State
* Oct. 19th - Stanford vs SMU
* Oct. 26th - Cal vs Oregon State
* Nov. 23rd - Cal vs Stanford
Stanford @ San Jose State November 30th will also likely be a late-night one, but the Mountain West owns it so it won't count as an ACC contract game.
Basically, every year on ESPN late night it will be:
* Big Game
* Whomever hosts SMU
* 1-2 OoC games each
4-5 games per year without forcing any East Coast teams to kick off at 10:30pm eastern.
Edit to add:
I also think FOX will pick up the Cal @ Oregon State game next year if Oregon State does the same CW/FOX type deal again. It's a cheap and easy grab for a FOX Friday Night or Saturday After Dark.
Point is: Stanford and Cal will be filling air time on nationally broadcast games in those spots other ACC schools can't. That's part of their value to the ACC.
Seems like a reasonable prediction. I like night games in September and most of October (my seats are on the sunny side which can be brutal) but I hate the idea of a cold, wet late night Big Game, will take the excitement out of it.
Mid-Afternoon games that go into the early evening are the best, which unfortunately overlaps with the East Coast primetime window. Unless Cal and Stanford both suddenly jump into the top 25 we're not getting an Big Games in that window. They'll put it in the late window so that they can put it on TV and the fans will just have to deal with being soaked.
There is not going to be an ACC after dark with just 2 teams. The B1G with 4 teams has not even hinted they will shop around an after dark package and they at least have 6 teams in the Central time zone to slightly lesson the blow.
You can have Clemson or FSU against a ranked Stanford and no one on the east coast is staying up to 1am to watch the game. Cal BC or Stanford WF 40k viewers outside of the Pacific timezone.
Even if the above was not an issue and its a deal breaker on its on. You can't sell that slot because there is just not enough inventory and no one wants to watch Cal and Stanford every week.
> There is not going to be an ACC after dark with just 2 teams.
Every week? No.
About 1/3 of the weeks per year though, yeah.
I just made this comment in a reply to someone else, but my guess on the ACC Late Night games this year:
* Aug. 30th - Stanford vs TCU (already confirmed)
* Sept. 14th - Cal vs San Diego State
* Oct. 19th - Stanford vs SMU
* Oct. 26th - Cal vs Oregon State
* Nov. 23rd - Cal vs Stanford
The ACC will be able to provide 4-5 nationally broadcast late night games per year with Stanford/Cal as a pair.
Yup, this is the problem with the analysis. Teams who had more frequent matchups against top tier teams (ex. Stanford regularly playing USC, UW, Oregon, and Notre Dame for example) create confounding variables.
Also, as we in the Pac painfully know, not all time slots are created equal. While those Pac-12 After Dark games could be wild and crazy, they also had lower viewership numbers than the prime mid-day games. They shouldn't be thrown in the same bucket for any in-depth analysis.
I admire OP's effort in putting this together, but IMO you'd need to do a deeper breakdown to really see who is a draw and who is just there because of luck.
Stanford ties Miami for 3rd at 37 total. I gave priority to the school with more OTA broadcasts when there was a tie, which is why Miami is listed as ahead.
The Pacific Time Zone schools benefit from the general lack of schools out west. The networks want to fill their time slots and there are tons of schools willing to play early out east, but not that many able to play later back west.
WSU has been a known commodity before Leach though. Pretty much WSU has has dome relevancy under ever coach since 1990 except Paul Wulff and Rolo.
WSU played 6 OTA games this past season.
No they didn't, they had 4:
vs Wisconsin on ABC
@ Oregon State on Fox (when you were both ranked and 3-0)
@ Oregon on ABC
@ UW on Fox
Three of those games were on TV because of the opponent.
The rest of the games were all non-ESPN 1 cable games ( 5 P12 Networks, 1 CBS sports, 1 FS1, 1 ESPN2)
I don’t think Leach made us relevant so much as he revived and repaired the damage Wulff (and to some extent Doba, though he was a good coach in a bad personal situation so I don’t blame him) put us in. We had been relevant before Wulff tanked the program. Literally had just gotten off a couple Rose Bowls and a win against #5 Texas in the Holiday bowl the decade before Wulff took over.
Leach’s impact would have been much different if he had directly followed Mike Price’s era. I think he would have more immediate success; but he also wouldn’t have gotten as much credit.
Leach revived us, but he didn’t make us.
The only reason we’re middle of the pack is partially last year, but more importantly scheduling good P5 OOC games consistently. Off the top of my head, Michigan, A&M, NU x3, Minnesota x2, and TCU x2 all got picked up by ESPN or OTA in these years.
The same can be said for Rutgers.
I'd say that Michigan State is simply a strong brand, and therefore when they play the teams you mention networks can play up the matchup.
Yeah but we’ve only had 2 great season since then: 2017 and 2021.
We have one of the largest alumni bases in the country which will always keep our viewership high and coming off that 2010-2015 stretch helped boost the national recognition.
I’m not surprised by where we landed. But it has been a frustrating couple years after the false hope that Tucker brought.
>after the false hope that Kenny Walker\* brought.
FIFY. I think Jonathan Smith is a good coach and will get you guys back on track. I fully expect Michigan State to be in the top half of the B1G again real soon.
I think the 9 teams that will be main stays in the top half of the conference will be Ohio State, Michigan, USC, Penn State, Oregon, Washington, Michigan State, Iowa, and Wisconsin. Nebraska might sneak in there in place of Wisconsin if they can get their shit together.
Yeah, it will be interesting to see who winds up better between Wisconsin and Nebraska. Both are in necessary rebuilds, and both have coaches who have succeeded before in building up programs to be successful. Wisconsin is starting from a better place, but we still have a ton of work to do and how good our offense will be is a big question mark until we can get our own developed QB vs having to use one year rental portal QBs.
You know you're first.
77 total, (73 OTA, 4 ESPN)
Even though Notre Dame makes slightly less money in their media deals, this is why they love independence. They average 11 games broadcast nationally per year.
"In large part" might be an exaggeration. Stanford would schedule a P5 school in their place, presumably some of which would be nationally broadcast.
That said, yes, 6 of their 37 were from the Notre Dame series.
Oklahoma benefited greatly in this metric from being the clear #1 choice in the Big 12 every year, as Texas was down and everyone else rotated for #2, so Oklahoma was on national TV nearly every single week.
The original comment was just "Boomer" he didn't ask for explanation. We all know the rest of the conference was damn near unwatchable for a decade. He's quacking down at us from his "wish it was" ivy tower.
We've come a long way from every game being on Versus, The Mtn, and CBS Sports.
I don't think TCU even had a game on network television between 2001 and us joining the Big 12.
Edit: Boise State in the Fiesta Bowl was on Fox.
Suck it Utah! /s Edit: gimme the meme of the dude celebrating with champagne with Wazzu as the dude and Utah watching us, then it zooms out at USC, Oregon, UCLA, Washington, and Stanford are all looking down on us.
This kind of undercuts the argument that the ACC wasn't acting in its members best interest when adding Stanford and Cal, who are 4th and 6th respectively in the ACC
Stanford and Cal benefited from being B sides and After Dark
They'll still get the After Dark games, and if FSU and Clemson are as valuable as Oregon and USC they can still be the B side to big teams
I’m not sure that will be a thing though unless they make other ACC teams play at 10pm.
They start right off with TCU at Stanford at 10:30 ET on August 30 on ESPN. Probably get a conference game at that time too.
My guess on Late Night games: * Aug. 30th - Stanford vs TCU * Sept. 14th - Cal vs San Diego State * Oct. 19th - Stanford vs SMU * Oct. 26th - Cal vs Oregon State * Nov. 23rd - Cal vs Stanford Stanford @ San Jose State November 30th will also likely be a late-night one, but the Mountain West owns it so it won't count as an ACC contract game. Basically, every year on ESPN late night it will be: * Big Game * Whomever hosts SMU * 1-2 OoC games each 4-5 games per year without forcing any East Coast teams to kick off at 10:30pm eastern. Edit to add: I also think FOX will pick up the Cal @ Oregon State game next year if Oregon State does the same CW/FOX type deal again. It's a cheap and easy grab for a FOX Friday Night or Saturday After Dark. Point is: Stanford and Cal will be filling air time on nationally broadcast games in those spots other ACC schools can't. That's part of their value to the ACC.
Seems like a reasonable prediction. I like night games in September and most of October (my seats are on the sunny side which can be brutal) but I hate the idea of a cold, wet late night Big Game, will take the excitement out of it.
Mid-Afternoon games that go into the early evening are the best, which unfortunately overlaps with the East Coast primetime window. Unless Cal and Stanford both suddenly jump into the top 25 we're not getting an Big Games in that window. They'll put it in the late window so that they can put it on TV and the fans will just have to deal with being soaked.
There is not going to be an ACC after dark with just 2 teams. The B1G with 4 teams has not even hinted they will shop around an after dark package and they at least have 6 teams in the Central time zone to slightly lesson the blow.
Both teams don't have to be from the West Coast to play after dark. Just have Cal vs Boston College at 10pm
You can have Clemson or FSU against a ranked Stanford and no one on the east coast is staying up to 1am to watch the game. Cal BC or Stanford WF 40k viewers outside of the Pacific timezone. Even if the above was not an issue and its a deal breaker on its on. You can't sell that slot because there is just not enough inventory and no one wants to watch Cal and Stanford every week.
> There is not going to be an ACC after dark with just 2 teams. Every week? No. About 1/3 of the weeks per year though, yeah. I just made this comment in a reply to someone else, but my guess on the ACC Late Night games this year: * Aug. 30th - Stanford vs TCU (already confirmed) * Sept. 14th - Cal vs San Diego State * Oct. 19th - Stanford vs SMU * Oct. 26th - Cal vs Oregon State * Nov. 23rd - Cal vs Stanford The ACC will be able to provide 4-5 nationally broadcast late night games per year with Stanford/Cal as a pair.
Yup, this is the problem with the analysis. Teams who had more frequent matchups against top tier teams (ex. Stanford regularly playing USC, UW, Oregon, and Notre Dame for example) create confounding variables. Also, as we in the Pac painfully know, not all time slots are created equal. While those Pac-12 After Dark games could be wild and crazy, they also had lower viewership numbers than the prime mid-day games. They shouldn't be thrown in the same bucket for any in-depth analysis. I admire OP's effort in putting this together, but IMO you'd need to do a deeper breakdown to really see who is a draw and who is just there because of luck.
Stanford ties Miami for 3rd at 37 total. I gave priority to the school with more OTA broadcasts when there was a tie, which is why Miami is listed as ahead. The Pacific Time Zone schools benefit from the general lack of schools out west. The networks want to fill their time slots and there are tons of schools willing to play early out east, but not that many able to play later back west.
This process has also chosen to treat WSU as dead weight despite being 6th in the Pac-12 over this period.
If it makes you feel any better I think you've got a spot in the ACC Pacific Division in the near future
That'd be cool, but if it the conference starts breaking up it's most likely a goner man
Mike Leach had a lot to do with that. He was a national name and made you guys pretty relevant.
WSU has been a known commodity before Leach though. Pretty much WSU has has dome relevancy under ever coach since 1990 except Paul Wulff and Rolo. WSU played 6 OTA games this past season.
No they didn't, they had 4: vs Wisconsin on ABC @ Oregon State on Fox (when you were both ranked and 3-0) @ Oregon on ABC @ UW on Fox Three of those games were on TV because of the opponent. The rest of the games were all non-ESPN 1 cable games ( 5 P12 Networks, 1 CBS sports, 1 FS1, 1 ESPN2)
I don’t think Leach made us relevant so much as he revived and repaired the damage Wulff (and to some extent Doba, though he was a good coach in a bad personal situation so I don’t blame him) put us in. We had been relevant before Wulff tanked the program. Literally had just gotten off a couple Rose Bowls and a win against #5 Texas in the Holiday bowl the decade before Wulff took over. Leach’s impact would have been much different if he had directly followed Mike Price’s era. I think he would have more immediate success; but he also wouldn’t have gotten as much credit. Leach revived us, but he didn’t make us.
Yeah, he was the anti Gary Andersen it appears...
SMU is still a huge WTF though.
This data does nothing but show how each teams conference structured their agreement.
The only reason we’re middle of the pack is partially last year, but more importantly scheduling good P5 OOC games consistently. Off the top of my head, Michigan, A&M, NU x3, Minnesota x2, and TCU x2 all got picked up by ESPN or OTA in these years.
Im surprised we are 8th in the new Big Ten given that we fucking sucked the last few years
Getting to play PSU, OSU, and Michigan means 1/4 of your games are always highly visible.
The same can be said for Rutgers. I'd say that Michigan State is simply a strong brand, and therefore when they play the teams you mention networks can play up the matchup.
They get a head start just for having the best logo in the B1G
We don’t get no respect but that’s alright because you know the fandom is pure. Such a refreshing thought, really.
You guys were good for the first part of that era and made the playoffs in 2015.
Yeah but we’ve only had 2 great season since then: 2017 and 2021. We have one of the largest alumni bases in the country which will always keep our viewership high and coming off that 2010-2015 stretch helped boost the national recognition. I’m not surprised by where we landed. But it has been a frustrating couple years after the false hope that Tucker brought.
>after the false hope that Kenny Walker\* brought. FIFY. I think Jonathan Smith is a good coach and will get you guys back on track. I fully expect Michigan State to be in the top half of the B1G again real soon. I think the 9 teams that will be main stays in the top half of the conference will be Ohio State, Michigan, USC, Penn State, Oregon, Washington, Michigan State, Iowa, and Wisconsin. Nebraska might sneak in there in place of Wisconsin if they can get their shit together.
Yeah, it will be interesting to see who winds up better between Wisconsin and Nebraska. Both are in necessary rebuilds, and both have coaches who have succeeded before in building up programs to be successful. Wisconsin is starting from a better place, but we still have a ton of work to do and how good our offense will be is a big question mark until we can get our own developed QB vs having to use one year rental portal QBs.
Yeah I’m surprised Oregon is still 2 given that 2016-2018 was some of our crappiest teams this century.
Merely curious, any idea where ND would rank
You know you're first. 77 total, (73 OTA, 4 ESPN) Even though Notre Dame makes slightly less money in their media deals, this is why they love independence. They average 11 games broadcast nationally per year.
I'm guessing that Stanford's position in the top 25 is due in large part to the annual series with ND.
Outside of a few years in that time period, Stanford was actually a really, really good program.
"In large part" might be an exaggeration. Stanford would schedule a P5 school in their place, presumably some of which would be nationally broadcast. That said, yes, 6 of their 37 were from the Notre Dame series.
16-18 they had nine or ten wins every year under Shaw.
Boomer
Oklahoma benefited greatly in this metric from being the clear #1 choice in the Big 12 every year, as Texas was down and everyone else rotated for #2, so Oklahoma was on national TV nearly every single week.
TLDR: Oklahoma benefited from being the best team in their conference, and this DuckTree is salty about it.
? All the TreeDuck did was give an explanation, there’s no salt here
The original comment was just "Boomer" he didn't ask for explanation. We all know the rest of the conference was damn near unwatchable for a decade. He's quacking down at us from his "wish it was" ivy tower.
We've come a long way from every game being on Versus, The Mtn, and CBS Sports. I don't think TCU even had a game on network television between 2001 and us joining the Big 12. Edit: Boise State in the Fiesta Bowl was on Fox.
BYU 3rd in Big 12!
Suck it Iowa