Say what you will
In 2023, only 2 regular season games had 10 million viewers
In 2024, 5 regular season games had 10 million viewers
In 2023,
7 of the top 20 most viewed games featured a SEC team
6 of the top 20 most viewed games featured a Big Ten team
1 of the top 20 most viewed games featured an ACC team (LSU vs. FSU)
In 2024,
15 of the top 20 most viewed games featured a SEC team
6 of the top 20 most viewed games featured a Big Ten team. 4 of those had Ohio State
1 of the top 20 most viewed games featured an ACC team (Clemson vs. Georgia)
The change in the TV deal for the SEC was the in 2023, only 1 SEC game per week could be on a broadcast network on CBS. In 2024, ABC could air as many SEC games as they wanted.
I would imagine if USC & Michigan were better, the Big Ten would've had more top rated matchups. Like for example, had USC been a top 15 level team that final week game against Notre Dame would've drawn massive ratings.
And we can go on about $EC BIASSSS!!!! but ABC/Disney aren't trying to push the SEC over us for bias. ABC/Disney have stockholders. They're in it to make money. The viewers are saying this is what they want. People are tuning in to these games.
The reason it sucks is because we're in a league that's not drawing the big ratings. You can say that we won't take it seriously, but the viewing public is casual fans. Casual fans love to watch football. They're tuning into these big games. It's not the sport I loved years ago, but saying that it's dying and we can't take it serious is false.
Look when most of us were born, the champion was determined by pollsters and there wasn't a champion. Was that a sport that was serious and you could take serious? I mean most every game wasn't even on TV. Then we got a championship game based on an arbitrary computer ranking. It moved up to 4 teams based on a random committee's opinion.
Now we have 12. I think the winner of this will be the best team in the country and it will be undisputed. No matter how many teams you add, someone will cry. In college basketball we still have crying about it when 68 teams are in for crying out loud. The ratings will be huge. The sport as a national event is going to grow. It's bigger than the NBA and MLB and only the NFL is above it.
LeFors:
Your point is well-made, but I believe it is only "the quiet before the storm". Your statistics are both accurate and they serves as a solid evidence of the situation today. However, we have not yet seen the consequences of what all of these changes will evolve into as we get further into the future.
First, the ten million viewers is a significant form of valuation right now, but in all fairness, most all of that TV audience is currently free. Like most, I recall when all ESPN, like ABC, NBC and CBS, were free, but even at this early point in time, ESPN is requiring a monthly fee for Premium content. Cable is going to increase its cost as it recognizes fewer people attending the venues in person in favor of watching at home.
We are already witnessing more and more schools reporting reduction in the number of season ticket holders, and its only time before the arena and stadium attendance feel the financial impact as the donations and ticket prices must increase to cover the reduced demand and increased expenses. Some schools are already questioning their acceptance to Bowl venues as they see fewer requests for tickets from alumni and fans.
Admittedly, some of the SEC and BIG schools are as popular as ever before, and clearly "they are printing money" in most all of their revenue sports, and I am not assigning the same dismal consequences to "those usual suspects", something that explains ESPN investing so much in those two conferences. However, at some point in time, even those two mega-conferences will discover that some of their own members are not contributing ............. and the "total cost of ownership" will become a topic of concern for some of those same members who recognize their alumni, Board of Directors and fans are questioning their own Mission Statements.
Ask yourself how long can UL justify its participation in the ACC based on the combination of cultural trends and financial realities affecting the schools mission? UL is not alone, there is a growing number of Universities that recognize the challenges and the required investment to play college football, and provide sufficient funding for Title IX non-revenue sports. Imagine the cost just to transport Teams round trip to California .............how did anyone include that in its budget?
I truly hate to sound so negative and pessimistic ............I just cannot see any of this as sustainable.
