re: Been hearing a lot of chirping from the Big 10...

You need evidence that sec network games aren’t neilson rated and big ten network games are? It’s a pretty easy google search. Or do you need evidence that the sec and big put weaker games on their networks than national tv. Hell the football scoop page you keep referencing lists network appearances. 0 for sec network 0 for big ten

I’ll be pulling for any sec team to shut them up

quote:

---

Sankey isn’t well liked but I doubt the leaders of the sec are stupid enough to take the same tv payout as the big ten with double the national viewership. That math don’t math.

---

The Big 10 contract is over a billion for 7 years, and SEC is 700 million over 10 years. B1G has much better deal even with more teams. Petitti runs circles around Sankey and Sankey wasn’t as good as Petitti’s predecessor. They negotiated media rights with Fox, NBC and CBS while we put all our eggs in one basket.

quote:

---

The problem with that article is using Neilson ratings. No sec network gsmes are neilson rated(where the lowest viewed sec games go) every big game is neilson rated. The rating only accounts for abc, espn espn 2 games. Basically the top 60 brand games with national viewership. The big network counts for neilson. So the big average viewership gets penalized for counting Rutgers vs Marshall. It really skews the results.

---

I'm confused with your math here.

Reading the article it's basically saying that even without the SEC Network and while counting all the Big10 games, the SEC still had more viewers than Big10. 69 million more.

SEC: 62 games with an average of 5,200
Big10: 110 games with an average of 2,300

Ok so a little math says 62 X 5,200 = 322,400, or 322,400,000 views for the year.

The Big10 has 110 X 2,300 which is only 253,000 or 253,000,000

That means while counting every game for the Big10 and not counting every game for the SEC, the Big10 was still down over 69 million views.

If you add in the views from the SEC Network it would be even more views for the SEC.

Exactly how in the hell is the Big10 the one being penalized? What did I miss or get wrong here? Yeah the Big10's average would be more, but obviously it wouldn't be more than the SEC, or even close really, otherwise the viewership would already be higher than the SEC.

My guess is the bigger factor outside the conferences is how many SEC games were broadcast on ABC.

I'm confused with your math here.

Reading the article it's basically saying that even without the SEC Network and while counting all the Big10 games, the SEC still had more viewers than Big10. 69 million more.

SEC: 62 games with an average of 5,200
Big10: 110 games with an average of 2,300

Ok so a little math says 62 X 5,200 = 322,400, or 322,400,000 views for the year.

The Big10 has 110 X 2,300 which is only 253,000 or 253,000,000

That means while counting every game for the Big10 and not counting every game for the SEC, the Big10 was still down over 69 million views.



Really think about what you’re saying here. Youre confused how including all big games to get an average vs only top sec games to get an average hurts the big numbers?

quote:

---

It could but highly unlikely, another interesting caveat about the Neilson ratings(your source) is this. The sec last year had a rating of 5.2 mil(no sec network), the acc 2.5 mil (no acc network), big 2.3 (big network included). Believing the sec has double the viewership of the big ten is as dumb as believing the acc gets more viewers than the big ten. The big ten network drags their numbers down, your heart just won’t let your brain see it.

---

Let's do some more math.

Without the SEC Network the SEC has 69 million more views on the years as established above.

You can look up the exact number, but if we assume the SEC Network had about 45 games on the year, and an average of say 700,000 viewers, that's an additional 31.5 million views.

The SEC likely had about 110 more million views for all football games than the Big10.

Which puts them about 35 million short of being twice the viewership. And that is while having less teams.

As such, I think it's much dumber to believe the SEC and Big10 have near equal numbers than it is to believe the SEC has double. Saying it has double means you are only off about 35 million while saying they are equal means you are off about 110 million.

If the argument is purely based on viewership numbers, rather than other factors like maybe the average income/wealth a viewer/market has, then the SEC is way ahead.

To give a real world example of this, an iphone user is much more likely to spend money on their phone/app than an android user. As such, a single iphone user can be seen as being worth more than twice as valuable as an android user when it comes to advertising budgets. It's not the same market. What evens it out is there are many more android users. My guess is it would be factors like that at play rather than viewership numbers which are clearly in the SEC's favor by a large margin.

I mean they have won the natty the last three years and Bama, Georgia, and LSU have been the only SEC teams to win the natty in the past 15 years

The Big 10 has 3 National Championships from 3 different teams in the last 3 years.
They have the right to chirp.
The SEC has more playoff births than any other conference and hasn't managed to even get to the title game.
SEC needs to get their shite together,
People that are still pretending the Big10 sucks sound like retards.
Going forward it's the Big10 that deserves to get the most playoff births.

Let's do some more math.

You keep saying this, I’m not sure you know what it is

To give a real world example of this, an iphone user is much more likely to spend money on their phone/app than an android user. As such, a single iphone user can be seen as being worth more than twice as valuable as an android user when it comes to advertising budgets. It's not the same market.


To use a real world example say you have two professors with a 100 students in each class. You take the top 50 percent of test scores from prof A and all the scores from professor b. And average them. Well of course prof A average scores look better the bottom half isn’t averaged in