Cal's move to the ACC and it's effect on our TV exposure

TedfordTheGreat

Joined: Jul 27, 2023

Posts: 397

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

3:47a, 9/19/24

First off, I cannot believe the unmitigated disaster that was the P12 network. It's a night and day difference between access and production quality. I think we all knew in the back of our minds, but the difference so far is stark. I think its one of the top 3 reasons the Pac 12 fell apart. In this age of streaming and internet, Cal, Arizona, ASU and the likes have been relegated to zero exposure for the past 14 years since Utah and CO joined. Our record during that time definitely didn't help. Stanford, Oregon, USC and recently Colorado soaked up all prime time slots for Fox and ESPN throughout the 2010s. Once league play starts, Cal was rarely featured nationally. As a result, we are one of the most forgotten team in college football.

The early returns are interesting.

Week 1. Cal's game against UC Davis was readily available on ACCN. Like P12 network, ACCN does not subscribe to Nielson rating, but the fact that it was a breeze to access is game changing. However, since there is no rating, no comparison is available for week 1

Week 2. Cal's game against Auburn was on ESPN2 at 3:30pm ET. It drew 1.12M viewers.

Context:
* 3:30 pm ET is THE most contentious time slot. Notre Dame vs NIU, Kentucky vs South Carolina, Iowa vs Iowa State, and Utah vs Baylor all drew more on Fox, CBS, ABC and NBC. We were stuck on ESPN2 which traditionally limits viewership a bit.
* Week 3 the same time slot on ESPN2 at 3:30pm ET was West Virignia vs Pitt (backyard brawl rivarly) drawing 1.15 M.
*Last year, our game vs Auburn was also week 2 featured on ESPN main at 10:30pm ET. It drew 2.23M viewers.

Week 3: Cal's game against SDSU was on ESPN main at 10:30pm ET. This would have never happened in the P12 network era. Huge boon for us! It drew 938k

Context:
* 10:30pm ET is the LEAST contentious timeslot. There is typically only 1 game on ESPN at that time
* For week 1. Ranked AZ had this slot against New Mexico and drew 953k. Week 2 ASU had this slot against Miss State and drew 954k
* Aforementioned, last year in week 2 Cal vs Auburn had this exact time slot drawing 2.23M
* last year in week 3 Colorado had this timeslot against Colorado State and drew 9.3 M viewers, the fifth most watched college football event ever on cable network ESPN. This is why ESPN tries to shove Coach Prime down our throat cause people are watching!

Other notables:
* In 2023, Cal vs Washington was featured in week 4 at 10:30pm ET on ESPN and drew 1.16M
* In 2023, Cal vs UCLA was featured in week 13 at 10:30pm ET on ESPN and drew 1.66M
* In 2023, Cal was not featured again nationally besides vs Auburn, vs Washington and vs UCLA

Conclusion:

1. So far so good. ACCN is giving us increased exposure, we have already been featured 3 times nationally this year including this week against FSU at 7:00pm ET on ESPN2. That game against SDSU simply wouldn't have made it to the ESPN main channel if we stayed with the P12. 3 national broadcast already ties the amount of time we were featured last year and it's only week 4. Very promising!

2. We drew similar amounts to ranked Arizona in week 1, and ASU vs Miss State (SEC) in week 2. We played a non P4 team in SDSU, proving that we are just as valuable as Arizona and ASU in this world of conference realignment. Our only disadvantage is our inept AD that cost us millions when we took a reduced share.

3. Playing bluebloods like Auburn has helped our program immeasurably. While I understand why we cancelled our Florida series due to travel, if we were to stay with the ACC, we should schedule programs that are closer to us that has that brand name recognition. Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Utah. Beating them means something and it also gets us increased TV exposure and raises our average viewership.

4. I think 1.66M against UCLA in 2023 is a serious draw. Comparatively, Stanford vs UCLA in 2023 was also featured at the 10:30pm timeslot on ESPN, and only drew about 850k. If ESPN/FOX can get 1.6M consistently at that 10:30pm time slots they will be very happy. Rivalry sells, and i think our renewed series against UCLA will help us get more national broadcast in future years

4. Now let's take care of business, beat FSU, and get featured for a fourth consecutive week nationally against Miami!

19

3 edits

sycasey

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

Posts: 32,880

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

7:38a, 9/19/24

Another factor is the dopey way media selections happened in the Pac-12. For the other conferences with their own networks, the selections generally go like this:

1. Broadcast networks (ABC, FOX, CBS) pick first.
2. Major cable outlets (ESPN, FS1) pick second.
3. Conference network (BTN, SECN, ACCN) picks up the rest. For conferences without their own networks, these games will go to streaming-only or local distribution.

But the Pac-12 clearly wasn't doing that. The Pac-12 Network sometimes got to pick games before the cable outlets, maybe even sometimes before the broadcast networks . . . which means the conference was relegating some of its theoretically best-drawing games to a fringe network that was virtually unwatchable for a lot of people. You'd see this some weeks: a game like Cal-USC being on P12N while the Oregon State game was on ESPN. Or the Notre Dame-Stanford game getting stuck on P12N last year (and no, there's no way the other networks didn't want to show a freaking Notre Dame game). Not exactly putting your most popular brands forward.

I know this was Larry Scott trying to force carriers to pick up P12N by having some "good" games on there, but it really never worked and mostly just resulted in the Pac-12 viewership numbers getting dinged. Cal especially was getting burned by this in recent years: in 2022 and 2023, more than half of our games were on Pac-12 Network. It was killing our exposure. Now in the ACC, we see a game that will probably be one of our lowest-rated (SDSU) get 930k viewers! Shows what we've been missing under the old media deal.

8

72CalBear

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

Posts: 5,892

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

8:04a, 9/19/24

Living in So Cal has always brought problems viewing the Bears in football and it always involved adding another package/program to the P12 network. In terms of coverage now (with Sling) there is no comparison. Easier and much more user friendly. In terms of viewership numbers, I presume with the bigger (and more professional) ACC, Cal will benefit. The viewer numbers will only continue to improve if the Bears win and play at a competitive level.

Bring back bottled beer and cigars at CMS. Should get us back in the Rose Bowl!

1

TedfordTheGreat

Joined: Jul 27, 2023

Posts: 397

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to sycasey • 9:06a, 9/19/24

sycasey said:
Another factor is the dopey way media selections happened in the Pac-12. For the other conferences with their own networks, the selections generally go like this:

1. Broadcast networks (ABC, FOX, CBS) pick first.
2. Major cable outlets (ESPN, FS1) pick second.
3. Conference network (BTN, SECN, ACCN) picks up the rest. For conferences without their own networks, these games will go to streaming-only or local distribution.

But the Pac-12 clearly wasn't doing that. The Pac-12 Network sometimes got to pick games before the cable outlets, maybe even sometimes before the broadcast networks . . . which means the conference was relegating some of its theoretically best-drawing games to a fringe network that was virtually unwatchable for a lot of people. You'd see this some weeks: a game like Cal-USC being on P12N while the Oregon State game was on ESPN. Or the Notre Dame-Stanford game getting stuck on P12N last year (and no, there's no way the other networks didn't want to show a freaking Notre Dame game). Not exactly putting your most popular brands forward.

I know this was Larry Scott trying to force carriers to pick up P12N by having some "good" games on there, but it really never worked and mostly just resulted in the Pac-12 viewership numbers getting dinged. Cal especially was getting burned by this in recent years: in 2022 and 2023, more than half of our games were on Pac-12 Network. It was killing our exposure. Now in the ACC, we see a game that will probably be one of our lowest-rated (SDSU) get 930k viewers! Shows what we've been missing under the old media deal.

yes. Larry Scott really f*cked us. He way overestimated the amount of interest in west coast game when its not available. We already have to work against the timezone (10:30pm games are way less watched than other time slots), but he also wanted people to call up their cable providers and pay an extra $10 just to watch west coast games. This doesn't even mention the directv bs over the years.

We should have partnered with a ESPN or something equivalent. It's a real darn shame. Around 2004 to 2006, Cal was labled a program on the rise. It was USC, Cal, Oregon and sometimes ASU. Oregon's dominance in the early 2010s and then Washington's in late 2010s completely wiped out any advantages that were created by Tedford. Our brand suffered as a result.

I think this move to the ACC is great. Now 16 other teams care about our results because it impact conference standings. Cal twitter is making people talk about us as well. If we are competitive in the ACC, then watch out! We can really draw in some new fans and start to build national awareness/brand

4

sycasey

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

Posts: 32,880

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to TedfordTheGreat • 10:01a, 9/19/24

TedfordTheGreat said:
sycasey said:
Another factor is the dopey way media selections happened in the Pac-12. For the other conferences with their own networks, the selections generally go like this:

1. Broadcast networks (ABC, FOX, CBS) pick first.
2. Major cable outlets (ESPN, FS1) pick second.
3. Conference network (BTN, SECN, ACCN) picks up the rest. For conferences without their own networks, these games will go to streaming-only or local distribution.

But the Pac-12 clearly wasn't doing that. The Pac-12 Network sometimes got to pick games before the cable outlets, maybe even sometimes before the broadcast networks . . . which means the conference was relegating some of its theoretically best-drawing games to a fringe network that was virtually unwatchable for a lot of people. You'd see this some weeks: a game like Cal-USC being on P12N while the Oregon State game was on ESPN. Or the Notre Dame-Stanford game getting stuck on P12N last year (and no, there's no way the other networks didn't want to show a freaking Notre Dame game). Not exactly putting your most popular brands forward.

I know this was Larry Scott trying to force carriers to pick up P12N by having some "good" games on there, but it really never worked and mostly just resulted in the Pac-12 viewership numbers getting dinged. Cal especially was getting burned by this in recent years: in 2022 and 2023, more than half of our games were on Pac-12 Network. It was killing our exposure. Now in the ACC, we see a game that will probably be one of our lowest-rated (SDSU) get 930k viewers! Shows what we've been missing under the old media deal.
yes. Larry Scott really f*cked us. He way overestimated the amount of interest in west coast game when its not available. We already have to work against the timezone (10:30pm games are way less watched than other time slots), but he also wanted people to call up their cable providers and pay an extra $10 just to watch west coast games. This doesn't even mention the directv bs over the years.

We should have partnered with a ESPN or something equivalent. It's a real darn shame. Around 2004 to 2006, Cal was labled a program on the rise. It was USC, Cal, Oregon and sometimes ASU. Oregon's dominance in the early 2010s and then Washington's in late 2010s completely wiped out any advantages that were created by Tedford. Our brand suffered as a result.

I think this move to the ACC is great. Now 16 other teams care about our results because it impact conference standings. Cal twitter is making people talk about us as well. If we are competitive in the ACC, then watch out! We can really draw in some new fans and start to build national awareness/brand

And I know ESPN offered to take partial ownership of the Pac-12 Network at one point. Given our distribution problems, we should have leapt at that offer. Larry stood pat. I never understood it. That kind of behavior probably also convinced the networks to f*** the Pac when we tried to renegotiate deals later.

Obviously there are downsides to the ACC (partial share, travel), but in terms of media exposure it's no contest: much, much better. Honestly, all the former Pac teams are getting that in their new leagues right now, which tells you how bad the Pac-12 Network was.

9

calumnus

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

Posts: 33,833

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to TedfordTheGreat • 1:56p, 9/19/24

TedfordTheGreat said:
. Around 2004 to 2006, Cal was labled a program on the rise. It was USC, Cal, Oregon and sometimes ASU. Oregon's dominance in the early 2010s and then Washington's in late 2010s completely wiped out any advantages that were created by Tedford. Our brand suffered as a result.

And you left out Stanford's many BCS Bowls, including 3 Rose Bowls (with Cal losing the Big Game every year with help from the PAC-12 refs to boost Stanford's vote count) and then the rise of Utah under Whittingham. The resurgence of the PAC before we got broken up included ranked OSU and WSU teams. We were the worst team in the PAC-12 North over the last decade.

2

TedfordTheGreat

Joined: Jul 27, 2023

Posts: 397

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to calumnus • 2:39p, 9/19/24

calumnus said:
TedfordTheGreat said:
. Around 2004 to 2006, Cal was labled a program on the rise. It was USC, Cal, Oregon and sometimes ASU. Oregon's dominance in the early 2010s and then Washington's in late 2010s completely wiped out any advantages that were created by Tedford. Our brand suffered as a result.

And you left out Stanford's many BCS Bowls, including 3 Rose Bowls (with Cal losing the Big Game every year with help from the PAC-12 refs to boost Stanford's vote count) and then the rise of Utah under Whittingham. The resurgence of the PAC before we got broken up included ranked OSU and WSU teams. We were the worst team in the PAC-12 North over the last decade.

Yea i did leave off Stanford's run of dominance. Namely because I actually don't think it translated to sustainable viewership. SC is SC, and Oregon was able to capture the mind of viewers and young kids in 2010s to parlay that into a national audience. People watch when Oregon comes on.

Utah's way is prob more sustainable to what Cal can be. They have a great brand now. We should model after them. Stanford, despite their success in recent years, just doesn't have the student body to support top viewership

calumnus

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

Posts: 33,833

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to TedfordTheGreat • 3:06p, 9/19/24

TedfordTheGreat said:
calumnus said:
TedfordTheGreat said:
. Around 2004 to 2006, Cal was labled a program on the rise. It was USC, Cal, Oregon and sometimes ASU. Oregon's dominance in the early 2010s and then Washington's in late 2010s completely wiped out any advantages that were created by Tedford. Our brand suffered as a result.

And you left out Stanford's many BCS Bowls, including 3 Rose Bowls (with Cal losing the Big Game every year with help from the PAC-12 refs to boost Stanford's vote count) and then the rise of Utah under Whittingham. The resurgence of the PAC before we got broken up included ranked OSU and WSU teams. We were the worst team in the PAC-12 North over the last decade.
Yea i did leave off Stanford's run of dominance. Namely because I actually don't think it translated to sustainable viewership. SC is SC, and Oregon was able to capture the mind of viewers and young kids in 2010s to parlay that into a national audience. People watch when Oregon comes on.

Utah's way is prob more sustainable to what Cal can be. They have a great brand now. We should model after them. Stanford, despite their success in recent years, just doesn't have the student body to support top viewership

Stanford being a Top 5 program hurt Cal's brand. Losing every Big Game hurt Cal's brand. Finishing at the bottom half of the conference every year for 15 years has hurt Cal's brand.

The population of the entire state of Utah is half the population of the Bay Area and a fraction if you expand to all of Northern California or California as a whole. I think our brand potential is closer to the Bay Area pro teams like the Niners, Warriors and Raiders (I know they are in Vegas now) who developed statewide, nationwide and worldwide fan bases based on people latching onto them because they liked the brand, players, city they represent, style of play etc.

Caltwitter is pointing the way. We want people to want to watch our games because we are different. Like us or hate us. People on this board skew more conservative than the general Cal alumni base, especially young alumni, but we should not run from our reputation, it is what differentiates ourselves, it is our comparative advantage. We really need to dump Knowlton. He is clueless.

5

Trumpanzee

Joined: Nov 8, 2015

Posts: 1,271

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

4:51p, 9/19/24

I've been able to watch all 3 (and soon 4) games on TV. The only way I could do this if I signed up for Sling and watch Crap12 Network.

1

calumnus

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

Posts: 33,833

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to Genocide Joe 54 • 2:57p, 9/21/24

Fred Bear said:
TedfordTheGreat said:
First off, I cannot believe the unmitigated disaster that was the P12 network. It's a night and day difference between access and production quality. I think we all knew in the back of our minds, but the difference so far is stark. I think its one of the top 3 reasons the Pac 12 fell apart. In this age of streaming and internet, Cal, Arizona, ASU and the likes have been relegated to zero exposure for the past 14 years since Utah and CO joined. Our record during that time definitely didn't help. Stanford, Oregon, USC and recently Colorado soaked up all prime time slots for Fox and ESPN throughout the 2010s. Once league play starts, Cal was rarely featured nationally. As a result, we are one of the most forgotten team in college football.

The early returns are interesting.

Week 1. Cal's game against UC Davis was readily available on ACCN. Like P12 network, ACCN does not subscribe to Nielson rating, but the fact that it was a breeze to access is game changing. However, since there is no rating, no comparison is available for week 1

Week 2. Cal's game against Auburn was on ESPN2 at 3:30pm ET. It drew 1.12M viewers.

Context:
* 3:30 pm ET is THE most contentious time slot. Notre Dame vs NIU, Kentucky vs South Carolina, Iowa vs Iowa State, and Utah vs Baylor all drew more on Fox, CBS, ABC and NBC. We were stuck on ESPN2 which traditionally limits viewership a bit.
* Week 3 the same time slot on ESPN2 at 3:30pm ET was West Virignia vs Pitt (backyard brawl rivarly) drawing 1.15 M.
*Last year, our game vs Auburn was also week 2 featured on ESPN main at 10:30pm ET. It drew 2.23M viewers.

Week 3: Cal's game against SDSU was on ESPN main at 10:30pm ET. This would have never happened in the P12 network era. Huge boon for us! It drew 938k

Context:
* 10:30pm ET is the LEAST contentious timeslot. There is typically only 1 game on ESPN at that time
* For week 1. Ranked AZ had this slot against New Mexico and drew 953k. Week 2 ASU had this slot against Miss State and drew 954k
* Aforementioned, last year in week 2 Cal vs Auburn had this exact time slot drawing 2.23M
* last year in week 3 Colorado had this timeslot against Colorado State and drew 9.3 M viewers, the fifth most watched college football event ever on cable network ESPN. This is why ESPN tries to shove Coach Prime down our throat cause people are watching!

Other notables:
* In 2023, Cal vs Washington was featured in week 4 at 10:30pm ET on ESPN and drew 1.16M
* In 2023, Cal vs UCLA was featured in week 13 at 10:30pm ET on ESPN and drew 1.66M
* In 2023, Cal was not featured again nationally besides vs Auburn, vs Washington and vs UCLA

Conclusion:

1. So far so good. ACCN is giving us increased exposure, we have already been featured 3 times nationally this year including this week against FSU at 7:00pm ET on ESPN2. That game against SDSU simply wouldn't have made it to the ESPN main channel if we stayed with the P12. 3 national broadcast already ties the amount of time we were featured last year and it's only week 4. Very promising!

2. We drew similar amounts to ranked Arizona in week 1, and ASU vs Miss State (SEC) in week 2. We played a non P4 team in SDSU, proving that we are just as valuable as Arizona and ASU in this world of conference realignment. Our only disadvantage is our inept AD that cost us millions when we took a reduced share.

3. Playing bluebloods like Auburn has helped our program immeasurably. While I understand why we cancelled our Florida series due to travel, if we were to stay with the ACC, we should schedule programs that are closer to us that has that brand name recognition. Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Utah. Beating them means something and it also gets us increased TV exposure and raises our average viewership.

4. I think 1.66M against UCLA in 2023 is a serious draw. Comparatively, Stanford vs UCLA in 2023 was also featured at the 10:30pm timeslot on ESPN, and only drew about 850k. If ESPN/FOX can get 1.6M consistently at that 10:30pm time slots they will be very happy. Rivalry sells, and i think our renewed series against UCLA will help us get more national broadcast in future years

4. Now let's take care of business, beat FSU, and get featured for a fourth consecutive week nationally against Miami!

I'm pretty sad at the demise of the Pac 10/12 and I don't think at all that constantly going cross country for athletic events is sustainable. But for sure, it's been a nice damn change to not have to struggle to figure out every week how to watch or re-watch a Cal game and that the production quality will be competent.

At the time, I never would have imagined that it was possible for the Pac 10 to have a worse commissioner than Tom Hansen, but Larry Scott was an unmitigated disaster as commissioner. The university presidents certainly deserve their share of blame for giving him the direction that they did, but he sold them snake oil and grifted off of the corpse of what he left behind. I hope there's a special place in hell where he will burn for all eternity.

Kliavkoff was dealt a bad hand but played it about as poorly as possible. Getting Cal to try to block UCLA at the regents was no lose for him but was a bad move for us.

He really should have put his efforts into negotiating the terms of surrender through a merger with the B1G or with the ACC as his backup/counter.

In many ways (other than financially) this is better for Cal. I do think we need to pull a lot of non-revenue sports from the ACC and park them in the Big West. It should have been done to start but Knowlton.

2