From the espn:

"Negotiations surrounding the option ran in conjunction with discussions between the ACC and Clemson and Florida State on a new revenue distribution model aimed at alleviating the schools' biggest concerns over financial disparities with peers in the Big Ten and SEC, both of which have more generous TV contracts signed over the past two years.

Under the proposed plan, a percentage of the ACC's television revenue would be included in a "brand" fund, and that money would then be distributed to schools that annually generate the most revenue for the conference in football and men's and women's basketball -- with Clemson, Florida State, Miami and North Carolina likely at the top of the pyramid, sources told ESPN."

Notre Dame is going to play the ACC's alleged "big brands" more often going forward? ND might never play at CMS. Maybe that would have been true anyway.

Quote:

---

As part of a scheduling arrangement under discussion, the league's biggest brands - Florida State, Miami and Clemson - are expected to play more football games regularly with Notre Dame. The Irish are expected to play, at the very least, two of the three each season in a rotation.

---

https://sports.yahoo.com/sources-acc-in-process-of-extending-tv-contract-with-espn-for-9-more-years-141308428.html

6956bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

6956bear said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

From the espn:

"Negotiations surrounding the option ran in conjunction with discussions between the ACC and Clemson and Florida State on a new revenue distribution model aimed at alleviating the schools' biggest concerns over financial disparities with peers in the Big Ten and SEC, both of which have more generous TV contracts signed over the past two years.

Under the proposed plan, a percentage of the ACC's television revenue would be included in a "brand" fund, and that money would then be distributed to schools that annually generate the most revenue for the conference in football and men's and women's basketball -- with Clemson, Florida State, Miami and North Carolina likely at the top of the pyramid, sources told ESPN."

---

And BC, Syracuse, Stanford and Cal almost certainly at the bottom of the pyramid.

---

Stanford and Cal are probably in the middle of the pyramid, though I assume the pyramid can change depending on how their teams do.

---

Cal does not draw well. Either on TV or in person. Recent hoops attendance is abysmal. Football regularly plays to a half full CMS. They got a nice boost in TV viewership due toAuburn, FSU and Miami being on the schedule. None are on this years schedule. Also the Big Game (sell out) was at CMS.

Not sure the ACC Presidents see Cal as a middle of the pyramid program. Cal needs to win and fill CMS and Haas. And get more eyeballs on their TV games. Where Cal has some measure of control is the success initiatives which reward success on the field and court.

Cal needs to win. Now.

---

The thing is that the ACC has a number of schools that don't draw all that well for football: Wake, BC, Virginia, Duke, SMU (yes, even with such a successful season they didn't draw), Pitt. So Cal doesn't have to do all that much to be in the middle of the pack. Our TV ratings over the last 5 seasons or so would put us roughly in the middle of the ACC, based on the last data I saw.

That said, yes, of course we have to win to get those numbers up. If there is a mechanism in this agreement that allows for schools to move into or out of the "best brand" tier based on performance, then that will be fair enough.

6956bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

6956bear said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

From the espn:

"Negotiations surrounding the option ran in conjunction with discussions between the ACC and Clemson and Florida State on a new revenue distribution model aimed at alleviating the schools' biggest concerns over financial disparities with peers in the Big Ten and SEC, both of which have more generous TV contracts signed over the past two years.

Under the proposed plan, a percentage of the ACC's television revenue would be included in a "brand" fund, and that money would then be distributed to schools that annually generate the most revenue for the conference in football and men's and women's basketball -- with Clemson, Florida State, Miami and North Carolina likely at the top of the pyramid, sources told ESPN."

---

And BC, Syracuse, Stanford and Cal almost certainly at the bottom of the pyramid.

---

Stanford and Cal are probably in the middle of the pyramid, though I assume the pyramid can change depending on how their teams do.

---

Cal does not draw well. Either on TV or in person. Recent hoops attendance is abysmal. Football regularly plays to a half full CMS. They got a nice boost in TV viewership due toAuburn, FSU and Miami being on the schedule. None are on this years schedule. Also the Big Game (sell out) was at CMS.

Not sure the ACC Presidents see Cal as a middle of the pyramid program. Cal needs to win and fill CMS and Haas. And get more eyeballs on their TV games. Where Cal has some measure of control is the success initiatives which reward success on the field and court.

Cal needs to win. Now.

---

Cal - SDSU outdrew Cal - FSU.

But Cal always needs to win.

That ACC Grant of Rights thingamajig must be pretty ironclad.

golden sloth said:

---

6956bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

6956bear said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

From the espn:

"Negotiations surrounding the option ran in conjunction with discussions between the ACC and Clemson and Florida State on a new revenue distribution model aimed at alleviating the schools' biggest concerns over financial disparities with peers in the Big Ten and SEC, both of which have more generous TV contracts signed over the past two years.

Under the proposed plan, a percentage of the ACC's television revenue would be included in a "brand" fund, and that money would then be distributed to schools that annually generate the most revenue for the conference in football and men's and women's basketball -- with Clemson, Florida State, Miami and North Carolina likely at the top of the pyramid, sources told ESPN."

---

And BC, Syracuse, Stanford and Cal almost certainly at the bottom of the pyramid.

---

Stanford and Cal are probably in the middle of the pyramid, though I assume the pyramid can change depending on how their teams do.

---

Cal does not draw well. Either on TV or in person. Recent hoops attendance is abysmal. Football regularly plays to a half full CMS. They got a nice boost in TV viewership due toAuburn, FSU and Miami being on the schedule. None are on this years schedule. Also the Big Game (sell out) was at CMS.

Not sure the ACC Presidents see Cal as a middle of the pyramid program. Cal needs to win and fill CMS and Haas. And get more eyeballs on their TV games. Where Cal has some measure of control is the success initiatives which reward success on the field and court.

Cal needs to win. Now.

---

Cal - SDSU outdrew Cal - FSU.

But Cal always needs to win.

---

Yeah, there are a lot of factors that go into ratings. Cal-SDSU got a good number because it was up against zero competition in the late-night time slot. The FSU game was on ESPN2 against a lot of competition. Cal didn't get any Thursday/Friday games on ESPN proper (just the Wake game on ACC Network) that usually draw a good number (again because of minimal competition). Also didn't get any games on the major broadcast networks (Fox, ABC, CBS), because those later ABC slots got entirely eaten up by SEC games, and Cal is at a disadvantage for being shown in the early ABC window because we can't start our home games at 9am.

This year the matchups are not as exciting as FSU and Miami, but we will probably get two weeknight ESPN games, and the OSU and SDSU games might put us on Fox or CBS, depending on how the TV selections work out. I suspect it basically comes out in the wash.

sycasey said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

6956bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

6956bear said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

From the espn:

"Negotiations surrounding the option ran in conjunction with discussions between the ACC and Clemson and Florida State on a new revenue distribution model aimed at alleviating the schools' biggest concerns over financial disparities with peers in the Big Ten and SEC, both of which have more generous TV contracts signed over the past two years.

Under the proposed plan, a percentage of the ACC's television revenue would be included in a "brand" fund, and that money would then be distributed to schools that annually generate the most revenue for the conference in football and men's and women's basketball -- with Clemson, Florida State, Miami and North Carolina likely at the top of the pyramid, sources told ESPN."

---

And BC, Syracuse, Stanford and Cal almost certainly at the bottom of the pyramid.

---

Stanford and Cal are probably in the middle of the pyramid, though I assume the pyramid can change depending on how their teams do.

---

Cal does not draw well. Either on TV or in person. Recent hoops attendance is abysmal. Football regularly plays to a half full CMS. They got a nice boost in TV viewership due toAuburn, FSU and Miami being on the schedule. None are on this years schedule. Also the Big Game (sell out) was at CMS.

Not sure the ACC Presidents see Cal as a middle of the pyramid program. Cal needs to win and fill CMS and Haas. And get more eyeballs on their TV games. Where Cal has some measure of control is the success initiatives which reward success on the field and court.

Cal needs to win. Now.

---

Cal - SDSU outdrew Cal - FSU.

But Cal always needs to win.

---

Yeah, there are a lot of factors that go into ratings. Cal-SDSU got a good number because it was up against zero competition in the late-night time slot. The FSU game was on ESPN2 against a lot of competition. Cal didn't get any Thursday/Friday games on ESPN proper (just the Wake game on ACC Network) that usually draw a good number (again because of minimal competition). Also didn't get any games on the major broadcast networks (Fox, ABC, CBS), because those later ABC slots got entirely eaten up by SEC games, and Cal is at a disadvantage for being shown in the early ABC window because we can't start our home games at 9am.

This year the matchups are not as exciting as FSU and Miami, but we will probably get two weeknight ESPN games, and the OSU and SDSU games might put us on Fox or CBS, depending on how the TV selections work out. I suspect it basically comes out in the wash.

---

I saw an analysis of ACC TV ratings by team somewhere in the last few days. Their assessment of Cal was that we were Jekyll and Hyde. If we played an attractive opponent during daytime hours, we had good ratings. If we played a less attractive team at 10 PM east coast time, our ratings stunk. Overall, he felt we were about average for the ACC.

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

6956bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

6956bear said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

From the espn:

"Negotiations surrounding the option ran in conjunction with discussions between the ACC and Clemson and Florida State on a new revenue distribution model aimed at alleviating the schools' biggest concerns over financial disparities with peers in the Big Ten and SEC, both of which have more generous TV contracts signed over the past two years.

Under the proposed plan, a percentage of the ACC's television revenue would be included in a "brand" fund, and that money would then be distributed to schools that annually generate the most revenue for the conference in football and men's and women's basketball -- with Clemson, Florida State, Miami and North Carolina likely at the top of the pyramid, sources told ESPN."

---

And BC, Syracuse, Stanford and Cal almost certainly at the bottom of the pyramid.

---

Stanford and Cal are probably in the middle of the pyramid, though I assume the pyramid can change depending on how their teams do.

---

Cal does not draw well. Either on TV or in person. Recent hoops attendance is abysmal. Football regularly plays to a half full CMS. They got a nice boost in TV viewership due toAuburn, FSU and Miami being on the schedule. None are on this years schedule. Also the Big Game (sell out) was at CMS.

Not sure the ACC Presidents see Cal as a middle of the pyramid program. Cal needs to win and fill CMS and Haas. And get more eyeballs on their TV games. Where Cal has some measure of control is the success initiatives which reward success on the field and court.

Cal needs to win. Now.

---

Cal - SDSU outdrew Cal - FSU.

But Cal always needs to win.

---

Yeah, there are a lot of factors that go into ratings. Cal-SDSU got a good number because it was up against zero competition in the late-night time slot. The FSU game was on ESPN2 against a lot of competition. Cal didn't get any Thursday/Friday games on ESPN proper (just the Wake game on ACC Network) that usually draw a good number (again because of minimal competition). Also didn't get any games on the major broadcast networks (Fox, ABC, CBS), because those later ABC slots got entirely eaten up by SEC games, and Cal is at a disadvantage for being shown in the early ABC window because we can't start our home games at 9am.

This year the matchups are not as exciting as FSU and Miami, but we will probably get two weeknight ESPN games, and the OSU and SDSU games might put us on Fox or CBS, depending on how the TV selections work out. I suspect it basically comes out in the wash.

---

I saw an analysis of ACC TV ratings by team somewhere in the last few days. Their assessment of Cal was that we were Jekyll and Hyde. If we played an attractive opponent during daytime hours, we had good ratings. If we played a less attractive team at 10 PM east coast time, our ratings stunk. Overall, he felt we were about average for the ACC.

---

Not sure if that tracks since our 10 PM ratings were actually better than the average for last season. But I would agree that we were probably right around the middle, all told.

sycasey said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

6956bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

6956bear said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

From the espn:

"Negotiations surrounding the option ran in conjunction with discussions between the ACC and Clemson and Florida State on a new revenue distribution model aimed at alleviating the schools' biggest concerns over financial disparities with peers in the Big Ten and SEC, both of which have more generous TV contracts signed over the past two years.

Under the proposed plan, a percentage of the ACC's television revenue would be included in a "brand" fund, and that money would then be distributed to schools that annually generate the most revenue for the conference in football and men's and women's basketball -- with Clemson, Florida State, Miami and North Carolina likely at the top of the pyramid, sources told ESPN."

---

And BC, Syracuse, Stanford and Cal almost certainly at the bottom of the pyramid.

---

Stanford and Cal are probably in the middle of the pyramid, though I assume the pyramid can change depending on how their teams do.

---

Cal does not draw well. Either on TV or in person. Recent hoops attendance is abysmal. Football regularly plays to a half full CMS. They got a nice boost in TV viewership due toAuburn, FSU and Miami being on the schedule. None are on this years schedule. Also the Big Game (sell out) was at CMS.

Not sure the ACC Presidents see Cal as a middle of the pyramid program. Cal needs to win and fill CMS and Haas. And get more eyeballs on their TV games. Where Cal has some measure of control is the success initiatives which reward success on the field and court.

Cal needs to win. Now.

---

Cal - SDSU outdrew Cal - FSU.

But Cal always needs to win.

---

Yeah, there are a lot of factors that go into ratings. Cal-SDSU got a good number because it was up against zero competition in the late-night time slot. The FSU game was on ESPN2 against a lot of competition. Cal didn't get any Thursday/Friday games on ESPN proper (just the Wake game on ACC Network) that usually draw a good number (again because of minimal competition). Also didn't get any games on the major broadcast networks (Fox, ABC, CBS), because those later ABC slots got entirely eaten up by SEC games, and Cal is at a disadvantage for being shown in the early ABC window because we can't start our home games at 9am.

This year the matchups are not as exciting as FSU and Miami, but we will probably get two weeknight ESPN games, and the OSU and SDSU games might put us on Fox or CBS, depending on how the TV selections work out. I suspect it basically comes out in the wash.

---

I saw an analysis of ACC TV ratings by team somewhere in the last few days. Their assessment of Cal was that we were Jekyll and Hyde. If we played an attractive opponent during daytime hours, we had good ratings. If we played a less attractive team at 10 PM east coast time, our ratings stunk. Overall, he felt we were about average for the ACC.

---

Not sure if that tracks since our 10 PM ratings were actually better than the average for last season. But I would agree that we were probably right around the middle, all told.

---

And this reinforces all information for the last decade. Cal's viewership and desirability are at least average for the ACC. Anybody that says otherwise is wrong.

Hooray!

Thrive or die.

golden sloth said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

6956bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

6956bear said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

From the espn:

"Negotiations surrounding the option ran in conjunction with discussions between the ACC and Clemson and Florida State on a new revenue distribution model aimed at alleviating the schools' biggest concerns over financial disparities with peers in the Big Ten and SEC, both of which have more generous TV contracts signed over the past two years.

Under the proposed plan, a percentage of the ACC's television revenue would be included in a "brand" fund, and that money would then be distributed to schools that annually generate the most revenue for the conference in football and men's and women's basketball -- with Clemson, Florida State, Miami and North Carolina likely at the top of the pyramid, sources told ESPN."

---

And BC, Syracuse, Stanford and Cal almost certainly at the bottom of the pyramid.

---

Stanford and Cal are probably in the middle of the pyramid, though I assume the pyramid can change depending on how their teams do.

---

Cal does not draw well. Either on TV or in person. Recent hoops attendance is abysmal. Football regularly plays to a half full CMS. They got a nice boost in TV viewership due toAuburn, FSU and Miami being on the schedule. None are on this years schedule. Also the Big Game (sell out) was at CMS.

Not sure the ACC Presidents see Cal as a middle of the pyramid program. Cal needs to win and fill CMS and Haas. And get more eyeballs on their TV games. Where Cal has some measure of control is the success initiatives which reward success on the field and court.

Cal needs to win. Now.

---

Cal - SDSU outdrew Cal - FSU.

But Cal always needs to win.

---

Yeah, there are a lot of factors that go into ratings. Cal-SDSU got a good number because it was up against zero competition in the late-night time slot. The FSU game was on ESPN2 against a lot of competition. Cal didn't get any Thursday/Friday games on ESPN proper (just the Wake game on ACC Network) that usually draw a good number (again because of minimal competition). Also didn't get any games on the major broadcast networks (Fox, ABC, CBS), because those later ABC slots got entirely eaten up by SEC games, and Cal is at a disadvantage for being shown in the early ABC window because we can't start our home games at 9am.

This year the matchups are not as exciting as FSU and Miami, but we will probably get two weeknight ESPN games, and the OSU and SDSU games might put us on Fox or CBS, depending on how the TV selections work out. I suspect it basically comes out in the wash.

---

I saw an analysis of ACC TV ratings by team somewhere in the last few days. Their assessment of Cal was that we were Jekyll and Hyde. If we played an attractive opponent during daytime hours, we had good ratings. If we played a less attractive team at 10 PM east coast time, our ratings stunk. Overall, he felt we were about average for the ACC.

---

Not sure if that tracks since our 10 PM ratings were actually better than the average for last season. But I would agree that we were probably right around the middle, all told.

---

And this reinforces all information for the last decade. Cal's viewership and desirability are at least average for the ACC. Anybody that says otherwise is wrong.

---

Saw this chart from FSU partisans (and they certainly have no reason to stand up for Cal) suggesting that we are a bit above the median for the ACC.

Uh huh https://t.co/NnbShg9xn4 pic.twitter.com/HkajEhTDYa

— SeminOLD School (@SeminOLDschool) February 1, 2025

And that's with a series of largely mediocre (or worse) teams in the revenue sports.

sycasey said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

6956bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

6956bear said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

From the espn:

"Negotiations surrounding the option ran in conjunction with discussions between the ACC and Clemson and Florida State on a new revenue distribution model aimed at alleviating the schools' biggest concerns over financial disparities with peers in the Big Ten and SEC, both of which have more generous TV contracts signed over the past two years.

Under the proposed plan, a percentage of the ACC's television revenue would be included in a "brand" fund, and that money would then be distributed to schools that annually generate the most revenue for the conference in football and men's and women's basketball -- with Clemson, Florida State, Miami and North Carolina likely at the top of the pyramid, sources told ESPN."

---

And BC, Syracuse, Stanford and Cal almost certainly at the bottom of the pyramid.

---

Stanford and Cal are probably in the middle of the pyramid, though I assume the pyramid can change depending on how their teams do.

---

Cal does not draw well. Either on TV or in person. Recent hoops attendance is abysmal. Football regularly plays to a half full CMS. They got a nice boost in TV viewership due toAuburn, FSU and Miami being on the schedule. None are on this years schedule. Also the Big Game (sell out) was at CMS.

Not sure the ACC Presidents see Cal as a middle of the pyramid program. Cal needs to win and fill CMS and Haas. And get more eyeballs on their TV games. Where Cal has some measure of control is the success initiatives which reward success on the field and court.

Cal needs to win. Now.

---

Cal - SDSU outdrew Cal - FSU.

But Cal always needs to win.

---

Yeah, there are a lot of factors that go into ratings. Cal-SDSU got a good number because it was up against zero competition in the late-night time slot. The FSU game was on ESPN2 against a lot of competition. Cal didn't get any Thursday/Friday games on ESPN proper (just the Wake game on ACC Network) that usually draw a good number (again because of minimal competition). Also didn't get any games on the major broadcast networks (Fox, ABC, CBS), because those later ABC slots got entirely eaten up by SEC games, and Cal is at a disadvantage for being shown in the early ABC window because we can't start our home games at 9am.

This year the matchups are not as exciting as FSU and Miami, but we will probably get two weeknight ESPN games, and the OSU and SDSU games might put us on Fox or CBS, depending on how the TV selections work out. I suspect it basically comes out in the wash.

---

I saw an analysis of ACC TV ratings by team somewhere in the last few days. Their assessment of Cal was that we were Jekyll and Hyde. If we played an attractive opponent during daytime hours, we had good ratings. If we played a less attractive team at 10 PM east coast time, our ratings stunk. Overall, he felt we were about average for the ACC.

---

Not sure if that tracks since our 10 PM ratings were actually better than the average for last season. But I would agree that we were probably right around the middle, all told.

---

And this reinforces all information for the last decade. Cal's viewership and desirability are at least average for the ACC. Anybody that says otherwise is wrong.

---

Saw this chart from FSU partisans (and they certainly have no reason to stand up for Cal) suggesting that we are a bit above the median for the ACC.

Uh huh https://t.co/NnbShg9xn4 pic.twitter.com/HkajEhTDYa

— SeminOLD School (@SeminOLDschool) February 1, 2025

And that's with a series of largely mediocre (or worse) teams in the revenue sports.

---

Yeah, during that timespan from 2014 Cal has had 3 winning seasons, and still finishes in the top half of the acc for viewership. Imagine if Cal was actually winning a modest 8 or 9 games a year.

sycasey said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

6956bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

6956bear said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

From the espn:

"Negotiations surrounding the option ran in conjunction with discussions between the ACC and Clemson and Florida State on a new revenue distribution model aimed at alleviating the schools' biggest concerns over financial disparities with peers in the Big Ten and SEC, both of which have more generous TV contracts signed over the past two years.

Under the proposed plan, a percentage of the ACC's television revenue would be included in a "brand" fund, and that money would then be distributed to schools that annually generate the most revenue for the conference in football and men's and women's basketball -- with Clemson, Florida State, Miami and North Carolina likely at the top of the pyramid, sources told ESPN."

---

And BC, Syracuse, Stanford and Cal almost certainly at the bottom of the pyramid.

---

Stanford and Cal are probably in the middle of the pyramid, though I assume the pyramid can change depending on how their teams do.

---

Cal does not draw well. Either on TV or in person. Recent hoops attendance is abysmal. Football regularly plays to a half full CMS. They got a nice boost in TV viewership due toAuburn, FSU and Miami being on the schedule. None are on this years schedule. Also the Big Game (sell out) was at CMS.

Not sure the ACC Presidents see Cal as a middle of the pyramid program. Cal needs to win and fill CMS and Haas. And get more eyeballs on their TV games. Where Cal has some measure of control is the success initiatives which reward success on the field and court.

Cal needs to win. Now.

---

Cal - SDSU outdrew Cal - FSU.

But Cal always needs to win.

---

Yeah, there are a lot of factors that go into ratings. Cal-SDSU got a good number because it was up against zero competition in the late-night time slot. The FSU game was on ESPN2 against a lot of competition. Cal didn't get any Thursday/Friday games on ESPN proper (just the Wake game on ACC Network) that usually draw a good number (again because of minimal competition). Also didn't get any games on the major broadcast networks (Fox, ABC, CBS), because those later ABC slots got entirely eaten up by SEC games, and Cal is at a disadvantage for being shown in the early ABC window because we can't start our home games at 9am.

This year the matchups are not as exciting as FSU and Miami, but we will probably get two weeknight ESPN games, and the OSU and SDSU games might put us on Fox or CBS, depending on how the TV selections work out. I suspect it basically comes out in the wash.

---

I saw an analysis of ACC TV ratings by team somewhere in the last few days. Their assessment of Cal was that we were Jekyll and Hyde. If we played an attractive opponent during daytime hours, we had good ratings. If we played a less attractive team at 10 PM east coast time, our ratings stunk. Overall, he felt we were about average for the ACC.

---

Not sure if that tracks since our 10 PM ratings were actually better than the average for last season. But I would agree that we were probably right around the middle, all told.

---

And this reinforces all information for the last decade. Cal's viewership and desirability are at least average for the ACC. Anybody that says otherwise is wrong.

---

Saw this chart from FSU partisans (and they certainly have no reason to stand up for Cal) suggesting that we are a bit above the median for the ACC.

Uh huh https://t.co/NnbShg9xn4 pic.twitter.com/HkajEhTDYa

— SeminOLD School (@SeminOLDschool) February 1, 2025

And that's with a series of largely mediocre (or worse) teams in the revenue sports.

---

I also kind of wished they had included the Big 12 data as well. I'm sure Cal would be in the top half of that conference as well.

golden sloth said:

---

sycasey said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

6956bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

6956bear said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

From the espn:

"Negotiations surrounding the option ran in conjunction with discussions between the ACC and Clemson and Florida State on a new revenue distribution model aimed at alleviating the schools' biggest concerns over financial disparities with peers in the Big Ten and SEC, both of which have more generous TV contracts signed over the past two years.

Under the proposed plan, a percentage of the ACC's television revenue would be included in a "brand" fund, and that money would then be distributed to schools that annually generate the most revenue for the conference in football and men's and women's basketball -- with Clemson, Florida State, Miami and North Carolina likely at the top of the pyramid, sources told ESPN."

---

And BC, Syracuse, Stanford and Cal almost certainly at the bottom of the pyramid.

---

Stanford and Cal are probably in the middle of the pyramid, though I assume the pyramid can change depending on how their teams do.

---

Cal does not draw well. Either on TV or in person. Recent hoops attendance is abysmal. Football regularly plays to a half full CMS. They got a nice boost in TV viewership due toAuburn, FSU and Miami being on the schedule. None are on this years schedule. Also the Big Game (sell out) was at CMS.

Not sure the ACC Presidents see Cal as a middle of the pyramid program. Cal needs to win and fill CMS and Haas. And get more eyeballs on their TV games. Where Cal has some measure of control is the success initiatives which reward success on the field and court.

Cal needs to win. Now.

---

Cal - SDSU outdrew Cal - FSU.

But Cal always needs to win.

---

Yeah, there are a lot of factors that go into ratings. Cal-SDSU got a good number because it was up against zero competition in the late-night time slot. The FSU game was on ESPN2 against a lot of competition. Cal didn't get any Thursday/Friday games on ESPN proper (just the Wake game on ACC Network) that usually draw a good number (again because of minimal competition). Also didn't get any games on the major broadcast networks (Fox, ABC, CBS), because those later ABC slots got entirely eaten up by SEC games, and Cal is at a disadvantage for being shown in the early ABC window because we can't start our home games at 9am.

This year the matchups are not as exciting as FSU and Miami, but we will probably get two weeknight ESPN games, and the OSU and SDSU games might put us on Fox or CBS, depending on how the TV selections work out. I suspect it basically comes out in the wash.

---

I saw an analysis of ACC TV ratings by team somewhere in the last few days. Their assessment of Cal was that we were Jekyll and Hyde. If we played an attractive opponent during daytime hours, we had good ratings. If we played a less attractive team at 10 PM east coast time, our ratings stunk. Overall, he felt we were about average for the ACC.

---

Not sure if that tracks since our 10 PM ratings were actually better than the average for last season. But I would agree that we were probably right around the middle, all told.

---

And this reinforces all information for the last decade. Cal's viewership and desirability are at least average for the ACC. Anybody that says otherwise is wrong.

---

Saw this chart from FSU partisans (and they certainly have no reason to stand up for Cal) suggesting that we are a bit above the median for the ACC.

Uh huh https://t.co/NnbShg9xn4 pic.twitter.com/HkajEhTDYa

— SeminOLD School (@SeminOLDschool) February 1, 2025

And that's with a series of largely mediocre (or worse) teams in the revenue sports.

---

I also kind of wished they had included the Big 12 data as well. I'm sure Cal would be in the top half of that conference as well.

---

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the Big 12's best TV draws are the teams they just imported from the Pac-12 (plus BYU). And after the outlier of Colorado with Deion, the averages are lower than the ACC.

This guarantees ESPN the necessary mouthpiece to badmouth the ACC and pump up the SEC even during non-SEC broadcasts. Genius really.

sycasey said:

---

BearlyBobosBuddy said:

---

This guarantees ESPN the necessary mouthpiece to badmouth the ACC and pump up the SEC even during non-SEC broadcasts. Genius really.

---

ESPN pays a king's ransom for SEC content, and by continuing the ACC deal gets additional power football and basketball content to fill out their other time slots for a song.

---

Not only that, the SEC and Big 10 can only hit so many markets with the current schools they have. Unless they each expand greatly, these other conferences will serve moderate populations that ESPN wants to keep engaged into the playoffs and bowl games. In order to keep these other conferences engaged, they need to have air time.

It is kind of crazy to think how much college football has expanded over the last few decades. It went from having only the high profile games on TV, to ESPN cornering the market, to ABC, NBC, FOX, and CBS all dedicating their Saturday timeslots and at the same time ESPN, ESPN2, CBSSports, Fox1, Fox2 filling most of their saturday programming with college football, WHILE each conference essentially has their own conference network.

It feels like College football went from having 4 games on television to 12 to 40.

golden sloth said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlyBobosBuddy said:

---

This guarantees ESPN the necessary mouthpiece to badmouth the ACC and pump up the SEC even during non-SEC broadcasts. Genius really.

---

ESPN pays a king's ransom for SEC content, and by continuing the ACC deal gets additional power football and basketball content to fill out their other time slots for a song.

---

Not only that, the SEC and Big 10 can only hit so many markets with the current schools they have. Unless they each expand greatly, these other conferences will serve moderate populations that ESPN wants to keep engaged into the playoffs and bowl games. In order to keep these other conferences engaged, they need to have air time.

It is kind of crazy to think how much college football has expanded over the last few decades. It went from having only the high profile games on TV, to ESPN cornering the market, to ABC, NBC, FOX, and CBS all dedicating their Saturday timeslots and at the same time ESPN, ESPN2, CBSSports, Fox1, Fox2 filling most of their saturday programming with college football, WHILE each conference essentially has their own conference network.

It feels like College football went from having 4 games on television to 12 to 40.

---

2006 wasn't that long ago, a.k.a. the year when Cal was a Top 25 team all season and yet had two games left off of TV entirely.

And now every single FBS game is available to watch on some platform, either linear TV or streaming. Even all of the FCS games at least get on ESPN+ or something.

sycasey said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlyBobosBuddy said:

---

This guarantees ESPN the necessary mouthpiece to badmouth the ACC and pump up the SEC even during non-SEC broadcasts. Genius really.

---

ESPN pays a king's ransom for SEC content, and by continuing the ACC deal gets additional power football and basketball content to fill out their other time slots for a song.

---

Not only that, the SEC and Big 10 can only hit so many markets with the current schools they have. Unless they each expand greatly, these other conferences will serve moderate populations that ESPN wants to keep engaged into the playoffs and bowl games. In order to keep these other conferences engaged, they need to have air time.

It is kind of crazy to think how much college football has expanded over the last few decades. It went from having only the high profile games on TV, to ESPN cornering the market, to ABC, NBC, FOX, and CBS all dedicating their Saturday timeslots and at the same time ESPN, ESPN2, CBSSports, Fox1, Fox2 filling most of their saturday programming with college football, WHILE each conference essentially has their own conference network.

It feels like College football went from having 4 games on television to 12 to 40.

---

2006 wasn't that long ago, a.k.a. the year when Cal was a Top 25 team all season and yet had two games left off of TV entirely.

And now every single FBS game is available to watch on some platform, either linear TV or streaming. Even all of the FCS games at least get on ESPN+ or something.

---

2007 was the first year every one of our games was televised in some form and it was wild, in 2006 I remember having to listen to the Oregon State game on radio.

I believe 2009 was the last time Cal had a game untelevised or unstreamed (vs WSU again). The Presbyterian game in 2011 was not on TV but there was an official stream (albeit not a well-produced one like ACC Network Extra).

Going back in time. It's interesting to note that the Pac-12 initially had Thursday and Friday games, and then due to fan outcry, were removed from the next tv contract.

Now it is becoming more standard as both the Big 12 and Big 10 regularly have Thursday/ Friday games, and those games are popular to watch.

When I see these items, it still makes no sense to me that we weren't invited to the B1G even on a partial - just below median there, but the carriage fees plus value of the Bay Area market as a whole makes it a good value.

Don't get me wrong, happy to be in the ACC, but a West Coast pod in the B1G would have been good for all the Olympic sports.

golden sloth said:

---

Going back in time. It's interesting to note that the Pac-12 initially had Thursday and Friday games, and then due to fan outcry, were removed from the next tv contract.

---

Another thing that might surprise anyone who just started following the sport recently is that many Pac-10 stadiums including CMS didn't have lighting for night games, and when TV started showing a lot more night games, the TV companies initially rented temporary light fixtures for the stadiums that didn't have lights, and later helped finance the installation of permanent lighting.

Of course, the evil local nimbys opposed the installation of stadium lights: https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/UC-Stadium-Lights-OK-Study-Says-Neighbors-2758634.php

bevans said:

---

When I see these items, it still makes no sense to me that we weren't invited to the B1G even on a partial - just below median there, but the carriage fees plus value of the Bay Area market as a whole makes it a good value.

Don't get me wrong, happy to be in the ACC, but a West Coast pod in the B1G would have been good for all the Olympic sports.

---

It could still happen at this point, but the big issue is that Fox Sports wasn't willing to pony up for any more schools and ESPN was. The B1G couldn't invite anyone without Fox's okay and Oregon/Washington BARELY got in on reduced shares. It might be different when the full contract negotiation is opened up again.

bevans said:

---

When I see these items, it still makes no sense to me that we weren't invited to the B1G even on a partial - just below median there, but the carriage fees plus value of the Bay Area market as a whole makes it a good value.

Don't get me wrong, happy to be in the ACC, but a West Coast pod in the B1G would have been good for all the Olympic sports.

---

Something that would have been in play with Jim Delaney as the Commish....too much of a money grab now

sycasey said:

---

bevans said:

---

When I see these items, it still makes no sense to me that we weren't invited to the B1G even on a partial - just below median there, but the carriage fees plus value of the Bay Area market as a whole makes it a good value.

Don't get me wrong, happy to be in the ACC, but a West Coast pod in the B1G would have been good for all the Olympic sports.

---

It could still happen at this point, but the big issue is that Fox Sports wasn't willing to pony up for any more schools and ESPN was. The B1G couldn't invite anyone without Fox's okay and Oregon/Washington BARELY got in on reduced shares. It might be different when the full contract negotiation is opened up again.

---

Again, the B1G presidents wanted Cal and Stanford, UCLA and USC wanted Cal and Stanford (and definitely not Oregon).

The problem was that within a week of USC and UCLA announcing their departure, UW and Oregon reportedly started lobbying the B1G. Meanwhile Christ and Knowlton were all in with Kliavkoff, said it was bad for women's sports and tried to block UCLA from going at the UC Regents. Then extracting Calimony. The architect of the deal, Fox Sports COO Mark Silverman, is a UCLA alum, donor, and huge fan, living minutes from the UCLA campus.

Only after the PAC-10 collapsed with Oregon and Washington already admitted, did Cal seek B1G admission. The presidents wanted us but the answer answer from Fox was no, not at any price. Zero. Thus the presidents would have to pay Cal and Stanford out of their own earnings, which they could not do. A zero offer from Fox was a FU for trying to block UCLA and for extracting Calimony.

Knowlton even set up a meeting with the MWC near his home in Colorado Springs. The MWC pays $10 million. It would have been that or the PAC-4.

We were lucky we were bailed out by Notre Dame and Stanford and got the ACC admit. ESPN is paying a full share, $40 million a year, for us. Fans turned out for Game Day. If Wilcox hadn't choked the Miami game and most of the games after, they really would have gotten a deal.

With the current void in East Bay pro sports there is a HUGE opportunity for Cal, but it needs to be a vision greater than an incremental improvement in the stoggy status quo and hoping for 9 wins.

The problem is it looks like we are running out of time.

calumnus said:

---

sycasey said:

---

bevans said:

---

When I see these items, it still makes no sense to me that we weren't invited to the B1G even on a partial - just below median there, but the carriage fees plus value of the Bay Area market as a whole makes it a good value.

Don't get me wrong, happy to be in the ACC, but a West Coast pod in the B1G would have been good for all the Olympic sports.

---

It could still happen at this point, but the big issue is that Fox Sports wasn't willing to pony up for any more schools and ESPN was. The B1G couldn't invite anyone without Fox's okay and Oregon/Washington BARELY got in on reduced shares. It might be different when the full contract negotiation is opened up again.

---

The problem is it looks like we are running out of time.

---

Literally within the first 6 weeks of this season: we are either ranked and rolling or we have made a coaching change, there will be no in-between as we are games (not years) away from the next phase, whether realignment or super league, and need to act now.