Looking only at ACC Conference games televised on ABC, ESPN, or ESPN2 and not including ESPNU games or split/mirror games where two match-ups are shown in the same time slot here is what I have for 2012-2017:

FSU - 34 games; average 3.735 million viewers
Clemson - 33 games; average 3.388 million viewers
L'Ville - 18 games; average 2.822 million viewers
Miami - 28 games; average 2.766 million viewers
GT - 18 games; average 2.357 million viewers
VT - 21 games; average 2.238 million viewers

So after FSU and Clemson it depends what someone weights more -

Number of games? (although the Cards would be handicapped somewhat since they weren't in the league for two of those six years)

Average number of viewers? (here the Cards are helped by the fact that they play the top two teams annually, whereas Miami and GT only play one of them annually and VT is hampered by the fact that they play neither of them annually)

Now what happens when OOC games are used and the networks expand to include NBC, CBS and FOX in addition to ABC, ESPN and ESPN2?

FSU - 47 games; average 4.363 million viewers
Clem - 46 games; average 3.524 million viewers
VT - 28 games; average 2.950 million viewers
Miami - 34 games; average 2.890 million viewers
L'ville - 22 games; average 2.754 million viewers
GT - 23 games; average 2.499 million viewers

In concert with the conference only games, this again makes some sense. FSU's annual opponent Florida is going to attract more viewers than South Carolina is for Clemson and the Noles have had two OOC Labor Day Monday showings one against Alabama and the other against Ole Miss.

VT, knowing that they don't have an annual match-up against either FSU or Clemson tends to schedule one top tier opponent annually such as Kings like Alabama (once), Ohio State (twice), and ND (once), as well as two Barons (Tenn and WVU, once each). So they leap frog from sixth to third.

The best of the rest in terms of number of games is UNC, which actually ties GT for conference games but is well below in terms of average number of viewers, 1.738 million.

Potentially the best of the rest is truly Pittsburgh with only 11 conference games shown but with an average of 2.273 million viewers. And when OOC games are also included that average jumps up to 2.368 million viewers. Like VT, not playing either of the top two teams on an annual basis requires the Panthers to schedule at least one good team OOC (Notre Dame twice, PSU twice, Oklahoma State twice).

Cheers,
Neil

What we need is a multi-variate analysis to separate the effect of these teams when they play each other...

(10-25-2018 10:45 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  What we need is a multi-variate analysis to separate the effect of these teams when they play each other...

Then you would also have to adjust for how good a team is. If you are comparing one team when they are a .500 program and another is in the playoffs, that would have to be accounted for.


That all said, it doesn't really matter. Do you bring in viewers or not. Because that equals $$$$, no matter what the reason you bring in viewers.

(10-25-2018 11:25 AM)nole Wrote:  

(10-25-2018 10:45 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  What we need is a multi-variate analysis to separate the effect of these teams when they play each other...

Then you would also have to adjust for how good a team is. If you are comparing one team when they are a .500 program and another is in the playoffs, that would have to be accounted for.


That all said, it doesn't really matter. Do you bring in viewers or not. Because that equals $$$$, no matter what the reason you bring in viewers.

True in terms of bottom line, but I think we need to break out each team's effect in order to come up with the ideal scheduling model. (That said, HOPEFULLY the ACC has already done this analysis - though they are obviously not implementing it if they did!)

(10-25-2018 11:25 AM)nole Wrote:  

(10-25-2018 10:45 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  What we need is a multi-variate analysis to separate the effect of these teams when they play each other...

Then you would also have to adjust for how good a team is. If you are comparing one team when they are a .500 program and another is in the playoffs, that would have to be accounted for.


That all said, it doesn't really matter. Do you bring in viewers or not. Because that equals $$$$, no matter what the reason you bring in viewers.

Not just how good a team is, but how good they were expected or not expected to be (which could influence number of viewers in earlier games) vs how good they actually are or are not (which could influence number of viewers later in that year).

Also, what time slot and network the games aired on, what day/night (three of the Miami/VT match-ups were Thursday night games) the game was played on, what the competition was, etc.

Just too many variables to take into consideration, at least for me, although I am trying to do one that includes timeslot.

Cheers,
Neil

(10-25-2018 11:47 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(10-25-2018 11:25 AM)nole Wrote:  

(10-25-2018 10:45 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  What we need is a multi-variate analysis to separate the effect of these teams when they play each other...

Then you would also have to adjust for how good a team is. If you are comparing one team when they are a .500 program and another is in the playoffs, that would have to be accounted for.


That all said, it doesn't really matter. Do you bring in viewers or not. Because that equals $$$$, no matter what the reason you bring in viewers.

True in terms of bottom line, but I think we need to break out each team's effect in order to come up with the ideal scheduling model. (That said, HOPEFULLY the ACC has already done this analysis - though they are obviously not implementing it if they did!)

I can think of one easy to do change that might help immediately, swap out VT's crossover rival from BC to Louisville and make UVA's cross-over rival BC.

This is not ideal, mainly because it would mean the Cards play FSU, Clemson, and VT annually and possibly hurt their viewing numbers down the road, but it is the easiest change to implement without some type of rule change that will allow for a 3-5-5 scheduling model or confusing alternating divisions type set-ups.

Doesn't address the lack of having the better Coastal teams play FSU or Clemson more in a 12 year cycle, but it is fairly easy to do.

Cheers,
Neil

Here is just ONE possibility with 3-5-5 in place:

Annual Games:

FSU vs Clemson
FSU vs Miami
FSU vs GT
Clemson vs VT
Clemson vs GT
Miami vs Louisville
Miami vs Pitt
VT vs Louisville
VT vs Pitt

Years 1 and 2 (of four)

FSU vs VT
Clemson vs Miami
Clemson vs Louisville
Miami vs GT
VT vs GT
Louisville vs Pitt

Years 3 and 4 (of four)

FSU vs Louisville
FSU vs Pitt
Clemson vs Pitt
Miami vs VT
Louisville vs GT
GT vs Pitt

The above assumes the three annual opponents for the Top 7 ACC teams are:

FSU - Clemson, Miami, GT
Clemson - FSU, GT, VT
Miami - FSU, Louisville, Pitt
VT - Clemson, VT, Pitt
Louisville - Miami, VT, SU
Georgia Tech - Clemson, FSU, Duke
Pitt - Miami, VT, SU

Again, just ONE possibility but I believe this example gets the ACC 15 annual match-ups that are likely to generate at least 9 conference games annually receiving 2.5 million plus viewers, increasing the current 55% average to at least 60%. Still far behind the SEC (81%)and Big Ten (79%) but until both Miami and VT get back to their Old Big East performance levels, that may be the best the league can do.

Cheers,
Neil

Note the percentages of games analysis is based upon likely games to air on ABC and ESPN, not including ESPN2.

(10-25-2018 12:07 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(10-25-2018 11:47 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(10-25-2018 11:25 AM)nole Wrote:  

(10-25-2018 10:45 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  What we need is a multi-variate analysis to separate the effect of these teams when they play each other...

Then you would also have to adjust for how good a team is. If you are comparing one team when they are a .500 program and another is in the playoffs, that would have to be accounted for.


That all said, it doesn't really matter. Do you bring in viewers or not. Because that equals $$$$, no matter what the reason you bring in viewers.

True in terms of bottom line, but I think we need to break out each team's effect in order to come up with the ideal scheduling model. (That said, HOPEFULLY the ACC has already done this analysis - though they are obviously not implementing it if they did!)

I can think of one easy to do change that might help immediately, swap out VT's crossover rival from BC to Louisville and make UVA's cross-over rival BC.

This is not ideal, mainly because it would mean the Cards play FSU, Clemson, and VT annually and possibly hurt their viewing numbers down the road, but it is the easiest change to implement without some type of rule change that will allow for a 3-5-5 scheduling model or confusing alternating divisions type set-ups.

Doesn't address the lack of having the better Coastal teams play FSU or Clemson more in a 12 year cycle, but it is fairly easy to do.

Cheers,
Neil

The most effective thing to do would be to place Louisville in the Coastal division - that way they play Pitt, VT and Miami.

The team to move - but they won't like it - would be GT. Placing GT in the Atlantic frees up Clemson to play someone else from the Coastal, and it creates FSU/GT every year.

To make it palatable to GT you'd probably need to make 2 more swaps: flip Wake and NC State to the Coastal, with Duke and UNC going to the Atlantic. This also tends to equalize the strengths of the 2 divisions, but it leaves UVA isolated from their traditional rivals, so... one more flip: Syracuse for UVA.

New divisions, based on balance and TV ratings (rather than the personal preferences of certain old-school ACC presidents):

Atlantic:
UVA, UNC, Duke, Clemson, GT, FSU, BC

Coastal:
Miami, NC State, Wake, VT, UL, Pitt, Cuse

3 TV darlings in each division. It's still not old ACC/old Big East, but it does a better job of creating good match-ups IMO. In this configuration the crossover games would be:

Miami/FSU (same)
Clemson/UL
GT/Pitt
Duke/Wake (same)
UNC/NC State
UVA/VT
BC/Cuse

NOTE: This is the balanced approach, but there IS another way...

...the ACC could also do it the Big Ten (seriously unbalanced) way:

South division (tons of made-for-tv matchups):
Miami, FSU, Ga Tech, Clemson, NC State, Louisville, Virginia Tech

North division (opportunity to win a division title):
Duke, UNC, Wake Forest, Virginia, Pitt, Syracuse, Boston College

(10-25-2018 12:07 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  because it would mean the Cards play FSU, Clemson, and VT annually

....yes please!

(10-25-2018 01:28 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(10-25-2018 12:07 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(10-25-2018 11:47 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(10-25-2018 11:25 AM)nole Wrote:  

(10-25-2018 10:45 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  What we need is a multi-variate analysis to separate the effect of these teams when they play each other...

Then you would also have to adjust for how good a team is. If you are comparing one team when they are a .500 program and another is in the playoffs, that would have to be accounted for.


That all said, it doesn't really matter. Do you bring in viewers or not. Because that equals $$$$, no matter what the reason you bring in viewers.

True in terms of bottom line, but I think we need to break out each team's effect in order to come up with the ideal scheduling model. (That said, HOPEFULLY the ACC has already done this analysis - though they are obviously not implementing it if they did!)

I can think of one easy to do change that might help immediately, swap out VT's crossover rival from BC to Louisville and make UVA's cross-over rival BC.

This is not ideal, mainly because it would mean the Cards play FSU, Clemson, and VT annually and possibly hurt their viewing numbers down the road, but it is the easiest change to implement without some type of rule change that will allow for a 3-5-5 scheduling model or confusing alternating divisions type set-ups.

Doesn't address the lack of having the better Coastal teams play FSU or Clemson more in a 12 year cycle, but it is fairly easy to do.

Cheers,
Neil

The most effective thing to do would be to place Louisville in the Coastal division - that way they play Pitt, VT and Miami.

The team to move - but they won't like it - would be GT. Placing GT in the Atlantic frees up Clemson to play someone else from the Coastal, and it creates FSU/GT every year.

To make it palatable to GT you'd probably need to make 2 more swaps: flip Wake and NC State to the Coastal, with Duke and UNC going to the Atlantic. This also tends to equalize the strengths of the 2 divisions, but it leaves UVA isolated from their traditional rivals, so... one more flip: Syracuse for UVA.

New divisions, based on balance and TV ratings (rather than the personal preferences of certain old-school ACC presidents):

Atlantic:
UVA, UNC, Duke, Clemson, GT, FSU, BC

Coastal:
Miami, NC State, Wake, VT, UL, Pitt, Cuse

3 TV darlings in each division. It's still not old ACC/old Big East, but it does a better job of creating good match-ups IMO. In this configuration the crossover games would be:

Miami/FSU (same)
Clemson/UL
GT/Pitt
Duke/Wake (same)
UNC/NC State
UVA/VT
BC/Cuse

NOTE: This is the balanced approach, but there IS another way...

In a strict divisional model with one guarantee cross-over rival and ensuring everyone has exposure to audiences in Florida, North Carolina and Virginia that is the best I can recall seeing. And it makes sense for the league IF it intends on keeping the restraints of two divisions with playing one team from the other annually and cycling through other six teams twice every 12 years.

Of course that model, even in this instance where I believe it to be better than the current version still means key match-ups that will only be played twice every 12 year cycle include FSU vs VT, Clemson vs Miami, FSU vs UL, and Clemson vs VT.

It remains my stance that 3-5-5 is the way to go. But I don't see the leadership of this conference both in terms of the commissioner's office or the presidents and ADs of the individual institutions putting in the time and energy to bring it about.

Cheers,
Neil

I appreciate you doing this. I would be interested in seeing a list for the entire conference even though I'm a fan of a school that would come in toward the bottom.

I'd also be interested in this sort of list for basketball even though I know that would be much more difficult to compile because of the number of games.

I imagine that the conference office and ESPN have compiled such lists although they'd never release them to the public.

(10-25-2018 03:16 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  I appreciate you doing this. I would be interested in seeing a list for the entire conference even though I'm a fan of a school that would come in toward the bottom.

I'd also be interested in this sort of list for basketball even though I know that would be much more difficult to compile because of the number of games.

I imagine that the conference office and ESPN have compiled such lists although they'd never release them to the public.

I will be doing an entire conference post early next week some time. A question asked over on the Realignment Board had me do the top schools before I was fully ready so I thought I should post what I had over here as well.

I'd love to do it for basketball, but unfortunately I have never found a site that does ratings for each college basketball game. Sports Media Watch only does them occasionally for higher rated games, semi-finals and finals of the bigger conference tournaments and the Elite8, Final Four, and national championship games.

At one point they did do every game for an entire regular season, but stopped that years back.

Cheers,
Neil

(10-25-2018 01:32 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  ...the ACC could also do it the Big Ten (seriously unbalanced) way:

South division (tons of made-for-tv matchups):
Miami, FSU, Ga Tech, Clemson, NC State, Louisville, Virginia Tech

North division (opportunity to win a division title):
Duke, UNC, Wake Forest, Virginia, Pitt, Syracuse, Boston College

Should PJ get fired, GT could have a "lost decade" trying to flush those personnel out of the system while simultaneously having a Top 5 most difficult and restrictive academic curriculum while simultaneously being one of the 20 most in debt programs in the country while simultaneously fighting against traditional rivals UGAg and Clemson riding all time program highs while simultaneously having fans smart enough to realize the short term futility of this and invest their time elsewhere. Under this scenario I lobby for GT to be moved to the North Division as a kind of athletic program rehab.