Do academics mean anything anymore at college

[MWBATL]

Yes. I have been saying this for years. I used basketball as an example. The ACC, though watered down by conference expansion, still plays basketball at a very high level. sEcSPN doesn’t drive the basket narrative nearly as much as the football narrative. Phillips should be pounding the table over MBB.
He also should have been in front of the F$u issue last fall. I just don’t know how effective that would have been with sEcSPN’s big blitz. But he could have been there more, for sure.

To be honest, college basketball has become the semi-pro sport everyone on here says they detest. Yet I’ll bet if we have a good team next year, fans will pack the Thrillerdome.

 

[iceeater1969]

Mostly true. Small fanbases lead to niche viewership.

View attachment 16135

Good info. ACC has steep drop off and a bunch of dogs with little no possibility of improvement.
Perhaps top 85% pony up to kick bottom 15% out - 14 teams with a bigger Nov championship tournament.

The real ACC problem is Miami and Gt have been massivly bad for 7 years

Looking from the gt glass half full, our viewership should jump , if we start winning. Then we take a performance based reduced cut and join big qg in 27!

 

[Northeast Stinger]

I hear you. I just don’t understand why your slippery slope just started. It started for me when illiterates like Bo Jackson, Marcus Dupree, and Herschel were allowed to play when they were clearly not student athletes. Schools have been admitting morons and paying them for decades yet now that it’s legal to do it you have a slippery slope. I don’t get it. If you were willing to put up with all the nonsense over the past 50 years (which was way worse than what is going on today) why can’t you put up with paid one and dones? Pretty much every one of our offensive players are taking NIL money. Are you now gonna disown your team because they are doing what Auburn, Georgia, Clemson, Bama, FSU, Tenn, etc have been doing for decades?

You not only hear me, you are getting close to understanding me.

I never said the slippery slope just started for me. Perhaps it has for others, I don’t know.

I too was aware of the “mercenaries” starting to infiltrate in previous decades. My hope at that time was that it would not continue. It not only continued, it increased. That is why my position is one of growing dissatisfaction. I haven’t quit watching yet but my interest has slowly been eroding as college ball continues to descend down this slope.

Side note, I know a few former uga football players from the late 60s, early 70s. They used college ball to get an education and became professionals, including a well known doctor. They also were mentioned for All American status and, in one case, was captain of the team. Things certainly began to go down hill after that but are no where near what they are now at places like uga.

 

[GoldZ]

yrsI hear you. I just don’t understand why your slippery slope just started. It started for me when illiterates like Bo Jackson, Marcus Dupree, and Herschel were allowed to play when they were clearly not student athletes. Schools have been admitting morons and paying them for decades yet now that it’s legal to do it you have a slippery slope. I don’t get it. If you were willing to put up with all the nonsense over the past 50 years (which was way worse than what is going on today) why can’t you put up with paid one and dones? Pretty much every one of our offensive players are taking NIL money. Are you now gonna disown your team because they are doing what Auburn, Georgia, Clemson, Bama, FSU, Tenn, etc have been doing for decades?

You not only hear me, you are getting close to understanding me.

I never said the slippery slope just started for me. Perhaps it has for others, I don’t know.

I too was aware of the “mercenaries” starting to infiltrate in previous decades. My hope at that time was that it would not continue. It not only continued, it increased. That is why my position is one of growing dissatisfaction. I haven’t quit watching yet but my interest has slowly been eroding as college ball continues to descend down this slope.

Side note, I know a few former uga football players from the late 60s, early 70s. They used college ball to get an education and became professionals, including a well known doctor. They also were mentioned for All American status and, in one case, was captain of the team. Things certainly began to go down hill after that but are no where near what they are now at places like uga.

SOWEGA,last50yrs>>>>thannow!?RUSober?

 

[stinger78]

Mostly true. Small fanbases lead to niche viewership.

View attachment 16135

Niche viewership? Are you aware of how much sEcSPN is paying for our “niche viewership?”

This is what I’m talking about how our own fans perpetuate the dominant narrative. It is quite sad, IMPO.

 

[Vespidae]

Niche viewership? Are you aware of how much sEcSPN is paying for our “niche viewership?”

This is what I’m talking about how our own fans perpetuate the dominant narrative. It is quite sad, IMPO.

It’s just math. GT does not have kind of viewership that other schools with larger fan bases do. The data speaks for itself.

 

[stinger78]

It’s just math. GT does not have kind of viewership that other schools with larger fan bases do. The data speaks for itself.

No, it’s not “just math.” Your statement goes beyond math and make a value proposition, affixing the pejorative label, “niche viewership.” Why would you assign that name to a media deal worth over $400M per year? It’s less than the B1G and the SECheat, but far from niche in the common understanding of the term. Yet that term unnecessarily diminishes the stature of the ACC. Why do our “fans” do this? It is what perpetuates the destructive narratives and harms the league.

Perhaps that is the MO?

 

[Vespidae]

No, it’s not “just math.” Your statement goes beyond math and make a value proposition, affixing the pejorative label, “niche viewership.” Why would you assign that name to a media deal worth over $400M per year? It’s less than the B1G and the SECheat, but far from niche in the common understanding of the term. Yet that term unnecessarily diminishes the stature of the ACC. Why do our “fans” do this? It is what perpetuates the destructive narratives and harms the league.

Perhaps that is the MO?

I never mentioned dollars, only referred to ratings.

Georgia Tech is does not crack the Top 30 programs in the country in terms of viewership, nor does it crack the 2M mark. So, that means, by definition ... they are not in the Majority of most watched programs which means they must be in the Minority. Or use Superior vs. Inferior, or Most Watched vs Less Watched. Comparisons and contrasts are simply that.

If you want to see the full viewership ratings by team and by conference, I will get it and show it. But I don't have any problem stating that by comparison, GT's viewership is niche compared to the Top 30. And that is also true if we are talking Vandy ... their viewership is insignificant to the viewership of the SEC.

Again ... it is just math. If you want to use another adjective, go for it.

 

[stinger78]

I never mentioned dollars, only referred to ratings.

Georgia Tech is does not crack the Top 30 programs in the country in terms of viewership, nor does it crack the 2M mark. So, that means, by definition ... they are not in the Majority of most watched programs which means they must be in the Minority. Or use Superior vs. Inferior, or Most Watched vs Less Watched. Comparisons and contrasts are simply that.

If you want to see the full viewership ratings by team and by conference, I will get it and show it. But I don't have any problem stating that by comparison, GT's viewership is niche compared to the Top 30. And that is also true if we are talking Vandy ... their viewership is insignificant to the viewership of the SEC.

Again ... it is just math. If you want to use another adjective, go for it.

We are black and white thinkers by nature: technical people. We tend to see right or wrong, a 1 or a 0.

There is a large gap between “not being a top 30 program” and being a “niche” program.

I am quite confident you understand this so I won’t invest any more time explaining my position. I’ll just ask again: Why paint the ACC is such unnecessarily harsh terms?

That’s a rhetorical question. You need not answer.

 

[Vespidae]

We are black and white thinkers by nature: technical people. We tend to see right or wrong, a 1 or a 0.

There is a large gap between “not being a top 30 program” and being a “niche” program.

I am quite confident you understand this so I won’t invest any more time explaining my position. I’ll just ask again: Why paint the ACC is such unnecessarily harsh terms?

That’s a rhetorical question. You need not answer.

Because you refuse to look at the data. It’s pretty clear that Tech, or most any of the ACC programs outside of FSU or Clemson pale in comparison when discussing average Nielsen viewership, which drives media right values. It certainly explains why the ACC receives far less by comparison.

Let me say it another way.

In 2023, Alabama averaged 7.1M viewers PER NIELSEN RATED GAME (the gold standard sold to advertisers.) In addition, they appeared in 11 NRGs of the 13 they played, producing nearly 80M impressions.

Now, go through EVERY program and calculate the average Nielsen viewership, the number of rated games, and tally the results. It’s not even close on a math basis. Tech had 1.84M viewers but was in, as I recall … just one NRG. That’s 80M vs 1.84M. That’s niche viewership.

To make matters worse (for you), virtually none of the ACC games are on a Nielsen rated network. CBS, ABC, NBC, FOX, ESPN, ESPN2 and the B1G Network are ALL Nielsen rated. The SEC Network, the ACC Network, and many others are NOT.

Net, net … ACC programs are broadcast on less valuable networks and receive fewer advertising interest by comparison. The same is true for the B12, and others. It truly is just math. (Is it ZERO interest? No. It’s just less because advertisers won’t pay as much for impressions on non Nielsen networks.)

You can approach this rationally and look at the data or react emotionally about it. Two percent share of the number one team’s value sure sounds niche to me. And it’s true for Vandy too … so I’m not painting a harsh view as much as I am objectively stating it.

 

[stinger78]

Because you refuse to look at the data. It’s pretty clear that Tech, or most any of the ACC programs outside of FSU or Clemson pale in comparison when discussing average Nielsen viewership, which drives media right values. It certainly explains why the ACC receives far less by comparison.

Let me say it another way.

In 2023, Alabama averaged 7.1M viewers PER NIELSEN RATED GAME (the gold standard sold to advertisers.) In addition, they appeared in 11 NRGs of the 13 they played, producing nearly 80M impressions.

Now, go through EVERY program and calculate the average Nielsen viewership, the number of rated games, and tally the results. It’s not even close on a math basis. Tech had 1.84M viewers but was in, as I recall … just one NRG. That’s 80M vs 1.84M. That’s niche viewership.

To make matters worse (for you), virtually none of the ACC games are on a Nielsen rated network. CBS, ABC, NBC, FOX, ESPN, ESPN2 and the B1G Network are ALL Nielsen rated. The SEC Network, the ACC Network, and many others are NOT.

Net, net … ACC programs are broadcast on less valuable networks and receive fewer advertising interest by comparison. The same is true for the B12, and others. It truly is just math. (Is it ZERO interest? No. It’s just less because advertisers won’t pay as much for impressions on non Nielsen networks.)

You can approach this rationally and look at the data or react emotionally about it. Two percent share of the number one team’s value sure sounds niche to me. And it’s true for Vandy too … so I’m not painting a harsh view as much as I am objectively stating it.

No, I’m reading the data. I realize that ACC viewership for football is less than the B1G and SECheat. Total agreement. It's why the ACC media deal is less. Simple.

What I am objecting to is the characterization of the ACC level of viewership as “niche.” It is most certainly not at $400M+ per year. That’s not niche.

Yet, you, and others, choose to describe the ACC in pejorative terms. Why? It hurts the conference our program is part of. I don’t know why, don’t really care, but perceive that love of the SECheat, perhaps from former days’ experiences, drives that, but I have no real idea why. It’s beyond me that our folks do this, but they do.

 

[Vespidae]

No, I’m reading the data. I realize that ACC viewership for football is less than the B1G and SECheat. Total agreement. It's why the ACC media deal is less. Simple.

What I am objecting to is the characterization of the ACC level of viewership as “niche.” It is most certainly not at $400M+ per year. That’s not niche.

Yet, you, and others, choose to describe the ACC in pejorative terms. Why? It hurts the conference our program is part of. I don’t know why, don’t really care, but perceive that love of the SECheat, perhaps from former days’ experiences, drives that, but I have no real idea why. It’s beyond me that our folks do this, but they do.

We do it because we're objective. Two percent IS niche.

Don't like the word? Invent a new one.

 

[stinger78]

We do it because we're objective. Two percent IS niche.

Don't like the word? Invent a new one.

You know, I just found out that a good friend of mine just passed away. This pedantic conversation is so useless it’s beyond description. You call it whatever you want.

 

[forensicbuzz]

Georgia Tech is does not crack the Top 30 programs in the country in terms of viewership, nor does it crack the 2M mark. So, that means, by definition ... they are not in the Majority of most watched programs which means they must be in the Minority. Or use Superior vs. Inferior, or Most Watched vs Less Watched. Comparisons and contrasts are simply that.

This is a not-well-thought-out statement. What I'm reading is that the Top30 programs, by viewership, are the majority? Anyone not in the Top30 is not in the majority? You have some arbitrary mendoza line that separates the majority from the minority in terms of viewership? This makes no sense to me. Not a good way to express what you're trying to say. There are 65 P5 teams, so 30 isn't even the majority of P5 teams.

 

[Vespidae]

This is a not-well-thought-out statement. What I'm reading is that the Top30 programs, by viewership, are the majority? Anyone not in the Top30 is not in the majority? You have some arbitrary mendoza line that separates the majority from the minority in terms of viewership? This makes no sense to me. Not a good way to express what you're trying to say. There are 65 P5 teams, so 30 isn't even the majority of P5 teams.

Please refer to the Pareto Principle. Viewership among the Top 30 (and the media rights derived thereof) dwarf those outside the Top 30. It’s not even debatable.

 

[forensicbuzz]

You obviously never heard of the Pareto Principle. Viewership among the Top 30 (and the media rights derived thereof) dwarf those outside the Top 30. It’s not even debatable.

Don't go assuming, it'll always make you look stupid. Come back with the numbers. Make sure it's a reputable source, not someone with an agenda. I don't think you can. This is the same hand-waving Sankey has been doing.

I'd like to see who the top 30 teams are and how they comprise of 80% of the viewership. Also, I'd like to see how many of those top 30 teams are in the two conferences with the highest media deals. I'm pretty sure you won't see Northwestern, Illinois, Indiana, Rutgers, Purdue, Mississippi State, Vanderbilt, Arkansas, or Kentucky (as well as others) in the top 30.

 

[Vespidae]

Don't go assuming, it'll always make you look stupid. Come back with the numbers. Make sure it's a reputable source, not someone with an agenda. I don't think you can. This is the same hand-waving Sankey has been doing.

I'd like to see who the top 30 teams are and how they comprise of 80% of the viewership. Also, I'd like to see how many of those top 30 teams are in the two conferences with the highest media deals. I'm pretty sure you won't see Northwestern, Illinois, Indiana, Rutgers, Purdue, Mississippi State, Vanderbilt, Arkansas, or Kentucky (as well as others) in the top 30.

F-buzz, you know how to use Excel don’t you? Create a spreadsheet, go to Sports Media, and create a table. You can do that can’t you? I won’t insult you as you did me, but create a table. Use the Sort function. If you don’t know how, PM me.

Oh, and … I specifically stated you won’t see programs like Vanderbilt in the Top 30. I guess you missed that.

Personally, I don’t think you can. Otherwise, you would have investigated for yourself than asking others to be your office boy.

 

[forensicbuzz]

F-buzz, you know how to use Excel don’t you? Create a spreadsheet, go to Sports Media, and create a table. You can do that can’t you? I won’t insult you as you did me, but create a table. Use the Sort function. If you don’t know how, PM me.

Oh, and … I specifically stated you won’t see programs like Vanderbilt in the Top 30. I guess you missed that.

Personally, I don’t think you can. Otherwise, you would have investigated for yourself than asking others to be your office boy.

I didn't insult you. I was using the Royal "YOU" when talking about assumptions. Anyone that assumes anything about someone they don't know is, more likely than not, going to end up looking stupid. I promise that wasn't directly at you, other than you assumed something about me.

I can do all you say, but I'm not the one making the affirmative assertion, you are. So, back up your statements with the numbers. If you can, I'll concede the point.

As for the Vandy comment, aren't they in the big media contract conference? Aren't those other teams also?

 

[Vespidae]

I didn't insult you. I was using the Royal "YOU" when talking about assumptions. Anyone that assumes anything about someone they don't know is, more likely than not, going to end up looking stupid. I promise that wasn't directly at you, other than you assumed something about me.

I can do all you say, but I'm not the one making the affirmative assertion, you are. So, back up your statements with the numbers. If you can, I'll concede the point.

As for the Vandy comment, aren't they in the big media contract conference? Aren't those other teams also?

Who is talking about the media contract? I’m not. I’m specifically talking about viewership. Multiple times in fact. Schools don’t negotiate media contracts, conferences do. There’s a lawsuit over the ACC contract, perhaps you’ve read about it?

Yes, I DID make the declaration because I DID download the Nielsen data , DID download the games played and looked at the data myself. You can too. It takes 5 minutes.

If you will concede that you don‘t or can’t populate a simple spreadsheet, I’ll post it. But why on earth are you objecting when you don’t even bother spending 5 minutes to investigate the matter for yourself? Curious, indeed.

 

[SOWEGA Jacket]

SOWEGA,last50yrs>>>>thannow!?RUSober?

Heck yes today is better. At least now we know the going rate to buy a player and the champion actually earns it on the field. In other words - today everything is above board. You may not like it but at least everything is out in the open.

Compare that to the old days where sports writers were told how to vote by AD’s or their access would be cut off. Or when guys like Herschel were bought on the black market. Or when bowl invites were given out quietly in October (see ND 1990).

I simply can’t understand how any GT fan can long for the past 60 years where our program fell from a top 10 program to an afterthought today because of the underhanded and uneven system, let alone the inconsistent investigative portion of the NCAA. We finally have a system that can benefit our team and you guys are bashing it. Key’s use of the portal and NIL has us poised to finally be a consistently winning team and you guys are whining.

And all the proof you need is that guys like Saban and Kirby hate the portal and NIL because now they can’t lie to high school kids and own them for 4 years and stack 4 stars on the depth chart and their use of the under the table NIL they’ve had going for 50 years is now void. I love this new era. And I didn’t even address how much I love the expanded playoff where a school like GT has a much higher chance to get in than they ever did previously.