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.