CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: utee94 on January 24, 2025, 12:21:55 PM
-
There wasn't really another thread where I thought this fit. Some interesting breakdowns of the data here. Top viewership by team, by conference, and some of the underlying factors determining that. All based on the 100 most watched games of the season.
https://footballscoop.com/news/the-100-most-watched-games-of-the-2024-college-football-season
-
this is where the rubber meets the road
it's really the only thing that matters going forward
$$$$
-
I still think the ABC/ESPN numbers need a deeper dive. There is no "over the air" tv anymore. It's either cable or streaming, and either way you get both channels.
I would be curious as to what is airing on ESPN when ABC is showing football, and vice versa. I suspect when ABC is showing college football, ESPN is showing some shitty sporting event. But when ESPN has football, ABC is showing the Bachelor, or equivalent. So assume you are a sports fan, you are watching that college football game. Unless you have a vested issue in whatever college basketball or volleyball game ESPN is showing instead, you aren't watching that. All you are doing is attracting sports fans, and telling them to pick between two very different options. If you don't want to watch sports, you are watching neither. But all sports fans are watching ESPN. If you put that game on ESPN, then ABC suddenly has something to sell people who don't want to watch sports. And ABC generally is showing some popular reality show. They aren't showing DDD re-runs (which I do watch). So those show DO get eyeballs.
It took me 2 seconds to realize the issue with their study, and I promise the Disney execs have done the same, which is why they split them like they have.
-
I still think the ABC/ESPN numbers need a deeper dive. There is no "over the air" tv anymore. It's either cable or streaming, and either way you get both channels.
I don't believe this is true. If anything, cord-cutting has been stabilizing OTA numbers, in recent years.
(https://i.imgur.com/EOtdFL0.jpeg)
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/how-do-americans-watch-tv-in-2024/#google_vignette
-
Nebraska played in six of the 100 most-watched college football games of the 2024 season.
-
I' don't believe this is true. If anything, cord-cutting has been driving OTA numbers up, in recent years.
(https://i.imgur.com/EOtdFL0.jpeg)
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/how-do-americans-watch-tv-in-2024/#google_vignette
Those have to be old people watching local news and Wheel of Fortune. I can't imagine anyone who cares about college football just getting over the air broadcast TV
-
Those have to be old people watching local news and Wheel of Fortune. I can't imagine anyone who cares about college football just getting over the air broadcast TV
OTA HD broadcast is better than most cable or streamed HD signals, because it's uncompressed. I know a couple of hardcore sports fans that have reinstalled their OTA antennae and insist on watching the OTA broadcast rather than cable/streaming when it's available.
That's not me of course, I'm far too lazy to bother with switching back and forth btw OTA and cable/streaming.
-
OTA HD broadcast is better than most cable or streamed HD signals, it's uncompressed. I know a couple of hardcore sports fans that have reinstalled their OTA antennae and insist on watching the OTA broadcast rather than cable/streaming when it's available.
Interesting, have not heard that
-
Those have to be old people watching local news and Wheel of Fortune. I can't imagine anyone who cares about college football just getting over the air broadcast TV
ask Nubbz
-
I would imagine it's not a huge percentage of sports fans, though. So in general your point is likely correct.
-
OTA HD broadcast is better than most cable or streamed HD signals, because it's uncompressed. I know a couple of hardcore sports fans that have reinstalled their OTA antennae and insist on watching the OTA broadcast rather than cable/streaming when it's available.
That's not me of course, I'm far too lazy to bother with switching back and forth btw OTA and cable/streaming.
and it doesn't suffer from as much delay
-
I would imagine it's not a huge percentage of sports fans, though. So in general your point is likely correct.
Nubbz isn't normal
but, he doesn't want to be
so. it's OK, I suppose
-
I would be curious as to what is airing on ESPN when ABC is showing football, and vice versa. I suspect when ABC is showing college football, ESPN is showing some shitty sporting event. But when ESPN has football, ABC is showing the Bachelor, or equivalent. So assume you are a sports fan, you are watching that college football game. Unless you have a vested issue in whatever college basketball or volleyball game ESPN is showing instead, you aren't watching that. All you are doing is attracting sports fans, and telling them to pick between two very different options. If you don't want to watch sports, you are watching neither. But all sports fans are watching ESPN. If you put that game on ESPN, then ABC suddenly has something to sell people who don't want to watch sports. And ABC generally is showing some popular reality show. They aren't showing DDD re-runs (which I do watch). So those show DO get eyeballs.
It took me 2 seconds to realize the issue with their study, and I promise the Disney execs have done the same, which is why they split them like they have.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here? The same could be said of alternate programming on CBS when Fox is showing BiG football, and/or NBC, or whatever.
-
ask Nubbz
I thought this was how he watched games
https://youtu.be/QkVZt3OwYyE?si=_U_fhjzyYKvSfQAC
-
I'm not sure what you're getting at here? The same could be said of alternate programming on CBS when Fox is showing BiG football, and/or NBC, or whatever.
I'm not sure either. Is the suggestion that ESPN and ABC don't air football at the same time?
They do.....every week. SEC Tier 1 primetime, and SEC Tier 2 primetime.
Picked a rando middle of the season week:
(https://i.imgur.com/JAEsQok.png)
-
Yeah, ABC and both main ESPNs are competing with each other throughout the day, pretty much every Saturday.
-
Yeah, ABC and both main ESPNs are competing with each other throughout the day, pretty much every Saturday.
And SEC Network -- also ESPN.
-
And SEC Network -- also ESPN.
Well sure, but the BTN is constantly airing a ton of stuff, as is Peacock, in competition with the B1G games on the major networks.
But none of those games are going to compete with the Top 100, so I don't really view them as much of drag on the top line numbers.
-
Those have to be old people watching local news and Wheel of Fortune. I can't imagine anyone who cares about college football just getting over the air broadcast TV
It doesn't mean you're JUST getting OTA. But for example when Sling first premiered, it didn't include local channels. At the time I had Sling + an antenna.
While true sports fans, ESPECIALLY CFB fans, really have a difficult time getting by without ESPN, I'm sure there are a number of people, even younger people, for whom Netflix + Prime + OTA Antenna covers everything. Heck, if you're an NFL fan, that gets you everything except Monday Night Football--which has been simulcast to ABC a few times this season.
OTA HD broadcast is better than most cable or streamed HD signals, because it's uncompressed. I know a couple of hardcore sports fans that have reinstalled their OTA antennae and insist on watching the OTA broadcast rather than cable/streaming when it's available.
That's not me of course, I'm far too lazy to bother with switching back and forth btw OTA and cable/streaming.
Interesting, have not heard that
I'VE BEEN SAYING THAT ON THIS VERY FORUM, FOR YEARS!!! FFS!
(BTW it's not "uncompressed", but it's less compressed. It does still look noticeably better.)
I liked the headline lol:
Millennials Unearth an Amazing Hack to Get Free TV: the Antenna (https://www.wsj.com/articles/millennials-unearth-an-amazing-hack-to-get-free-tv-the-antenna-1501686958)
I did think they overlooked the point I keep making, that with digital transmission all the bad reception problem of old-school analog antennas go away. And that with the ability to send less-compressed broadcasts than cable/satellite, picture quality is IMPROVED by going OTA.
Most people of our generation that grew up with an antenna and then switched to cable did so partly for more channels, but partly also because the signal was much cleaner. That's no longer the case, and that's something I don't think people recognize.
Especially since 29% of them don't even realize free OTA TV exists lol.
"Channels"? What are those? I'm unfamiliar with these antiquated terms :smiley_confused1:
So far I get most of my Netflix, and the few things I watch on Amazon Prime Video, in 4K. I wouldn't say it's especially world-changing relative to 1080p, as the compression is such that the bitrates aren't as high as what you see on those Costco displays. But it's an upgrade.
That's the thing whether it's cable, satellite, or streaming. They all have to manage their bitrates. The "preview" will likely be at a very high bitrate, so the quality will be stellar. But the actual broadcast will be compressed as much as they need to do based on their bandwidth limitations.
That's why I watch my local networks through the antenna rather than through Hulu... It's 1080p either way, but since the towers don't have the same bandwidth limitations as Hulu, they can leave their signal less compressed and the OTA antenna actually looks BETTER than cable/satellite/streaming.
Just an interesting point in favor of the antenna...
Way back in the analog days, using an antenna often led to a pretty poor picture, and spotty reception. One of the key selling points of cable at the time was picture quality.
This has reversed. These days, both cable and satellite have bandwidth limits because they have SO many channels to carry on a limited-bandwidth coax [cable] or limited amount of wireless spectrum [satellite]. It's made even harder, because due to backward compatibility with older set-top boxes, they often have to carry the same channels in older MPEG-2 compression for their old boxes, and carry the same channels in MPEG-4 or HEVC for their newest boxes. They're trying to carry 10 pounds of potatoes in a 5 pound bag, and the only way to do that is to COMPRESS the hell out of the source.
This is also true of streaming and IPTV services, because they're optimizing for bandwidth as well. They have some advantages since they're point-to-point transmissions so they only need to send ONE signal, but they still try to compress it to reduce bandwidth use.
Digital broadcast doesn't have that problem. Each network has their own frequency, and they can broadcast a signal tuned for picture quality rather than tuned for saving bandwidth. And since digital is basically a "you have a picture or you don't" situation, rather than a progressive loss of quality like analog, as long as you are getting a signal, you're getting a 100% quality version of what was originally sent.
As a result, you'll often find that the network TV programming through your antenna actually looks BETTER than what comes across cable, satellite, or streaming.
Although I now have Hulu Live TV, which includes my locals, I had put an antenna on the house when I used Sling. I actually use the antenna rather than Hulu for most live network sports broadcasts because the signal quality is so much better.
FYI, the OTA is usually not compressed AS BADLY as the satellite feed is. All signals are compressed using industry-standard algorithms, but not all compression is equal in the way it's implemented.
If you've ever ripped DVDs to video files (or even just CD to MP3), you'll know that every compression program will have settings that is always a balance of video/audio quality vs file size.
Satellite and cable are trying to fit as many channels as possible into a single limited-bandwidth cord, so the tighter they squeeze the quality settings, the more content they can provide. IPTV and streaming providers are only giving you one "channel" at a time, but they also know that internet bandwidth isn't free or unlimited, so they have incentive to squeeze it as much as possible as well.
OTA broadcast has a band of spectrum allocated. If they use 100% of their allocation, it doesn't hurt them or cost them extra. So they have more incentive to optimize for picture quality in their compression.
For most things I'm watching, I just let Hulu stream it to me even if it's on a channel I can pick up OTA, because honestly it's just easier. But for sports, if it's OTA I default to the antenna. The picture quality difference is immediately noticeable.
As I always highlight, half the marketing there is showing you content that is SO much better than nearly anything you'll ever watch. It's basically uncompressed and optimized to look amazing.
Anything you watch broadcast/cable/satellite/IPTV/streaming will be EXTREMELY compressed compared to that and won't look anywhere near as good.
If you watch a bunch of 4K HDR movies that you've purchased on physical media, they should look outstanding. But literally everything else will be too compressed to make use of the technology in these TVs.
Compression. All services / channels use compression for digital TV, but at the source they can determine what bitrate they want to support. A lower bitrate (higher compression) causes loss of quality, but in the case of fixed bandwidth or pay-for-transmission systems, reduce the transmission cost. A higher bitrate is higher quality, but the cost of transmission can be higher.
Satellite has to cram a bunch of channels into fixed bandwidth, and they do it by compressing the stream and you lose quality in the process. Cable has the exact same issue--you only have so much bandwidth on that cable, so the quality suffers to compress it as much as possible. IPTV or streaming services have to pay for the bandwidth they use, so they compress the video as much as they can and quality is lost. It's all about either packing in more channels or reducing transmission cost.
OTA broadcast has already secured the rights to the bandwidth associated with a specific linear "channel" for a tuner to pick up. That is a single fixed cost and completely unrelated to the level of compression they choose, so they can choose the lightest compression and the highest bitrate for their transmission without it affecting operating cost.
Hence, OTA is actually a BETTER picture than cable/satellite/streaming, because they are giving you a higher bitrate content.
Yep, as I've mentioned several times since I've worked with these various companies, cable/satellite is a major headache. They have fixed bandwidth either within the cable or via a satellite feed, and they have a lot of legacy boxes out there in the world that only support less efficient compression. Which means if they are sending ESPN out there, they probably need to have MPEG-2, MPEG-4, and HEVC compression options so they have three different streams they have to fit into their bandwidth envelope for a single channel.
Which means that they compress the HELL out of everything using settings that strip out a lot of the quality, because they're also trying to provide as many channels as possible.
This tends to also affect streaming companies somewhat, as they have to pay for the bandwidth they use. However, their transmissions are point-to-point, which means that if I'm watching ESPN on Hulu, they don't have to send me 100 other channels 100% of the time. It also means that whatever box I have receiving it (whether it's a Roku, or a native TV app, or whatever) can identify which compression protocol it's capable of decoding, and Hulu only has to send one. So while they are also forced to compress quite a bit to save on bandwidth costs, they don't have the same constraints as cable/satellite... Hence why streaming DirecTV will be higher quality than satellite DirecTV.
And that's also why digital OTA network broadcasts are often the highest picture quality. They don't have to worry much about compression settings because they're not "paying for bandwidth" in any meaningful sense.
Which is funny, because people used to go to cable/satellite for the picture quality vs analog rabbit ears... And now the best picture quality is digital "rabbit ears" while cable/satellite is often the worst picture quality.
-
Holy wall of text, batman! Take it to the cord-cutters thread. It's over there ------------>
-
The chronicles of B.R.A.D.
-
Anyway, point being, there's still over 20% of television/media viewing that's done over the air, and there are sports enthusiasts who insist on watching OTA signals if at all possible, because the picture is better.
But it's not likely a HUGE percentage of sports enthusiasts.
And both the SEC through ABC, and the B1G though CBS, NBC, and Fox, have some games each week that are available OTA.
And that's really all that needed to be said, about that.
-
I scrolled through that on my phone
-
Holy wall of text, batman! Take it to the cord-cutters thread. It's over there ------------>
Well clearly @ELA (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=55) must not have been paying attention to that thread...
Or the numerous others I've posted this in over the last 7+ years according to a forum search for "compress" and posts written by me :57:
-
Those have to be old people watching local news and Wheel of Fortune. I can't imagine anyone who cares about college football just getting over the air broadcast TV
Raises hand.
I am someone who cares about college football and I don't have cable so everything I watch is OTA or YouTube after the fact.
I HATE that the CFP was on ESPN and if Ohio State hadn't been in it, I probably wouldn't have watched at all but since they were, the Ohio State games were important enough to me that I found ways to watch.
Actually, being a cord cutter is more problematic in BB season than football. Football games are only once a week and they are big enough "events" that I can usually go to a party or my brother's house or a bar. BB is more difficult, I can't run out twice a week for two hours for a tOSU BB game so I end up seeing very few games per year.
-
I still think the ABC/ESPN numbers need a deeper dive. There is no "over the air" tv anymore. It's either cable or streaming, and either way you get both channels.
I would be curious as to what is airing on ESPN when ABC is showing football, and vice versa. I suspect when ABC is showing college football, ESPN is showing some shitty sporting event. But when ESPN has football, ABC is showing the Bachelor, or equivalent. So assume you are a sports fan, you are watching that college football game. Unless you have a vested issue in whatever college basketball or volleyball game ESPN is showing instead, you aren't watching that. All you are doing is attracting sports fans, and telling them to pick between two very different options. If you don't want to watch sports, you are watching neither. But all sports fans are watching ESPN. If you put that game on ESPN, then ABC suddenly has something to sell people who don't want to watch sports. And ABC generally is showing some popular reality show. They aren't showing DDD re-runs (which I do watch). So those show DO get eyeballs.
It took me 2 seconds to realize the issue with their study, and I promise the Disney execs have done the same, which is why they split them like they have.
I get your point. If we think about this in a very antiquated (but probably by-and-large accurate) way, if a given house has a husband who is into sports and a wife who is into reality shows then by showing the FB game on ESPN and Bachelor on ABC then the parent (the Mouse) may get 2 TV's out of that household but if they show CFB #1 on ABC and CFB #2 on ESPN then they'll only get 1 and the wife will go watch some other reality show on NBC or CBS or whatever.
That said, there are some people (like me) that you just flat lose if you don't have a game OTA. There were times this past season when I watched some random ACC or SEC game because it was on OTA when the game I would have preferred to watch was a B1G game but it was on BTN or ESPN or Peacock or whatever.
-
I get your point. If we think about this in a very antiquated (but probably by-and-large accurate) way, if a given house has a husband who is into sports and a wife who is into reality shows then by showing the FB game on ESPN and Bachelor on ABC then the parent (the Mouse) may get 2 TV's out of that household but if they show CFB #1 on ABC and CFB #2 on ESPN then they'll only get 1 and the wife will go watch some other reality show on NBC or CBS or whatever.
That said, there are some people (like me) that you just flat lose if you don't have a game OTA. There were times this past season when I watched some random ACC or SEC game because it was on OTA when the game I would have preferred to watch was a B1G game but it was on BTN or ESPN or Peacock or whatever.
But as jgvol has already demonstrated, ABC and both ESPNs are running college football content simultaneously. They've done this for decades, including years when they carried the B1G contract, so I'm not sure why there's any questions about it.
-
Damn, Purdue has entered the chat
-
Actually, being a cord cutter is more problematic in BB season than football. Football games are only once a week and they are big enough "events" that I can usually go to a party or my brother's house or a bar. BB is more difficult, I can't run out twice a week for two hours for a tOSU BB game so I end up seeing very few games per year.
And you wouldn't know about this, but being a cord cutter is also more problematic if you're a fan of a non-helmet.
You get pissed off on the rare occurrences your team is not available on a major broadcast network. The rest of us get excited when our team IS on a major broadcast network--even if it's only because we're playing your team.
-
And you wouldn't know about this, but being a cord cutter is also more problematic if you're a fan of a non-helmet.
You get pissed off on the rare occurrences your team is not available on a major broadcast network. The rest of us get excited when our team IS on a major broadcast network--even if it's only because we're playing your team.
This is true but I'll add that it also has to do with being a good team. Helmets that suck get on national TV more often than non-helmets that suck but still not nearly as much as helmets that are good in that year.
It also helps that I live local. I'm in Ohio so if there is a game on OTA, it IS going to be tOSU. For you as a Purdue fan in SoCal, even if the Boilermakers are on OTA, they might not be on OTA in SoCal.
-
This is true but I'll add that it also has to do with being a good team. Helmets that suck get on national TV more often than non-helmets that suck but still not nearly as much as helmets that are good in that year.
It also helps that I live local. I'm in Ohio so if there is a game on OTA, it IS going to be tOSU. For you as a Purdue fan in SoCal, even if the Boilermakers are on OTA, they might not be on OTA in SoCal.
To add context, from 2012-2024:
- Ohio State has been ranked in 211 out of 213 AP Polls. The exceptions are the two weeks in 2020 when the B1G was inactive due to COVID and thus tOSU was ineligible. Only Alabama has been ranked more, all 213 and third place is Clemson with 188 appearances (25 less than tOSU).
- Ohio State has been in the top-10 in 191 out of 213 AP Polls (89.7%). This is again second only to Bama with 199 and WAY ahead of #3 (UGA).
- Ohio State has been in the top-5 in 137 out of 213 AP Polls (64.3%). This is again second only to Bama with 170 and well ahead of #3 (UGA).
So in recent times my team has been OTA a LOT not only because they are a Helmet but also because they've been a contender almost all the time. Obviously those two things are related but they aren't exactly the same. There are a LOT of Helmets that haven't been in the top-25 as much as tOSU has been in the top-5.
-
It also helps that I live local. I'm in Ohio so if there is a game on OTA, it IS going to be tOSU. For you as a Purdue fan in SoCal, even if the Boilermakers are on OTA, they might not be on OTA in SoCal.
That's true. It's been a long time since Purdue has been good enough to even be in the "marginal" decision for local-only vs national OTA coverage, so the distinction is academic for Boiler fans :57:
-
Holy wall of text, batman! Take it to the cord-cutters thread. It's over there ------------>
f*** that. Somebody smart tell me if there are any streaming options for network channels besides YTTV and Hulu now. They're too dang expensive, it's just about cable prices now. With Texas now in the SEC, I think pretty much every cfb game we watched came on the ESPN family. Sling is still an option for that, and I think I can use Sling credentials to watch ABC games on ESPN3.
However, there is the occasional non-SEC game that we'll watch. And the elephant in the room is the NFL, which the wife won't do without, so.... Antennae is not an option for me, we live too far from the city and the signals are weak as hell. Anything obscure y'all know about that I don't?
-
Antennae is not an option for me, we live too far from the city and the signals are weak as hell. Anything obscure y'all know about that I don't?
How far from the city?
Where I live (as well as my previous house), we were far enough away from the broadcast towers, 50 mi, that any of the cheap indoor antennae were just an absolute non-starter, even the supposed amplified ones. But a passive outdoor directional antenna worked fine. And even a little farther, an amplified active outdoor antenna may be just enough...
Based on your address, you can go to tvfool.com and figure out whether you're in range with a high-quality antenna. https://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=29
Worth looking into at least.
-
Those have to be old people watching local news and Wheel of Fortune. I can't imagine anyone who cares about college football just getting over the air broadcast TV
There are a ton of old people who pay whatever to have their TV channels unchanged for decades.
As for me, as soon as the season was over, I cancelled my youtube TV and will continue it when August rolls around.
I don't watch any traditional shows on TV and 90% of anything I'd want to watch, including news, is on youtube itself. Getting it w/o ads with youtube premium is a great deal, especially w/o the cost of a TV service.
-
this data says, Conference champ games and pop-tart bowls aren't going away - they are popular money makers!!!
same with a first round playoff game with SMU
_____________________
(https://i.imgur.com/EqIO5ev.png)
-
we wring our hands and nash our teeth but the numbers say the game is as healthy as EVER
_______________________________
While the 12-team bracket did not increase the ratings of individual games, the expanded format and the added meaning it carried to a wider number of games generated increased interest down the line. The number of games to draw 20, 15, 10, 7 and 5 million viewers were all up; the number of 10+ million games nearly doubled year-over-year.
(https://i.imgur.com/E2HgK98.png)
-
f*** that. Somebody smart tell me if there are any streaming options for network channels besides YTTV and Hulu now. They're too dang expensive, it's just about cable prices now. With Texas now in the SEC, I think pretty much every cfb game we watched came on the ESPN family. Sling is still an option for that, and I think I can use Sling credentials to watch ABC games on ESPN3.
(https://i.imgur.com/NWqKRTi.png)
-
With 1 entity having a show and podcast and youtube channel being so common, there's not a lot of reason to have traditional TV.
Any show you want to catch, you can see it on youtube (for the most part).
News? The internet is like 40% news/half porn/ and the rest of it fits in that 10% left over.
Netflix is still a great deal for the price.
I have Prime just based on having it for purchases through Amazon, so it's basically free.
And I just find it well worth the $15 or so per month to not have ads on Youtube, which I use more than the others now.
So for like $40/mo, I'm happy in the college football offseason.
I'm never at a loss for finding great content.
I also have Max, but rarely watch it. I shared it with a friend and she uses it much more than I do. I catch Real Time. In the past year, Max has really added a ton of non-HBO content. Oh, and some newer movies come out on Max while still in theaters, but I don't rely on that. It's nice to discover sometimes.
I just know there's a TON of mostly older people, just plugging along, unnecessarily paying their $200+/mo cable bill that don't have to.
BUT it would mean new hardware they're unfamiliar with, totally new channels on multiple platforms they feel they couldn't navigate (which may be true).
When you have money, ease of use is worth every penny, I guess.
-
Most of the old farts I know here have moved to Firesticks, ROKU, etc. They wised up to Xfinity and now only use them for broadband. Some still have their clunky boxes, for some reason.
-
That list shows me that no one gives a shit about SMU football, aside from a few rich Dallas dudes.
They're still a mid-major program - that doesn't go away in under a year.
-
That list shows me that no one gives a shit about SMU football, aside from a few rich Dallas dudes.
They're still a mid-major program - that doesn't go away in under a year.
They can afford to pay like a blue-blood. Actually, better than some blue-bloods. In this current era of unlimited salary and unlimited free agency, they can easily become a major contender in a hurry.
-
That list shows me that no one gives a shit about SMU football, aside from a few rich Dallas dudes.
They're still a mid-major program - that doesn't go away in under a year.
so, PSU pulled 6 million and SMU pulled 0.6 mil?
-
Idk, but a mid-major in Dallas played a weak-ass ACC schedule and the outcome of the game was never in doubt.
Must-see TV!
Jesus, look at Penn Stat's 2025 OOC schedule: Nevada, FIU, and Villanova.
At least they're being wise. Avoid losses, red carpet rolled out for you.
-
yup, the huge fanatics here on this board aren't compelled to watch that game, but the stats say that 6.6 million TV sets were tuned in.
As long as the idiots paying for commercial ad slots believe the stats, the game is alive and well because they're getting paid