The SEC is dominating the Big Ten in ratings — despite on-field parity

Donate To GopherHole
MisterGopher

MisterGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
461
Reaction score
268
Points
63
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6859564/2025/12/04/sec-big-ten-tv-ratings/

On the field, the Big Ten has caught up to the SEC. In fact, it’s winning: The past two national champions, the top two teams in the current College Football Playoff rankings, three of the top five. The football people are smiling.

But the television partners are frowning. And the SEC and its one television partner are smiling.

The SEC is routing the Big Ten in college football ratings. That was the case last year, when at least one SEC team played in four of the top six-rated games of the regular season, and 18 of the top 25. And it’s grown this year: An SEC team has played in nine of the top 10, and 22 of the top 25 highest-rated games. The vast majority of those are SEC versus SEC games.

The Big Ten, meanwhile, has just three of its conference games on that list, and its only two appearances in the top 10 came in games against SEC teams.

So what happened? Some of the reasons are competitive. Some are about their television deals. We dig into them, with our SEC writer (Seth Emerson) and Big Ten writer (Scott Dochterman) each providing perspective:

They go into each of the following:
  • Conference depth
  • Geography and rivalries matter
  • One network vs. many
  • The ESPN factor
  • Scheduling and sequence
 



When there is parity on the field but one of the two conferences still gets to have a bunch of its teams ranked, they get to advertise “big” games. Another reason why people that say “rankings don’t matter” are wrong.
 

MaxyJR1 said:
Rivalries and Geography are big issues. And the rankings having 9 teams from SEC each week markets.
Click to expand...
Bigger issue is that none of the comparable big ten team play each other.

Indiana played 2 of the top 6
Ohio state played 1 of the top 6
Oregon played 3 of the top 6
USC played 3 of the top 6
Michigan played 2 of the top 6
Iowa played 3 of the top 6

So of this whole league there were only 7 games where two teams in the top 6 played each other.
5 of those 7 games had either Michigan or Iowa.
3 of the top 6 in the big ten had a non conference loss.
In the SEC 2 of the top 10 had a non conference loss.


Only 2 games all regular season between the top 4 teams.

The same problem exists in the middle 6.

So there aren’t big ranked matchups
There aren’t close games

A million blowouts and standings that don’t tell you much
 
Last edited:



Rutgers vs Washington is not a big draw to begin with for TV viewers. Speaks to geography and time zone issues.

Having it as a Friday kickoff at 9pm for Scarlet Knights viewers and 6pm for Huskies audience at the same time the Mariners were playing an ALDS elimination game was also not the best ratings strategy.
 

Ironically, it's the Big Ten's fault for creating the SEC monstrosity we have today. In the mid 2000's, ESPN wanted the B1G's TV rights. The B1G wanted a partnership. ESPN rejected it, B1G walked and created BTN, and ESPN then signed the deal with the SEC, teeing them up to to be the "premier" conference and throwing their entire weight behind marketing and creating the SEC brand we know today. (along with all of the other shady shit involved) In hindsight, it was a colossal mistake by the B1G and we still saw the impact of this on Sunday with Bama.
 






Plus, no one wants to listen to Screamin' Gus Johnson and Joel Klatt reciting PR clips from the programs are often at odds with reality, blithering about everything except what is happening on the field, and trying to hype every play and player as the best of the year. Now slap that on "marquee" game each weekend. ("" as others have pointed out, it happens too infrequently in the B1G).
 




Some guy said:
Bigger issue is that none of the comparable big ten team play each other.

Indiana played 2 of the top 6
Ohio state played 1 of the top 6
Oregon played 3 of the top 6
USC played 3 of the top 6
Michigan played 2 of the top 6
Iowa played 3 of the top 6

So of this whole league there were only 7 games where two teams in the top 6 played each other.
5 of those 7 games had either Michigan or Iowa.
3 of the top 6 in the big ten had a non conference loss.
In the SEC 2 of the top 10 had a non conference loss.


Only 2 games all regular season between the top 4 teams.

The same problem exists in the middle 6.

So there aren’t big ranked matchups
There aren’t close games

A million blowouts and standings that don’t tell you much
Click to expand...
Must admit that SEC on CBS was much more marketable for games than the B1G has been. This is also why they need to expand to 24. Conferences seem to only want so many top end games because they don't want to knock teams out of the playoff talk. If they want to balance it out, they would base schedules more on previous season. They are announcing the schedule sometime in the next week. There was no reason to know who opponents were until after the games were played. Use the standings and form a well-balanced, competitive schedule.
 


Some guy said:
Bigger issue is that none of the comparable big ten team play each other.

Indiana played 2 of the top 6
Ohio state played 1 of the top 6
Oregon played 3 of the top 6
USC played 3 of the top 6
Michigan played 2 of the top 6
Iowa played 3 of the top 6

So of this whole league there were only 7 games where two teams in the top 6 played each other.
5 of those 7 games had either Michigan or Iowa.
3 of the top 6 in the big ten had a non conference loss.
In the SEC 2 of the top 10 had a non conference loss.


Only 2 games all regular season between the top 4 teams.

The same problem exists in the middle 6.

So there aren’t big ranked matchups
There aren’t close games

A million blowouts and standings that don’t tell you much
Click to expand...
You would want to say out of 5 instead of 6 because those teams can't play themselves. That would mean the Big Ten played 46.67% of the possible matchups among the top 6.

In comparison for the SEC of the top 7 teams:
Georgia played 3 of 6
Ole Miss played 2 of 6
Texas A&M played 1 of 6
Alabama played 3 of 6
Texas played 4 of 6
Oklahoma played 3 of 6
Vandy played 2 of 6

That means they played 51.42% of the possible top 7 matchups.
 

GophersInIowa said:
You would want to say out of 5 instead of 6 because those teams can't play themselves. That would mean the Big Ten played 46.67% of the possible matchups among the top 6.

In comparison for the SEC of the top 7 teams:
Georgia played 3 of 6
Ole Miss played 2 of 6
Texas A&M played 1 of 6
Alabama played 3 of 6
Texas played 4 of 6
Oklahoma played 3 of 6
Vandy played 2 of 6

That means they played 51.42% of the possible top 7 matchups.
Click to expand...
Also with 8 vs 9 games, both play 53% of the opponents in the league. However, with SEC going to 9 games, they will now play 60% of their opponents to B1G's 53%
 

GophersInIowa said:
You would want to say out of 5 instead of 6 because those teams can't play themselves. That would mean the Big Ten played 46.67% of the possible matchups among the top 6.

In comparison for the SEC of the top 7 teams:
Georgia played 3 of 6
Ole Miss played 2 of 6
Texas A&M played 1 of 6
Alabama played 3 of 6
Texas played 4 of 6
Oklahoma played 3 of 6
Vandy played 2 of 6

That means they played 51.42% of the possible top 7 matchups.
Click to expand...
The other thing that kills the big ten is that USC, Iowa, and Michigan all lost a non conference game.
So basically there are how many games between top 3rd teams that didn’t lose a non conference game

The answer is:
2
 

MaxyJR1 said:
Must admit that SEC on CBS was much more marketable for games than the B1G has been. This is also why they need to expand to 24. Conferences seem to only want so many top end games because they don't want to knock teams out of the playoff talk. If they want to balance it out, they would base schedules more on previous season. They are announcing the schedule sometime in the next week. There was no reason to know who opponents were until after the games were played. Use the standings and form a well-balanced, competitive schedule.
Click to expand...
I think the perception that the SEC has more marketable matchups has a lot to do with the preseason rankings, which gives fuel to the ESPN hype machine.
 

One thing I noticed this year, in particular, is that it seemed like every week the Big Ten games I clicked on were boring matchups. Good team vs. mediocre team or bad vs. bad. Too few high-level matchups spread out among too many places. Whereas the SEC had their best game on one network (CBS) every week in the past, this year I felt like there was one good Big Ten game per week, and at least two of CBS, NBC and Fox lost out each week. Just my perception.

Also, with my own personal viewing habits, I'm still used to looking for college football on ESPN first. I never think of looking for FS1. And Peacock? I have it, but I only go there for Gopher games; it's completely off my radar for any other sporting event.
 


There just weren't a lot compelling B1G games this year. It's on reason I think they need to add ND go to 20 and split into divisions.
 

MisterGopher said:
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6859564/2025/12/04/sec-big-ten-tv-ratings/

On the field, the Big Ten has caught up to the SEC. In fact, it’s winning: The past two national champions, the top two teams in the current College Football Playoff rankings, three of the top five. The football people are smiling.

But the television partners are frowning. And the SEC and its one television partner are smiling.

The SEC is routing the Big Ten in college football ratings. That was the case last year, when at least one SEC team played in four of the top six-rated games of the regular season, and 18 of the top 25. And it’s grown this year: An SEC team has played in nine of the top 10, and 22 of the top 25 highest-rated games. The vast majority of those are SEC versus SEC games.

The Big Ten, meanwhile, has just three of its conference games on that list, and its only two appearances in the top 10 came in games against SEC teams.

So what happened? Some of the reasons are competitive. Some are about their television deals. We dig into them, with our SEC writer (Seth Emerson) and Big Ten writer (Scott Dochterman) each providing perspective:

They go into each of the following:
  • Conference depth
  • Geography and rivalries matter
  • One network vs. many
  • The ESPN factor
  • Scheduling and sequence
Click to expand...
Overinflated ratings. Mizzou and Tenn didn't beat anyone, but managed to stay rated a majority of the year. Plus ESPN just has a better telecast than Fox. Doesn't seem to be as many commercials and the lighting/camera angles seem to be clear. All Fox games are longer and the picture always seems cloudy.
 

Hates Monikers said:
One thing I noticed this year, in particular, is that it seemed like every week the Big Ten games I clicked on were boring matchups. Good team vs. mediocre team or bad vs. bad. Too few high-level matchups spread out among too many places.
Click to expand...
This was it for me. The SEC does a much better job at showcasing their best game every week. Big Ten either has Big Noon kickoff (before west coast even gets out of bed) or NBC and the NBC night games had way too many lopsided matchups.

There were several times when I was like "Welp, the SEC does have a better game."
 

WAGopher said:
I think the perception that the SEC has more marketable matchups has a lot to do with the preseason rankings, which gives fuel to the ESPN hype machine.
Click to expand...
Alao, any SEC game feels like it's within the geographical footprint except for those involving Missouri. Pretty much every game is drivable or a pretty short flight.

When they Big 10's PAC4 play anyone but each other, at least one fan base had to fly minimum 2 time zones as well as either half way or the entire way across the continent.

Sure when USC/Oregon play Penn St/Ohio St/Michigan it's going to draw some interest. It also created a lot of inventory that frankly nobody gives rip about except the participating teams. That's on top of already ignoring Maryland & Rutgers.

Just this year I watched way more Vanderbilt football than Maryland & Rutgers combined ever (not counting when they played the Gophers).
 

Hates Monikers said:
One thing I noticed this year, in particular, is that it seemed like every week the Big Ten games I clicked on were boring matchups. Good team vs. mediocre team or bad vs. bad. Too few high-level matchups spread out among too many places. Whereas the SEC had their best game on one network (CBS) every week in the past, this year I felt like there was one good Big Ten game per week, and at least two of CBS, NBC and Fox lost out each week. Just my perception.
Click to expand...
There was certainly a bigger gap in the Big Ten between the top teams and the rest. Many of the top teams in the SEC played close games against the bottom teams. The SEC crowd will say it proves the SEC is so much better top to bottom but I think it's just as much to do that the top teams are overrated.
 


GophersInIowa said:
There was certainly a bigger gap in the Big Ten between the top teams and the rest. Many of the top teams in the SEC played close games against the bottom teams. The SEC crowd will say it proves the SEC is so much better top to bottom but I think it's just as much to do that the top teams are overrated.
Click to expand...
it also has a lot to do with the SEC having a lot of talent in their 8-4 teams.
But LSU gets to 7-5 and Tennessee gets to 8-4 by having talent and playing dumb



Iowa gets to 8-4 by having solid talent and playing smart.
Tennessee is sexier than Iowa in people’s minds so Oklahoma Tennessee gets a bigger rating than USC iowa
Plus USC and Iowa both have a non conference loss
 


You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom