The thing that drives me nuts..

[JugbandFrog]

People think that just because you are UT people are going to watch. UT vs Iowa State unless Iowa State is ranked and good, does not get more people to watch. I do not watch any games unless they have some importance to me. TCU viewing is my number one priority. Second is a good game. I dont care who it is and most fans dont either. They want to watch a good game.

This is evidenced by the ratings of last year's BCS games. If Florida was so mighty, the Sugar Bowl would have had a higher rating than the Fiesta Bowl. Why didnt it? People wanted to watch two good teams play each other. I figure it would have been different with Brian Kelly for Cincy and the viewing public. In the end, only die hard college football fans watch that game and UF and Cincy fans.

Ratings are all about GOOD teams playing EACH other. The BCS national championship always has almost double the ratings of the other BCS games because good teams are playing each other, even if the formula left teams out.

I just hate how people say TCU doesnt bring eyes to the TV. They do when its a good game. TCU playing UNLV means nothing except to the two teams. An undefeated and ranked UNLV makes the game more viewable. I would love to see what TCU ratings were v BYU and Utah, even with diminished viewership because of the spat between DirecTV and Versus.

You look at any team and it is about them winning that brings people to watch. The Pac 10 better watch out because if USC begins to suck again, who is going to want to watch the Pac 10?

Good competition makes people watch more than any other reason unless you are the Super Bowl.

When UT starts to suck or OU, what happens then? Look at Michigan now and even Notre Dame? How quickly the luster fades after a couple of losing seasons.

Maybe, in the end, this is what it is all about, protecting the brand. making it impossible for them to ever suck the way Michigan and Notre Dame are starting to. Who knows, but the tv viewership argument is bunk if you ask me.

 

[FeistyFrog]

Who has a TV set anymore anyway...

 

[JugbandFrog]

QUOTE(FeistyFrog @ Jun 15 2010, 07:23 PM) [snapback]580047[/snapback]
Who has a TV set anymore anyway...

well, the proverbial TV set...LCD, 3DTV, Plasma, whatever.

 

[gdu]

You are wrong.

and the sugar had more viewers than us: http://www.bcsfootball.org/news/story?id=4819384

you are confusing what you think/want to be the case with what actually it is

 

[JugbandFrog]

QUOTE(tcugdu @ Jun 15 2010, 07:26 PM) [snapback]580051[/snapback]
You are wrong.

and the sugar had more viewers than us: http://www.bcsfootball.org/news/story?id=4819384

you are confusing what you think/want to be the case with what actually it is


Okay, so the point difference was miniscule...look at the comparison to that Florida game and the one vs Michigan a few years before...one of the highest non-BCS bowl ratings of all of them. Look at mighty Texas v Arizona State that same year. By virtue of being Texas, they should have had a higher rating.

The fact is that if you put quality teams with quality records against each other in big games, the ratings will reflect the game, and the team does not have as much impact on the rating.

 

[Trelvis]

QUOTE(tcugdu @ Jun 15 2010, 02:26 PM) [snapback]580051[/snapback]
You are wrong.


I dont think he wrong about all of it. Its going to be hard to get eyes to watch Baylor/K-State, Oklahoma State/Iowa State, etc... The Big XII-2 has basically 3 premier matchups for the season and thats it. Texas/OU, Texas/A&M, and OU/Oklahoma State. Other than its a bore fest.

Plus, put any of those premier games up against another SEC or top 25 matchup and it will make it even harder. People in Texas might care about Texas/Iowa State, but the rest of the country will be yawning. Its not like people down here line up to watch Ohio State/Purdue or something sorry like that. Its the same for the rest of the country.

 

[gdu]

QUOTE(jugbandxmas @ Jun 15 2010, 02:36 PM) [snapback]580065[/snapback]
Okay, so the point difference was miniscule...look at the comparison to that Florida game and the one vs Michigan a few years before...one of the highest non-BCS bowl ratings of all of them. Look at mighty Texas v Arizona State that same year. By virtue of being Texas, they should have had a higher rating.

The fact is that if you put quality teams with quality records against each other in big games, the ratings will reflect the game, and the team does not have as much impact on the rating.

You are wrong. The rest of what you have typed is fluff.

Not even sure what the hell your last sentence means.

 

[gdu]

QUOTE(Trelvis @ Jun 15 2010, 02:41 PM) [snapback]580075[/snapback]
I dont think he wrong about all of it. Its going to be hard to get eyes to watch Baylor/K-State, Oklahoma State/Iowa State, etc... The Big XII-2 has basically 3 premier matchups for the season and thats it. Texas/OU, Texas/A&M, and OU/Oklahoma State. Other than its a bore fest.

Plus, put any of those premier games up against another SEC or top 25 matchup and it will make it even harder. People in Texas might care about Texas/Iowa State, but the rest of the country will be yawning. Its not like people down here line up to watch Ohio State/Purdue or something sorry like that. Its the same for the rest of the country.

He wasn't arguing conference affiliation. He was arguing team. Sure being good and having a good record helps, but all things equal (and even when they are not) a team with tons of fans like Texas/ND/USC/Florida is going to have more fans watching even than a 10 or 11 win TCU/Utah/Boise. Thems the facts. TV execs know it and that is why conferences with teams like Texas and USC get the big tv bucks, not bc the games are any better.

 

[JugbandFrog]

QUOTE(tcugdu @ Jun 15 2010, 08:18 PM) [snapback]580119[/snapback]
He wasn't arguing conference affiliation. He was arguing team. Sure being good and having a good record helps, but all things equal (and even when they are not) a team with tons of fans like Texas/ND/USC/Florida is going to have more fans watching even than a 10 or 11 win TCU/Utah/Boise. Thems the facts. TV execs know it and that is why conferences with teams like Texas and USC get the big tv bucks, not bc the games are any better.

Those are NOT the facts. They are assumptions. No one outside of Texas or Iowa will care about UT v Iowa State or UT v Kansas. They will not get significantly better ratings just cuz they are Texas. If UT stinks, then the fans dont watch. If UT is good, then the fans watch, but only the fans. If Iowa State and UT are good A LOT more people watch.

There was a report posted somewhere that said A&M actually had a higher viewership for their football team over the last few years than UT. I forget where I saw that, but regardless, that is a program that has true die hard fans. Imagine if they were good.

A lot of ASSUMPTIONS are being made and those assumptions are not supported by the facts. If you look at the BCS and bowl ratings you provided, there is no direct correlation to a team being who they were and having a higher rating. The quality of competition and stage had a HUGE effect on ratings. The Rose Bowl, for example, gets quality ratings NO MATTER who it seems to be playing by virtue of being the "Grandaddy of them all"

 

[gdu]

QUOTE(jugbandxmas @ Jun 15 2010, 03:25 PM) [snapback]580129[/snapback]
Those are NOT the facts. They are assumptions. No one outside of Texas or Iowa will care about UT v Iowa State or UT v Kansas. They will not get significantly better ratings just cuz they are Texas. If UT stinks, then the fans dont watch. If UT is good, then the fans watch, but only the fans. If Iowa State and UT are good A LOT more people watch.

There was a report posted somewhere that said A&M actually had a higher viewership for their football team over the last few years than UT. I forget where I saw that, but regardless, that is a program that has true die hard fans. Imagine if they were good.

A lot of ASSUMPTIONS are being made and those assumptions are not supported by the facts. If you look at the BCS and bowl ratings you provided, there is no direct correlation to a team being who they were and having a higher rating. The quality of competition and stage had a HUGE effect on ratings. The Rose Bowl, for example, gets quality ratings NO MATTER who it seems to be playing by virtue of being the "Grandaddy of them all"

Don't you think the folks at ESPN and Fox look at those sorts of things before handing out millions. They know a few things. One is that teams with large alumni bases have large followings. Another is that given their resources, some teams are likely to be better than others. It's pretty easy to figure out that ESPN is paying money to air Texas and OU games not Baylor-Iowa State. Not every conference game is aired.

You are assuming. I am telling you what the facts say. Under your scenario, there is NO REASON Cincy vs. a deflated Florida team should have outdrawn undefeated 12-0 TCU vs. 13-0 Boise. No reason. But they did. And it is bc they have more fans and draw more tv eyes regardless of how they are doing or who they are playing. It gives even worse when you make all things equal.

edit: think about what day the rose bowl is played on and which conferences the teams playing in it come from and you'll have your explanation there.