Comparing # of viewers for AAC-ACC football

[upstater]

I'm stealing the good work of SouthPhilly over at the AAC board:

NOTE: THESE RATINGS ARE FOR FOOTBALL ONLY

Here are the average number of viewers by AAC member for AAC home games (that is, the only games that matter for a TV deal). For "split" TV games I gave the benefit of the doubt and split the attendance in two. The only AAC home game where this occurred was UConn-Michigan which was split with KSU-Texas.

AVERAGE VIEWERS (MILLIONS) PER TELEVISED HOME GAME BY TEAM
3.805 Navy
1.320 UConn
1.316 UCF
1.034 SMU
0.765 USF
0.562 Cincy
0.443 Temple
0.371 Houston
0.264 ECU
0.200 Tulsa
0.176 Memphis
N/A Tulane

AAC Average Viewers (2015 lineup) 0.912
# of Games Nationally Televised (2013) 30
# of Games Nationally Televised (2015 lineup) 28
Total Viewers (2013) 25.1 million
Total Viewers (2015 lineup) 25.5 million

The Navy average is off since the Army-Navy game pulls in over 6 million viewers. I'm not sure how the TV deal works with Navy, but it's clear Navy is a great TV asset for the conference.

I calculated the same for the ACC to see if our TV deal was equal in value based on viewers.

3.162 Florida State
2.637 Clemson
2.270 Miami
2.205 Syracuse
2.074 Pitt
1.659 Georgia Tech
1.656 Virginia Tech
1.559 NC State
1.557 Duke
1.527 Boston College
1.499 UNC
1.497 Louisville
0.979 Maryland
0.860 Virginia
0.759 Wake Forest

ACC Average Viewers (2013) 1.932
ACC Average Viewers (2014 lineup) 1.990
# of Games Nationally Televised (2013) 49
# of Games Nationally Televised (2014 lineup) 49
Total Viewers (2013) 94.9 million
Total Viewers (2014 lineup) 97.5 million

Upstater: In terms of average # of viewers, the ACC gets moer than double the AAC in football. More than double.

ACC annual payout?

 

[CL82]

Need to know what channels game were broadcast on to be able evaluate that data. If you are comparing a "u" game to mother ship game you are going to come up short every time. Even more so when you consider the CBSN games.

 

[whaler11]

CBSSN isn't even a rated network so it's hard to go crazy over Navy since no one really knows what their ratings are.

Navy also has their rights with CBS through 2018. CBS has the 2016 ND game at Navy and Army-Navy is with CBS through 2020.

So yeah. Navy

 

[upstater]

Need to know what channels game were broadcast on to be able evaluate that data. If you are comparing a "u" game to mother ship game you are going to come up short every time. Even more so when you consider the CBSN games.

The data is valuable regardless because it shows viewers per game, and that's what translates into moolah. On any ESPN channel.

 

[whaler11]

The data is valuable regardless because it shows viewers per game, and that's what translates into moolah. On any ESPN channel.

But out of context you can't draw conclusions without baseline average ratings for the networks the games were on.

ESPN gets a fraction of their revenue from advertising. The ratings are important, but getting half the rating doesn't mean you get half the money.

Honestly adding an average Navy to the AAC number is just stupid. They get one high rating a year because it's the only game on, it's a national network broadcast and it doesn't even matter since it's not even in the AAC TV package.

 

[Stinger92860]

But out of context you can't draw conclusions without baseline average ratings for the networks the games were on.

ESPN gets a fraction of their revenue from advertising. The ratings are important, but getting half the rating doesn't mean you get half the money.

Honestly adding an average Navy to the AAC number is just stupid. They get one high rating a year because it's the only game on, it's a national network broadcast and it doesn't even matter since it's not even in the AAC TV package.

Interesting, so ESPN gets most of their revenue from carriage fees. That's new info for me which I should have known.

 

[whaler11]

Interesting, so ESPN gets most of their revenue from carriage fees. That's new info for me which I should have known.

They take in $600 million a quarter on just carriage fees. That's a 7 billion dollar head start. Latest number I found on advertising was just over 3 billion.

When you look at a network like BTN it's even starker. The advertising dollars are nothing comparied to the fees.

 

[upstater]

But out of context you can't draw conclusions without baseline average ratings for the networks the games were on.

ESPN gets a fraction of their revenue from advertising. The ratings are important, but getting half the rating doesn't mean you get half the money.

Honestly adding an average Navy to the AAC number is just stupid. They get one high rating a year because it's the only game on, it's a national network broadcast and it doesn't even matter since it's not even in the AAC TV package.

Take them out c0mpletely. I'm not even saying the AAC deserves half. I am saying they deserve more than 1/10th.

 

[upstater]

They take in $600 million a quarter on just carriage fees. That's a 7 billion dollar head start. Latest number I found on advertising was just over 3 billion.

When you look at a network like BTN it's even starker. The advertising dollars are nothing comparied to the fees.

But, eyeballs are what make the carriage fees possible.

 

[whaler11]

But, eyeballs are what make the carriage fees possible.

In theory perhaps but it doesn't really work like that in practice.

 

[whaler11]

Take them out c0mpletely. I'm not even saying the AAC deserves half. I am saying they deserve more than 1/10th.

There is no 'deserve'. They got what they got because nobody bid any higher so to honor Spackler and borrow words from Parcells: you are what your record says you are.

 

[upstater]

There is no 'deserve'. They got what they got because nobody bid any higher so to honor Spackler and borrow words from Parcells: you are what your record says you are.

Efficient market hypothesis? It's been upended many times. Some are underpaid, some are overpaid.

 

[whaler11]

Efficient market hypothesis? It's been upended many times. Some are underpaid, some are overpaid.

Right but you get paid what you get paid so what you 'deserve' doesn't much matter. They really get nothing - and outside of UConn basketball the league is a pretty much a worthless television property.

If UConn wasn't in this league nobody here would ever watch it.

 

[upstater]

Right but you get paid what you get paid so what you 'deserve' doesn't much matter. They really get nothing - and outside of UConn basketball the league is a pretty much a worthless television property.

If UConn wasn't in this league nobody here would ever watch it.

Nobody watches bball anyway.

That's why I put the football numbers up.

1.XX for UConn fball is more than what UConn gets for BB. I think the football numbers are actually quite decent.

 

[whaler11]

Nobody watches bball anyway.

That's why I put the football numbers up.

1.XX for UConn fball is more than what UConn gets for BB. I think the football numbers are actually quite decent.

That UConn football number is completely bogus off one ABC Michigan game when there was nothing else on that night.

The raw numbers don't matter. The marginal number do.

You could put Michigan at Temple on ABC on a dead Saturday night and you'd get the same number.

The reality is that UConn football has no national interest. It is impossible to argue differently because there is barely any interest within the state borders.

 

[upstater]

That UConn football number is completely bogus off one ABC Michigan game when there was nothing else on that night.

The raw numbers don't matter. The marginal number do.

You could put Michigan at Temple on ABC on a dead Saturday night and you'd get the same number.

The reality is that UConn football has no national interest. It is impossible to argue differently because there is barely any interest within the state borders.

It was up against another football game.

Regardless, can you make the same point about ACC numbers as well? There are many games like that for the ACC. But this isn't about UConn and one outlier. It's about the AAC.

Look at this: http://www.goodbullhunting.com/2013...ge-football-tv-ratings-2014-texas-am-missouri

Same thing. AAC football is within shooting distance of the P5 in average viewers.

 

[whaler11]

It was up against another football game.

Regardless, can you make the same point about ACC numbers as well? There are many games like that for the ACC. But this isn't about UConn and one outlier. It's about the AAC.

Look at this: http://www.goodbullhunting.com/2013...ge-football-tv-ratings-2014-texas-am-missouri

Same thing. AAC football is within shooting distance of the P5 in average viewers.

Total viewers isn't the metric to look at because college football gets a baseline amount of viewers just being on.

To compare the leagues you need to come up with what the baseline viewers would be with any two random teams given a network and a timeslot and then see how the schools impact that negatively and positively.

UCF/USF on ESPN outrated a really good Pac 12 game on FS1 on that Friday night when they were the only two games on. That doesn't make the AAC more popular than the Pac 12. It means that ESPN has a different base than Fox to start.

 

[upstater]

Total viewers isn't the metric to look at because college football gets a baseline amount of viewers just being on.

To compare the leagues you need to come up with what the baseline viewers would be with any two random teams given a network and a timeslot and then see how the schools impact that negatively and positively.

UCF/USF on ESPN outrated a really good Pac 12 game on FS1 on that Friday night when they were the only two games on. That doesn't make the AAC more popular than the Pac 12. It means that ESPN has a different base than Fox to start.

It's average viewers per game.

And, here's the big one, AAC is not on top ESPN channels. It was ESPNU mostly.

 

[whaler11]

It's average viewers per game.

And, here's the big one, AAC is not on top ESPN channels. It was ESPNU mostly.

I know what your numbers are. I'm telling you with no context you can't draw conclusions.

 

[SubbaBub]

It shows we are a better TV property than Cincy and that the confernece/fanbase of your opponent matters. Look at Syracuse's numbers. How much of that is FSU and Clemson watching them get abused.

 

[upstater]

I know what your numbers are. I'm telling you with no context you can't draw conclusions.

You can draw conclusions. You are making points about baselines and channels with more reach. The point I made is that in any case, the AAC would have worse channels and worse slots than the other conferences. So take the Fox heavy Pac12 out of it. You're still up against ESPN's fave ACC and Big12, and those conferences are going to have the better slots and the better stations. How is that wrong?

 

[whaler11]

You can draw conclusions. You are making points about baselines and channels with more reach. The point I made is that in any case, the AAC would have worse channels and worse slots than the other conferences. So take the Fox heavy Pac12 out of it. You're still up against ESPN's fave ACC and Big12, and those conferences are going to have the better slots and the better stations. How is that wrong?

I'm not saying a real analysis wouldn't make the AAC look better, but you can't draw conclusions from these numbers. I wouldn't assume the AAC always has worse times and slots relative to the ACC. The ACC has a ton of ESPNU games. If ESPNNews games are included that may as well be the Boston College Network and ESPNNews games draw almost literally zero.

Also, since the ACC has twice the games in this data, the dreg AAC games on WatchESPN and CBSSN don't get the opportunity to drag the averages down.

For a guy who constantly talks about research done at Universities, you think you'd pick something up about how to actually analyze data.

 

[whaler11]

It shows we are a better TV property than Cincy and that the confernece/fanbase of your opponent matters. Look at Syracuse's numbers. How much of that is FSU and Clemson watching them get abused.

While I agree that UConn is a better property than Cincinnati you can't make any kind of leap like that on this data.

If Cinci had hosted Ohio State and UConn had not hosted Michigan the numbers would be completely reversed. If that were the case would you be saying Cinci is a better TV property than UConn?

 

[metsfan2323]

The reality is that UConn football has no national interest. It is impossible to argue differently because there is barely any interest within the state borders.

Very few college football teams have a true national fanbase and to say UCONN football has "barely any interest" in CT is utterly stupid.

 

[CL82]

The data is valuable regardless because it shows viewers per game, and that's what translates into moolah. On any ESPN channel.

Right but placement effects viewership. It's valuable but incomplete info.