From what I understand

[baggerbob]

The Big schools won't have to break away, eventually they will get what they want, eliminating automatic qualifiers for small conferences, and more schools from power conferences. They want a bigger piece of the tournament pie, and 31 automatic qualifiers is too many for them.

 

[kyleslamb]

But the tv ratings consistently show the further the underdogs go, the lower the ratings are. And the contracts are based on the ratings.
The more big dogs they can bring to the table, the higher the number.

That is not categorically true. In fact, the 2011 Final Four scored a higher rating than last year's Final Four, despite having over 40 Final Four appearances combined between Kentucky, Kansas, Ohio State and Louisville.

And the Duke-Butler championship game in 2010 is the highest-rated championship game there's been in the past eight seasons.

Research has actually shown that many people watch the tournament that don't watch the regular season because they enjoy the upsets. And the tournament is about ratings but it's also about inventory. A 64-team tournament is going to pay a LOT higher than a 16-game tournament because regardless of the quantitative ratings difference, there is far more ad space to sell with a 64-team tournament.

 

[kyleslamb]

These major conferences already largely control the NCAA governance.


Not the basketball money. Thats what we are talking here.

You're missing the point. The money they make from a 68-team tournament, despite "sharing it" with others, is more than they'd make with their own 16-team tournament. You're crazy if you think a 15-game NCAA Tournament would fetch more than 67 games.

Right now, the NCAA Tournament is worth an average of $11.9 million per game, although it's certainly not static (i.e. the earlier rounds aren't worth as much as the later rounds). The power conference schools are taking home about $350 million, or roughly $6 million per game, when accounting for both the basketball fund and the other academic funds that are provided for by the tournament revenue. Even if networks paid them $20 million average for those 15 games in a 16-team tournament if they split off, they'd still not be earning as much as they are now.

First you say the revenue is overblown, then you say they dont want to leave that big a pie on the table. Bottom line, they have shown they are the greediest form of executives. And with these types, enough is never enough. Once their attention turns from the football and sqeezing every last penny out of that, they will look somewhere else to make more money. It is that pie that you bring up.

No, I am saying the revenue argument is overblown because of the dynamic. I'm not saying the revenue itself is overblown. See my previous comment about sharing the tournament revenue... they wouldn't do as well if they split off. There isn't much upside to leaving because the money they'd get wouldn't be better. Again, it is about inventory. There wouldn't be enough of it to justify leaving.

You can find this talk in plenty of places other than message boards. In fact, thats why it is being discussed on message boards.

Where is all of this talk? Be specific. If it's out there, where is it coming from? And please don't reference any West Virginia 'insiders.'

I know friends that work in NCAA Division I athletics. I can tell you that in their perspective, schools have no intention of leaving. Again, they're actually active in discussing a third subdivision. Why would they go to all that hassle if they just intended on leaving anyhow?

 

[king conn]

That is not categorically true. In fact, the 2011 Final Four scored a higher rating than last year's Final Four, despite having over 40 Final Four appearances combined between Kentucky, Kansas, Ohio State and Louisville.


Yes it is categorically true, look it up . You bring up one year to argue categorically. I will look at the last two years though to confirm what you say, unless you have a link.


And the Duke-Butler championship game in 2010 is the highest-rated championship game there's been in the past eight seasons.


Duke

Research has actually shown that many people watch the tournament that don't watch the regular season because they enjoy the upsets. And the tournament is about ratings but it's also about inventory. A 64-team tournament is going to pay a LOT higher than a 16-game tournament because regardless of the quantitative ratings difference, there is far more ad space to sell with a 64-team tournament.

Bracketts bring out the non fans in the early going. After the first waive its all about the names.
A smaller tourney would mean more on the line with one or 2 less rounds, so they would probably generate higher ratings.

 

[upstater]

But the tv ratings consistently show the further the underdogs go, the lower the ratings are. And the contracts are based on the ratings.
The more big dogs they can bring to the table, the higher the number.

But that's assuming there are enough big schools. With 16 x 4 conferences, that's just 64 teams. Are we going back to an NCAA tourney of 24 teams? Otherwise, at 32, you're going to devalue the regular season quite a bit.

 

[king conn]

You're missing the point. The money they make from a 68-team tournament, despite "sharing it" with others, is more than they'd make with their own 16-team tournament. You're crazy if you think a 15-game NCAA Tournament would fetch more than 67 games.
Right now, the NCAA Tournament is worth an average of $11.9 million per game, although it's certainly not static (i.e. the earlier rounds aren't worth as much as the later rounds). The power conference schools are taking home about $350 million, or roughly $6 million per game, when accounting for both the basketball fund and the other academic funds that are provided for by the tournament revenue. Even if networks paid them $20 million average for those 15 games in a 16-team tournament if they split off, they'd still not be earning as much as they are now.


Kind of ridiculous. The networks dont pay it out as " per game". The early rounds are almost loss leaders, they generate unspectacular ratings. Billy Packer had to always try and defend the low ratings. They carry the games for the final four.


No, I am saying the revenue argument is overblown because of the dynamic. I'm not saying the revenue itself is overblown. See my previous comment about sharing the tournament revenue... they wouldn't do as well if they split off. There isn't much upside to leaving because the money they'd get wouldn't be better. Again, it is about inventory. There wouldn't be enough of it to justify leaving.


? Less people sharing, the money certainly would be better! And once again your inventory thing is misguided. No network would care that they couldnt bring low rated games during weekday afternoons.


Where is all of this talk? Be specific. If it's out there, where is it coming from? And please don't reference any West Virginia 'insiders.'


Geez. Heard of google?


I know friends that work in NCAA Division I athletics. I can tell you that in their perspective, schools have no intention of leaving. Again, they're actually active in discussing a third subdivision. Why would they go to all that hassle if they just intended on leaving anyhow?

What school, what level of ncaa div 1 are they at? If its lower or mid level I'd imagine they would be amoung the last to know. Anyways, as Ive had to state over and over in this post, full attention will not be paid to this until the big pegs in the CR are in place. Then you will probably see things start to roll on this. Hey, Im not saying its a sure thing. But it sure looks like its heading that way.

 

[king conn]

But that's assuming there are enough big schools. With 16 x 4 conferences, that's just 64 teams. Are we going back to an NCAA tourney of 24 teams? Otherwise, at 32, you're going to devalue the regular season quite a bit.

The big bang theory says 18 to 20 teams each conf.

 

[Fishy]

Fishy, I don't know why you are so wedded to the most negative possible view. The NCAA tournament brings $1 bn which if preserved with a split by the top 100 programs would bring $10 mn per year -- that is not small compared to the football income, it would be fully 25%+ of revenue for most BCS programs. Add in regular season revenue which somebody just posted exceed $14 mn/yr for 15 programs, and are commonly $3-10 mn/yr+ for top programs including UConn. Basketball can easily be a $15 mn/yr sport, versus football a $30-50 mn sport..

This is the question that was asked and I answered - "That being the case, why wouldnt they want as many of the top flight hoops programs as possible, because the billion dollar ncaa tourney money would have to be renegotiated(?)"

This is not rocket science. UConn is additive in terms of bringing a conference whole in number - we're not particularly valuable in terms of adding value to a conference's bottom line - you can find evidence of that in our current situation. Again, in the superconference-breakaway scenario, if we end up with a big four conferences and those conferences break away, there would be no financial motivation to reach down and pull up a UConn - that group of superconferences would already have every ounce of leverage they would ever need.

The superconferences' tournament would be the only tournament CBS or ESPN would have an interest in - period. Your figures on what a program might be worth have no bearing here.

 

[kyleslamb]

Kind of ridiculous. The networks dont pay it out as " per game". The early rounds are almost loss leaders, they generate unspectacular ratings. Billy Packer had to always try and defend the low ratings. They carry the games for the final four.

Loss leaders? Um, no. Not at all. The first two rounds average a 6 rating and over 10 million viewers per game. At around 30 CPM, that's 52 games and 520 million total viewers with a revenue of close to a a quarter of a billion dollars to the network. Like you already admitted, people tune in early to watch upsets early in the tournament. The first four days of the tournament is a cultural phenomenon. To say these games are 'loss leaders' isn't consistent with the reality of how much money is being made even early in the tournament. They would certainly make some additional revenue by keeping it to themselves, but it wouldn't likely supplement the loss of the additional 52 games.

Geez. Heard of Google?

That's a copout response. Where is this discussion by NCAA schools of breaking off? You stated it was being discussed on places other than the message board. I'm asking YOU to corroborate your statement with a link of where schools are admitting to discussing breaking off. Not speculation like you are doing. Actual discussions going on. Where are some links? You made the statement so I would assume the onus should be on you to back up your statement.

What school, what level of ncaa div 1 are they at? If its lower or mid level I'd imagine they would be amoung the last to know. Anyways, as Ive had to state over and over in this post, full attention will not be paid to this until the big pegs in the CR are in place. Then you will probably see things start to roll on this. Hey, Im not saying its a sure thing. But it sure looks like its heading that way.

To answer your question, I actually know people at a lot of different levels. That said, why would they be the last two know? The discussions have been happening at the annual retreats and during meetings of the Division I NCAA Presidents and among 'official' discussions. This idea hasn't been super-secret, off-the-record chatter. It's been discussed for three years and it's been circulated among the newsletter and solicited input from athletics people at the various schools.

 

[junglehusky]

I've said this in another thread, will post it quick here. I don't see why, if a breakaway happens, it has to be 4 conferences of however many teams. Like some kind of astrological alignment, where the last of the big 4 gets to 16 (or 20) and a bell goes dingdingding and they've unlocked the ability to break away clean. I think it might be one nationwide conference of select schools from different conferences, schools that already have the big revenue and want to take it to the next level. I don't know if that means more or less lawsuits though.

 

[king conn]

Loss leaders? Um, no. Not at all. The first two rounds average a 6 rating and over 10 million viewers per game. At around 30 CPM, that's 52 games and 520 million total viewers with a revenue of close to a a quarter of a billion dollars to the network. Like you already admitted, people tune in early to watch upsets early in the tournament. The first four days of the tournament is a cultural phenomenon. To say these games are 'loss leaders' isn't consistent with the reality of how much money is being made even early in the tournament. They would certainly make some additional revenue by keeping it to themselves, but it wouldn't likely supplement the loss of the additional 52 games.


First round averages a 6? Last year the ENTIRE tournament averaged a 6! Just keep throwing it at the wall. CBS is paying major major dollars, these early round games are, repeat, loss leaders. They almost lose money on the tournament as a WHOLE, some say they do, now you are going to say they make money with the lowest rated games? Good grief.
And I never admitted people tune in to watch the early games. You said there was alot of non fan interest, and I said the interest is in the brackets. Dont need to watch to do a bracket. In fact the people at my office do not.

https://twitter.com/Ourand_SBJ/status/187191035150082048


That's a copout response. Where is this discussion by NCAA schools of breaking off? You stated it was being discussed on places other than the message board. I'm asking YOU to corroborate your statement with a link of where schools are admitting to discussing breaking off. Not speculation like you are doing. Actual discussions going on. Where are some links? You made the statement so I would assume the onus should be on you to back up your statement.


Yeah, schools are going to admit it now. Ya sure got me there...


To answer your question, I actually know people at a lot of different levels. That said, why would they be the last two know? The discussions have been happening at the annual retreats and during meetings of the Division I NCAA Presidents and among 'official' discussions. This idea hasn't been super-secret, off-the-record chatter. It's been discussed for three years and it's been circulated among the newsletter and solicited input from athletics people at the various schools.

I asked what level of ncaa school was the person/people you knew. If they are not at superconference level, and the supers were considering leaving your buddies, it would stand to reason that they may not be consulted about their plans until they were pretty solid.
And as I keep having to say, this will all take shape in the future, not now! Are your ncaa friends suppose to stop planning things in the eventual case of this theory being correct? Of course not. I have witnessed numerous clients make huge capital expenditures and seen the company sold a few month later and others even close.

 

[ruskin]

There are two mutually exclusive things at work here that need to be sorted out. Regular season + postseason big time college football = big time money. NCAA basketball tournament with possibility of Butler, Western Kentucky, Valpo, Vermont knocking off big boys in first round = big time money. Maybe football and hoops go their separate ways?

 

[RS9999X]

The top 30 could divorce football from basketball and run football as a foundation non-profit. It would be best for all

Treat it like pro ball. 30 markets. Get rid of those 30 football teams and let normalcy return

Sent from my Lumia 920 via Windows 8. Now bite me Apple Droids.

 

[kyleslamb]

First round averages a 6? Last year the ENTIRE tournament averaged a 6! Just keep throwing it at the wall. CBS is paying major major dollars, these early round games are, repeat, loss leaders. They almost lose money on the tournament as a WHOLE, some say they do, now you are going to say they make money with the lowest rated games? Good grief.
And I never admitted people tune in to watch the early games. You said there was alot of non fan interest, and I said the interest is in the brackets. Dont need to watch to do a bracket. In fact the people at my office do not.

https://twitter.com/Ourand_SBJ/status/187191035150082048

You're really splitting hairs or grasping at straws, one of the two. I said the first two around average about a 6 rating. I was generalizing. The actual numbers are around 5.3-5.7 but that's not exactly far removed from the "6 rating" I mentioned. In fact, 5.7 rounded to the nearest integer is... 6. The link you just referenced has a 6.6 average for the entire tournament. Surely you can understand though that the first two rounds account for 52 of 67 games within that average, so the average is going to be highly influenced by those 52 games right? In fact, a 6.6 rating over 67 games means if the first two rounds are 5.5, then the rest of the tournament combined is a 10.4 rating. That's actually generous because the same sample you just cited - the 2012 tournament -- had only a 12.3 TV rating for the Kansas-Kentucky championship. The Final Four games were both under a 10 rating. That means the first two rounds had to be slightly higher than 5.5. Want to know something else? The UConn-Butler game scored a higher rating than Kansas-Kentucky. And Butler-Duke was the highest game in 8 years. So what was that about no one caring about mid-majors late in the tournament?

You really need to research this a bit more. If you think a 5.5 rating for daytime programming is a "loss leader" then you have no familiarity with the television industry. Nearly 10 million viewers for a daytime television event is a lot of money for networks. To put that into context, only three college football games scored over a 6 rating all season regardless of whether they were daytime or primetime.

Yeah, schools are going to admit it now. Ya sure got me there...

So you admit all of this is nothing more than unsourced conjecture that began with nothing more than "it seems?" That's what I figured but I appreciate your participating in the formality of clearing that up. That's why I pressed for all these other discussions you speak of, because I assumed they were doing just as you were doing... guessing.

I asked what level of ncaa school was the person/people you knew. If they are not at superconference level, and the supers were considering leaving your buddies, it would stand to reason that they may not be consulted about their plans until they were pretty solid.

And as I keep having to say, this will all take shape in the future, not now! Are your ncaa friends suppose to stop planning things in the eventual case of this theory being correct? Of course not. I have witnessed numerous clients make huge capital expenditures and seen the company sold a few month later and others even close.

Mixed bag. They're in various levels within athletics administration, academic governance and athletic/academic counseling. Some are in BCS conferences, some in FCS conferences.

 

[pj]

This is the question that was asked and I answered - "That being the case, why wouldnt they want as many of the top flight hoops programs as possible, because the billion dollar ncaa tourney money would have to be renegotiated(?)"

This is not rocket science. UConn is additive in terms of bringing a conference whole in number - we're not particularly valuable in terms of adding value to a conference's bottom line - you can find evidence of that in our current situation. Again, in the superconference-breakaway scenario, if we end up with a big four conferences and those conferences break away, there would be no financial motivation to reach down and pull up a UConn - that group of superconferences would already have every ounce of leverage they would ever need.

The superconferences' tournament would be the only tournament CBS or ESPN would have an interest in - period. Your figures on what a program might be worth have no bearing here.

You're missing major aspects of the conferences' and networks' calculations -- especially the need for inventory and the threat of competition.

Kyleslamb's numbers are relevant. The big schools make more money by having smaller schools around to beat up on and increase the inventory of games, while preventing them from grouping into a competing product.

This is why ESPN wanted to kill off the Big East once it was going to another network, why the Catholic 7 schools might get $6 mn a year for their basketball inventory.

UConn is a far more significant competitor to the superconference arrangements than the Catholic 7, and a more valuable inclusion. There will be financial motivation to pull in a UConn.

 

[king conn]

You're really splitting hairs or grasping at straws, one of the two. I said the first two around average about a 6 rating. I was generalizing. The actual numbers are around 5.3-5.7 but that's not exactly far removed from the "6 rating" I mentioned. In fact, 5.7 rounded to the nearest integer is... 6. The link you just referenced has a 6.6 average for the entire tournament. Surely you can understand though that the first two rounds account for 52 of 67 games within that average, so the average is going to be highly influenced by those 52 games right? In fact, a 6.6 rating over 67 games means if the first two rounds are 5.5, then the rest of the tournament combined is a 10.4 rating. That's actually generous because the same sample you just cited - the 2012 tournament -- had only a 12.3 TV rating for the Kansas-Kentucky championship. The Final Four games were both under a 10 rating. That means the first two rounds had to be slightly higher than 5.5. Want to know something else? The UConn-Butler game scored a higher rating than Kansas-Kentucky. And Butler-Duke was the highest game in 8 years. So what was that about no one caring about mid-majors late in the tournament?

Do you really want to get into this? All the early games are done by windows! There are only 4-5 windows during the day. They dont average each of the 52 for the total number. That skews the overall number up. Then, more importantly, they sell advertising based on those ratings windows! Then when they are done selling advertising they see if they take enough in to justify the expense and break even, and if they are real lucky a small profit. Most of the adv money comes in for the later rounds! If they had to rely on the money they got for the early rounds as their payment throughout the tourney they would take such a financial bath they would have to shut down the network! A number of industry insiders believe the WHOLE tourney is a loss leader for CBS, they dont believe they take in enough to justify the expense. And you are still maintaining early game ratings are good???
Now, did you know the final four game with GMason continues to be one of the lowest rated in final 4 history? And since you missed the brick I hit you with the first time, Butler-Duke is because of DUKE, probably the highest tv rated program in college basketball! If they were playing another powerhouse the rating would have been higher!

You really need to research this a bit more. If you think a 5.5 rating for daytime programming is a "loss leader" then you have no familiarity with the television industry. Nearly 10 million viewers for a daytime television event is a lot of money for networks. To put that into context, only three college football games scored over a 6 rating all season regardless of whether they were daytime or primetime.

These early games windows are 4-6. Documented. And, it is the rating and WHAT YOU PAID for that rating. The cost of that low rating would put the network OUT OF BUSINESS if they were forced to carry that cost the rest of the year.


So you admit all of this is nothing more than unsourced conjecture that began with nothing more than "it seems?" That's what I figured but I appreciate your participating in the formality of clearing that up. That's why I pressed for all these other discussions you speak of, because I assumed they were doing just as you were doing... guessing.


Who is "grasping at straws" here?




Mixed bag. They're in various levels within athletics administration, academic governance and athletic/academic counseling. Some are in BCS conferences, some in FCS conferences.

I dont drop vague names unless confronted with it, but btw one of my clients is a major tv network. I hear things too. And I know my subject matter.

 

[kyleslamb]

Do you really want to get into this? All the early games are done by windows! There are only 4-5 windows during the day. They dont average each of the 52 for the total number. That skews the overall number up. Then, more importantly, they sell advertising based on those ratings windows! Then when they are done selling advertising they see if they take enough in to justify the expense and break even, and if they are real lucky a small profit. Most of the adv money comes in for the later rounds! If they had to rely on the money they got for the early rounds as their payment throughout the tourney they would take such a financial bath they would have to shut down the network! A number of industry insiders believe the WHOLE tourney is a loss leader for CBS, they dont believe they take in enough to justify the expense. And you are still maintaining early game ratings are good???

Now, did you know the final four game with GMason continues to be one of the lowest rated in final 4 history? And since you missed the brick I hit you with the first time, Butler-Duke is because of DUKE, probably the highest tv rated program in college basketball! If they were playing another powerhouse the rating would have been higher!

Surely you realize that the "windows" thing was only applicable when it was regional coverage on CBS, right? You do realize that when the games started being broadcast on four different networks they started doing ratings individually, yes? Turner and Viacom are separate entities. You think they sell ratings based on someone else's "window" of games? You think Nielsen Media, who does the ratings, changes their business model to make the NCAA look better? That's preposterous.

When the window was used, it was done so because CBS had time slots where regional games were played within the time slot. The regional games were measured within the regions of the country they were shown. But when the four-network model came into action a couple of years ago, the game changed because they are now showing four different games on four different networks. The average of those games are taken as separate programming. That's because Nielsen is not viewing those games as "windows." They're viewing the games as four separate games on four separate channels.

In fact, if you read one of those press releases put out the last two years about ratings, you'll see they even explain that tournament averages are based on weighted "averages" of the 4 telecast "gross." So in other words, the average is based on total ratings of all games on each network, then weighted to number of telecasts and averaged.

Like I said earlier, it's about inventory. Back when CBS had regional coverage, this wouldn't have been a big deal. But the decision to broadcast all games separately on a different network changed the game. It allowed people to choose their game of choice and maximized the viewership.

I also think it's amusing that Duke-Butler ratings were because of Duke, yet UCONN-Butler ratings were better than Kansas-Kentucky. Why was Duke-Butler better than Kansas-Kentucky, North Carolina-Michigan State, etc.? Does Duke draw better than all the other superpowers combined? Hardly.

Who is "grasping at straws" here?

You still haven't been able to answer my question about where all the "discussion" on this is coming from. It's an easy question, yet you've refused to answer it.

 

[king conn]

Surely you realize that the "windows" thing was only applicable when it was regional coverage on CBS, right? You do realize that when the games started being broadcast on four different networks they started doing ratings individually, yes?

Yes they still use windows.
http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2012/03/ncaa-tournament-tv-ratings-flat-through-sundays-games/
2nd paragraph. And you can see the 4.8 and 5.6 thur-sun ratings for the years 2010 and 2011/12 while you are at it. Through Sunday, so they are actually lower on the true early games (thurs and fri) we were talking about.

Turner and Viacom are separate entities. You think they sell ratings based on someone else's "window" of games?

Are you serious? What the heck does it matter who has the games? I assume you mean sell ads, who sells ratings?
You think Nielsen Media, who does the ratings, changes their business model to make the NCAA look better? That's preposterous.

Now we are creating preposterous statements and claiming I said them to try and win a non existing point. This must be wearing on you.

When the window was used, it was done so because CBS had time slots where regional games were played within the time slot. The regional games were measured within the regions of the country they were shown. But when the four-network model came into action a couple of years ago, the game changed because they are now showing four different games on four different networks. The average of those games are taken as separate programming. That's because Nielsen is not viewing those games as "windows." They're viewing the games as four separate games on four separate channels.

In fact, if you read one of those press releases put out the last two years about ratings, you'll see they even explain that tournament averages are based on weighted "averages" of the 4 telecast "gross." So in other words, the average is based on total ratings of all games on each network, then weighted to number of telecasts and averaged.

In other words, you are going to define the window , but not call it a window because you cant admit you are wrong yet again.
Here you go
Another link describing the four network Nielson window ( their words)
http://content.usatoday.com/communi...w-that-ncaa-gets-normal-coverage-ratings-up/1
Like I said earlier, it's about inventory. Back when CBS had regional coverage, this wouldn't have been a big deal. But the decision to broadcast all games separately on a different network changed the game. It allowed people to choose their game of choice and maximized the viewership.

I also think it's amusing that Duke-Butler ratings were because of Duke, yet UCONN-Butler ratings were better than Kansas-Kentucky. Why was Duke-Butler better than Kansas-Kentucky, North Carolina-Michigan State, etc.? Does Duke draw better than all the other superpowers combined? Hardly.

Lets see, should you at least try and check something before talking out of your arse? Nah, why start now. Everyone knows Butler carried Duke. You might want to check the last time an ncaa basketball championship rating was higher. It was Duke in 1999. The last one to equal it was a battle of BCS schools, UNC and Illinois in 2005.

You still haven't been able to answer my question about where all the "discussion" on this is coming from. It's an easy question, yet you've refused to answer it.

He is discussing it
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2012/03/separating_ncaa_division_i_wea.html
Want more?
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/andy_staples/12/07/img-forum-plus-one-ncaa/index.html

Schools out at this point. I should be charging you for this.

 

[kyleslamb]

This whole argument is silly. Nevermind that you're clinging to the word "window" in order to make your case work. Of course they have "windows." That's how the programs are scheduled. But that's not how Nielsen calculates ratings.

If you think that these ratings during an afternoon broadcast are not profitable for networks, then you have no comprehension whatsoever at what daytime programming usually draws. These networks are paying for inventory for much higher-rated programming they'd otherwise be showing. In turn, these major conferences are not going to throw away 52 games of inventory. It's not how these things work. Period.

Everything else is just misdirection, at this juncture. And I've asked repeatedly for a link that shows where all this discussion has come from and you still haven't provided one.

 

[king conn]

This whole argument is silly. Nevermind that you're clinging to the word "window" in order to make your case work. Of course they have "windows." That's how the programs are scheduled. But that's not how Nielsen calculates ratings.

What the heck, I came back for some good comedy and you didnt let me down! After spending the past two days not only denying but ridiculing the concept of windows, when I threw the proof in your face you say "of course" and the argument is silly. Now THAT is silly! And you are still going to say that is not how Nielson calculates ratings for this event when I gave you two links telling you they do. Cant help you dude...

If you think that these ratings during an afternoon broadcast are not profitable for networks, then you have no comprehension whatsoever at what daytime programming usually draws. These networks are paying for inventory for much higher-rated programming they'd otherwise be showing. In turn, these major conferences are not going to throw away 52 games of inventory. It's not how these things work. Period.

This is actually your silliest argument, so you cant even get that right. So if they paid 500 billion dollars for that programming according to you it would still be profitable because it draws better than usual. Im glad I dont have that comprehension!
BTW, what the heck is major conferences throwing away inventory? Huh?

Everything else is just misdirection, at this juncture. And I've asked repeatedly for a link that shows where all this discussion has come from and you still haven't provided one.

Oh, I guess you were too destroyed to click the two links I gave you. Or will you write back and say " of course they are talking about it, what a silly argument"