Tv ratings

[upstater]

2012-13 Kansas vs Michigan State hoops- Intersectional blue blood vs blue blood - 1.3 rating
2012-13 Kansas vs Baylor - Blue blood vs non-traditional power with a decent team- .9

2012 ND vs Oklahoma- Intersectional blue blood vs blue blood - 5.2
2012 OU vs TCU - Blue blood vs non-traditional power with a decent team- 2.3

2010 Boise vs VT - 6.8
2010 Boise vs Nevada - 3.4

It's that way for most of the nation. Big time football matchups simply outdraw hoops ones on tv until tourney time.

1- Duration
2- Win or go home applies to most of the games
3- Less inventory competing. 2x the conferences, 3x the games per team = saturation and less buildup nationally per event

I'd like to see this in aggregate, because believe me, I can go on a cherry picking exercise. I can reverse this to show the exact opposite. It simply looked to me, as I ran down the list of ratings you linked to, that national games were getting about 2.8 to 3.0 on average for football. Are there outliers? Yes. But there are outliers in bball too, into the 3.0 range from the average of about 2.0.

I'm less convinced about duration when you realize there are 3x as many games in bball. Not sure what you mean by #2. We are discussing ratings.

 

[brasssbonanzaa]

Basketball's value comes from total content, it provides vastly more games than football does, and more broadly covers a higher number of time slots. This is also its downfall, as those games are far less individually meaningful than a singular football game, and will lead to lower viewership.

 

[itgoeslike]

I'm sure I am missing something here. I was generally surprised to see national football broadcasts between powers and big teams in that 2.0 range. I thought it would have been much higher. And in those ratings you also see why Notre Dame is so highly valued. They are the one team that seems to get better ratings no matter what. Astonishing.

Big football brands also tend to have more alumni and fan bases willing to pay extra money for a subscription, no matter where they live. Live programming is one of the few products media companies can charge a premium for. Football games are typically an event versus a game. Yes, there are more basketball games, but 1/3 to 1/2 the games are against smaller schools. A typical basketball school has maybe 8-10 rivalry games, whereas football may have as many 6, which closes the gap somewhat. The CFB playoffs are going to generate serious additional cash.

Forgetting concessions, etc., look at how much revenue is generated from ticket sales at the top schools (click on the team to view more detail). http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/schools/finances/

Again, I don't disagree that the divide between football is somewhat exaggerated, especially when you are taking about brands beyond the top 10.

 

[upstater]

Basketball's value comes from total content, it provides vastly more games than football does, and more broadly covers a higher number of time slots. This is also its downfall, as those games are far less individually meaningful than a singular football game, and will lead to lower viewership.

But look at the national football ratings... They are no great shakes either.

Maybe what I'm missing is regional football. Maybe that's the difference right there. They don't have regional basketball. But there's a lot of regional football. so while national ratings for football aren't great, maybe the regional games are fantastic. So, Tennessee v. Georgia moves the dial all over the southeast. Penn State and Ohio State is of interest in the east and midwest (look at last year's national rating for OSU/PSU, abysmal!!), and USC versus Oregon St. does decently in the west.

This would make football more valuable.

But the national numbers are not nearly as impressive as I assumed.

 

[itgoeslike]

I'm sure I am missing something here. I was generally surprised to see national football broadcasts between powers and big teams in that 2.0 range. I thought it would have been much higher. And in those ratings you also see why Notre Dame is so highly valued. They are the one team that seems to get better ratings no matter what. Astonishing.

One more thought, basketball will become more important. The ACC (with ESPN) is going to try to position their league as the "best ever" and promote the crap out of it. They'll try to replicate the strides the NBA has made over the last decade. If the B1G added UCONN, it would temper some of that. If the ACC offers UCONN it will have a strangle hold on basketball and much more of a presence in NYC.

 

[upstater]

Big football brands also tend to have more alumni and fan bases willing to pay extra money for a subscription, no matter where they live. Live programming is one of the few products media companies can charge a premium for. Football games are typically an event versus a game. Yes, there are more basketball games, but 1/3 to 1/2 the games are against smaller schools.

What do you mean by smaller? Non-conference? Look at UConn's 2010-2011 season (the last before the NCAA started docking UConn games, so I used that one). They played 35 games prior to the NCAA tourney. Only 6 were against small teams. 6 out of 35. Then look at, say, Georgia or Alabama football. 3 out 12. 25% against small teams like Chattanooga or Georgia St. Actually, football plays MORE smaller teams than bball does.

A typical basketball school has maybe 8-10 rivalry games, whereas football may have as many 6, which closes the gap somewhat. The CFB playoffs are going to generate serious additional cash.

We've yet to see how CFB is going to work but I imagine you're right. We do know, however, that the bowl system is a loss for many schools, not a cash generator.

Forgetting concessions, etc., look at how much revenue is generated from ticket sales at the top schools (click on the team to view more detail). http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/schools/finances/

Again, I don't disagree that the divide between football is somewhat exaggerated, especially when you are taking about brands beyond the top 10.

I've lived in college towns so I know the football games are big events. Wondering what the TV execs think.

 

[upstater]

One more thought, basketball will become more important. The ACC (with ESPN) is going to try to position their league as the "best ever" and promote the crap out of it. They'll try to replicate the strides the NBA has made over the last decade. If the B1G added UCONN, it would temper some of that. If the ACC offers UCONN it will have a strangle hold on basketball and much more of a presence in NYC.

I've been saying exactly this for year's now. The B10 could really put a whammy on NYC bball by positioning UConn and Rutgers correctly, BUT... B10 style of bball is not that attractive.