Tv ratings

[Durks07]

Here is a link for the TV ratings for all bowl games in recent years:

http://www.bcsfootball.org/news/story?id=4819384

Also, a link showing that in the past year, UConn football has received a 50% ratings increase in the Hartford/New Haven market since going to SNY:


http://today.uconn.edu/blog/2012/12/uconn-huskies-surge-in-popularity-on-sny/

The UConn Huskies Football team also experienced significant television ratings gains this season by posting a huge 50 percent increase versus the 2011 season on SNY (3.10 household rating vs. 2.07 household rating). SNY’s highest rated UConn football game registered a 3.90 household rating when UConn defeated Louisville on Nov. 24.

“We’ve always believed that creating a single destination – one that provides consistency as well as the most comprehensive, in-depth coverage for UConn fans would result in increased visibility and popularity,” said Steve Raab, President of SNY. “We knew we would deliver UConn a broader national audience, but these substantial ratings gains across all of our UConn properties on a local level are another great development. We are excited about the potential to grow the brand even more as we continue our partnership with the University.”
[/QUOTE]

 

[whaler11]

Anyone who understands TV ratings would not be trumping up those football numbers on SNY. They are pathetic relative to what major programs get in their local markets.

 

[The Funster]

Yeah but NYC isn't just any market. NYC has never been a college FB market but Rutgers and now UConn are showing that they can tap into it. Birmingham is the largest city in Alabama. It has a population of 212K. NY has 8.3M people. Which market is more valuable?

 

[brasssbonanzaa]

Anyone who understands TV ratings would not be trumping up those football numbers on SNY. They are pathetic relative to what major programs get in their local markets.

The local markets of those places pale in comparison to the markets SNY/YES reach, and what advertisers want.

 

[whaler11]

The local markets of those places pale in comparison to the markets SNY/YES reach, and what advertisers want.

LOL. The ratings on SNY for UConn football are avert your eyes awful. Wow a 50% gain on 20k households - hold a parade!

Trying to pretend UConn has a football fanbase is silly. Pretending they do only distracts from the effort to actually go about building one.

 

[Dooley]

I see what you're saying but you're missing the overall point. The 50% increase points to the fact that the fanbase IS building. I don't care if it's 1 extra household watching. The point is that there are more people in the tri-state area turning on UConn football than last year, despite consecutive 5-7 seasons and GDL calling mind-numbingly dumb and boring plays. Imagine the growth if/when UConn wins and plays a more exciting brand of football?

 

[brasssbonanzaa]

LOL. The ratings on SNY for UConn football are avert your eyes awful. Wow a 50% gain on 20k households - hold a parade!

Trying to pretend UConn has a football fanbase is silly. Pretending they do only distracts from the effort to actually go about building one.

im not talking about what the ratings are, im talking about what SNY/YES ...BTN can charge in subscriber fees, and the number of people to whom they can charge that fee. in the end, that's all that matters.

 

[whaler11]

I see what you're saying but you're missing the overall point. The 50% increase points to the fact that the fanbase IS building. I don't care if it's 1 extra household watching. The point is that there are more people in the tri-state area turning on UConn football than last year, despite consecutive 5-7 seasons and GDL calling mind-numbingly dumb and boring plays. Imagine the growth if/when UConn wins and plays a more exciting brand of football?

It's not actually. It was a schedule quirk that put a road game against a top 20 team on SNY. So relative to the prior season it looks good.

There is less juice for this program in CT right now than at any point in their BCS history. If Michigan wasn't coming to Rentschler... Wow.

 

[whaler11]

I see what you're saying but you're missing the overall point. The 50% increase points to the fact that the fanbase IS building. I don't care if it's 1 extra household watching. The point is that there are more people in the tri-state area turning on UConn football than last year, despite consecutive 5-7 seasons and GDL calling mind-numbingly dumb and boring plays. Imagine the growth if/when UConn wins and plays a more exciting brand of football?

And that 50% increase was in the Hartford DMA not the tri-state area.

 

[itgoeslike]

Here's another Sports Media Watch link:

http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/201...tv-ratings-for-almost-every-game-this-season/

 

[Durks07]

Whaler11...some of us actually want to take a positive view on UConn athletics, and anything that promotes a positive view of UConn is worth mentioning. If those who point out the fact that there is a 50% increase in viewership is notable are to be mocked, then honestly look in the mirror and assess whether you are really a fan or a person who takes his pleasure in mocking those who prefer to think highly of UConn. I don't care that that 50% increase is only in the Hartford/New Haven DMA. A 3.9 rating in the Hartford/New Haven DMA for the Louisville game is better than a 3.9 in Birmingham, Alabama period, unless of course, you don't realize that this market is larger than Birmingham. In that case, honestly, nothing will help you understand (our market is LARGER, with more people, so it is more important: I thought I should make it simple). Why don't we just go back to the days where we have to suffer through listening to Joe D announce games if a 3.9 is not good enough because half the games were not on any television outlet. I, for one prefer to think as a 50% increase a positive thing regardless of what you may say (I know you like to romp around in negativity, but UConn football gaining television traction at all is a positive thing for the university, no matter what you may think). It is certainly much better than mocking other UConn fans for pointing out positive facts about our university. It makes me wonder why we had HFD (who is positive about UConn and it's place in the landscape, despite some wild rants) go on sabbatical rather than someone who wants to mock UConn fans who, god forbid dare to mention a positive about the university.

 

[whaler11]

Whaler11...some of us actually want to take a positive view on UConn athletics, and anything that promotes a positive view of UConn is worth mentioning. If those who point out the fact that there is a 50% increase in viewership is notable are to be mocked, then honestly look in the mirror and assess whether you are really a fan or a person who takes his pleasure in mocking those who prefer to think highly of UConn. I don't care that that 50% increase is only in the Hartford/New Haven DMA. A 3.9 rating in the Hartford/New Haven DMA for the Louisville game is better than a 3.9 in Birmingham, Alabama period, unless of course, you don't realize that this market is larger than Birmingham. In that case, honestly, nothing will help you understand (our market is LARGER, with more people, so it is more important: I thought I should make it simple). Why don't we just go back to the days where we have to suffer through listening to Joe D announce games if a 3.9 is not good enough because half the games were not on any television outlet. I, for one prefer to think as a 50% increase a positive thing regardless of what you may say (I know you like to romp around in negativity, but UConn football gaining television traction at all is a positive thing for the university, no matter what you may think). It is certainly much better than mocking other UConn fans for pointing out positive facts about our university. It makes me wonder why we had HFD (who is positive about UConn and it's place in the landscape, despite some wild rants) go on sabbatical rather than someone who wants to mock UConn fans who, god forbid dare to mention a positive about the university.

Durks: The first step in solving the problem is admitting it exists.

Misrepresenting numbers because they are misunderstood does not help in the long run, it only gives the impression that things are going in the right direction when they aren't.

I understand what markets are larger, I also understand that schools like Ohio State get ratings in the 20s for home games and UConn gets 2s and 3s for road games.

The improvement on a percentage basis was because of one outlier rating for Louisville. That game still had less than 40k homes.

The sober reality is that the ratings are bad and the football 'fan base' is on life support. Pretending the opposite just moves away from looking for solutions.

 

[upstater]

Here's another Sports Media Watch link:

http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/201...tv-ratings-for-almost-every-game-this-season/

Looking at those numbers makes me wonder why football is so much more lucrative than bball. It doesn't seem so from the TV ratings. It's gotta be the huge amount of money schools make when they charge 80,000 people good bucks for a game.

Schools like UConn can draw a 2.0 on ESPN and CBS nationally. Lesser schools do a .5. And the top line for bball for a great season game is around 3.0, whereas it may be a little higher for football. Still, there is not a great deal of difference. There are plenty of national football games on Fox and ESPN that do a sub 1.

 

[WordUpBU]

Looking at those numbers makes me wonder why football is so much more lucrative than bball. It doesn't seem so from the TV ratings. It's gotta be the huge amount of money schools make when they charge 80,000 people good bucks for a game.

Schools like UConn can draw a 2.0 on ESPN and CBS nationally. Lesser schools do a .5. And the top line for bball for a great season game is around 3.0, whereas it may be a little higher for football. Still, there is not a great deal of difference. There are plenty of national football games on Fox and ESPN that do a sub 1.

1- Minor bowls get similar ratings to the elite non-tourney games in hoops.
2- Duration, 2x the time- 2x the ads
3- Every game can make or break a season.

 

[upstater]

1- Minor bowls get similar ratings to the elite non-tourney games in hoops.
2- Duration, 2x the time- 2x the ads
3- Every game can make or break a season.

Good point about duration, although I think football games are only 1.5x longer, not 2x (bball goes about 2 hrs and 10 minutes). I was looking at regular season games for both sports. I'm actually trying to understand how/why football is so much more lucrative.

 

[WordUpBU]

Good point about duration, although I think football games are only 1.5x longer, not 2x (bball goes about 2 hrs and 10 minutes). I was looking at regular season games for both sports. I'm actually trying to understand how/why football is so much more lucrative.

Compare the Butler vs Gonzaga or UK s Indiana ratings vs the espn ratings for cfb from the B1G or SEC. It's pretty one sided.

 

[upstater]

Compare the Butler vs Gonzaga or UK s Indiana ratings vs the espn ratings for cfb from the B1G or SEC. It's pretty one sided.

What am I missing? I'm looking at high 2s for most of the B1G/SEC games. National BBall games are at 2.0 or so, below, but not that much.

As for Butler Gonzaga, that's the equivalent of Boise St. and some other non-BCS school.

 

[itgoeslike]

Good point about duration, although I think football games are only 1.5x longer, not 2x (bball goes about 2 hrs and 10 minutes). I was looking at regular season games for both sports. I'm actually trying to understand how/why football is so much more lucrative.

Beyond TV money, I think it's what the schools can generate locally that adds to their overall profitability. This is especially true for a school with no other local diversions, i.e. Clemson, FSU, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Boise, Alabama, etc. They are the center of the universe in these locals. Also:

- CFB is more "privatized" than basketball (ncaa manages and disperses revenue) which can drive up pricing for live programming
- Bowl revenue is typically a plus
- You touched on it when you said 80,000 fans. On average football games have 6x the attendance with ticket prices at least 2x that of basketball. Michigan can generate millions of dollars from a single game (which is probably why they were annoyed when ND ended their future match-ups). It's less disparate when it comes to UCONN.
- The additional revenue generated through longer game duration was a good point
- The additional revenue from prime time placement (fewer FB games played on a Tuesday night)
- The additional revenue from concession sales (it adds up)
- Football brands generate more cash when it comes to product licensing and sales
- Sponsorships, luxury boxes and booster revenue are more for football
- Generally speaking, third tier licensing generates more cash for football. There are exceptions such as Duke, Kentucky, UCONN, etc.

The difference in revenue correlates with the delta between the NFL and NBA. Having said all that, I do think that BB revenue is "under valued". Even NCAA credits can generate over $2M per team within a winning conference. And by the way, it's only more lucrative for about 30-40 schools in Division 1—and that still depends on how you measure your P&L.

 

[upstater]

Beyond TV money, I think it's what the schools can generate locally that adds to their overall profitability. This is especially true for a school with no other local diversions, i.e. Clemson, FSU, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Boise, Alabama, etc. They are the center of the universe in these locals. Also:

- CFB is more "privatized" than basketball (ncaa manages and disperses revenue) which can drive up pricing for live programming

But this is only true of the tournament. Not true of regular season or conference tourney games. Even on the question of duration, we have to take into account that there are almost 3x as many regular season games in bball as in football.

- Bowl revenue is typically a plus

I'd be willing to be that NCAA tourney credits are more lucrative. Remember, even after receiving bowl credits, schools lose money. In bball, the conference tourneys are a wash as well, as rent + tix takes away profits.

- You touched on it when you said 80,000 fans. On average football games have 6x the attendance with ticket prices at least 2x that of basketball. Michigan can generate millions of dollars from a single game (which is probably why they were annoyed when ND ended their future match-ups). It's less disparate when it comes to UCONN.

I think this might be it. The big generator.

- The additional revenue generated through longer game duration was a good point

But then we have to consider more bball games.

- The additional revenue from prime time placement (fewer FB games played on a Tuesday night)

It's the ratings that matter though. Share is entirely different. Only share takes into account what night a given show is on. A rating point accounts for all existing televisions nationally.

- The additional revenue from concession sales (it adds up)
- Football brands generate more cash when it comes to product licensing and sales
- Sponsorships, luxury boxes and booster revenue are more for football
- Generally speaking, third tier licensing generates more cash for football. There are exceptions such as Duke, Kentucky, UCONN, etc.

The difference in revenue correlates with the delta between the NFL and NBA. Having said all that, I do think that BB revenue is "under valued". Even NCAA credits can generate over $2M per team within a winning conference. And by the way, it's only more lucrative for about 30-40 schools in Division 1—and that still depends on how you measure your P&L.

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.

 

[WordUpBU]

What am I missing? I'm looking at high 2s for most of the B1G/SEC games. National BBall games are at 2.0 or so, below, but not that much.

As for Butler Gonzaga, that's the equivalent of Boise St. and some other non-BCS school.

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

 

[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.