Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Pretty interesting article on the Bowl Ratings
Author Message
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 25,802
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 548
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #31
RE: Pretty interesting article on the Bowl Ratings
(01-19-2018 11:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-18-2018 11:37 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-18-2018 11:19 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(01-18-2018 10:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-18-2018 10:29 AM)bullet Wrote:  Interesting on value of regular season vs. bowls:

"...1. (1) Alabama at (6) Auburn – Saturday, Nov. 25 on CBS – 13.66 million viewers.
Overall, only three bowl games outdrew the top regular-season game in viewership – and those were all associated with the CFP bracket (the Sugar and Rose semi-finals and the National Championship game). In other words, no non-bracket bowl game attracted more viewers than did Alabama at Auburn in Week 13. And, rather than being literally the only game on TV, the Iron Bowl was one of 43 games played that Saturday.
Of the three teams mentioned twice in the top five of regular-season viewership, two drew in more viewers in their regular-season highs than during bowl season:
Ohio State had 9.468 million tune in to its Cotton Bowl appearance vs. USC. Compare that to the 10.15 million it drew at Michigan and the 12.92 it garnered in the Big Ten title game vs. Wisconsin.
Auburn had 8.377 million viewers watch its Peach Bowl appearance vs. UCF (the least viewed of the six rotating CFP bowl games). Compare that to the 13.47 million who tuned in for the SEC title game vs. Georgia and the 13.66 million who watched the Iron Bowl vs. Alabama...."

The author seems to think his numbers denigrate the bowls, but in fact they show how important they are. E.g., the discussion of Auburn makes the Peach look bad, but it was still the 3rd-highest rated game Auburn played all last year, and they draw good ratings. The Peach even beat out the first Auburn - Georgia game.

And for UCF, it surely was far and away their most-watched game. Heck, all the other games UCF played put together drew about 9.5 million viewers. The Peach did 8.3 million by itself.

The article shows what a BOON these bowl games are exposure-wise for the G5 teams. E.g., Troy's bowl game drew 1.3 million viewers, more than double the viewers for any other game, except for LSU vs Troy, and it even beat that game by 500k viewers.

These bowl games, even the rinky-dink ones, are nice exposure for the G5.

Exactly....look at these 2 bowls:
Armed Forces Bowl, Army vs San Diego St. 2 unranked non cartel schools. 3.5 million viewers.
Las Vegas Bowl: Boise St vs Oregon. Unranked schools, one a bad 7-5 PAC team the other a G5. 3.8 million viewers.
Those numbers are double some ranked cartel school matchups like #16 Michigan St vs #18 Washington St...1.3 million viewers.

Alright guys, this is exactly why we aren't moving to an expanded playoff. Because, if we did ESPN turns a dead time money winner, the bowl season, into an afterthought. You need quality also ran schools to play as the headliners in these bowls because without them there wouldn't be enough schools with just the bottom of the P conferences and the best of the G5 to keep them going. There is too much profit here for ESPN at a down time to let them go for the sake of 4 high dollar overhead playoff games.

Now toss in the fact that the school presidents don't want an expanded playoff, A.D.'s don't want it, the coaches don't want another week of work during the holiday season, especially the ones that might have to prepare for 3 huge games, and the players are already reticent to play in the postseason if they are high draft selections, and I think you can see now why nobody but sportswriters who need to stir readers even talk about it.

I disagree on this. Bowl season will,be just fine with an expanded playoff. Thats 4 games. We used have only a half dozen or so bowls. Now we have 40. The bowl ratings are doing just fine. As long as any random bowl game is only going against Big Bang reruns (or at best--one other bowl) the ratings are going to be fine.

What 4 more playoff games does is double the number of viewers with an extremely high interest in the playoff and doubles the amount of interest in the last weeks of the season because twice as many teams still have a shot at an 8 team field (as opposed to a 4 team field). It also more than doubles the number of HUGE viewer postseason games from 3 to 7.

Playoff expansion is a guaranteed money maker and its happening.

I agree that we are likely to expand to an 8-team playoff - seven long years from now.

But, I'm not sure if it will be the money-maker you think. The P5 conference title games are quasi-quarterfinals as it is - this year, it was obvious that the SEC CG and ACC CG winners would make the playoffs, and Oklahoma was in if they won the Big 12 title game and Wisconsin was in if they won the B1G title game.

A 4-team playoff doesn't cannibalize the conference title games - which the P5 covet because they keep all of that money themselves - but an expansion to 8 likely would.
01-20-2018 07:19 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,701
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 906
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #32
RE: Pretty interesting article on the Bowl Ratings
(01-20-2018 07:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-19-2018 11:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-18-2018 11:37 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-18-2018 11:19 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(01-18-2018 10:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  The author seems to think his numbers denigrate the bowls, but in fact they show how important they are. E.g., the discussion of Auburn makes the Peach look bad, but it was still the 3rd-highest rated game Auburn played all last year, and they draw good ratings. The Peach even beat out the first Auburn - Georgia game.

And for UCF, it surely was far and away their most-watched game. Heck, all the other games UCF played put together drew about 9.5 million viewers. The Peach did 8.3 million by itself.

The article shows what a BOON these bowl games are exposure-wise for the G5 teams. E.g., Troy's bowl game drew 1.3 million viewers, more than double the viewers for any other game, except for LSU vs Troy, and it even beat that game by 500k viewers.

These bowl games, even the rinky-dink ones, are nice exposure for the G5.

Exactly....look at these 2 bowls:
Armed Forces Bowl, Army vs San Diego St. 2 unranked non cartel schools. 3.5 million viewers.
Las Vegas Bowl: Boise St vs Oregon. Unranked schools, one a bad 7-5 PAC team the other a G5. 3.8 million viewers.
Those numbers are double some ranked cartel school matchups like #16 Michigan St vs #18 Washington St...1.3 million viewers.

Alright guys, this is exactly why we aren't moving to an expanded playoff. Because, if we did ESPN turns a dead time money winner, the bowl season, into an afterthought. You need quality also ran schools to play as the headliners in these bowls because without them there wouldn't be enough schools with just the bottom of the P conferences and the best of the G5 to keep them going. There is too much profit here for ESPN at a down time to let them go for the sake of 4 high dollar overhead playoff games.

Now toss in the fact that the school presidents don't want an expanded playoff, A.D.'s don't want it, the coaches don't want another week of work during the holiday season, especially the ones that might have to prepare for 3 huge games, and the players are already reticent to play in the postseason if they are high draft selections, and I think you can see now why nobody but sportswriters who need to stir readers even talk about it.

I disagree on this. Bowl season will,be just fine with an expanded playoff. Thats 4 games. We used have only a half dozen or so bowls. Now we have 40. The bowl ratings are doing just fine. As long as any random bowl game is only going against Big Bang reruns (or at best--one other bowl) the ratings are going to be fine.

What 4 more playoff games does is double the number of viewers with an extremely high interest in the playoff and doubles the amount of interest in the last weeks of the season because twice as many teams still have a shot at an 8 team field (as opposed to a 4 team field). It also more than doubles the number of HUGE viewer postseason games from 3 to 7.

Playoff expansion is a guaranteed money maker and its happening.

I agree that we are likely to expand to an 8-team playoff - seven long years from now.

But, I'm not sure if it will be the money-maker you think. The P5 conference title games are quasi-quarterfinals as it is - this year, it was obvious that the SEC CG and ACC CG winners would make the playoffs, and Oklahoma was in if they won the Big 12 title game and Wisconsin was in if they won the B1G title game.

A 4-team playoff doesn't cannibalize the conference title games - which the P5 covet because they keep all of that money themselves - but an expansion to 8 likely would.

If the P5 champs are AQ (my preferred 8 team format), interest in those P5 CCG games would not decrease. In fact, with that format the CCG’s would effectively represent a first round play in game for every conference (either directly for the P5 or indirectly for the G5). Those games would be more important than they are now (as the Pac12 and Big10 fans can easily understand this year).
(This post was last modified: 01-20-2018 11:53 AM by Attackcoog.)
01-20-2018 11:46 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jaredf29 Offline
Smiter of Trolls
*

Posts: 5,999
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 229
I Root For: UCF
Location: Nor Cal
Post: #33
RE: Pretty interesting article on the Bowl Ratings
(01-18-2018 02:04 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-18-2018 11:35 AM)Chappy Wrote:  
(01-17-2018 11:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-17-2018 09:44 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  Surprising the Citrus outdrew the Peach.

Didn't surprise me. The Peach was the relegation bowl, the G5 rep vs a 3-loss and utterly demoralized Auburn team. Turned out to be a fun game but who woulda guessed?

In contrast, the Citrus featured two top-brand blue-bloods, Notre Dame and LSU. That figured to draw more viewers.

Geez, Auburn sure looked to me like they were trying. I couldn't tell they were so demoralized.

Sure, you are in a game, you try. But "trying" involves a lot more than just in-game effort. It involves all the time spent, or not spent, putting forth effort in practice, paying attention in the film room, etc. preparing for the game.

Auburn was crushed after the SEC title game loss, and then to draw UCF in their bowl? The pits.

Seriously your obsession with UCF is on another level.
01-20-2018 01:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 24,373
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 540
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #34
RE: Pretty interesting article on the Bowl Ratings
(01-20-2018 07:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-19-2018 11:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-18-2018 11:37 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-18-2018 11:19 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(01-18-2018 10:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  The author seems to think his numbers denigrate the bowls, but in fact they show how important they are. E.g., the discussion of Auburn makes the Peach look bad, but it was still the 3rd-highest rated game Auburn played all last year, and they draw good ratings. The Peach even beat out the first Auburn - Georgia game.

And for UCF, it surely was far and away their most-watched game. Heck, all the other games UCF played put together drew about 9.5 million viewers. The Peach did 8.3 million by itself.

The article shows what a BOON these bowl games are exposure-wise for the G5 teams. E.g., Troy's bowl game drew 1.3 million viewers, more than double the viewers for any other game, except for LSU vs Troy, and it even beat that game by 500k viewers.

These bowl games, even the rinky-dink ones, are nice exposure for the G5.

Exactly....look at these 2 bowls:
Armed Forces Bowl, Army vs San Diego St. 2 unranked non cartel schools. 3.5 million viewers.
Las Vegas Bowl: Boise St vs Oregon. Unranked schools, one a bad 7-5 PAC team the other a G5. 3.8 million viewers.
Those numbers are double some ranked cartel school matchups like #16 Michigan St vs #18 Washington St...1.3 million viewers.

Alright guys, this is exactly why we aren't moving to an expanded playoff. Because, if we did ESPN turns a dead time money winner, the bowl season, into an afterthought. You need quality also ran schools to play as the headliners in these bowls because without them there wouldn't be enough schools with just the bottom of the P conferences and the best of the G5 to keep them going. There is too much profit here for ESPN at a down time to let them go for the sake of 4 high dollar overhead playoff games.

Now toss in the fact that the school presidents don't want an expanded playoff, A.D.'s don't want it, the coaches don't want another week of work during the holiday season, especially the ones that might have to prepare for 3 huge games, and the players are already reticent to play in the postseason if they are high draft selections, and I think you can see now why nobody but sportswriters who need to stir readers even talk about it.

I disagree on this. Bowl season will,be just fine with an expanded playoff. Thats 4 games. We used have only a half dozen or so bowls. Now we have 40. The bowl ratings are doing just fine. As long as any random bowl game is only going against Big Bang reruns (or at best--one other bowl) the ratings are going to be fine.

What 4 more playoff games does is double the number of viewers with an extremely high interest in the playoff and doubles the amount of interest in the last weeks of the season because twice as many teams still have a shot at an 8 team field (as opposed to a 4 team field). It also more than doubles the number of HUGE viewer postseason games from 3 to 7.

Playoff expansion is a guaranteed money maker and its happening.

I agree that we are likely to expand to an 8-team playoff - seven long years from now.

But, I'm not sure if it will be the money-maker you think. The P5 conference title games are quasi-quarterfinals as it is - this year, it was obvious that the SEC CG and ACC CG winners would make the playoffs, and Oklahoma was in if they won the Big 12 title game and Wisconsin was in if they won the B1G title game.

A 4-team playoff doesn't cannibalize the conference title games - which the P5 covet because they keep all of that money themselves - but an expansion to 8 likely would.

On the contrary. An expansion to 8 is a de facto expansion to 13. It makes the ccgs the first round of the playoffs and makes them more valuable. They may not necessarily be elimination games (but probably are-think how few ccg winners ended up in the top 8), but they do guarantee a spot in the quarterfinals.
01-20-2018 01:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
slhNavy91 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,348
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 118
I Root For: Navy
Location:
Post: #35
RE: Pretty interesting article on the Bowl Ratings
(01-18-2018 11:18 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-18-2018 11:08 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(01-18-2018 10:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-18-2018 10:29 AM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-17-2018 09:44 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  If anything, it shows bowls are going away anytime soon.

http://www.fbschedules.com/2018/01/which...ched-most/

Surprising the Citrus outdrew the Peach.
Interesting on value of regular season vs. bowls:

"...1. (1) Alabama at (6) Auburn – Saturday, Nov. 25 on CBS – 13.66 million viewers.
Overall, only three bowl games outdrew the top regular-season game in viewership – and those were all associated with the CFP bracket (the Sugar and Rose semi-finals and the National Championship game). In other words, no non-bracket bowl game attracted more viewers than did Alabama at Auburn in Week 13. And, rather than being literally the only game on TV, the Iron Bowl was one of 43 games played that Saturday.
Of the three teams mentioned twice in the top five of regular-season viewership, two drew in more viewers in their regular-season highs than during bowl season:
Ohio State had 9.468 million tune in to its Cotton Bowl appearance vs. USC. Compare that to the 10.15 million it drew at Michigan and the 12.92 it garnered in the Big Ten title game vs. Wisconsin.
Auburn had 8.377 million viewers watch its Peach Bowl appearance vs. UCF (the least viewed of the six rotating CFP bowl games). Compare that to the 13.47 million who tuned in for the SEC title game vs. Georgia and the 13.66 million who watched the Iron Bowl vs. Alabama...."

The author seems to think his numbers denigrate the bowls, but in fact they show how important they are. E.g., the discussion of Auburn makes the Peach look bad, but it was still the 3rd-highest rated game Auburn played all last year, and they draw good ratings. The Peach even beat out the first Auburn - Georgia game.

And for UCF, it surely was far and away their most-watched game. Heck, all the other games UCF played put together drew about 9.5 million viewers. The Peach did 8.3 million by itself.

The article shows what a BOON these bowl games are exposure-wise for the G5 teams. E.g., Troy's bowl game drew 1.3 million viewers, more than double the viewers for any other game, except for LSU vs Troy, and it even beat that game by 500k viewers.

These bowl games, even the rinky-dink ones, are nice exposure for the G5.

The past several years there have not been many schools who didn't have their best TV ratings of the year for their bowl game.
The exceptions have been the schools playing a midweek game during work hours, teams that lost a conference title game, and some quirks like Rice's game against TAMU when Johnny Out Of Football came back from his suspension.

Bowls are just a good stage to reach more people.

Yes, e.g., Boise State's bowl game tripled their viewers for any other game, and they are a pretty high profile brand that plays P5 teams in the regular season.

Typically, a G5 team will double or even triple its best audience for the year in their bowl game, no matter how rink-dink the bowl is, and even if it is G5 vs G5.

These bolded statements aren't really true for the American.

In 2017, bowl games were only 3 of the top 10 best-viewed games for the AAC. The Peach Bowl WASN'T the most viewed AAC game. And while that was UCF's most viewed game, two other UCF games were in that top 10 - Peach wasn't double. Memphis' bowl game was its most watched by only 53,000 viewers, and another Memphis game was within 200k viewers. Temple's bowl game beat out a regular season Temple game by 17,000 viewers. Four of the five non-bowl games I'm talking about for those three schools were conference controlled. Navy, Houston, and USF had solid bowl performance and all three had better viewership games in regular season.

2016 only two bowls are in the AAC's top-ten viewed games. Armed Forces Bowl is #10 on that list and #3 for Navy. Temple is the only school with bowl game being most watched...by only 50k. UCF, USF, Navy, Houston, Tulsa, and Memphis had bowl games with lower viewership than their other games.

2015, 8 AAC bowl games, ALL over a million viewers...and 18 non-bowl games. Houston's Peach Bowl led the way for bowls but was #3 overall for the AAC, and still wasn't "double" Houston's Black Friday game vs Navy. Navy's bowl was #4 for Navy, Temple's bowl was #3 for Temple, and USF's bowl was #3 for USF; four of those seven better games were conference controlled and three were intra-AAC.
01-20-2018 02:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 25,802
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 548
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #36
RE: Pretty interesting article on the Bowl Ratings
(01-20-2018 02:05 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  
(01-18-2018 11:18 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-18-2018 11:08 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(01-18-2018 10:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-18-2018 10:29 AM)bullet Wrote:  Interesting on value of regular season vs. bowls:

"...1. (1) Alabama at (6) Auburn – Saturday, Nov. 25 on CBS – 13.66 million viewers.
Overall, only three bowl games outdrew the top regular-season game in viewership – and those were all associated with the CFP bracket (the Sugar and Rose semi-finals and the National Championship game). In other words, no non-bracket bowl game attracted more viewers than did Alabama at Auburn in Week 13. And, rather than being literally the only game on TV, the Iron Bowl was one of 43 games played that Saturday.
Of the three teams mentioned twice in the top five of regular-season viewership, two drew in more viewers in their regular-season highs than during bowl season:
Ohio State had 9.468 million tune in to its Cotton Bowl appearance vs. USC. Compare that to the 10.15 million it drew at Michigan and the 12.92 it garnered in the Big Ten title game vs. Wisconsin.
Auburn had 8.377 million viewers watch its Peach Bowl appearance vs. UCF (the least viewed of the six rotating CFP bowl games). Compare that to the 13.47 million who tuned in for the SEC title game vs. Georgia and the 13.66 million who watched the Iron Bowl vs. Alabama...."

The author seems to think his numbers denigrate the bowls, but in fact they show how important they are. E.g., the discussion of Auburn makes the Peach look bad, but it was still the 3rd-highest rated game Auburn played all last year, and they draw good ratings. The Peach even beat out the first Auburn - Georgia game.

And for UCF, it surely was far and away their most-watched game. Heck, all the other games UCF played put together drew about 9.5 million viewers. The Peach did 8.3 million by itself.

The article shows what a BOON these bowl games are exposure-wise for the G5 teams. E.g., Troy's bowl game drew 1.3 million viewers, more than double the viewers for any other game, except for LSU vs Troy, and it even beat that game by 500k viewers.

These bowl games, even the rinky-dink ones, are nice exposure for the G5.

The past several years there have not been many schools who didn't have their best TV ratings of the year for their bowl game.
The exceptions have been the schools playing a midweek game during work hours, teams that lost a conference title game, and some quirks like Rice's game against TAMU when Johnny Out Of Football came back from his suspension.

Bowls are just a good stage to reach more people.

Yes, e.g., Boise State's bowl game tripled their viewers for any other game, and they are a pretty high profile brand that plays P5 teams in the regular season.

Typically, a G5 team will double or even triple its best audience for the year in their bowl game, no matter how rink-dink the bowl is, and even if it is G5 vs G5.

These bolded statements aren't really true for the American.

In 2017, bowl games were only 3 of the top 10 best-viewed games for the AAC. The Peach Bowl WASN'T the most viewed AAC game.

Stop right there: If you are counting Army - Navy as an "AAC game", well it's obviously not that so go back and recalibrate. Army-Navy is it's own thing, even has its own TV deal. Heck I bet 85% of everyone who tunes in has no idea what, if any, conferences they are members of.

If you were referring to some other AAC game that drew 8.4+ million fans and i've forgotten it, then i apologize. 07-coffee3

Also, about bowl games being watched vs regular season games: You say that in 2016 about six AAC teams had regular season games that topped their bowl game viewership. But, again, are those legit AAC games or piggybacks on big-name P5?

E.g., if USF's bowl game drew more viewers than all their AAC games, but less than USF vs FSU, and likewise if the one game Temple had that drew more was Temple vs Penn State, well obviously those ratings are due to the blue-chip P5 opponent, they aren't "AAC games" in any meaningful sense.

But again, if you are actually referencing real AAC games, like Temple vs UConn beating their bowl game, then again I apologize.
(This post was last modified: 01-20-2018 08:20 PM by quo vadis.)
01-20-2018 08:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
slhNavy91 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,348
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 118
I Root For: Navy
Location:
Post: #37
RE: Pretty interesting article on the Bowl Ratings
(01-20-2018 08:10 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-20-2018 02:05 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  
(01-18-2018 11:18 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-18-2018 11:08 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(01-18-2018 10:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  The author seems to think his numbers denigrate the bowls, but in fact they show how important they are. E.g., the discussion of Auburn makes the Peach look bad, but it was still the 3rd-highest rated game Auburn played all last year, and they draw good ratings. The Peach even beat out the first Auburn - Georgia game.

And for UCF, it surely was far and away their most-watched game. Heck, all the other games UCF played put together drew about 9.5 million viewers. The Peach did 8.3 million by itself.

The article shows what a BOON these bowl games are exposure-wise for the G5 teams. E.g., Troy's bowl game drew 1.3 million viewers, more than double the viewers for any other game, except for LSU vs Troy, and it even beat that game by 500k viewers.

These bowl games, even the rinky-dink ones, are nice exposure for the G5.

The past several years there have not been many schools who didn't have their best TV ratings of the year for their bowl game.
The exceptions have been the schools playing a midweek game during work hours, teams that lost a conference title game, and some quirks like Rice's game against TAMU when Johnny Out Of Football came back from his suspension.

Bowls are just a good stage to reach more people.

Yes, e.g., Boise State's bowl game tripled their viewers for any other game, and they are a pretty high profile brand that plays P5 teams in the regular season.

Typically, a G5 team will double or even triple its best audience for the year in their bowl game, no matter how rink-dink the bowl is, and even if it is G5 vs G5.

These bolded statements aren't really true for the American.

In 2017, bowl games were only 3 of the top 10 best-viewed games for the AAC. The Peach Bowl WASN'T the most viewed AAC game.

Stop right there: If you are counting Army - Navy as an "AAC game", well it's obviously not that so go back and recalibrate. Army-Navy is it's own thing, even has its own TV deal. Heck I bet 85% of everyone who tunes in has no idea what, if any, conferences they are members of.

If you were referring to some other AAC game that drew 8.4+ million fans and i've forgotten it, then i apologize. 07-coffee3

Also, about bowl games being watched vs regular season games: You say that in 2016 about six AAC teams had regular season games that topped their bowl game viewership. But, again, are those legit AAC games or piggybacks on big-name P5?

E.g., if USF's bowl game drew more viewers than all their AAC games, but less than USF vs FSU, and likewise if the one game Temple had that drew more was Temple vs Penn State, well obviously those ratings are due to the blue-chip P5 opponent, they aren't "AAC games" in any meaningful sense.

But again, if you are actually referencing real AAC games, like Temple vs UConn beating their bowl game, then again I apologize.

1. Actually READ my post and then respond to it. I go into how many of the better-than-bowl-rated games are conference controlled for '15 and '17. I acknowledge that Temple at Penn State is one thing and PennState at Temple is another and Temple in two AAC ccgs or UCF@Temple is yet another.

2. My having done that goes above and beyond what you and arkstfan were saying. You were talking about exposure and viewership. UCF's paycheck game at Michigan is still exposure. The perpetual ND series is good for Navy football recruiting and the Army-Navy game is a great commercial for the institution, period.
A. You started with "nice exposure for the G5" and I'm saying AWESOME for the "G4" but only good-not-great for the AAC
B. arkstfan said "Best TV ratings of the year for their bowl game," and that's where it doesn't matter that Army Navy doesn't get AAC any dollars. Or if you throw that out I got Navy ND and if you throw that out I STILL have Navy Houston or the AAC championship game. And it's not just Navy - I gave examples for SEVEN AAC schools.
C. You then doubled down on being wrong saying "double or even triple it's best audience for the year" and that is not true for any AAC bowl team. G4s maybe. But not my conference
You started talking about exposure and viewership, not whether the AAC team has inherent appeal or whether a certain rating will benefit in TV negotiations. To come back and split hairs that a game was or wasn't a "legit AAC game" is moving the goalposts.

3. Regarding 2016 since you asked. The only "piggyback" game of the six was UCF@ Michigan. Navy was the Army and ND games. Houston was Oklahoma at Houston. USF was their home game vs FSU - so AAC inventory in addition to being straight up exposure. Temple was the AAC championship and Memphis was Houston-Memphis on ABC on Black Friday.
Details for all three years, for AAC and G4s here:
http://csnbbs.com/thread-838636-post-150...id15000866

But mostly - actually read before replying.
(This post was last modified: 01-21-2018 09:48 AM by slhNavy91.)
01-20-2018 08:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 25,802
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 548
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #38
RE: Pretty interesting article on the Bowl Ratings
(01-20-2018 08:53 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  
(01-20-2018 08:10 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-20-2018 02:05 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  
(01-18-2018 11:18 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-18-2018 11:08 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  The past several years there have not been many schools who didn't have their best TV ratings of the year for their bowl game.
The exceptions have been the schools playing a midweek game during work hours, teams that lost a conference title game, and some quirks like Rice's game against TAMU when Johnny Out Of Football came back from his suspension.

Bowls are just a good stage to reach more people.

Yes, e.g., Boise State's bowl game tripled their viewers for any other game, and they are a pretty high profile brand that plays P5 teams in the regular season.

Typically, a G5 team will double or even triple its best audience for the year in their bowl game, no matter how rink-dink the bowl is, and even if it is G5 vs G5.

These bolded statements aren't really true for the American.

In 2017, bowl games were only 3 of the top 10 best-viewed games for the AAC. The Peach Bowl WASN'T the most viewed AAC game.

Stop right there: If you are counting Army - Navy as an "AAC game", well it's obviously not that so go back and recalibrate. Army-Navy is it's own thing, even has its own TV deal. Heck I bet 85% of everyone who tunes in has no idea what, if any, conferences they are members of.

If you were referring to some other AAC game that drew 8.4+ million fans and i've forgotten it, then i apologize. 07-coffee3

Also, about bowl games being watched vs regular season games: You say that in 2016 about six AAC teams had regular season games that topped their bowl game viewership. But, again, are those legit AAC games or piggybacks on big-name P5?

E.g., if USF's bowl game drew more viewers than all their AAC games, but less than USF vs FSU, and likewise if the one game Temple had that drew more was Temple vs Penn State, well obviously those ratings are due to the blue-chip P5 opponent, they aren't "AAC games" in any meaningful sense.

But again, if you are actually referencing real AAC games, like Temple vs UConn beating their bowl game, then again I apologize.

1. Actually READ my post and then respond to it. I go into how many of the better-than-bowl-rated games are conference controlled for '15 and '17. I acknowledge that Temple at Penn State is one thing and PennState at Temple is another and Temple in two AAC ccgs or UCF@Temple is yet another.

2. My having done that goes above and beyond what you and arkstfan were saying. You were talking about exposure and viewership. UCF's paycheck game at Michigan is still exposure. The perpetual ND series is good for Navy football recruiting and the Army-Navy game is a great commercial for the institution, period.
A. You started with "nice exposure for the G5" and I'm saying AWESOME for the "G4" but only good-not-great for the AAC
B. arkstfan said "Best TV ratings of the year for their bowl game," and that's where it doesn't matter that Army Navy doesn't get AAC any dollars. Or if you throw that out I got Navy ND and if you throw that out I STILL have Navy Houston or the AAC championship game. And it's not just Navy - I gave examples for SEVEN AAC schools.
C. You then doubled down on being wrong saying "double or even triple it's best audience for the year" and that is not true for any AAC bowl team. G4s maybe. But not my conference
You started talking about exposure and viewership, not whether the AAC team has inherent appeal or whether a certain rating will benefit in TV negotiations. To come back and split hairs that a game was or wasn't a "legit AAC game" is moving the goalposts.

3. Regarding 2016 since you asked. The only "piggyback" game of the six was UCF@ Michigan. Navy was the Army and ND games. Houston was Oklahoma at Houston. USF was their home game vs FSU - so AAC inventory in addition to being straight up exposure. Temple was the AAC championship and Memphis was Houston-Memphis on ABC on Black Friday.
Details for all three years, for AAC and G4s here:
http://csnbbs.com/thread-838636-post-150...id15000866

But mostly - actually read before replying.

That looks like an awful lot of verbiage to cop to what i asked - namely that the games you were referencing were either Army - Navy or games vs big-name P5, like Oklahoma, FSU, and Michigan, games which I explained shouldn't count -with the exception of Temple's AAC title game and Houston vs Memphis.

As for "actual reading", first, remember that this is a football forum. It's not anyone's job. Nobody is required to "read" your posts for every nitzy, pedantic, detail you put in them, such that when we overlook them you can shout "READ what i said"! When you start paying me to read your posts, then I'll be obligated to pay that kind of attention to their details, thanks.

Second, recall that in my prior post, I didn't single out the AAC. I said "Typically, a G5 team will double or even triple its best audience of the year ...".

Since typically means "in most cases", there was no reason for you to reply with AAC - specific examples, when I was talking about the G5 generally, the entire G5, and "typically" obviously leaves room for exceptions. Any and all AAC, or other G5 conference exceptions, were implied by my statement.

The only valid ground to contest what i said would be to look at the entirety of the G5, and if it is true that for entire population of G5, it is NOT typically the case that the bowl game doubles or triples their best regular audience, then I would stand corrected. But you didn't do that, you invoked just the AAC.

Once you did, taking the discussion out of the realm i was talking about, then it was entirely fair for me to dissect that claim by addressing whether the AAC teams were responsible for that exposure -that's not moving the goal post, it's just taking the analysis to a more detailed level, which is where you apparently wanted it to go when you took my "G5" comment and made it about the AAC.

So no, I am correct to note that it is misleading to mention Army-Navy, UCF - Michigan, etc. and compare them to bowl games. You were misleading and wrong to do so, so i properly rebuked you for that.

For some reason, you are a Navy fan with real loyalty to the AAC, weird, the only one i know of. So you bristled at that G5 statement, and hastened to reply that it isn't true of the AAC and you tied yourself in knots doing so. Too bad. 07-coffee3
(This post was last modified: 01-23-2018 09:49 AM by quo vadis.)
01-23-2018 09:47 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
billybobby777 Offline
Fighting the cartel 5
*

Posts: 8,511
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 329
I Root For: ECU, Army
Location: Houston dont sleepon
Post: #39
RE: Pretty interesting article on the Bowl Ratings
(01-23-2018 09:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-20-2018 08:53 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  
(01-20-2018 08:10 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-20-2018 02:05 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  
(01-18-2018 11:18 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Yes, e.g., Boise State's bowl game tripled their viewers for any other game, and they are a pretty high profile brand that plays P5 teams in the regular season.

Typically, a G5 team will double or even triple its best audience for the year in their bowl game, no matter how rink-dink the bowl is, and even if it is G5 vs G5.

These bolded statements aren't really true for the American.

In 2017, bowl games were only 3 of the top 10 best-viewed games for the AAC. The Peach Bowl WASN'T the most viewed AAC game.

Stop right there: If you are counting Army - Navy as an "AAC game", well it's obviously not that so go back and recalibrate. Army-Navy is it's own thing, even has its own TV deal. Heck I bet 85% of everyone who tunes in has no idea what, if any, conferences they are members of.

If you were referring to some other AAC game that drew 8.4+ million fans and i've forgotten it, then i apologize. 07-coffee3

Also, about bowl games being watched vs regular season games: You say that in 2016 about six AAC teams had regular season games that topped their bowl game viewership. But, again, are those legit AAC games or piggybacks on big-name P5?

E.g., if USF's bowl game drew more viewers than all their AAC games, but less than USF vs FSU, and likewise if the one game Temple had that drew more was Temple vs Penn State, well obviously those ratings are due to the blue-chip P5 opponent, they aren't "AAC games" in any meaningful sense.

But again, if you are actually referencing real AAC games, like Temple vs UConn beating their bowl game, then again I apologize.

1. Actually READ my post and then respond to it. I go into how many of the better-than-bowl-rated games are conference controlled for '15 and '17. I acknowledge that Temple at Penn State is one thing and PennState at Temple is another and Temple in two AAC ccgs or UCF@Temple is yet another.

2. My having done that goes above and beyond what you and arkstfan were saying. You were talking about exposure and viewership. UCF's paycheck game at Michigan is still exposure. The perpetual ND series is good for Navy football recruiting and the Army-Navy game is a great commercial for the institution, period.
A. You started with "nice exposure for the G5" and I'm saying AWESOME for the "G4" but only good-not-great for the AAC
B. arkstfan said "Best TV ratings of the year for their bowl game," and that's where it doesn't matter that Army Navy doesn't get AAC any dollars. Or if you throw that out I got Navy ND and if you throw that out I STILL have Navy Houston or the AAC championship game. And it's not just Navy - I gave examples for SEVEN AAC schools.
C. You then doubled down on being wrong saying "double or even triple it's best audience for the year" and that is not true for any AAC bowl team. G4s maybe. But not my conference
You started talking about exposure and viewership, not whether the AAC team has inherent appeal or whether a certain rating will benefit in TV negotiations. To come back and split hairs that a game was or wasn't a "legit AAC game" is moving the goalposts.

3. Regarding 2016 since you asked. The only "piggyback" game of the six was UCF@ Michigan. Navy was the Army and ND games. Houston was Oklahoma at Houston. USF was their home game vs FSU - so AAC inventory in addition to being straight up exposure. Temple was the AAC championship and Memphis was Houston-Memphis on ABC on Black Friday.
Details for all three years, for AAC and G4s here:
http://csnbbs.com/thread-838636-post-150...id15000866

But mostly - actually read before replying.

That looks like an awful lot of verbiage to cop to what i asked - namely that the games you were referencing were either Army - Navy or games vs big-name P5, like Oklahoma, FSU, and Michigan, games which I explained shouldn't count -with the exception of Temple's AAC title game and Houston vs Memphis.

As for "actual reading", first, remember that this is a football forum. It's not anyone's job. Nobody is required to "read" your posts for every nitzy, pedantic, detail you put in them, such that when we overlook them you can shout "READ what i said"! When you start paying me to read your posts, then I'll be obligated to pay that kind of attention to their details, thanks.

Second, recall that in my prior post, I didn't single out the AAC. I said "Typically, a G5 team will double or even triple its best audience of the year ...".

Since typically means "in most cases", there was no reason for you to reply with AAC - specific examples, when I was talking about the G5 generally, the entire G5, and "typically" obviously leaves room for exceptions. Any and all AAC, or other G5 conference exceptions, were implied by my statement.

The only valid ground to contest what i said would be to look at the entirety of the G5, and if it is true that for entire population of G5, it is NOT typically the case that the bowl game doubles or triples their best regular audience, then I would stand corrected. But you didn't do that, you invoked just the AAC.

Once you did, taking the discussion out of the realm i was talking about, then it was entirely fair for me to dissect that claim by addressing whether the AAC teams were responsible for that exposure -that's not moving the goal post, it's just taking the analysis to a more detailed level, which is where you apparently wanted it to go when you took my "G5" comment and made it about the AAC.

So no, I am correct to note that it is misleading to mention Army-Navy, UCF - Michigan, etc. and compare them to bowl games. You were misleading and wrong to do so, so i properly rebuked you for that.

For some reason, you are a Navy fan with real loyalty to the AAC, weird, the only one i know of. So you bristled at that G5 statement, and hastened to reply that it isn't true of the AAC and you tied yourself in knots doing so. Too bad. 07-coffee3

I was going to jump into this one but this caught my attention “For some reason, you are a Navy fan with a real loyalty to the AAC, weird, the only one I know of.” That’s exactly what I’ve always thought too. Never met any Navy fans like that either....but I have read a lot of AAC fans who write like that on this board every day.
01-25-2018 11:50 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
slhNavy91 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,348
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 118
I Root For: Navy
Location:
Post: #40
RE: Pretty interesting article on the Bowl Ratings
(01-25-2018 11:50 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(01-23-2018 09:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-20-2018 08:53 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  
(01-20-2018 08:10 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-20-2018 02:05 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  These bolded statements aren't really true for the American.

In 2017, bowl games were only 3 of the top 10 best-viewed games for the AAC. The Peach Bowl WASN'T the most viewed AAC game.

Stop right there: If you are counting Army - Navy as an "AAC game", well it's obviously not that so go back and recalibrate. Army-Navy is it's own thing, even has its own TV deal. Heck I bet 85% of everyone who tunes in has no idea what, if any, conferences they are members of.

If you were referring to some other AAC game that drew 8.4+ million fans and i've forgotten it, then i apologize. 07-coffee3

Also, about bowl games being watched vs regular season games: You say that in 2016 about six AAC teams had regular season games that topped their bowl game viewership. But, again, are those legit AAC games or piggybacks on big-name P5?

E.g., if USF's bowl game drew more viewers than all their AAC games, but less than USF vs FSU, and likewise if the one game Temple had that drew more was Temple vs Penn State, well obviously those ratings are due to the blue-chip P5 opponent, they aren't "AAC games" in any meaningful sense.

But again, if you are actually referencing real AAC games, like Temple vs UConn beating their bowl game, then again I apologize.

1. Actually READ my post and then respond to it. I go into how many of the better-than-bowl-rated games are conference controlled for '15 and '17. I acknowledge that Temple at Penn State is one thing and PennState at Temple is another and Temple in two AAC ccgs or UCF@Temple is yet another.

2. My having done that goes above and beyond what you and arkstfan were saying. You were talking about exposure and viewership. UCF's paycheck game at Michigan is still exposure. The perpetual ND series is good for Navy football recruiting and the Army-Navy game is a great commercial for the institution, period.
A. You started with "nice exposure for the G5" and I'm saying AWESOME for the "G4" but only good-not-great for the AAC
B. arkstfan said "Best TV ratings of the year for their bowl game," and that's where it doesn't matter that Army Navy doesn't get AAC any dollars. Or if you throw that out I got Navy ND and if you throw that out I STILL have Navy Houston or the AAC championship game. And it's not just Navy - I gave examples for SEVEN AAC schools.
C. You then doubled down on being wrong saying "double or even triple it's best audience for the year" and that is not true for any AAC bowl team. G4s maybe. But not my conference
You started talking about exposure and viewership, not whether the AAC team has inherent appeal or whether a certain rating will benefit in TV negotiations. To come back and split hairs that a game was or wasn't a "legit AAC game" is moving the goalposts.

3. Regarding 2016 since you asked. The only "piggyback" game of the six was UCF@ Michigan. Navy was the Army and ND games. Houston was Oklahoma at Houston. USF was their home game vs FSU - so AAC inventory in addition to being straight up exposure. Temple was the AAC championship and Memphis was Houston-Memphis on ABC on Black Friday.
Details for all three years, for AAC and G4s here:
http://csnbbs.com/thread-838636-post-150...id15000866

But mostly - actually read before replying.

That looks like an awful lot of verbiage to cop to what i asked - namely that the games you were referencing were either Army - Navy or games vs big-name P5, like Oklahoma, FSU, and Michigan, games which I explained shouldn't count -with the exception of Temple's AAC title game and Houston vs Memphis.

As for "actual reading", first, remember that this is a football forum. It's not anyone's job. Nobody is required to "read" your posts for every nitzy, pedantic, detail you put in them, such that when we overlook them you can shout "READ what i said"! When you start paying me to read your posts, then I'll be obligated to pay that kind of attention to their details, thanks.

Second, recall that in my prior post, I didn't single out the AAC. I said "Typically, a G5 team will double or even triple its best audience of the year ...".

Since typically means "in most cases", there was no reason for you to reply with AAC - specific examples, when I was talking about the G5 generally, the entire G5, and "typically" obviously leaves room for exceptions. Any and all AAC, or other G5 conference exceptions, were implied by my statement.

The only valid ground to contest what i said would be to look at the entirety of the G5, and if it is true that for entire population of G5, it is NOT typically the case that the bowl game doubles or triples their best regular audience, then I would stand corrected. But you didn't do that, you invoked just the AAC.

Once you did, taking the discussion out of the realm i was talking about, then it was entirely fair for me to dissect that claim by addressing whether the AAC teams were responsible for that exposure -that's not moving the goal post, it's just taking the analysis to a more detailed level, which is where you apparently wanted it to go when you took my "G5" comment and made it about the AAC.

So no, I am correct to note that it is misleading to mention Army-Navy, UCF - Michigan, etc. and compare them to bowl games. You were misleading and wrong to do so, so i properly rebuked you for that.

For some reason, you are a Navy fan with real loyalty to the AAC, weird, the only one i know of. So you bristled at that G5 statement, and hastened to reply that it isn't true of the AAC and you tied yourself in knots doing so. Too bad. 07-coffee3

I was going to jump into this one but this caught my attention “For some reason, you are a Navy fan with a real loyalty to the AAC, weird, the only one I know of.” That’s exactly what I’ve always thought too. Never met any Navy fans like that either....but I have read a lot of AAC fans who write like that on this board every day.

I don't know why you would find it weird. Pretty straightforward.

Big East was after Navy for YEARS before we said yes. Annual talks. Pretty much a standing invitation.

When Navy took the decision to forego 130+ years of independence in 2011-2012, it wasn't for a couple bucks here or a couple bucks there.
We had our own contract with CBSSN, and we were a tentpole property for them. We had Army-Navy. We had Navy-NotreDame. We had bowl deals out to 2016 (our first two bowls in the AAC were honoring pre-existing agreements). Continuing those bowl deals and scheduling as an independent were getting harder, but weren't yet impossible. So why join a conference that was alternately depicted as impossible for us to compete in or dying on the vine?

Navy finally said yes to the Big East with the strategic goal of being on the right side of the next tectonic shift in the college football landscape in 2024-2025. Hmmm, what else has that strategic goal?
Navy's reason for being an AAC member today is about 100% overlap with the reason for the AAC P6 campaign.

You say "loyalty," if you asked me I'd use words along the lines of "committed to the strategic goal."
01-25-2018 12:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2018 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.