It's tiresome to always read improperly or out of context data presented here by some folks. It explains a lot of what is wrong in America.
The first tv spot on a Saturday in the Fall is a rather inelastic thing. That means that the numbers watching college football is amazingly steady in that Noon-3:30 time frame. That means who you compete with and where you are shown matters a great deal.
Week Noon Time Slot Total Viewers according to SMW
1. 14.2 M
2. 14.5 M
3 12.0 M (massive rain storm in the Southeast)
7 12.53
8 15
9 12.7
10. 13.74
12. 12
The needle moves only when Ohio State or Michigan plays a pivotal game. This brings the casual football viewer inside from the outdoors. The SEC folks who watch, are already watching and wringing out more of them is difficult.
As to NC State and Clemson in week 9 - Clemson already had 4 losses and were declared persona non grata after the flukey loss to Duke and FSU getting lucky to beat Clemson earlier in the year. NC State was coming off a stretch where it could not score. That game on the CW got 642K.
It was on against Oklahoma and Kansas, 3.6 M, Penn State and Indiana 3.4, FSU and WF 2.09, SC and Texas A&M 1.90, WVA and UCF 460K, Houston and KSU 371 and MD and NW 270K.
We know that when it comes to football that Indiana and Kansas suck. So what is FSU's excuse for only pulling 2M against WF? I'm sure it's the fault of Wake Forest. Right?
The key to great football ratings are one or a combination of three things:
1. No programing opposition. FSU has taken advantage of this several times over the last few years on Sunday nights.
2. Programing opposition that consists of non-football competition. UVa vs BC instead of Ohio State and Wisconsin or Auburn and Florida.
3. A meaningful game between two meaningful teams.
The only purpose to post such distortions of reality is to flame or otherwise stir in ****. Because if the purpose of such postings is an attempt to post real information, it shows a deep defect in the understanding of statistics.
The distortion of these numbers to infer the superiority of FSU football value would allow one to calculate that FSU is so valuable as to represent 14.5% of the football portion of the ACC TV contract instead of 7.1% or one of 14. Do assertions like that even help FSU?
TV was 32 M last period, 80% is football, that yields a one in 14 value of $25.6 M for that football but FSU is effectively saying by presenting decontextualized numbers that they are really worth at least $52M of that 80% pie.
If that's what they think their football rights are worth right now that's the starting point for paying to buy them back. Without interest ratchets 12 years of $52 M is $624 million. The exit fee is of course about $130 M. That's $750 M.
This is in essence a form of bidding against yourself. The Father of the Bride movie remake with Steve Martin had a lesson in this. He sells then buys his own house back at twice the price.
Are these people you want owing you money? To me FSU gives off all the signs of someone that will go belly up and try to stiff you. It may not be their intention, but their ideas are beyond their wallet. Maybe swamps drive this type of thinking. It does remind me of the Darrian Scheme.
(02-18-2024 08:39 PM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote: The first tv spot on a Saturday in the Fall is a rather inelastic thing. That means that the numbers watching college football is amazingly steady in that Noon-3:30 time frame. That means who you compete with and where you are shown matters a great deal.
Week Noon Time Slot Total Viewers according to SMW
1. 14.2 M
2. 14.5 M
3. 12.0 M (massive rain storm in the Southeast)
7. 12.53
8. 15
9. 12.7
10. 13.74
12. 12
The needle moves only when Ohio State or Michigan plays a pivotal game. This brings the casual football viewer inside from the outdoors...
While the TOTAL viewership in a given time slot may be inelastic, that doesn't mean that a specific network is guaranteed a certain number of viewers - far from it. That's where a Florida State is more valuable than a Wake Forest to the TV networks -- they will get a bigger slice of the viewership pie!
Not saying the other guy's numbers tell the whole story, but you asked...
Quote:...what is FSU's excuse for only pulling 2M against WF? I'm sure it's the fault of Wake Forest. Right?
Well, technically, yes it IS the fault of Wake Forest... if it's one of the lowest-rated FSU games and one of the highest for Wake, that should tell you all you need to know. Don't criticize the FSU fan for being biased in his analysis, then make a similar mistake in the other direction.
(02-18-2024 08:39 PM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote: The first tv spot on a Saturday in the Fall is a rather inelastic thing. That means that the numbers watching college football is amazingly steady in that Noon-3:30 time frame. That means who you compete with and where you are shown matters a great deal.
Week Noon Time Slot Total Viewers according to SMW
1. 14.2 M
2. 14.5 M
3. 12.0 M (massive rain storm in the Southeast)
7. 12.53
8. 15
9. 12.7
10. 13.74
12. 12
The needle moves only when Ohio State or Michigan plays a pivotal game. This brings the casual football viewer inside from the outdoors...
While the TOTAL viewership in a given time slot may be inelastic, that doesn't mean that a specific network is guaranteed a certain number of viewers - far from it. That's where a Florida State is more valuable than a Wake Forest to the TV networks -- they will get a bigger slice of the viewership pie!
Not saying the other guy's numbers tell the whole story, but you asked...
Quote:...what is FSU's excuse for only pulling 2M against WF? I'm sure it's the fault of Wake Forest. Right?
Well, technically, yes it IS the fault of Wake Forest... if it's one of the lowest-rated FSU games and one of the highest for Wake, that should tell you all you need to know. Don't criticize the FSU fan for being biased in his analysis, then make a similar mistake in the other direction.
I'm not making a mistake. You are missing the point regarding the Wake game, if FSU is so great, so dominant, it should have won the time slot over it's competition. It did not come close.
On the weekend in question:
Fox Oklahoma vs. Kansas 3.6 M 7-0 vs 5-2
CBS Penn State vs. Indiana 3.4 M 6-1 vs 2-5 (what a turd)
ABC FSU vs. WF 2.09 M 7-0 vs 4-3
ESPN TAMU vs SC 1.9 M 4-3 vs 2-5 (another turd)
My point is that who you play, the circumstances, and the tv counterprograming make your ratings for the most part because the tv watching audience for college football is relatively inelastic until something big is on the line with a school that has a huge following with potential fb watchers who tune in when the stakes are real.
(This post was last modified: 02-18-2024 10:23 PM by SouthernConfBoy.)
(02-18-2024 08:39 PM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote: The first tv spot on a Saturday in the Fall is a rather inelastic thing. That means that the numbers watching college football is amazingly steady in that Noon-3:30 time frame. That means who you compete with and where you are shown matters a great deal.
Week Noon Time Slot Total Viewers according to SMW
1. 14.2 M
2. 14.5 M
3. 12.0 M (massive rain storm in the Southeast)
7. 12.53
8. 15
9. 12.7
10. 13.74
12. 12
The needle moves only when Ohio State or Michigan plays a pivotal game. This brings the casual football viewer inside from the outdoors...
While the TOTAL viewership in a given time slot may be inelastic, that doesn't mean that a specific network is guaranteed a certain number of viewers - far from it. That's where a Florida State is more valuable than a Wake Forest to the TV networks -- they will get a bigger slice of the viewership pie!
Not saying the other guy's numbers tell the whole story, but you asked...
Quote:...what is FSU's excuse for only pulling 2M against WF? I'm sure it's the fault of Wake Forest. Right?
Well, technically, yes it IS the fault of Wake Forest... if it's one of the lowest-rated FSU games and one of the highest for Wake, that should tell you all you need to know. Don't criticize the FSU fan for being biased in his analysis, then make a similar mistake in the other direction.
I'm not making a mistake. You are missing the point regarding the Wake game, if FSU is so great, so dominant, it should have won the time slot over it's competition. It did not come close.
OK, I gotcha. No, FSU does not (currently) draw as well as Oklahoma or Penn State. There was a time when they did, but not at present.
I was just presenting the data, I was not beating my chest over FSU's greatness. A lot of factors go into the ratings like time slots, network, competition at the same time.
The Wake vs FSU game was a 2. something and vs BC it was a 3. something. Sure people tuned in to see a potential upset, but to BC's credit they have been pretty good in the ratings this past year. I think we can safely conclude that (1) BC is under rated as far as tv value goes and (2) it's all about the matchups.
(02-18-2024 08:39 PM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote: The first tv spot on a Saturday in the Fall is a rather inelastic thing. That means that the numbers watching college football is amazingly steady in that Noon-3:30 time frame. That means who you compete with and where you are shown matters a great deal.
Week Noon Time Slot Total Viewers according to SMW
1. 14.2 M
2. 14.5 M
3. 12.0 M (massive rain storm in the Southeast)
7. 12.53
8. 15
9. 12.7
10. 13.74
12. 12
The needle moves only when Ohio State or Michigan plays a pivotal game. This brings the casual football viewer inside from the outdoors...
While the TOTAL viewership in a given time slot may be inelastic, that doesn't mean that a specific network is guaranteed a certain number of viewers - far from it. That's where a Florida State is more valuable than a Wake Forest to the TV networks -- they will get a bigger slice of the viewership pie!
Not saying the other guy's numbers tell the whole story, but you asked...
Quote:...what is FSU's excuse for only pulling 2M against WF? I'm sure it's the fault of Wake Forest. Right?
Well, technically, yes it IS the fault of Wake Forest... if it's one of the lowest-rated FSU games and one of the highest for Wake, that should tell you all you need to know. Don't criticize the FSU fan for being biased in his analysis, then make a similar mistake in the other direction.
I'm not making a mistake. You are missing the point regarding the Wake game, if FSU is so great, so dominant, it should have won the time slot over it's competition. It did not come close.
On the weekend in question:
Fox *Oklahoma vs. Kansas 3.6 M 7-0 vs 5-2
CBS Penn State vs. Indiana 3.4 M 6-1 vs 2-5 (what a turd)
ABC FSU vs. WF 2.09 M 7-0 vs 4-3
ESPN TAMU vs SC 1.9 M 4-3 vs 2-5 (another turd)
My point is that who you play, the circumstances, and the tv counterprograming make your ratings for the most part because the tv watching audience for college football is relatively inelastic until something big is on the line with a school that has a huge following with potential fb watchers who tune in when the stakes are real.
SouthernConfBoy, I put an asterisk by Oklahoma vs Kansas because that may be the last time they play each other for awhile. Granted, it's a possibility that Kansas could go to the SEC, but KU could go to the B1G or just stay in the Big XII. I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of Kansas fans were watching that game for that very reason as well as a sizable number of Oklahoma fans feeling nostalgic for their Big 8 days.
As for Penn State-Indiana, maybe a lot of Hoosier fans were watching, hoping for the upset of Penn State. Not sure how popular or unpopular the game was in Pennsylvania though.
(This post was last modified: 02-19-2024 01:15 AM by DawgNBama.)
BC vs their old BE foes did better than vs the other ACC teams that was not FSU.
ND games on ABC drew about 1m more viewers than on NBC.
ACC vs other P5 programs did much better in the ratings than inter-conference games. Suggest drop to 7 conference games and fill in schedule vs other power programs to boost ratings.
(This post was last modified: 02-19-2024 09:08 AM by Garrettabc.)
"I think FSU and any other ACC school wanting to leave the conference could use your breakdown as evidence that the ACC leadership has failed its member schools.
The ACC had over 50% more viewers than the Big 12, but only 25% more tv revenue."
"Excellent breakdown, Mark!!! You make it easy to see how game viewership drives the dollars of tv networks.
I'm fascinated that the ACC had over 10 million more viewers than the Big 12. That’s including Texas and Oklahoma, who are leaving for the SEC."
"You must also keep in mind that those numbers would have been even greater if millions of Spectrum Cable subscribers had not missed out on the game due to a carriage dispute between Disney/ABC and Charter's Spectrum Cable. Much higher. I saw where it was reported that overall ABC viewing was down 41% and ESPN viewing was down 44% compared to last year’s college football games."
The following post was meant as a burn:
"here is some of that research you were lying about.
The last five years have been well below FSU football standards, with a 26-33 record. However, FSU football routinely finds itself in ideal TV slots to pull good ratings. In fact, FSU football drew an average of 2.23 million viewers each game between 2015-19.
In those five years FSU still ranked in top 15 nationally in ratings. ?"
The ratings are always heavily influenced by how good you were, who you played, and what network(s) you were put on. It's always going to be a bipolar distribution. Good seasons that snowball always do well. Bad seasons that snowball always do poorly.
(02-18-2024 10:54 PM)Garrettabc Wrote: I was just presenting the data, I was not beating my chest over FSU's greatness. A lot of factors go into the ratings like time slots, network, competition at the same time.
The Wake vs FSU game was a 2. something and vs BC it was a 3. something. Sure people tuned in to see a potential upset, but to BC's credit they have been pretty good in the ratings this past year. I think we can safely conclude that (1) BC is under rated as far as tv value goes and (2) it's all about the matchups.
Yes, this is true; always has been, IMO. People often forget that BC sits in the middle of the 8th largest and one of the wealthiest DMA's in the Country. The fact that the ratings this year were good, despite BC having a 6-6 season (7-6 with the bowl win) is testament to this. It has an alumni base throughout the country.
Like many big US cities, BC sits in a pro-focused area. Sure, interest in the pro teams will always be much higher than interest in BC (although one can wonder give the current trajectories of the Red Sox and Patriots!), but BC has its niche. More importantly, the size of the market means that even that niche will produce a decent number of eyeballs.
With the recent coaching moves, BC has made a statement. The goal is not to be Alabama, Michigan, etc.; but to be the BC of the Matt Ryan era, which is totally doable. With the establishment of a 12 team playoff, making the 12 team cut is not impossible for a BC during one of their "up" years.
(02-18-2024 10:54 PM)Garrettabc Wrote: I was just presenting the data, I was not beating my chest over FSU's greatness. A lot of factors go into the ratings like time slots, network, competition at the same time.
The Wake vs FSU game was a 2. something and vs BC it was a 3. something. Sure people tuned in to see a potential upset, but to BC's credit they have been pretty good in the ratings this past year. I think we can safely conclude that (1) BC is under rated as far as tv value goes and (2) it's all about the matchups.
Yes, this is true; always has been, IMO. People often forget that BC sits in the middle of the 8th largest and one of the wealthiest DMA's in the Country. The fact that the ratings this year were good, despite BC having a 6-6 season (7-6 with the bowl win) is testament to this. It has an alumni base throughout the country.
Like many big US cities, BC sits in a pro-focused area. Sure, interest in the pro teams will always be much higher than interest in BC (although one can wonder give the current trajectories of the Red Sox and Patriots!), but BC has its niche. More importantly, the size of the market means that even that niche will produce a decent number of eyeballs.
With the recent coaching moves, BC has made a statement. The goal is not to be Alabama, Michigan, etc.; but to be the BC of the Matt Ryan era, which is totally doable. With the establishment of a 12 team playoff, making the 12 team cut is not impossible for a BC during one of their "up" years.
BC was helped tremendously by the Patriots being down. That said, BC generally gets good TV ratings every year.
(02-18-2024 10:54 PM)Garrettabc Wrote: I was just presenting the data, I was not beating my chest over FSU's greatness. A lot of factors go into the ratings like time slots, network, competition at the same time.
The Wake vs FSU game was a 2. something and vs BC it was a 3. something. Sure people tuned in to see a potential upset, but to BC's credit they have been pretty good in the ratings this past year. I think we can safely conclude that (1) BC is under rated as far as tv value goes and (2) it's all about the matchups.
Yes, this is true; always has been, IMO. People often forget that BC sits in the middle of the 8th largest and one of the wealthiest DMA's in the Country. The fact that the ratings this year were good, despite BC having a 6-6 season (7-6 with the bowl win) is testament to this. It has an alumni base throughout the country.
Like many big US cities, BC sits in a pro-focused area. Sure, interest in the pro teams will always be much higher than interest in BC (although one can wonder give the current trajectories of the Red Sox and Patriots!), but BC has its niche. More importantly, the size of the market means that even that niche will produce a decent number of eyeballs.
With the recent coaching moves, BC has made a statement. The goal is not to be Alabama, Michigan, etc.; but to be the BC of the Matt Ryan era, which is totally doable. With the establishment of a 12 team playoff, making the 12 team cut is not impossible for a BC during one of their "up" years.
BC was helped tremendously by the Patriots being down. That said, BC generally gets good TV ratings every year.
Yes and no. To your point, they DO get good ratings pretty much every year, even when the Pats are good. That said, I am sure the Pats being down probably drove some local fans to other alternatives rather than watch the lousy fare coming out of Foxboro. To that end, BC may have a bit of an opportunity as most think it's gonna take the Pats a minimum of a few years to turn their fortunes around. We shall see.
RE: 2023 ACC ratings by team 
