Conference Chanpiomship Games: TV Viewership

TheSouseFamily
How long do you want to ignore this user?
H
Well done, Larry Scott!

Total number of viewers (incl streaming) for conference championship games:

SEC: 13.5 million

Big Ten: 12.9 million

Big 12: 5.9 million

ACC: 5.4 million

PAC-12: 3.7 million (down from last year's UW-Colorado game which had 5.7M viewers and was also on Friday)

AAC: 3.4 million

Oh, and by the way, Cal-UCLA only had 490K viewers.

Link: http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings/
Bobodeluxe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
H
I blame Buh, not Scott, for the Pac-12 existing in a place where football isn't all that important.
going4roses
How long do you want to ignore this user?
L
Lol
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
P
There's little buzz on conference championships unless they are a play-in. Who cares about USC and Stanford other than USC? Good thing they had Dr Pepper at the half.
TheSouseFamily
How long do you want to ignore this user?
H
Anarchistbear said:

There's little buzz on conference championships unless they are a play-in. Who cares about USC and Stanford other than USC? Good thing they had Dr Pepper at the half.


It's not just playoff-relevant games where the conference has struggled to pull in viewers. The conference game with the highest tv ratings (USC-UCLA) didn't even crack the top 30 games. And the highest rated game involving a PAC-12 team (Furd/ND) was only around 20th. There's just a low avidity for college football fandom in the West. Even USC doesn't rank in the top 25 in terms of numbers of fans.
Yogi Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
A
TheSouseFamily said:

Well done, Larry Scott!
Is Larry Scott supposed to be able to produce TV viewers magically somehow?
TheSouseFamily
How long do you want to ignore this user?
H
Yogi Bear said:

TheSouseFamily said:

Well done, Larry Scott!
Is Larry Scott supposed to be able to produce TV viewers magically somehow?


No, of course not. I was being a little facetious. That said, playing games on Friday night certainly doesn't help the cause, but obviously there are larger obstacles at work here.
Troll On You Bears
How long do you want to ignore this user?
A
Agreed about the bad optics of playing the conference game on Friday. We're the only Power 5 conference to do so and it essentially conceded that we're the least important of the five. Larry Scott should be fighting to get the conference a prime time Saturday slot. Perhaps this year wasn't the most ideal because it wasn't a playoff play-in game, but there's no reason to voluntarily move our championship game to a second- or third-rate time slot. The poor viewership to me is a function more of the time slot than the actual popularity of the conference.
BearSD
How long do you want to ignore this user?
A
Troll On You Bears said:

Agreed about the bad optics of playing the conference game on Friday. We're the only Power 5 conference to do so and it essentially conceded that we're the least important of the five. Larry Scott should be fighting to get the conference a prime time Saturday slot. Perhaps this year wasn't the most ideal because it wasn't a playoff play-in game, but there's no reason to voluntarily move our championship game to a second- or third-rate time slot. The poor viewership to me is a function more of the time slot than the actual popularity of the conference.
I agree. Scott blundered when he agreed to a contract that lets ESPN and Fox decide whether the conference championship game is played on Friday or Saturday. He's made so many blunders that it's hard to keep track of them all.
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
P
TheSouseFamily said:

Anarchistbear said:

There's little buzz on conference championships unless they are a play-in. Who cares about USC and Stanford other than USC? Good thing they had Dr Pepper at the half.


It's not just playoff-relevant games where the conference has struggled to pull in viewers. The conference game with the highest tv ratings (USC-UCLA) didn't even crack the top 30 games. And the highest rated game involving a PAC-12 team (Furd/ND) was only around 20th. There's just a low avidity for college football fandom in the West. Even USC doesn't rank in the top 25 in terms of numbers of fans.


For sure- college football fandom is not a west coast thing. The conference will always be a second class citizen but at least last year some eyes might want to see if Washington made it. What these numbers also reinforce is how stupid ($) it is to exclude a Big team from the final four.
tim94501
How long do you want to ignore this user?
H
Having so many games that start at 10:30PM EST combined with ZERO must see teams in the conference doomed the pac this year. By the time Love made his name nationally known he was hurt and half as dynamic. The second most exciting team team to watch in the pac 12 had their dynamic breakout halfway through the year with Tate. Who also fell off towards the end of the season.
kjkbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
P
College football (all of it) used to be Saturdays in the fall. I never check listings for college football games on Friday. All Friday games for me are out of mind--including Cal games. Which P-5 conference has the most Friday games? The Pac-12 of course.
LunchTime
How long do you want to ignore this user?
V
TheSouseFamily said:

Well done, Larry Scott!

Total number of viewers (incl streaming) for conference championship games:

SEC: 13.5 million

Big Ten: 12.9 million

Big 12: 5.9 million

ACC: 5.4 million

PAC-12: 3.7 million (down from last year's UW-Colorado game which had 5.7M viewers and was also on Friday)

AAC: 3.4 million

Oh, and by the way, Cal-UCLA only had 490K viewers.

Link: http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings/
You cant make the teams interesting...

Two mediocre teams with no shot at the playoff not getting viewers is the fault of the 12 teams involved and the fact that we went to the playoff format.

The SEC isnt the biggest people people in the SEC care, it is the biggest because people like me care.

I watched part of the Pac12 because I hate USC and Furd, and who gives a **** who wins, it wont matter. I watched the Big10 because it was a matchup with an undefeated vs a probably better 2-loss with the winner probably going to the playoff. I watched the SEC because Auburn was playing Georgia and the winner was absolutely going to the playoff, and possibly making a spectacle of the selection if Georgia won.

I didnt watch the ACC (who gives a ****), or the Big12 (who gives a ****) because you better win, and if you dont, it is a side show of idiocy.
okaydo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
L
Can anybody disprove Wilner's argument?

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/12/01/yes-the-pac-12-championship-game-is-on-friday-nights-because-of-tv-and-thats-the-right-call/

I mean, when would you put the Pac-12 Championship game on a Saturday night to boost viewership?


Chapman_is_Gone
How long do you want to ignore this user?
V
- Conference championship games are stupid and devalue the regular season.

But if you're going to have one:
- Playing it on a Friday night is stupid and is an insult to the fans.
- Playing it at a neutral site, which is often a sterile NFL stadium, is stupid. The team that won the head-to-head in the regular season should host.

Any deviations from these statements represents hoaring out the games, teams, and fans for the almighty television dollar. Shame on the Pac 12.
Chapman_is_Gone
How long do you want to ignore this user?
V
okaydo said:

Can anybody disprove Wilner's argument?

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/12/01/yes-the-pac-12-championship-game-is-on-friday-nights-because-of-tv-and-thats-the-right-call/

I mean, when would you put the Pac-12 Championship game on a Saturday night to boost viewership?





I don't give a crap about what Wilner believes maximizes TV viewership. Some things should be about more than money.
TheSouseFamily
How long do you want to ignore this user?
H
okaydo said:

Can anybody disprove Wilner's argument?

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/12/01/yes-the-pac-12-championship-game-is-on-friday-nights-because-of-tv-and-thats-the-right-call/

I mean, when would you put the Pac-12 Championship game on a Saturday night to boost viewership?





It's a misleading argument. You can easily frame it a different way. In games that had playoff consequences (regardless of the day), average viewership was 5.85M. In games that didn't, it was 2.0M which is even a greater delta than the Fri/Sat comparison (if you throw out the inaugural championship game because of its novelty as the first game). Even if you include the inaugural game and the one that just occurred (which Wilner conveniently omits) you get an average viewership of 3M for non playoff relevant games versus 5.85M for playoff relevant games. You still have a difference of 3M.
Ncsf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
A
Yogi Bear said:

TheSouseFamily said:

Well done, Larry Scott!
Is Larry Scott supposed to be able to produce TV viewers magically somehow?
Well, yes. Make the game on Saturday. Rush hour on a Friday is just stupid.
CaliforniaEternal
How long do you want to ignore this user?
A
I agree with the argument that it's the importance of the matchup that drives the viewership, not the day. This year's P12CCG would have done no better on a Saturday night because the outcome didn't matter for the playoff spots.

Look at week 4 as an example. The Cal-WSU game pulled in 2.261M viewers for a Friday night game while the furd-Oregon game on Saturday night drew 700k viewers. Even adjusting for the fact that Cal-WSU was on ESPN and furd-Oregon on FS1, it's clear people will watch games with more importance (WSU was ranked really high at that point) regardless of the night that it's on.
BearBones
How long do you want to ignore this user?
A
Expand the playoff to 8 teams, make the power 5 conference champs auto-qualifiers (plus 3 at large) and watch the TV ratings for the conference championship games soar. That will be especially true for the Pac 12, because we have further to go than most of the conferences.
Blueblood
How long do you want to ignore this user?
L

"Chanpiomship"!!??!! aaaAAAAAHHHHHHHH
BearSD
How long do you want to ignore this user?
A
Chapman_is_Gone said:

okaydo said:

Can anybody disprove Wilner's argument?

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/12/01/yes-the-pac-12-championship-game-is-on-friday-nights-because-of-tv-and-thats-the-right-call/

I mean, when would you put the Pac-12 Championship game on a Saturday night to boost viewership?





I don't give a crap about what Wilner believes maximizes TV viewership. Some things should be about more than money.
Wilner is an apologist for the Pac-12 commissioner's office; he writes things to support them in exchange for getting "inside information" from the commissioner's staff.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
L
I blame the Furd.
ColoradoBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
L
BearSD said:

Troll On You Bears said:

Agreed about the bad optics of playing the conference game on Friday. We're the only Power 5 conference to do so and it essentially conceded that we're the least important of the five. Larry Scott should be fighting to get the conference a prime time Saturday slot. Perhaps this year wasn't the most ideal because it wasn't a playoff play-in game, but there's no reason to voluntarily move our championship game to a second- or third-rate time slot. The poor viewership to me is a function more of the time slot than the actual popularity of the conference.
I agree. Scott blundered when he agreed to a contract that lets ESPN and Fox decide whether the conference championship game is played on Friday or Saturday. He's made so many blunders that it's hard to keep track of them all.
Well, do you want the game to be on cable vs the ACC championship on ABC and the BigTen championship on Fox?

Last years' p12 CCG had 5.7 million viewers which is more than the ACC championship game (both had CFB playoff implications). The 2015 p12 CCG had 2.5 million viewers and viewership was tripled up by the ACC and quadrupled up by the Big Ten games, which were concurrent.

In 2014, the Friday night P12 game between Oregon and Az had 6 million viewers which was actually the same number as the Big Ten had that Saturday.
71Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
L
Chapman_is_Gone said:

- Conference championship games are stupid and devalue the regular season.

But if you're going to have one:
- Playing it on a Friday night is stupid and is an insult to the fans.
- Playing it at a neutral site, which is often a sterile NFL stadium, is stupid. The team that won the head-to-head in the regular season should host.

Any deviations from these statements represents hoaring out the games, teams, and fans for the almighty television dollar. Shame on the Pac 12.
The game will probably move to Las Vegas once the Raiders new stadium is finished. Although it will be an NFL stadium, I think the in-stadium attendance will soar...

Cave Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
V
71Bear said:

Chapman_is_Gone said:

- Conference championship games are stupid and devalue the regular season.

But if you're going to have one:
- Playing it on a Friday night is stupid and is an insult to the fans.
- Playing it at a neutral site, which is often a sterile NFL stadium, is stupid. The team that won the head-to-head in the regular season should host.

Any deviations from these statements represents hoaring out the games, teams, and fans for the almighty television dollar. Shame on the Pac 12.
The game will probably move to Las Vegas once the Raiders new stadium is finished. Although it will be an NFL stadium, I think the in-stadium attendance will soar...
Sounds good to me!
Chapman_is_Gone
How long do you want to ignore this user?
V
71Bear said:

Chapman_is_Gone said:

- Conference championship games are stupid and devalue the regular season.

But if you're going to have one:
- Playing it on a Friday night is stupid and is an insult to the fans.
- Playing it at a neutral site, which is often a sterile NFL stadium, is stupid. The team that won the head-to-head in the regular season should host.

Any deviations from these statements represents hoaring out the games, teams, and fans for the almighty television dollar. Shame on the Pac 12.
The game will probably move to Las Vegas once the Raiders new stadium is finished. Although it will be an NFL stadium, I think the in-stadium attendance will soar...


If the game has to be played indoors, on artificial turf, in a sterile neutral environment...to me, playing it in Las Vegas is the most palatable choice out of many bad possibilities.
Cave Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
V
Chapman_is_Gone said:

- Conference championship games are stupid and devalue the regular season.

But if you're going to have one:
- Playing it on a Friday night is stupid and is an insult to the fans.
- Playing it at a neutral site, which is often a sterile NFL stadium, is stupid. The team that won the head-to-head in the regular season should host.

Any deviations from these statements represents hoaring out the games, teams, and fans for the almighty television dollar. Shame on the Pac 12.
Strongly agree on the game site and the impact on the regular season.

The conference championship race in the Pac-10 used to be much more exciting. Now the race is merely prelude to the championship, which is frequently a poor game and/or a nationally irrelevant one.

Of course part of that was because the Pac-10 regular season conference championship race used to be the race for the ultimate prize: the Rose Bowl. Now the Rose Bowl is frequently a mere consolation prize for a Pac-12 team that once had playoff aspirations--that is when it's not a playoff game itself.

I was once a proponent of the playoffs and conference championship games. I felt the playoffs would produce a more 'true' champion and both the playoffs and the conference championship games would be positive by virtue of producing more games between the best teams. I did not consider the costs to the system already in place. Absurd as the idea of co-national champions was, I think the old bowl system was more fun than the sterile modern reality.
Cave Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
V
Chapman_is_Gone said:

71Bear said:

Chapman_is_Gone said:

- Conference championship games are stupid and devalue the regular season.

But if you're going to have one:
- Playing it on a Friday night is stupid and is an insult to the fans.
- Playing it at a neutral site, which is often a sterile NFL stadium, is stupid. The team that won the head-to-head in the regular season should host.

Any deviations from these statements represents hoaring out the games, teams, and fans for the almighty television dollar. Shame on the Pac 12.
The game will probably move to Las Vegas once the Raiders new stadium is finished. Although it will be an NFL stadium, I think the in-stadium attendance will soar...


If the game has to be played indoors, on artificial turf, in a sterile neutral environment...to me, playing it in Las Vegas is the most palatable choice out of many bad possibilities.
It at least beats a trip to Levi's
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
L
BearBones said:

Expand the playoff to 8 teams, make the power 5 conference champs auto-qualifiers (plus 3 at large) and watch the TV ratings for the conference championship games soar. That will be especially true for the Pac 12, because we have further to go than most of the conferences.


+1 million

Plus the 3 at large must be champions of their conferences. That would make the confence championship games the first round of a 16 team playoff. The winner of the Pac12 would host its next round game every year on Jan 1 in the Rose Bowl--if it was automatically the winner of the Big, even better.
ColoradoBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
L
calumnus said:

BearBones said:

Expand the playoff to 8 teams, make the power 5 conference champs auto-qualifiers (plus 3 at large) and watch the TV ratings for the conference championship games soar. That will be especially true for the Pac 12, because we have further to go than most of the conferences.


+1 million

Plus the 3 at large must be champions of their conferences. That would make the confence championship games the first round of a 16 team playoff. The winner of the Pac12 would host its next round game every year on Jan 1 in the Rose Bowl--if it was automatically the winner of the Big, even better.

Three at large berths for the G5 conferences? That would be perfect............... if Cal joined the MWC!

But seriously, the problem with the current conferences is they are not a good size for these larger playoff scenarios. a six or seven team division is not big enough to really have the CCG be a true playoff game because you get some really BAD teams in the CCG, especially when the division are not very even. Look at the BT west, the old B12 north, sometimes the SEC east, and the P12 South when SC was ineligible.

I think 10 team conferences would be perfect... with an 8 team playoff, you could have up to 80 teams with a path. That's more than now where it's essentially 64+ ND. Or there could be at large bids. This would require no more weeks than currently set up for. 9 game conference schedule, 3 OOCs, which would keep it interesting. Plus with fewer 'cross division' games, even the poorer quality teams could go into a CCG with decent records... thus increasing the hype even if they are paper tigers.

I don't know how we get from here to there though. Obviously, the power brokers in teh SEC and Big Ten won't want a 16 team playoff where they don't get 4-5 teams or whatever. If they get any bigger, the divisions would be two separate conferences almost... so in the BigTen something would have to give with OSU/Mich/PSU in the same division.


Cave Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
V
calumnus said:

BearBones said:

Expand the playoff to 8 teams, make the power 5 conference champs auto-qualifiers (plus 3 at large) and watch the TV ratings for the conference championship games soar. That will be especially true for the Pac 12, because we have further to go than most of the conferences.


+1 million

Plus the 3 at large must be champions of their conferences. That would make the confence championship games the first round of a 16 team playoff. The winner of the Pac12 would host its next round game every year on Jan 1 in the Rose Bowl--if it was automatically the winner of the Big, even better.
Disagree. Take the next three best teams
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
L
Cave Bear said:

calumnus said:

BearBones said:

Expand the playoff to 8 teams, make the power 5 conference champs auto-qualifiers (plus 3 at large) and watch the TV ratings for the conference championship games soar. That will be especially true for the Pac 12, because we have further to go than most of the conferences.


+1 million

Plus the 3 at large must be champions of their conferences. That would make the confence championship games the first round of a 16 team playoff. The winner of the Pac12 would host its next round game every year on Jan 1 in the Rose Bowl--if it was automatically the winner of the Big, even better.
Disagree. Take the next three best teams


Hate relying on polls, but that would be an option. Main idea is winning your conference is the path, so there is no incentive to schedule a bunch of OOC patsies. The Rose Bowl is hosted by the Pac12 champ EVERY year.
Oski87
How long do you want to ignore this user?
A
There is no reason for the playoff. It is ridiculous that the Pac 12 and the Big 10 let itself get swayed by the SEC crew. Or at least bring back the - one and two only. Why are Georgia and Alabama even in the current conversation? Clemson and Oklahoma are clearly the best teams - why make them go through some horrible SEC grinder where some cheap shot on the QBs will determine the fate of a team in a second game?

The BCS was a much better solution. 8 teams is a joke - 3 additional games to find out what everyone already knew? Cinderella is not a valid reason to expand a playoff. Hoping for some unworthy to come out and topple someone who deserved it more through the play through the year is not a reason to expand.

There have been no instances where a #1 or #2 has not won. Let it go.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
L
Oski87 said:

There have been no instances where a #1 or #2 has not won. Let it go.
Wrong. Ohio State was the 4 seed and won in the first year of the playoff.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_College_Football_Playoff_National_Championship
Page 1 of 2
×
Verify your student status
See Membership Benefits >