rlh04d wrote:We certainly didn't begin our slide in 2006
In fact, we had a pretty bad team in 2006, and I still have no idea how we went to the Orange Bowl that year. VT was clearly the best team in the ACC that year. FSU's slide began when March Richt became the head coach at UGA and we replaced him with Bowden's son.
I guess it's more accurate to say the slide from the era of dominance began in earnest after 2001, although FSU had won the ACC and made BCS appearances in 3 of the 4 years before 2006, so outwardly they still looked elite.
You're comparing Notre Dame's games, which were played on NBC, and Florida's games, which were primarily aired on CBS, to FSU's games on ESPN? There is no comparison between ratings of basic cable and broadcast TV channels.
Sure there's a comparison. Here's the distributions of the various networks:
ABC/NBC/CBS 114.2 million households
ABC Regional telecast with ESPN2 mirror 106 million
ESPN 98,516,000
ESPN2 98,477,000
ESPNU 73 million
There's a 16 million household difference between over the air networks and ESPN/ESPN2, or about 14% less distribution. So while it's worth mentioning, we should expect FSU's numbers to only be 14% less on account of distribution. Given that, we need to look for other explanations why they are 34% less than Notre Dame's, and a whopping 44% less than Florida's (if you don't agree with me that they're just less popular).
(I arrived at the ABC regional number myself. They're mirrored on ESPN2, so even if you're outside the region you get the game with cable. 16 million homes get ABC but don't get ESPN2, and generally about half of those homes are in the ABC region showing the game, so it's reasonable to estimate that having a game on ABC regional would generally have a distribution of about 106 million.)
Anyway, I'm glad you agree that there's a difference between over the air and cable
because earlier you lumped in the Orange Bowl ratings from ABC telecasts and ESPN telecasts like they're apples to apples.
I appreciate the work you put into this ... but it's worthless. FSU/Clemson was on ABC. So was FSU/Miami. So was FSU/Florida. Of course those games were the highest rated -- ABC, like NBC and CBS, doesn't require a cable subscription like ESPN does. The ABC games are ALSO split geographically, so the FSU games weren't aired nation-wide. The Notre Dame games ARE aired nation-wide, because they're the only game that NBC shows.
Actually, only one of those FSU ABC telecasts were split regionally (FSU/Miami). And 106 million households still had access to that game, or just 8 million fewer than Notre Dame on NBC or Florida on CBS.
ABC regional is marginally better than ESPN/2 by boosting distribution from 98 million to 106 million. And a full national over the air telecast is marginally better than that, by reaching 114 million. The difference isn't all that great.
I also think we have a cause and effect problem. You seem to think that the FSU games vs Florida, Miami and Clemson were popular because they were on ABC. I disagree. I think they were put on ABC because they would be popular. I think there's some basic self selection going on here. It's no coincidence the best games were put on ABC.
I honestly don't know what you're trying to show here. That ESPN gets lower ratings than ABC? Yes, that's true.
Generally yes, because ABC wants to put its best games on its more widely distributed networks. But even then there are many weeks when an ESPN game outdrew an over the air game.
What I'm trying to show here is that the FSU brand can't command an audience on its own and its top rated games are the product of their matchup. I think that your suggestion that they were pulling all the weight for the Orange Bowl ratings isn't supported by the numbers. I think NIU by itself of course doesn't explain the 6.5 rating either, but rather it's the Cinderella storyline plus a little help from a near record Chicago market draw.
Distribution is not a major factor in any of FSU's numbers except the ESPNU game. But even then, if you do the math to account for distribution, if that game were to air on CBS it would only draw a 0.6. (In other words, there's a reason why it was on ESPNU).
In fact, the games you pointed out are the lowest (FSU/NC State, FSU/BC, FSU/Maryland) were aired on either ESPN2 or ESPNU, which have a much smaller potential audience than ESPN.
Not true. ESPN and ESPN2 have almost identical distribution. ESPNU has 75% of their distribution and again, account for that and it's still only 0.6.
My point has continuously been that no one is interested in non-competitive games, so playing a 2-10 BC game on ESPN2 or a 4-8 Maryland team on ESPNU is obviously going to result in poor ratings. No casual fans watched those games because they were foregone beat downs (or thought to be a beat down in NC State's case). The only reason those games were aired on an ESPN networks at ALL is because of FSU's brand. Every D1 FSU game was aired on television last year, which I don't think a single other ACC team could say -- all of them played a few games on ESPNU.
This comes as a bit of a surprise. You said earlier that nobody wanted to watch NIU, and by implication said the only reason people watched was to see FSU. That's why I'm pulling out all these FSU TV ratings.
But if your point here is that nobody is interested in non-competitive games, why did the Orange Bowl draw decent ratings (6.5) for a game that wasn't thought to be very competitive, while other FSU games that weren't thought to be competitive did much, much, worse (0.4)?
Is it just the lure of the Orange Bowl? Obviously not, considering the 44% lower WVU/Clemson ratings the year before.
So the way I see it, either the public did think NIU would be competitive, OR FSU's brand draw is that strong, OR the Cinderella storyline is that compelling. The only answer I think you like is #2.
But as I've demonstrated, FSU's brand draw isn't that strong. They draw flies for several nationally televised games so we know people don't just tune in to see FSU. Distribution doesn't explain the poor numbers. IMO, when non-AQs make a BCS bowl a lot of people are going to tune in for the David vs Goliath storyline.
Also, I think the only reason so many FSU games were aired is because 1. ABC wants the ACC contract for its basketball, 2. the contract requires them to air a minimum number of football games, and 3. airing FSU football games is better than airing Wake or Duke games because as little credit as I'm giving FSU's brand right now in comparison to the elites, they do have the best ACC football brand.
As for the ACC Championship game being a stinker -- it was the fourth highest rated game of any ACC game on ESPN. Again, you're comparing things that can't be compared. The ACC title game was on in the middle of the day on a Saturday against competition from other football games. The Orange Bowl was primetime with no competition. That's why I'm comparing bowl games against bowl games -- it creates a fair method of comparison that eliminate the mistakes you're making by comparing network television to basic cable and pretending like that doesn't have a MASSIVE impact on ratings.
The 4th highest rated game of all ACC games? That's like being the 4th tallest midget
I wasn't directly comparing the ACC title game (that was also in primetime BTW) to the Orange Bowl; it's meant to be compared with other regular season games and the other conference title games. I brought up the ACC title game to illustrate the poor ratings FSU drew throughout the year because it seems pretty clear to me that the brand has faded quite a bit. Why were only 16 out of 100 football watchers watching FSU play in the ACC title game while the rest opted for a regular season game between Texas and K-State, and the B1G title game between Nebraska and Wisconsin? That last one wasn't thought to be competitive (and it turned out not to be, although not for the reason everyone expected).
I really don't understand what's confusing you about the WSJ data. Their methodology looks pretty clear to me:
we looked at the national viewership figures for every bowl since 1998. We then ranked each school based on whether it exceeded or fell short of its bowls' average audience size.
Every team had their bowl ratings compared to the average ratings for that bowl game. To determine the average, you would add up all of the ratings, and then divide by the number of bowls
Ha, well my bad. I looked closely at the graphic and skimmed the article where it was buried.
Okay, but I still have a problem with its timeframe, which appears to be 1998-2009. I don't doubt FSU was gangbusters from 1998 through the mid to late 2000s, but I don't buy that it's lasted. That 2010 Jacksonville article I linked to said FSU interest was way down by that point, manifesting itself in everything from merchandise sales to watercooler chatter.
There wasn't a ratings increase but there was a HELL of a drop off the next year.
It was also moved from CBS to ESPN2 the next year (like I said, a 14% drop in distribution), and the good FSU ratings were helped by the fact that Bobby Bowden announced it would be his final game before retirement. (But even then, it was a drop in ratings from the previous year.)
The other two can be easily explained away. Call it an "excuse" but I'm not impressed with a ratings bump when the opponent is Notre Dame.
Apparently you aren't impressed with a ratings bump over anyone, since FSU has provided a ratings bump in every bowl they've played in for the last decade other than the Gator Bowl in 2009.
If FSU really is the second best bowl ratings booster, they would've given A boost in 2009-10 and their 2010-11 Chick Fil A numbers wouldn't have been leapfrogged two years later. The 2011-12 numbers are obviously obfuscated by the fact they played a team with clearly better drawing power than their own.
I find it very, very hard to believe that the only reason people tuned into the Orange Bowl was to see FSU, a team which drew a 0.4 ratings twice, against Boston College and Maryland.
On ESPNU.
Maryland would've had a 0.6 rating on NBC after accounting for distribution. Boston College was on ESPN2, which is carried by the same number of households as ESPN and only 14% fewer than over the air stations, so that gets a 0.5 on NBC.
No, I'm sure they reason they tuned in was to see Northern Illinois, a team which drew .4 and .9 in the only two games that site has numbers for over the entire season. The ESPNU game against Iowa isn't included, despite most ESPNU games being included. Should I assume that means they drew less than a .1 rating?
I don't think NIU has substantial drawing power on its own at all. I think it's the Cinderella effect-- the same one that draws people to the first weekend of March Madness. It's why people watch Boise in the BCS, and also Hawaii and NIU's failed attempts.
That wasn't what I meant. My point was that a matchup between SEC programs is going to get far better ratings than a matchup between an SEC program and a bottom feeder in the Sun Belt. It doesn't matter if they have the TV rights, if the game doesn't draw any ratings.
Okay, but my point is that the "far better ratings" won't make up for the lost ticket revenue as a consequence of the fewer home games.
Hawaii certainly didn't help. I think the 28 games played between the MAC and AQs provide some measure and it's not statistically insignificant, but it would be nice to have more. What I'd really like to see is a 16 team playoff, with the non-AQ champs getting bids along with the FCS champ. I think that would be very popular and profitable. At this point I'll take 8.
Except the MAC lost the overwhelming majority of those 28 games ... so yeah, that's a statistically significant measure, but it's a measure that hurts you.
Okay but again, the MAC went 8-20, but 4 of those losses were by UMass which wasn't a full member, and 3 of the losses were close enough that experts would say home field made the difference.
I'm looking at the spreads of some Week 1 MAC games, and they are some doozies. But don't be too surprised if Toledo does your Noles a solid and beats the Gators.
