Week 4 CFB TV ratings

[ttowncoug]

College Football TV Ratings

College football TV ratings for the 2023 regular season, bowls, College Football Playoff and National Championship.

www.sportsmediawatch.com

Cougs continue to show pretty well. 2.3M viewers. We faced big TV competition with Florida vs. Tennessee which got the ratings crown of the week.

Meanwhile, the "major TV market juggernauts" that belong in the Big-10 from Seattle and Bay Area (UW vs. Stanford), drew 532K viewers.

 

[M-I-Coug]

I guess that’s why it shall be the third time this year on big Fox, against USC.

 

[cr8zyncalif]

Spelling error, ttown...that should have been "jugger nots"....

 

[ttowncoug]

for the "nots"....it goes to show you that the west coast market is pretty apathetic in terms of college sports. The Seattle area has plenty of other alternatives (Sounders, Mariners, Seahawks etc.) that have drawn the attention of the local sports fan.

UW's REAL media value, IMO, is NOT where the pundits think it is. Shows in their numbers. Why would you pay them (UW, Stanford) BIg-10 money for viewership that is near Mountain West tv ratings?

 

[SaveFerris]

Reality vs. potential. UCLA is in a huge market, but for football it simply does not currently translate.

 

[ttowncoug]

Ferris - it will be VERY interesting to see how this investment shakes out for Fox and the BIg-10.

Nationally, no one gives a sh#t about UCLA and their football team. I personally think the LA and So Cal market are all things USC. Attendance at their games is indicative of how LA feels about UCLA: they don't care.

I've said for year's UCLA and USC were at their respective peaks when the NFL was not in Los Angeles. Now the average sports fan has the NFL with 2 teams and plenty of other options (MSL) to draw their interest and fan support.

 

[CougPatrol]

It's about the future TV markets, and not the current ratings of the programs attached to those markets. The B10 didn't go after Maryland and Rutgers because of their football potential. The added them because of the DC and Greater NY markets.

Also, if the UW bolts the B10 and WSU stays in a modified P10 or MWC, UW's numbers will increase, while WSU's will decrease. Why? Because UW will have half a dozen games vs. Michigan, Ohio State, USC, Oregon, Wisconsin, Penn St, etc., while WSU will no longer have Nationally televised games. Our biggest draw will be WSU vs. Oregon State or Boise State.

If UW leaves the P10 and the P10 disintegrates, WSU is in big, big trouble.

 

[ttowncoug]

CP - the markets added, and some of the Big-10 math, is all about adding "subs" to your TV network. That was the math used to add LA schools. And remember, this is all PROJECTED...which means things WILL change.

Do I personally think UW and Oregon are leaving for the Big-10....nope....at least not now...because certain BIg-10 President's -- nor USC/UCLA -- want them. LA is not signing up for media value dilution (now or future) and we've been clearly shown that no current Pac-12 schools offer enough value to tip the financial scales.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

CP - the markets added, and some of the Big-10 math, is all about adding "subs" to your TV network. That was the math used to add LA schools. And remember, this is all PROJECTED...which means things WILL change.

Do I personally think UW and Oregon are leaving for the Big-10....nope....at least not now...because certain BIg-10 President's -- nor USC/UCLA -- want them. LA is not signing up for media value dilution (now or future) and we've been clearly shown that no current Pac-12 schools offer enough value to tip the financial scales.

ttown has it right. There is zero desire to add UW or Oregon at the moment. We absolutely have to worry when the SEC and B1G decide to burn it all down and create a super league of 48 teams. If they went to 64 teams, we might have a shot to stay in the top league but I don't know that I've heard that kind of talk.

On the TV numbers above, the viewing source matters. As fun as it is to pick on the mutts, the reality is that getting stuck on FS1 means that you aren't going to have good numbers. We've benefitted by being interesting enough to get on FOX twice this season. The even better news is that FOX has already picked up our game against USC. We might as well accept that our late game against Utah on FS1 is going to draw poor ratings.

 

[chipdouglas]

College Football TV Ratings

College football TV ratings for the 2023 regular season, bowls, College Football Playoff and National Championship.

www.sportsmediawatch.com

Cougs continue to show pretty well. 2.3M viewers. We faced big TV competition with Florida vs. Tennessee which got the ratings crown of the week.

Meanwhile, the "major TV market juggernauts" that belong in the Big-10 from Seattle and Bay Area (UW vs. Stanford), drew 532K viewers.

Anything with Stanford isn't a fair fight. They have no fans.

 

[SaveFerris]

ttown has it right. There is zero desire to add UW or Oregon at the moment. We absolutely have to worry when the SEC and B1G decide to burn it all down and create a super league of 48 teams. If they went to 64 teams, we might have a shot to stay in the top league but I don't know that I've heard that kind of talk.

On the TV numbers above, the viewing source matters. As fun as it is to pick on the mutts, the reality is that getting stuck on FS1 means that you aren't going to have good numbers. We've benefitted by being interesting enough to get on FOX twice this season. The even better news is that FOX has already picked up our game against USC. We might as well accept that our late game against Utah on FS1 is going to draw poor ratings.

Cal on Pac 12 will hurt our numbers as well. Oregon helped having Georgia, BYU, and us on network. USC (and OSU) hurt by the Pac 12 taking that game to fulfill SC's 3 game obligation. Things will normalize over the course of the seaosn. As TTown posted, I just don't know that anyone else commands the value to draw eyes. It's the B1G and SEC teams that are the bigger draw regardless of opponent.

Markets matter, however given technology I wonder if they matter nearly as much today let alone moving forward. Maybe a "super league" works. It just seems like it would reduce demand. Why would all the "have not" fans continue to watch that product?

 

[cr8zyncalif]

UCLA does not matter much in LA viewership because the team is a perennial underperformer. If they ever got serious about playing consistent football, their viewership would increase significantly. Unfortunately for the Bruins, moving the the B10 is not a good way to get rid of the underperformer label.

 

[ttowncoug]

flat - i think the poke at UW and Stanford is somewhat fair as that match up was like the 3 or 4th pick....which dropped them to that FS1 slot and the pay associated with that slot.

You would think -- with all the chest pounding here locally by husky fans -- that a ranked UW team that is playing good football should pull decent viewership numbers in when you are talking the Bay Area and Seattle TV markets....regardless of the channel....if their markets actually cared.

 

[SaveFerris]

UCLA does not matter much in LA viewership because the team is a perennial underperformer. If they ever got serious about playing consistent football, their viewership would increase significantly. Unfortunately for the Bruins, moving the the B10 is not a good way to get rid of the underperformer label.

Every program has a bandwagon, but SC & UCLA's is about contending for championships. What happens when a few years finishing in the middle turns into a few years finishing even worse?

I get taking the money, but I doubt anyone is considering the second order consequences that are bound to take place dismantling the current model. Doesn't getting rid of the "have nots" ultimately create new "have nots"?

 

[CougPatrol]

It’s not going to work if they only have USC and UCLA out west. Given that, it’s a question of when, not if some other P10 programs are added.

 

[ttowncoug]

CP - they only get added if they don't dilute the media pot for the rest of the Big-10. It's why the NBA has not expanded - yet.

UCLA and USC were only added because they brought more media money to the table. Their commish might have bigger ideas on expansion. The schools that vote and own the conference are not keen on a smaller piece of the pie.

 

[cr8zyncalif]

Every program has a bandwagon, but SC & UCLA's is about contending for championships. What happens when a few years finishing in the middle turns into a few years finishing even worse?

I get taking the money, but I doubt anyone is considering the second order consequences that are bound to take place dismantling the current model. Doesn't getting rid of the "have nots" ultimately create new "have nots".

Save, thank you for that. I've been struggling for a term to describe the mid-term future due to the latest college football moves, and "second order consequences" is just about perfect. I will plagiarize you.

As for your point that getting rid of existing have nots creates a new group of have nots, that is both correct and unassailable. Heck, look at Nebraska...their shift took them from a "have" to a "have not", and that was before the big money became the primary issue (though in fairness their market is so small, they would probably not be welcome in the B10 if the move attempt were to happen today). UCLA is likely to experience the same football impact in their move as Nebraska, and they didn't start from as lofty a perch. What I keep coming back to in the UCLA decision is why they decided to forego being the big dog in the LA market within the PAC. Most of the SoCal TV audience are PAC people, not B10 people. I just can't see how moving to the B10, when considered from all angles, is a good decision mid- or long term. And the studies being released now suggest that the short term money boost will be eaten up in added costs...it is looking more like a naive desperation move than anything else, at this point.

 

[dgibbons]

UCLA does not matter much in LA viewership because the team is a perennial underperformer. If they ever got serious about playing consistent football, their viewership would increase significantly. Unfortunately for the Bruins, moving the the B10 is not a good way to get rid of the underperformer label.

On the other hand, with USC on board too, we'll be seeing tOSU, Michigan, Penn State, Wisconsin, and/or Michigan State playing in LA every year.

 

[cr8zyncalif]

Gib, it will be interesting to see how the B10 reorganizes when they add the two LA schools. Will they stay with 2 divisions, add SC and hapless UCLA to their western division and shift somebody from west to east? Or split to 4 subdivisions? There are only so many league games per year, and most of those would be within the division, so the B10 teams not "in division" won't get many trips to LA...once per decade or so?

As for the idea (some have offered this; I'm not sure of your opinion) that TV ratings will be better in SoCal with B10 opponents, as opposed to PAC opponents, I beg to differ. Maybe the first year, due to the novelty, but the B10 does not have a huge alum footprint here...and what local wants to watch UCLA get beat again? After halftime there might be more SC fans watching than Bruin fans. I'd expect the UCLA ratings to be lower in the B10. SC never really had a ratings problem, and I doubt that will change much.

Once again, I can't see how this was not just a simple example of an immature & naive UCLA AD being persuaded to do something that will be regretted. I'm not even sure if this falls within Save's "second order consequences"; the UCLA situation seems to be more first order.

 

[ttowncoug]

UCLA is facing a political mess with this move. If they go through with this move, I can realistically see this being short-term in nature.

USC, IMO, is better suited to move independent in football and play Pac-12 in all other sports (like ND). They control their schedule, travel, etc. They keep the entire pot of money if they make the playoffs.

My instinct is this is USC's next move as they will find out that the travel schedule and playing Big-10 stadiums, in November, isn't what the So. Cal boys get excited about.

 

[Coug90]

UCLA is facing a political mess with this move. If they go through with this move, I can realistically see this being short-term in nature.

USC, IMO, is better suited to move independent in football and play Pac-12 in all other sports (like ND). They control their schedule, travel, etc. They keep the entire pot of money if they make the playoffs.

My instinct is this is USC's next move as they will find out that the travel schedule and playing Big-10 stadiums, in November, isn't what the So. Cal boys get excited about.

USC has a national brand that has lasted even through some mediocre seasons. People don’t remember the UCLA of the 80s and 90s and the battles with USC for the Rose Bowl. I’m not sure there is a great move for UCLA at this point. If it’s a cash grab to get some life back into the program, facilities, etc ok, guess we will see how it works. Can’t imagine a legit recruit wanting to go to a school whose fans just don’t care.

 

[SaveFerris]

Save, thank you for that. I've been struggling for a term to describe the mid-term future due to the latest college football moves, and "second order consequences" is just about perfect. I will plagiarize you.

As for your point that getting rid of existing have nots creates a new group of have nots, that is both correct and unassailable. Heck, look at Nebraska...their shift took them from a "have" to a "have not", and that was before the big money became the primary issue (though in fairness their market is so small, they would probably not be welcome in the B10 if the move attempt were to happen today). UCLA is likely to experience the same football impact in their move as Nebraska, and they didn't start from as lofty a perch. What I keep coming back to in the UCLA decision is why they decided to forego being the big dog in the LA market within the PAC. Most of the SoCal TV audience are PAC people, not B10 people. I just can't see how moving to the B10, when considered from all angles, is a good decision mid- or long term. And the studies being released now suggest that the short term money boost will be eaten up in added costs...it is looking more like a naive desperation move than anything else, at this point.

Hey thanks for that cr8zy!

Networks are driving the ship. I'm not sure whether their priorities are necessarily what's best for college athletics long-term. In fact, pretty sure they do not.

I just don't see how where things are moving creates greater interest. Time will tell.