Alabama-LSU draws lowest-ever BCS title rating

[IthacaBarrel]

Are you OK today? This is about your 3rd post I have seen over the top exaggerated, all on different subjects.

Yes doing well. Thank you though Bees...

 

[Scooch]

In my opinion I think A) nobody cared to see a rematch, B) everybody knew it would be low scoring yawn fest and C) it’s late at night for the east coast. I also think it loses its luster by having so much time in between the season and the game. January 9th is ridiculous.

Personally, I think more people would tune in to see a rematch if both teams earned the right to play each other again. If Bama beat Oregon or Stanford and LSU took down Okie State to set up the rematch that would be far more compelling.

There was a lengthy thread on the board yesterday about not caring to watch it.

http://www.syracusefan.com/threads/am-i-only-one-who-has-no-interest-in-watching-the-championship-game.13714/

FWIW, all good points but (c) isn't true. I know it's a oft-repeated talking point, and it "sounds" right, but ratings on the east coast are often highest in the 11:00pm-midnight hour than when games start at 7pm and finish by 10pm. In fact back when I started in this biz ABC moved Monday Night Football's kickoff from 9pm to 8pm to address that exact point... and it was a total flop. Research showed it was MUCH better to have games go past midnight on the east coast then start them earlier.

Don't discount the geographic component. Only the NFL is a truly national sport, so having two teams from adjacent, low-population states was a factor (despite the rematch aspect).

 

[Millhouse]

Because people (average non football fan tuning in) want to see an exciting game. Not a FG defense fest. They dont care that this was one of he best defensive performances. They want to see touchdown passes and long TD runs and back and forth action.

Playing the game a month and a half after the season ends also doesnt help.

two sides to a game. offense and defense. most good games have some success on both sides. Baylor and UW was silly and so was last night. People want to see TDs but don't want to see TDs every play

 

[Dick_in_MI]

FWIW, all good points but (c) isn't true. I know it's a oft-repeated talking point, and it "sounds" right, but ratings on the east coast are often highest in the 11:00pm-midnight hour than when games start at 7pm and finish by 10pm. In fact back when I started in this biz ABC moved Monday Night Football's kickoff from 9pm to 8pm to address that exact point... and it was a total flop. Research showed it was MUCH better to have games go past midnight on the east coast then start them earlier.

Don't discount the geographic component. Only the NFL is a truly national sport, so having two teams from adjacent, low-population states was a factor (despite the rematch aspect).

What do you think about the Jan 9th component? From my perspective, once the nachos and guacamole are finished on New Year's Day, bowl season is pretty much done for me and I put college football in my rearview mirror. Waiting an extra week for a game that is neither the result of a playoff or even a +1 game takes away a lot of the allure.

 

[PhatOrange]

FWIW, all good points but (c) isn't true. I know it's a oft-repeated talking point, and it "sounds" right, but ratings on the east coast are often highest in the 11:00pm-midnight hour than when games start at 7pm and finish by 10pm. In fact back when I started in this biz ABC moved Monday Night Football's kickoff from 9pm to 8pm to address that exact point... and it was a total flop. Research showed it was MUCH better to have games go past midnight on the east coast then start them earlier.

Don't discount the geographic component. Only the NFL is a truly national sport, so having two teams from adjacent, low-population states was a factor (despite the rematch aspect).

I wonder why that is though. I would think after bedtime on a school night would negatively effect ratings. That's crazy to me that it doesn't.

 

[Scooch]

What do you think about the Jan 9th component? From my perspective, once the nachos and guacamole are finished on New Year's Day, bowl season is pretty much done for me and I put college football in my rearview mirror. Waiting an extra week for a game that is neither the result of a playoff or even a +1 game takes away a lot of the allure.

I think there's conflicting data. Last year's game rated very well, and had the same late date. USC-Texas had a historic rating, and had the same late date. I'm more inclined to say it's an anectdotal excuse, rather than a data-supported issue.

 

[Scooch]

I wonder why that is though. I would think after bedtime on a school night would negatively effect ratings. That's crazy to me that it doesn't.

This will sound way more snarky than I intend it, but it's because everyone isn't you.

Meaning, for every guy who has to be to bed by 9pm because he's on the job at 7am, there's someone who works retail and doesn't start his workday 'til noon.

The world is a much different place than it was even 10 years ago, let alone 20 or 30 years ago. Work patterns are considerably different.

And kids don't watch a ton of live sports. Never have. It's hysterical to see old, white sports writers always bemoan these late starts because of "the children". Teens are always the lowest-rated age segment for sports, and that goes back forever. When MLB, for example, occassionally throws a bone and starts a playoff game early, the teen ratings are WORSE than when the game goes to midnight.

 

[Dick_in_MI]

I think there's conflicting data. Last year's game rated very well, and had the same late date. USC-Texas had a historic rating, and had the same late date. I'm more inclined to say it's an anectdotal excuse, rather than a data-supported issue.

I think a game between conference foes who had already played HAD to affect the ratings. Also, when do the ratings start? At the beginning, middle, or end of the game. I know lots of people who watched the first three quarters but went to bed when they realized that the #2 team couldn't score a TD when they got in the redzone and the #1 team couldn't move the ball past the 50 yard line. There are things worth losing sleep for...that game wasn't one of them. And then, many guys I know didn't tune in at all or they watched on and off.

 

[Scooch]

I think a game between conference foes who had already played HAD to affect the ratings. Also, when do the ratings start? At the beginning, middle, or end of the game. I know lots of people who watched the first three quarters but went to bed when they realized that the #2 team couldn't score a TD when they got in the redzone and the #1 team couldn't move the ball past the 50 yard line. There are things worth losing sleep for...that game wasn't one of them. And then, many guys I know didn't tune in at all or they watched on and off.

A rating, or audience figure, for TV is the number of people who are watching in the average MINUTE of the program. So when we say that there were 24 million people who watched last night's game that doesn't mean 24 million people total, it means 24 million people on average, whether its minute 1 or minute 180. *edit* A football audience tends to "turn over" 2 to 3 times during a game -- so w/o having the data in front of me, it's likely that in total there were anywhere from 50-75 million people who tuned in at some point, for some duration, to the game. You see that kind of number reported for the Super Bowl = average minute rating of, say, 43, but total audience reach of 175 million people.

Typically ratings are lowest early, then ramp up throught the first half, dip at halftime, regain the ramp up in tghe 3rd quarter... and then it's about the game from there. I didn't see a breakdown of last night, but I suspect the rating declined in the 4th quarter, for obvious reasons. Last year it peaked in the final minutes, for obvious reasons!

*edit* And to your first point Dick, I totally agree. One of the worst rated World Series ever was Yankees/Mets. Because no one outside the northeast cared. When the two team playing are from Alabama and Louisiana, you get a somewhat similar effect.

 

[qdawgg]

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good argument, you are ruining everyone's day here. DAMN THE BCS!!!! College football is a farce!! WE NEED CHANGE!!! How do we know alabama was the best team!!! Playoff!!!! I remember in 1967 when college football was played the right way!!! Bring back leather helmets!!! I want defense, no I want offense, where is the pageantry!! Oregon no Alabama, Crooks!! SEC sucks, boring style, no defense!!! More offense!!! More defense!!

Is this a recap of your best posts from 2010

 

[OrangePA]

I bet the ratings would be higher if they didn't wait so long. Of course if they do a +1 after all the major bowls it would have to be no sooner than Jan 8 anyway. But I think those other bowls are part of the problem though. Put them all back on NYD as you have suggested then there isn't that saturation of a new, and generally meaningless, college bowl game every single night.

If it weren't 2 SEC teams in a rematch, and they played the game on Thursday Jan 5, before the NFL playoffs start up, I think the ratings would do better. I say that as no expert of the TV industry of course.

Probably true.

But I do not believe the ratings will ever be all that good - I am certainly no expert.

I just feel that college football is fun because of the traditions. This is not one that strikes the responsive chord.

But, things change and I'm sure that the money will eventually force a full scale play-off.

And I predict that the money will become so enormous that a scandal of some sort will occur in the future that will force the presidents, under public pressure, to scale the college game back a bit.

 

[orangetrojan]

Oh thats what that was on Monday night? With all the red and white uniforms and kicking I thought they were airing a late TV Christmas special of the Rockettes.