Nielson Bowl Ratings

MeanGreen61 · January 14, 2011

From the CUSA board. This year's bowl ratings.

Mean Green 93-98 · January 14, 2011

Hmmm...by and large, significantly decreased ratings. Could it have something to do with the fact that the major networks weren't carrying the major bowl games?

CMJ · January 14, 2011

Hmmm...by and large, significantly decreased ratings. Could it have something to do with the fact that the major networks weren't carrying the major bowl games?

I'm sure that's some of it. Could also be that the match-ups didn't have many traditional powers. Other than Ohio State, none of the teams in the BCS games have a national following. I guess OU might, but they were playing Connecticut - a team almost everyone didn't want to see playing.

As far as the ratings drop for most of the other games - probably comes mostly from the fact that there's 35 freaking games. It's over saturation for most people obviously (no not everyone, I know FFR and a few others watch most of them). They could probably lose 5 games easily and it'd help the others in TV ratings.

Edited January 14, 2011 by CMJ

GTWT · January 15, 2011

And the bottom rated bowl is the flagship bowl of the Sun Belt. Surprise, surprise, surprise.

MeanMag · January 15, 2011

And the bottom rated bowl is the flagship bowl of the Sun Belt. Surprise, surprise, surprise.

You are always rather quiet on this board until a chance to voice an opinion against the belt. I'm not saying it's a bad position, it's certainly defensible. I just question the agenda with such a disproportionate # of posts against the belt. Have any more opinions on other topics? Perhaps elaborations to your normally 1 line replies to moving from the belt?

GTWT · January 15, 2011

You are always rather quiet on this board until a chance to voice an opinion against the belt. I'm not saying it's a bad position, it's certainly defensible. I just question the agenda with such a disproportionate # of posts against the belt. Have any more opinions on other topics? Perhaps elaborations to your normally 1 line replies to moving from the belt?

I'm just trying to not be verbose. Like most of you, I want to see UNT porogress academically and athletically. Now that Fouts is behind us the single biggest liability that we have is conference affiliation. We're judged by the company we keep.

Live green!

forevereagle · January 15, 2011

I'm just trying to not be verbose. Like most of you, I want to see UNT porogress academically and athletically. Now that Fouts is behind us the single biggest liability that we have is conference affiliation. We're judged by the company we keep.

Live green!

Live in the little circle, conference affiliation is in the big circle.

GTWT · January 15, 2011

As fans, our sphere of control is tiny. We live almost entirely in the sphere of concern.

MeanMag · January 15, 2011

Our sphere of control as fans can be widened with influence $$ wise.

I agree that a better conference is important for growth concerns. But, I believe that building the belt, winning games in all programs, upgrading facilities and adding baseball will make the conference affiliation deal take care of itself.

The stadium was a large component. I think the next major component before conference affiliation is our football program winning games. If the conference affiliation thing comes first, it doesn't mean we can lose sight of the next major liability. As a smaller liability, our womens basketball team needs to kick it into gear too.

Ibleedgreen · January 15, 2011

Ratings for the New Orleans Bowl were up 103%, which was the third highest increase.

GrayEagle · January 16, 2011

Ratings for the New Orleans Bowl were up 103%, which was the third highest increase.

I wish that you hadn't brought that up. That means that we were about half of the next lowest last year.

VideoEagle · January 17, 2011

Hmmm...by and large, significantly decreased ratings. Could it have something to do with the fact that the major networks weren't carrying the major bowl games?

I doubt that is the cause. First, it should only effect the major bowls, not all the others. Secondly, the majority of all bowl games air on ESPN networks and they do a tremendous amount of cross promotion. Thirdly, ABC carried a LOT of ESPN promos. There was as much or more promotion than if the games had been on ABC. Plus I believe a saw other ESPN promotion on Fox (the national network) and on Fox Southwest (the cable/satellite regional network).

Football games in weekday prime time just don't do as well for the major networks as their regular programming. That's why ABC dropped Monday Night Football and NBC carries their NFL games on what has been NBCs weakest night of the week, Sunday.

yyz28 · January 18, 2011

I doubt that is the cause. First, it should only effect the major bowls, not all the others. Secondly, the majority of all bowl games air on ESPN networks and they do a tremendous amount of cross promotion. Thirdly, ABC carried a LOT of ESPN promos. There was as much or more promotion than if the games had been on ABC. Plus I believe a saw other ESPN promotion on Fox (the national network) and on Fox Southwest (the cable/satellite regional network).

Football games in weekday prime time just don't do as well for the major networks as their regular programming. That's why ABC dropped Monday Night Football and NBC carries their NFL games on what has been NBCs weakest night of the week, Sunday.

there is still a fraction of the country without cable/sat/fios/uverse out there. decrease the potential pool, even by 10% and you decrease the ratings.