Television: Famous Idaho Potato Bowl vs. IU/Butler

[The Equalizer]

Given the number of threads about televison ratings and why schools make seemingly terrible moves for football, I thought the numbers in this article were interesting, specifically the Utah State/Toledo matchup compaed to Indiana/Butler:

http://ajerseyguy.com/?p=4476

Television ratings for the Famous Idaho Potato Bowl:Utah State vs. Toledo, 1.8
Television ratings for Butler’s upset of No. 1 Indiana: 1.5.

[ChicosBailBonds]

This will all change when football is banned

[WarriorInNYC]

Yes, but one factor you do have to take into consideration is that this bowl game was the only football game televised that day.

Whereas there were multiple other college basketball games televised as well as NBA games televised nationally and within their own local markets.

[Benny B]

Yes, but one factor you do have to take into consideration is that this bowl game was the only football game televised that day.

Whereas there were multiple other college basketball games televised as well as NBA games televised nationally and within their own local markets.

1) The potato bowl aired from 3:30-6:30p.  IU/Butler aired from 1:00-3:30p.  I think it's safe to say that if given the option between the two programs airing at the same time, the results would be much different.  The majority of viewers from any sports broadcast come from a certain segment of the population (male, 25-55, etc.)... fewer of the "sports-viewer" pool has a TV on at 1:00p than at 3:30p.

2) The ratings figures are meaningless without the share figure (actual percent of TVs on at a given time tuned to the broadcast).  If you understand why both median and mean are important in an analysis (and why one may be unreliable or misleading without the other), you'll get the idea.

3) I bet if you look at the 2:30-3:00p and 3:00-3:30 segments of the IU/Butler game, the segment ratings would exceed any segment of the potato bowl broadcast.

[The Equalizer]

1) The potato bowl aired from 3:30-6:30p.  IU/Butler aired from 1:00-3:30p.  I think it's safe to say that if given the option between the two programs airing at the same time, the results would be much different.  The majority of viewers from any sports broadcast come from a certain segment of the population (male, 25-55, etc.)... fewer of the "sports-viewer" pool has a TV on at 1:00p than at 3:30p.

2) The ratings figures are meaningless without the share figure (actual percent of TVs on at a given time tuned to the broadcast).  If you understand why both median and mean are important in an analysis (and why one may be unreliable or misleading without the other), you'll get the idea.

3) I bet if you look at the 2:30-3:00p and 3:00-3:30 segments of the IU/Butler game, the segment ratings would exceed any segment of the potato bowl broadcast.

Maybe you're right on the time difference.

Then again, the New Mexico Bowl--which ran head to head against the IU/Butler game--showed an even a greater difference:

Television ratings for the New Mexico Bowl:: Nevada vs. Arizona  1.9.
Television ratings for Butler’s upset of No. 1 Indiana: 1.5.

I think the point is well taken--a pair of throwaway bowl games against less-than-stellar teams outdrew a matchup between the current #1 baskertball team and the 2x national runner-up/cross-state rival.  And thats before considering that the IU/Butler game was over the air on CBS, while the football games were on ESPN cable.

[Benny B]

Maybe you're right on the time difference.

Then again, the New Mexico Bowl--which ran head to head against the IU/Butler game--showed an even a greater difference:

Television ratings for the New Mexico Bowl:: Nevada vs. Arizona  1.9.
Television ratings for Butler’s upset of No. 1 Indiana: 1.5.

I think the point is well taken--a pair of throwaway bowl games against less-than-stellar teams outdrew a matchup between the current #1 baskertball team and the 2x national runner-up/cross-state rival.  And thats before considering that the IU/Butler game was over the air on CBS, while the football games were on ESPN cable.

I still think it's a bad comparison, and the ratings are misleading without the share figure.  If 15% of households were tuned to IU/Butler and 20% were tuned to the Mexican potato bowls, then you could probably draw some conclusions on that.

But the entire premise of the argument is flawed... would a first (second) round game in the NCAA tournament involving Butler/IU beat a preseason football game against Nevada/Arizona?  In other words, how much of the 1.8/1.9 ratings in the mexi-tater bowls is attributable to the fact that you've put a post-season game in one sport against a pre-season game in another.

You'd have to be a moron to declare a winner based on a 0.3 or 0.4 difference in ratings of two sports playing different schools, in different types of games, and with different meaning.  Until writers have to start taking the LSAT, these journalists should stick to facts and stop trying to use logic in their work.

[Silkk the Shaka]

I still think it's a bad comparison, and the ratings are misleading without the share figure.  If 15% of households were tuned to IU/Butler and 20% were tuned to the Mexican potato bowls, then you could probably draw some conclusions on that.

But the entire premise of the argument is flawed... would a first (second) round game in the NCAA tournament involving Butler/IU beat a preseason football game against Nevada/Arizona?  In other words, how much of the 1.8/1.9 ratings in the mexi-tater bowls is attributable to the fact that you've put a post-season game in one sport against a pre-season game in another.

You'd have to be a moron to declare a winner based on a 0.3 or 0.4 difference in ratings of two sports playing different schools, in different types of games, and with different meaning.  Until writers have to start taking the LSAT, these journalists should stick to facts and stop trying to use logic in their work.

Took the words out of my mouth and said it better than I was going to

[The Equalizer]

I still think it's a bad comparison, and the ratings are misleading without the share figure.  If 15% of households were tuned to IU/Butler and 20% were tuned to the Mexican potato bowls, then you could probably draw some conclusions on that.

That may explain the difference betwen the IU/Butler vs. Idaho Potato bowl.

But the New Mexico bowl was at the same time--so you'll need a different explanation as to why you don't think they're comparable.

But the entire premise of the argument is flawed... would a first (second) round game in the NCAA tournament involving Butler/IU beat a preseason football game against Nevada/Arizona?  In other words, how much of the 1.8/1.9 ratings in the mexi-tater bowls is attributable to the fact that you've put a post-season game in one sport against a pre-season game in another.

First, the premise of your counter is even more flawed.  Every NCAA tournament game has meaning--winner moves on/loser goes home. Not the case for these two bowl games.  They're both essentially meaningless exhibitions.

Second, this wasn't a "pre-season" game.

Indiana/Indiana Wesleyan and Butler/Marian were pre-season games.

No, this was a regular season, non-coference game that counts in the results, is used to calcluate RPI, impacts the rankings, will be used by the committee when determinging bids.  There was a #1 ranking at stake. The game has NCAA tournament impliations--seeding for IU, getting in for Butler.

Plus this was one of those handful of non-conference marquee matchups that is supposed to be great for TV networks.  If it can't outdraw a 3rd Tier bowl game, will the networks really want to expand their December basketball coverage?

You'd have to be a moron to declare a winner based on a 0.3 or 0.4 difference in ratings of two sports playing different schools, in different types of games, and with different meaning.  Until writers have to start taking the LSAT, these journalists should stick to facts and stop trying to use logic in their work.

I'm not declaring a "winner".  I'm merely suggesting that the numbers were surprising given the teams involved.  I would have expected a marquee matchup like IU/Butler to significantly oudraw a meaningless football game between the #46 (Arizona) and #75 (Nevada) teams.

[Benny B]

I'm not declaring a "winner".  I'm merely suggesting that the numbers were surprising given the teams involved.  I would have expected a marquee matchup like IU/Butler to significantly oudraw a meaningless football game between the #46 (Arizona) and #75 (Nevada) teams.

I wouldn't have.  Who cares about Indiana vs. Butler?  The state of Indiana.  Who cares about Arizona and Nevada?  Arizona, Nevada, and hundreds of thousands of rednecks with no NASCAR to watch.

[GGGG]

The very simple explanation is that football is WWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYY more popular than basketball among television viewers.  Doing mental gymnastics around that makes no sense.

[forgetful]

The very simple explanation is that football is WWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYY more popular than basketball among television viewers.  Doing mental gymnastics around that makes no sense.

If I'm an advertiser I do mental gymnastics around this.  If you believe more people cared about the french fry bowl over IU/Butler you'd be mistaken. 

There is one bowl game on at that time and multiple basketball games.  The one bowl game gets much more ad time and publicity to garner eyes.  Casual sports fans know that the game is on and turn their tv to it even if they have no intention of paying attention to the game itself.  They are doing work or something else and have it on in the background.

Meanwhile, the IU/Butler game draws people who are tuned in because it is a good game.  They are watching the game an in tune with the outcome and therefore actually are more likely to be sitting there for commercials.

Advertisers pay more for sports because people watch in real time.  But you want to make sure that they are actually paying attention.  No one cares about the crappy bowls and don't "really" watch, but they may tune their tv in just in case a good play happens.

[Tugg Speedman]

The very simple explanation is that football is WWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYY more popular than basketball among television viewers.  Doing mental gymnastics around that makes no sense.

+1 ... and this is why UNC is bolting the ACC for the B1G and start the dominos to end the ACC as we know it.

(I'm sorry, I could not help myself.)

[Groin_pull]

Spin it anyway you want, but this is a prime example of why football drives the college sports bus.

Not a college football fan, so I don't get it.

[Mr. Nielsen]

I'm a huge college football fan. It's the greatest thing on earth. That being said I rushed home after the Sav. St-MU to watch IU-Butler not Arizona-Nevada in football.

[Mr. Nielsen]

Not a college football fan, so I don't get it.

To each it's own. Don't tell me you watch the NFL. 

Did you not watch Pitt-ND, Alabama-LSU, Alabama-Texas A&M, Stanford-ND, Stanford-Oregon, Alabama-Georgia? I could keep going! 

[forgetful]

Honestly I don't see how anyone likes college football.  To each their own I guess.

[Benny B]

Honestly I don't see how anyone likes college football.  To each their own I guess.

Well, Jeff Foxworthy, Larry the Cable Guy and Duck Dynasty can't be on 24 hours a day, so you got to show something that can attract millions of unaffiliated hicks, lest you want Billy Bob and Cletus sitting next to you at the next game down at the BC.

[seakm4]

out of curiosity what were the numbers like for butler and Marquette it's same time frame and an important tourney in the preseason.  Granted it's not what we've worked all year for like a crap bowl that anybody with a winning record can make (their system is flawed), but it should be good indication of what a N/C game is like when there's some sort of meaning to it.  I was working and didnt have a chance to catch the game either, but I would have actually watched ours or any basketball game for that matter.

and all this talk about football being banned is rubbish because schools make too much money and thats all that matters.  To hell with the kids the dollars are way too important.  It will not happen.

[spartan3186]

out of curiosity what were the numbers like for butler and Marquette it's same time frame and an important tourney in the preseason. 

Other than the fact that one was on a Saturday and one was in the middle of the work day...

[Mr. Nielsen]

Butler-MU was 0.2 rating.

[GGGG]

If I'm an advertiser I do mental gymnastics around this.  If you believe more people cared about the french fry bowl over IU/Butler you'd be mistaken. 

There is one bowl game on at that time and multiple basketball games.  The one bowl game gets much more ad time and publicity to garner eyes.  Casual sports fans know that the game is on and turn their tv to it even if they have no intention of paying attention to the game itself.  They are doing work or something else and have it on in the background.

Meanwhile, the IU/Butler game draws people who are tuned in because it is a good game.  They are watching the game an in tune with the outcome and therefore actually are more likely to be sitting there for commercials.

Advertisers pay more for sports because people watch in real time.  But you want to make sure that they are actually paying attention.  No one cares about the crappy bowls and don't "really" watch, but they may tune their tv in just in case a good play happens.

Sorry...the numbers simply say you are flat out wrong.  Those who don't watch college football have no idea how popular it really is. 

[Mr. Nielsen]

College football is easy the #2 sport behind the NFL. College football smokes MLB, NHL and NBA in TV ratings.

[forgetful]

Sorry...the numbers simply say you are flat out wrong.  Those who don't watch college football have no idea how popular it really is. 

Please provide me with said numbers of people actually paying attention to the game and caring about the outcome.

[keefe]

The IPB was fun to watch. That was good solid football. Why the hate?

[GGGG]

Please provide me with said numbers of people actually paying attention to the game and caring about the outcome.

People had the game on.  Don't try to twist it into who was actually paying attention and who wasn't and do a bunch of mental gymnastics about post season, regular season, etc. 

Football is more popular than basketball.  And its not close.

[forgetful]

People had the game on.  Don't try to twist it into who was actually paying attention and who wasn't and do a bunch of mental gymnastics about post season, regular season, etc. 

Football is more popular than basketball.  And its not close.

My point was that if you are paying for advertising you want them to be paying attention.  So it is important to mental gymnastics if you are paying money to have your message heard.

Also for ages 12-24 (prime advertising eyes), NFL is number one, foliowed by Soccer and then Basketball.  For reference see work by Rich Luker.

[GGGG]

My point was that if you are paying for advertising you want them to be paying attention.  So it is important to mental gymnastics if you are paying money to have your message heard.

Fine.  How do you prove that one audience was paying attention more than another?

[forgetful]

Fine.  How do you prove that one audience was paying attention more than another?

You can't.  That's why I asked you for the numbers that you claimed proved my statement false. 

I don't mind someone disagreeing with me, but if someone suggests there are numbers to prove me wrong I want to at least be pointed in the right direction.

[GGGG]

Ratings.  The ratings prove me right.  You just can't say "If you believe more people cared about the french fry bowl over IU/Butler you'd be mistaken," without providing proof...any proof...that shows you are right.  You are the one making assertions that go against the numbers.