Do Bowl Games Matter?

[GGGG]

Of course they didn't.  Your link is for the cable ratings only.  They were on CBS.  If you go to the network ratings you won't see them there either, because they only list it for Primetime, which the game being at 4 p.m doesn't qualify either.

Its funny how everyone brings the TV ratings up, since they are well known to be horribly inaccurate, but the industry won't get rid of them, because they know how they work and can make them work for them (which means more money).

As I've said before, the bowl games will rate higher, but if I was an advertiser I wouldn't spend a dime on these games.  It is a holiday tradition, families put it on the TV (because nothing is on) and then walk away and socialize.  Are there some diehard fans, yes, but not nearly the numbers reflected in the ratings.

You'll notice that nearly 6 million people apparently watched WV vs. Syracuse, do you know anyone that actually sat and watched that game?

I did.

Now, while you acknowledge that people actually have their sets tuned to bowl game, your next theory is that no one actually watches them?  How many ways are you going to twist your argument before you are going to simply admit you are wrong? 

Give it up.

[forgetful]

I did.

Now, while you acknowledge that people actually have their sets tuned to bowl game, your next theory is that no one actually watches them?  How many ways are you going to twist your argument before you are going to simply admit you are wrong?  

Give it up.

I've been extremely consistent with my argument, starting with the Potato-Bowl debate.  quote below:

"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."

I never said people don't have their TVs on, I said they don't matter and are pointless.  Last I checked the thread is titled, "Do Bowl Games Matter".  If you got rid of all the bowl games except for the BCS bowls, no one would care.  If you got rid of all the bowl games except for the "And 1 championship plan" no one would care.

You and chicos live in this Black and White world, the real world is gray and changing all the time.  If you focus on current black or white, you'll miss the shades telling you that you need to change your plans.

The fact is that amongst young viewers Football is less important than soccer now, that means times are changing.  The way TV is watched is changing.  The way viewership is estimated needs to change.  What everyone that disagrees with you has said is that College football has peaked.  When the TV formats change and they will, channels will be unable to force consumers to pay more and these prices will go down.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Of course they didn't.  Your link is for the cable ratings only.  They were on CBS.  If you go to the network ratings you won't see them there either, because they only list it for Primetime, which the game being at 4 p.m doesn't qualify either.

Its funny how everyone brings the TV ratings up, since they are well known to be horribly inaccurate, but the industry won't get rid of them, because they know how they work and can make them work for them (which means more money).

As I've said before, the bowl games will rate higher, but if I was an advertiser I wouldn't spend a dime on these games.  It is a holiday tradition, families put it on the TV (because nothing is on) and then walk away and socialize.  Are there some diehard fans, yes, but not nearly the numbers reflected in the ratings.

You'll notice that nearly 6 million people apparently watched WV vs. Syracuse, do you know anyone that actually sat and watched that game?

Yes, I know many people that watched the WV and Syracuse game.  5.1 million was the number by the way, not 6 million. 

Yes, you are right that the tv doesn't have a wandering eyeball to make sure you aren't watching the entire program and not petting the dog, sleeping, grabbing a beer...it's what we have to measure  But guess what, many of the providers can tell you things like how long you are watching, even what buttons you are hitting on your remote while you are watching.  Or viewing habits with other partners like Zeebox, Viggle, etc.  I can tell you how long on average a person watches a NFL Sunday Ticket game, or Game of Thrones episode, etc.  Not at the account level, because that's a privacy issue, but on an aggregate level we can using a statistically significant sample size. 

And ratings are available for people in the industry, just because you can't find them on the internet doesn't mean they aren't there.  If you want to know how the Louisville-Kentucky game did last Saturday compared to others...here you go.  Football kicked basketball's butt.  The UW-UCONN basketball game barely beat out an English soccer game.


Texas-Oregon State, ESPN, 4.3
West Virginia-Syracuse, ESPN, 3.4
TCU-Michigan State, ESPN, 3.0
Rice-Air Force, ESPN, 2.3
Kentucky-Louisville basketball, CBS, 1.6
UNLV-North Carolina, ESPN2, 1.0
Navy-Arizona State, ESPN2, 0.8
Santa Clara-Duke basketball, ESPN2, 0.7
Washington-Connecticut basketball, ESPN2, 0.4
Manchester United-West Bromwich, ESPN2, 0.3


That's nice you wouldn't spend the advertising dollars in this area, that's why you aren't one buying advertising as your job.  Advertisers want to spend their money where it works which is why they hire experts to do make those purchases. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

For giggles, let's look at Friday's ratings as well.  Notice anything about the three football games vs the two basketball games?


Minnesota-Texas Tech, ESPN, 3.0
Rutgers-Virginia Tech, ESPN, 2.5
Ohio-Louisiana-Monroe, ESPN, 1.2

Missouri-UCLA basketball, ESPN2, 0.5
Baylor-Gonzaga basketball, ESPN2, 0.3

[GGGG]

You and chicos live in this Black and White world, the real world is gray and changing all the time.  If you focus on current black or white, you'll miss the shades telling you that you need to change your plans.

The fact is that amongst young viewers Football is less important than soccer now, that means times are changing.  The way TV is watched is changing.  The way viewership is estimated needs to change.  What everyone that disagrees with you has said is that College football has peaked.  When the TV formats change and they will, channels will be unable to force consumers to pay more and these prices will go down.

College football very well may have peaked....but you provide no evidence to prove this.

And I have no idea what "shades of gray" I am missing that would cause me to "change my plans." If I'm an advertiser, I wait until the numbers actually do change before I adjust.

I just think much of this debate is because of anger and angst based in the conference reshuffling.  But the simple fact is football is king, by a long shot, and there is no evidence that suggests that this is ending anytime soon.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Forgetful, I'm a huge soccer fan...played throughout high school, almost walked on at MU except for an a-hole coach at the time that I wanted no part of.  I get that things change, but I think it's more than a bit of a stretch to say we are simply black and white.  We are going with the data.  Whether it is ratings (which you don't like), whether it's ticket sales, whether it is merchandise sales, whether it is rights fees paid by media corps, whether it is streaming content measured by Comscore, it all comes up the same.

As far as ratings go, you keep harping on them but they are going to be equally biased against other sports as well.  Unless you are suggesting that the ratings for football is over pronounced but somehow this exact same rating system is under counting other sports.  That's just not going to fly as a reasonable, logical answer.

Football may come down in popularity from where it is, but will it be replaced?  Will it be fractured so much to be just one of many?  Perhaps, but what is going to fill the void?

RATINGS!!  RON BURGANDY STORY...."you know those ratings systems are flawed..."

https://www.youtube.com/v/ZP0mhGmUbr0

[brewcity77]

A couple things...first, soccer isn't catching football. I spend plenty of Saturday mornings at Highbury and outside of Marquette basketball, that's the sport I most frequently watch. But despite the growing popularity among the younger crowd, anyone who thinks soccer is bigger than football for 18-24 year old viewers, or any arbitrary age, is completely off-base. It is obviously growing, but isn't there yet and won't be any time soon. When your marquee games are all on before noon on a weekend, you're going to struggle in this country.

Second, I know the money is there. I never disputed that. What I'm asking is more as this playoff system grows, will bowls cease to matter? We're already seeing glorified exhibitions full of gimmick plays that coaches would never try if they were serious about winning the game. But what happens when there are 8 teams in a playoff, or 12? Will people still care about the Rose Bowl when it's the third place team from the Pac-12 playing an at-large from Conference USA? Right now there's still the pomp and pageantry, but won't that become less and less interesting as the teams become less and less relevant?

A friend of mine started talking today about the need for a true playoff system. Honestly, I'm getting to the point where I think that going for any playoff system was a mistake in the first place. I can't see any way a playoff, especially once you get to 8+ teams, will generate the kind of money the bowl system does. And I can't see the bowls keeping relevance when only one or two even have a top-10 team involved.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but looking ahead, I really feel like the more conclusive the playoff, the more the BCS will ruin the spirit of what we loved about college football and the bowl season. I'm not saying the sport will go away. I'm not saying the money won't be there or that they won't find ways to generate money out of a playoff. Just that the advent of a true playoff will really diminish the importance of bowls and I think the playoff itself will be less engaging for the fans than the bowls are right now. As a fan, I think I could get a lot more amped up about my team playing in the Rose or the Fiesta or the Sugar or even the Cotton or Capital One than I could my team going up against the #1 seed in the semifinals, and then having nothing really to cheer for over the next 2-3 weeks.

[Billybob]

There are so many that they shouldn't matter. The way it's going we might have a Pork Chop Bowl or the Volkswagen Bowl. Ridiculous!!!

[ChicosBailBonds]

Second, I know the money is there. I never disputed that. What I'm asking is more as this playoff system grows, will bowls cease to matter? We're already seeing glorified exhibitions full of gimmick plays that coaches would never try if they were serious about winning the game. But what happens when there are 8 teams in a playoff, or 12? Will people still care about the Rose Bowl when it's the third place team from the Pac-12 playing an at-large from Conference USA? Right now there's still the pomp and pageantry, but won't that become less and less interesting as the teams become less and less relevant?

Very possible and I wouldn't disagree with you on that.  The focus will be on the playoff and not the bowls. 

[GGGG]

I can't believe I'm saying this, but looking ahead, I really feel like the more conclusive the playoff, the more the BCS will ruin the spirit of what we loved about college football and the bowl season. I'm not saying the sport will go away. I'm not saying the money won't be there or that they won't find ways to generate money out of a playoff. Just that the advent of a true playoff will really diminish the importance of bowls and I think the playoff itself will be less engaging for the fans than the bowls are right now. As a fan, I think I could get a lot more amped up about my team playing in the Rose or the Fiesta or the Sugar or even the Cotton or Capital One than I could my team going up against the #1 seed in the semifinals, and then having nothing really to cheer for over the next 2-3 weeks.

There are *a lot* of college football fans that agree with you on that.