NFL vs College

lol

Yeah, cord cutting is the death to all of this. lol.

Well not for nothing, but you don't need a cord for the Super Bowl. It comes on over the air TV. Not sure the relevance of that comment?

I think that was his point, in a sense. There's no way you can just say "OTA vs Cable" is the reason NFL ratings are so much higher than college.

IE, you're not going to suddenly capture an extra 100M viewers for the CFP championship game by throwing it on OTA instead of exclusive to ESPN.

(02-08-2016 05:49 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  I think that was his point, in a sense. There's no way you can just say "OTA vs Cable" is the reason NFL ratings are so much higher than college.

IE, you're not going to suddenly capture an extra 100M viewers for the CFP championship game by throwing it on OTA instead of exclusive to ESPN.

maybe not 100 million, because NFL is much more popular than but it would pick a bit more by being on OTA vs. ESPN.

(02-08-2016 06:01 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(02-08-2016 05:49 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  I think that was his point, in a sense. There's no way you can just say "OTA vs Cable" is the reason NFL ratings are so much higher than college.

IE, you're not going to suddenly capture an extra 100M viewers for the CFP championship game by throwing it on OTA instead of exclusive to ESPN.

maybe not 100 million, because NFL is much more popular than but it would pick a bit more by being on OTA vs. ESPN.

Not that much more...maybe 10%

Quote:maybe not 100 million, because NFL is much more popular than but it would pick a bit more by being on OTA vs. ESPN.

I would assume a lot more, not just ~10% more or something. Especially with people dropping cable (or going super-basic w/o ESPN) -- and that moving NFL to ESPN, it's not just accessibility or not-easily-run-into by casual fans -- but also competing against OTA programming on at the same time.

When you see ratings on things, Cable's always MUCH lower than OTA. No doubt NFL would have higher ratings in direct comparison. But seeing almost a 10x difference? That's Way too huge as far as watchers are concerned.

Put it another way: Super Bowl ratings would be about the same if it was exclusive on ESPN.

People would just get along or something like that.

(02-08-2016 06:39 PM)toddjnsn Wrote:  

Quote:maybe not 100 million, because NFL is much more popular than but it would pick a bit more by being on OTA vs. ESPN.

I would assume a lot more, not just ~10% more or something. Especially with people dropping cable (or going super-basic w/o ESPN) -- and that moving NFL to ESPN, it's not just accessibility or not-easily-run-into by casual fans -- but also competing against OTA programming on at the same time.

When you see ratings on things, Cable's always MUCH lower than OTA. No doubt NFL would have higher ratings in direct comparison. But seeing almost a 10x difference? That's Way too huge as far as watchers are concerned.

By and large, the people dropping cable are not big sports fans, so it is much more likely a smaller percentage of those without cable would watch, then the percentage with pay TV. So if there are 29% more homes without ESPN, it is not natural to assume a 29% increase with such a move.

Obviously there are sports fans who don't have cable/ESPN, but aside from the biggest events (Super Bowl for example), those people are likely to tune in in smaller numbers.

I know many of us think it's more fun to speculate without looking at actual data...

... but if the question is "How many more viewers would watch if the CFP title game was on ABC?" then look at the TV ratings for BCS title games, and compare the years when they were on ABC or Big Fox versus the years they were on ESPN.

Apples to oranges.

(02-08-2016 04:25 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Well not for nothing, but you don't need a cord for the Super Bowl. It comes on over the air TV. Not sure the relevance of that comment?

ESPN and other networks have to make some pay cuts....like that has never happened in the business world before. Fans of certain conferences are busy praying the B1G comes up empty with their TV contract.

lol.

Only 111 million with OTA....the end of the world has arrived though with a little 10 million homes cutting the cord...lol.

It was actually 112.9 million and that was just the game. The halftime show had even more viewers. There were NFL regular season games that had more viewers than the CFP CG. It doesn't matter if the CFP Playoffs were on OTA or cable, it will never touch the popularity of the NFL playoffs.

(02-08-2016 04:02 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  NFL vs College

lol

Yeah, cord cutting is the death to all of this. lol.

But thank God your average CFB fan doesn't have to deal with a half-time show like that.

Give me marching bands any day.

Why are we even discussing this? Everybody knows the NFL>>>>CFB. People turn in huge numbers for the half time show and the commercials. The Super Bowl is bullet proof when it comes to ratings. They can have Jacksonville vs New Orleans (two small TV markets) and still get impressive numbers where the CFB final would get horrible numbers with an Indiana vs Oregon State final. Apples to oranges.

Yep.

College football ain't there ... and maybe never will be. By "there", meaning that it doesn't matter which two teams are in the final.