https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?...sp=sharing
This ranks schools based on average TV rating. The top 98 are listed in the spreadsheet. All current and future ACC members are in the top 98.
Some of these seem kind of skewed due to the sample sizes. Duke was on national TV 24 times last season, yet rank only two spots ahead of Minnesota who was on national TV 5 times.
Rank of team (# of National TV Games)
1. Indiana (16)
2. Ohio State (15)
3. Michigan State (16)
4. Michigan (20)
5. Kentucky (21)
6. Duke (24)
7. Wisconsin (12)
8. Minnesota (5)
9. Kansas (23)
10. North Carolina (26)
ACC
6. Duke (24)
10. North Carolina (26)
11. Louisville (16)
12. Syracuse (18)
14. Maryland (11)
18. Notre Dame (17)
21. Miami (14)
26. NC State (20)
32. Pitt (15)
35. Florida State (14)
39. Virginia (11)
41. Georgia Tech (8)
45. Virginia Tech (8)
51. Clemson (13)
63. Boston College (7)
69. Wake Forest (6)
The matchups of NC and Duke with SU and UL alone will raise the numbers for all of these schools. The lack of top to bottom strength has hurt the ACC as compared to the Big Ten and Big East. That problem is solved.
Also, I went back and looked at Syracuse's games anyway. These were clearly dragged down by some ESPNU games and some games against tune up non conference opponents, for instance a 0.1 for a game against Central Connecticut on New Year's Eve head to head with college bowls. Perhaps other leading schools had similar games scheduled, but I guess it's indicative of how strong SU is as a TV draw that these are selected at all and that it still ended up as high as it did. I'm also guessing that Big Ten schools in particular are less burdened by having these types of games in their average based on their scheduling commitment to the BTN.
BiG was helped by having their 5 best programs all Top 10-Top 15 type teams this past year.
The ACC will look like the BiG this year by 2017 and probably do so on a more consistent year-in, year-out basis.
Cheers,
Neil
(06-26-2013 08:15 PM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote: [ -> ]ACC
6. Duke (24)
10. North Carolina (26)
11. Louisville (16)
12. Syracuse (18)
14. Maryland (11)
18. Notre Dame (17)
21. Miami (14)
26. NC State (20)
32. Pitt (15)
35. Florida State (14)
39. Virginia (11)
41. Georgia Tech (8)
45. Virginia Tech (8)
51. Clemson (13)
63. Boston College (7)
69. Wake Forest (6)
No kidding? Not bad for a mediocre squad.
(06-27-2013 07:36 PM)Marge Schott Wrote: [ -> ] (06-26-2013 08:15 PM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote: [ -> ]ACC
6. Duke (24)
10. North Carolina (26)
11. Louisville (16)
12. Syracuse (18)
14. Maryland (11)
18. Notre Dame (17)
21. Miami (14)
26. NC State (20)
32. Pitt (15)
35. Florida State (14)
39. Virginia (11)
41. Georgia Tech (8)
45. Virginia Tech (8)
51. Clemson (13)
63. Boston College (7)
69. Wake Forest (6)
No kidding? Not bad for a mediocre squad.
It helps if you played on ESPN more than ESPN2 and ESPNU...also playing Duke and UNC on TV helps pump up your numbers but overall it is a nice base. Add in Cuse, Ville, ND and Pitt your numbers should improve. ESPN officials expect ACC teams will a minimum of 20% bump in viewership when the new teams arrive.
I'm a Big Ten homer and I still have some trouble explaining just how good it looks on that list. I'm guessing it's a combination of two things a) even for less high profile teams, there are good sized chunks of fans who at least follow moderately and b) Big Ten Network must help a lot. As good as the Big Ten was, it's hard to figure out how Minnesota could beat Kansas and North Carolina on this list. I figure all the viewing on the Big Ten Network (where people in Big Ten country would watch, but wouldn't have watched on ESPN3 or a local game) must have made a difference.
B1G Network wasn't factored in. Minnesota was high most likely they played a few high profile teams. They only averaged 5 games. Others had 15-25 games. B1G on CBS a lot helps. The ACC will surpass the B1G in Hoops in a few years.
The B1G has a great year with 4 top 10ish teams which is not common for them (or any conference for that matter). Also you have to consider the number of games. Take Indiana for instance which had 16 national TV games. At least 6 of those were against OSU, Michigan, Michigan St. Then they had OOC games against Butler, Georgetown, and UNC. That's 3 more games to put it at 9. This isn't even including games against Purdue (rivalry game), Minnesota (ranked at some point last year), Wisconsin (ranked at some point last year), and Iowa. Contrast that to UNC which had 26 games and the ACC really only had 2 big guns last year (Duke, Miami). Just due to sheer volume, UNC played more sub-par teams so just ESPN can have them on TV and that drops the ratings avg.
Just think how many better games will exist in two years with the following teams: UNC, Duke, Louisville, Pitt, Notre Dame, Syracuse, NC State, etc.
(06-28-2013 07:15 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote: [ -> ]The B1G has a great year with 4 top 10ish teams which is not common for them (or any conference for that matter). Also you have to consider the number of games. Take Indiana for instance which had 16 national TV games. At least 6 of those were against OSU, Michigan, Michigan St. Then they had OOC games against Butler, Georgetown, and UNC. That's 3 more games to put it at 9. This isn't even including games against Purdue (rivalry game), Minnesota (ranked at some point last year), Wisconsin (ranked at some point last year), and Iowa. Contrast that to UNC which had 26 games and the ACC really only had 2 big guns last year (Duke, Miami). Just due to sheer volume, UNC played more sub-par teams so just ESPN can have them on TV and that drops the ratings avg.
Just think how many better games will exist in two years with the following teams: UNC, Duke, Louisville, Pitt, Notre Dame, Syracuse, NC State, etc.
Agreed. IU played two games each against MSU, OSU and Michigan last year. It also played in at least 4 games in which Number One was upset (Minnesota, Illinois and Butler beating IU, and IU beating Michigan).
When the ACC has UNC, Dook, UL and SU, plus whoever rises up annually among Pitt, ND, NC St., Miami, etc., it will have the kind of inventory of matchups every year that the B1G had last year.
I have the ratings for every national TV game this season. And I can tell you from looking at them they are not correct.
Edit: scratch that. I included the conference tournament in my numbers since they are part of the TV package, and separated the NCAA and NIT as the post season.
(06-27-2013 11:45 AM)omniorange Wrote: [ -> ]BiG was helped by having their 5 best programs all Top 10-Top 15 type teams this past year.
They just have some monster ratings. There is no way around that. These composite numbers aren't complete or totally correct, but the Big Ten claimed nearly all of the highest rated games.
(06-27-2013 08:56 PM)TexanMark Wrote: [ -> ] (06-27-2013 07:36 PM)Marge Schott Wrote: [ -> ] (06-26-2013 08:15 PM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote: [ -> ]ACC
6. Duke (24)
10. North Carolina (26)
11. Louisville (16)
12. Syracuse (18)
14. Maryland (11)
18. Notre Dame (17)
21. Miami (14)
26. NC State (20)
32. Pitt (15)
35. Florida State (14)
39. Virginia (11)
41. Georgia Tech (8)
45. Virginia Tech (8)
51. Clemson (13)
63. Boston College (7)
69. Wake Forest (6)
No kidding? Not bad for a mediocre squad.
It helps if you played on ESPN more than ESPN2 and ESPNU...also playing Duke and UNC on TV helps pump up your numbers but overall it is a nice base. Add in Cuse, Ville, ND and Pitt your numbers should improve. ESPN officials expect ACC teams will a minimum of 20% bump in viewership when the new teams arrive.
Didn't EVERY ACC school face Duke and UNC? Won't EVERY ACC school face Cuse, UL, Pitt and ND?
Those factors may affect the figures but they won't greatly affect the rank.
(07-02-2013 05:01 PM)adcorbett Wrote: [ -> ] (06-27-2013 11:45 AM)omniorange Wrote: [ -> ]BiG was helped by having their 5 best programs all Top 10-Top 15 type teams this past year.
They just have some monster ratings. There is no way around that. These composite numbers aren't complete or totally correct, but the Big Ten claimed nearly all of the highest rated games.
By incomplete do you mean not including the post-season numbers? My understanding is that this spreadsheet used all of the numbers that were posted over on Sports Media Watch, which this past season I believe did a two part analyis of all the regular season games.
And while the BiG usually does well every year, this year they did better than they have in the past, mostly because Kentucky was down and Duke/UNC didn't have the pizzazz this year that it did in previous years.
As a matter of fact, the two Duke/UNC showings in 2011-12 would have ranked 1st and 3rd this season. The ND/SU game 2011-12 would have finished 10th this past season. UNC/MD 2011-12 would have finished in the Top 15 this past season.
Meanwhile, in 2011-12 OSU/MSU wouldn't have made the Top 10 this past season, the way it did in 2012-13. MICH/MSU did far worse 2011-12 and wouldn't have come close to the Top 10 like it did this past season. And while I didn't find any standout Hoosiers games in terms of ratings in 2011-12, they finished with 5 games in the Top 10 this past season.
So precisely why do you think this wasn't related to the league having so many Top 10-15 teams again?
None of the above is to take away from the BiG, it's just a fact. They had a dream season but came up short in the NC game. This was their 2000 season all over again. They didn't replicate 2000 until 13 years later.
Cheers,
Neil
(07-02-2013 06:37 PM)Marge Schott Wrote: [ -> ] (06-27-2013 08:56 PM)TexanMark Wrote: [ -> ] (06-27-2013 07:36 PM)Marge Schott Wrote: [ -> ] (06-26-2013 08:15 PM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote: [ -> ]ACC
6. Duke (24)
10. North Carolina (26)
11. Louisville (16)
12. Syracuse (18)
14. Maryland (11)
18. Notre Dame (17)
21. Miami (14)
26. NC State (20)
32. Pitt (15)
35. Florida State (14)
39. Virginia (11)
41. Georgia Tech (8)
45. Virginia Tech (8)
51. Clemson (13)
63. Boston College (7)
69. Wake Forest (6)
No kidding? Not bad for a mediocre squad.
It helps if you played on ESPN more than ESPN2 and ESPNU...also playing Duke and UNC on TV helps pump up your numbers but overall it is a nice base. Add in Cuse, Ville, ND and Pitt your numbers should improve. ESPN officials expect ACC teams will a minimum of 20% bump in viewership when the new teams arrive.
Didn't EVERY ACC school face Duke and UNC? Won't EVERY ACC school face Cuse, UL, Pitt and ND?
Those factors may affect the figures but they won't greatly affect the rank.
ESPN execs are figuring ACC games will generate 20% higher ratings...we'll see. Gotta wait till Ville comes in but I bet we get a bump as many NE based fans will now watch more ACC BB.
(07-02-2013 11:11 PM)TexanMark Wrote: [ -> ] (07-02-2013 06:37 PM)Marge Schott Wrote: [ -> ] (06-27-2013 08:56 PM)TexanMark Wrote: [ -> ] (06-27-2013 07:36 PM)Marge Schott Wrote: [ -> ] (06-26-2013 08:15 PM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote: [ -> ]ACC
6. Duke (24)
10. North Carolina (26)
11. Louisville (16)
12. Syracuse (18)
14. Maryland (11)
18. Notre Dame (17)
21. Miami (14)
26. NC State (20)
32. Pitt (15)
35. Florida State (14)
39. Virginia (11)
41. Georgia Tech (8)
45. Virginia Tech (8)
51. Clemson (13)
63. Boston College (7)
69. Wake Forest (6)
No kidding? Not bad for a mediocre squad.
It helps if you played on ESPN more than ESPN2 and ESPNU...also playing Duke and UNC on TV helps pump up your numbers but overall it is a nice base. Add in Cuse, Ville, ND and Pitt your numbers should improve. ESPN officials expect ACC teams will a minimum of 20% bump in viewership when the new teams arrive.
Didn't EVERY ACC school face Duke and UNC? Won't EVERY ACC school face Cuse, UL, Pitt and ND?
Those factors may affect the figures but they won't greatly affect the rank.
ESPN execs are figuring ACC games will generate 20% higher ratings...we'll see. Gotta wait till Ville comes in but I bet we get a bump as many NE based fans will now watch more ACC BB.
And 20% for EVERYBODY means that the rank would stay the same. FSU would still be mid-pack ACC in a mediocre year and top 50 nationally.
Surprised we are that high given that most of our fans still have a burning anger in the general direction of **** ******.
(07-02-2013 11:11 PM)TexanMark Wrote: [ -> ] (07-02-2013 06:37 PM)Marge Schott Wrote: [ -> ] (06-27-2013 08:56 PM)TexanMark Wrote: [ -> ] (06-27-2013 07:36 PM)Marge Schott Wrote: [ -> ] (06-26-2013 08:15 PM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote: [ -> ]ACC
6. Duke (24)
10. North Carolina (26)
11. Louisville (16)
12. Syracuse (18)
14. Maryland (11)
18. Notre Dame (17)
21. Miami (14)
26. NC State (20)
32. Pitt (15)
35. Florida State (14)
39. Virginia (11)
41. Georgia Tech (8)
45. Virginia Tech (8)
51. Clemson (13)
63. Boston College (7)
69. Wake Forest (6)
No kidding? Not bad for a mediocre squad.
It helps if you played on ESPN more than ESPN2 and ESPNU...also playing Duke and UNC on TV helps pump up your numbers but overall it is a nice base. Add in Cuse, Ville, ND and Pitt your numbers should improve. ESPN officials expect ACC teams will a minimum of 20% bump in viewership when the new teams arrive.
Didn't EVERY ACC school face Duke and UNC? Won't EVERY ACC school face Cuse, UL, Pitt and ND?
Those factors may affect the figures but they won't greatly affect the rank.
ESPN execs are figuring ACC games will generate 20% higher ratings...we'll see. Gotta wait till Ville comes in but I bet we get a bump as many NE based fans will now watch more ACC BB.
Ratings will benefit greatly by who you play. The B1G had so many schools in the top ten of this ranking because they were all ranking the AP top ten, and they all played each other. IU played OSU, MSU and Michigan twice each. Having a round robin among UNC, Dook, SU and UL should raise the ratings of all of these schools.
20% sounds like a lot, but we're talking about raising a conference wide average 0.5 rating to a 0.6. That seems doable, although I calculate the simple increase of adding the new schools to the ACC to be about 5% to 0.527. Getting 20% would depend on the dynamic effect of having more high quality matchups.
(07-02-2013 07:38 PM)omniorange Wrote: [ -> ]By incomplete do you mean not including the post-season numbers? My understanding is that this spreadsheet used all of the numbers that were posted over on Sports Media Watch, which this past season I believe did a two part analyis of all the regular season games.
Neil -- it only regular season games reported on Sportsmediawatch.com, no NCAA's and no conference tournaments. I matched the numbers for SU and IU.
(07-03-2013 09:16 AM)orangefan Wrote: [ -> ] (07-02-2013 07:38 PM)omniorange Wrote: [ -> ]By incomplete do you mean not including the post-season numbers? My understanding is that this spreadsheet used all of the numbers that were posted over on Sports Media Watch, which this past season I believe did a two part analyis of all the regular season games.
Neil -- it only regular season games reported on Sportsmediawatch.com, no NCAA's and no conference tournaments. I matched the numbers for SU and IU.
Okay.
Ad was saying the spreadsheet was incomplete. When I looked at it initially I immediately thought you had used that 2 part series at Sports Media Watch in regard to all regular season game ratings. So I was asking Ad why he thought the spreadsheet was incomplete. I thought maybe he was referring to the post-season numbers. If not, did he think the Sports Media Watch numbers were somehow incomplete.
Not sure what you mean by the last sentence in regard to matching the numbers for SU and IU. Anyone who is familiar with the Sports Media Watch series would know IU was the most watched team last year. And it was their resurgence that allowed the BiG to perform better this past year than they have in prior years where unfortunately only incomplete data exists.
Cheers,
Neil
(07-03-2013 10:05 AM)omniorange Wrote: [ -> ] (07-03-2013 09:16 AM)orangefan Wrote: [ -> ] (07-02-2013 07:38 PM)omniorange Wrote: [ -> ]By incomplete do you mean not including the post-season numbers? My understanding is that this spreadsheet used all of the numbers that were posted over on Sports Media Watch, which this past season I believe did a two part analyis of all the regular season games.
Neil -- it only regular season games reported on Sportsmediawatch.com, no NCAA's and no conference tournaments. I matched the numbers for SU and IU.
Okay.
Ad was saying the spreadsheet was incomplete. When I looked at it initially I immediately thought you had used that 2 part series at Sports Media Watch in regard to all regular season game ratings. So I was asking Ad why he thought the spreadsheet was incomplete. I thought maybe he was referring to the post-season numbers. If not, did he think the Sports Media Watch numbers were somehow incomplete.
Not sure what you mean by the last sentence in regard to matching the numbers for SU and IU. Anyone who is familiar with the Sports Media Watch series would know IU was the most watched team last year. And it was their resurgence that allowed the BiG to perform better this past year than they have in prior years where unfortunately only incomplete data exists.
Cheers,
Neil
I did the calculation for Syracuse and Indiana based on the reported ratings on SMW. Came up with 0.7111 for SU and verified the calculation for IU as well.
(07-03-2013 10:44 AM)orangefan Wrote: [ -> ] (07-03-2013 10:05 AM)omniorange Wrote: [ -> ] (07-03-2013 09:16 AM)orangefan Wrote: [ -> ] (07-02-2013 07:38 PM)omniorange Wrote: [ -> ]By incomplete do you mean not including the post-season numbers? My understanding is that this spreadsheet used all of the numbers that were posted over on Sports Media Watch, which this past season I believe did a two part analyis of all the regular season games.
Neil -- it only regular season games reported on Sportsmediawatch.com, no NCAA's and no conference tournaments. I matched the numbers for SU and IU.
Okay.
Ad was saying the spreadsheet was incomplete. When I looked at it initially I immediately thought you had used that 2 part series at Sports Media Watch in regard to all regular season game ratings. So I was asking Ad why he thought the spreadsheet was incomplete. I thought maybe he was referring to the post-season numbers. If not, did he think the Sports Media Watch numbers were somehow incomplete.
Not sure what you mean by the last sentence in regard to matching the numbers for SU and IU. Anyone who is familiar with the Sports Media Watch series would know IU was the most watched team last year. And it was their resurgence that allowed the BiG to perform better this past year than they have in prior years where unfortunately only incomplete data exists.
Cheers,
Neil
I did the calculation for Syracuse and Indiana based on the reported ratings on SMW. Came up with 0.7111 for SU and verified the calculation for IU as well.
So the initial spreadsheet wasn't based on the 2-part spreadsheet from Sports Media Watch. Mind telling us what you did use? Or is it somehow work related and can't reveal the source.
Cheers,
Neil