When it comes to talking about a conference's 'exposure', seems like the discussion focuses on technical details like the ratings of games, how many homes a network is carried in, etc. We get analyses of whether ESPN-U is a better place to have a game than FS1 and stuff like that.
But IMO this is partially misguided. Yes, exposure is about having games on national networks. Games have to be on to be seen. But i think that maybe even moreso, it's about getting talked about and shown when the games aren't on. The real sports exposure comes when you are talked about and highlighted on shows like PTI, GameDay, Around the Horn, and of course SportsCenter. Those shows draw bigger ratings than many games and some of them are on every day.
Concerning the AAC, I was hopeful that one good thing about signing with ESPN might be that they would work the AAC into those shows to promote us, but if this past year is indication, no dice. You can watch Game Day all morning and never hear anything about the AAC mentioned at all, ditto for these other shows.
Bottom line seems to be: If you aren't P5, you are invisible or nearly so even if your games are airing. If you don't make the SportsCenter highlights and the PTI clowns don't have you in their rundown the next day, or if Jim Rome or Colin Cowherd aren't yapping about you on the radio, it's almost as if the game wasn't played.
Exposure means how many people get to see you with your pants down around your ankles.
Nobody said exposure had to be nice.
The only schools from the AAC that have gotten the exposure in being talked about are UCF, East Carolina and Memphis. They made a big deal with Memphis who almost upset UCLA last year. Their named game up a few times. Then, they were talked about for a few days when they beat BYU in the bowl game when some BYU players were sore losers and started a free wailing of fists. Reminds me of the Oregon Player that was a sore loser when his team lost to Boise State.
(06-22-2015 11:05 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]But IMO this is partially misguided. Yes, exposure is about having games on national networks. Games have to be on to be seen. But i think that maybe even moreso, it's about getting talked about and shown when the games aren't on. The real sports exposure comes when you are talked about and highlighted on shows like PTI, GameDay, Around the Horn, and of course SportsCenter. Those shows draw bigger ratings than many games and some of them are on every day.
This I agree with. I used the example on the thread about this, that I think sort of shows the difference. I was comparing two TV shows, the Mad Men and two TV shows on ABC Last Man Standing and Cristela, which come on Friday Night (one has since been cancelled). The latter two shows are available in more homes than the Walking Dead by virtue of being on ABC vs. AMC. They also actually draw more total viewers as well than Mad Men, despite Mad Men being a critical phenomenon and gets everyone talking about it. All of that said, which of the three shows would you say has more exposure? I think it is the Walking Dead by a mile. And the fact that some people reading this will have to google Last Man Standing and/or Cristela to figure out which shows I am talking about is probably all the proof. And that is despite TWD having less viewers and being available in less homes.
We could do this with Game of Thrones as well. Game of Thrones is on HBO and is only available in about 30 million households. And Game of Thrones probably has more exposure than any show on TV other than maybe Empire and the Big Bang Theory, and that may even be questionable. Same with Orange is the New Black on Netflix, also in 30 million homes.
Exposure and availability and ratings are not the same thing. While they usually have something to do with each other to an extent, at the same time, they can have no relationship to the other at times.
edit My initial post accidentally listed "The Walking Dead" in place of Mad Men in an oblivious brainfart.
(06-22-2015 11:37 AM)adcorbett Wrote: [ -> ] (06-22-2015 11:05 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]But IMO this is partially misguided. Yes, exposure is about having games on national networks. Games have to be on to be seen. But i think that maybe even moreso, it's about getting talked about and shown when the games aren't on. The real sports exposure comes when you are talked about and highlighted on shows like PTI, GameDay, Around the Horn, and of course SportsCenter. Those shows draw bigger ratings than many games and some of them are on every day.
This I agree with. I used the example on the thread about this, that I think sort of shows the difference. I was comparing two TV shows, the Walking Dead and two TV shows on ABC Last Man Standing and Cristela, which come on Friday Night (one has since been cancelled). The latter two shows are available in more homes than the Walking Dead by virtue of being on ABC vs. AMC. They also actually draw more total viewers as well than the Walking Dead, despite The Walking Dead being a critical phenomenon and gets everyone talking about it. All of that said, which of the three shows would you say has more exposure? I think it is the Walking Dead by a mile. And the fact that some people reading this will have to google Last Man Standing and/or Cristela to figure out which shows I am talking about is probably all the proof. And that is despite TWD having less viewers and being available in less homes.
We could do this with Game of Thrones as well. Game of Thrones is on HBO and is only available in about 30 million households. And Game of Thrones probably has more exposure than any show on TV other than maybe Empire and the Big Bang Theory, and that may even be questionable. Same with Orange is the New Black on Netflix, also in 30 million homes.
Exposure and availability and ratings are not the same thing. While they usually have something to do with each other to an extent, at the same time, they can have no relationship to the other at times.
Walking Dead is the most popular show on cable television. It likely has more veiwers than the two shows you mention--certainly more than the one that was cancelled (especially considering one episode plays multiple times on AMC and anyone who hears about the show and needs to start from the beginning can catch up with the series on Netflix). I imagine the base of Walking Dead viewers is much larger than you think.
Game of Thrones via HBO only has paying subscriber base of 35 million, but there are a ton of folks accessing episodes on HBO-Go for free using access codes provided by friends or family. The users have crashed the HBO server on more than one occasion. HBO knows its going on, but they look at it like a free weekend trial. Eventually, they will stop it---but for now they are willing to allow the cheating to get people hooked. They have already created a stand alone internet only option for HBO---so I expect they will start moving folks to that option when they decide that allowing free loaders on HBO-Go is no longer in their best interests.
When it comes to football games--there are three primary keys. One is to be on a network that has a lot of actual subscribers. You cant be seen if the broadcasting network isn't actually hooked to someone's TV. Second---you want a network that is the "go to" network for sports programming. That way people who are casually looking for a game to watch---and just any game will do---will be be checking out that network to see what on. As These folks tune in you will increase your odds of attracting casual viewers who may enjoy your style of play and become actual fans of your games when they are see your team over multiple exposures. The third primary key for exposure is time slot. The best time slots will allow your game to be on a network when the largest football viewing audience is available. So for college football, exposure means getting on the largest subscriber network, that is a primary destination for college football fans, at a time when the most fans would be searching for college football on tv.
(06-22-2015 11:20 AM)DavidSt Wrote: [ -> ]The only schools from the AAC that have gotten the exposure in being talked about are UCF, East Carolina and Memphis. They made a big deal with Memphis who almost upset UCLA last year. Their named game up a few times. Then, they were talked about for a few days when they beat BYU in the bowl game when some BYU players were sore losers and started a free wailing of fists. Reminds me of the Oregon Player that was a sore loser when his team lost to Boise State.
You obviously didn't see the fight at the end of the game. The Memphis player got in his face and in his space (perhaps unintentionally). The BYU player shoved and 3(!) Memphis guys started swinging at him with fists and helmets.
(06-22-2015 12:20 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ]Walking Dead is the most popular show on cable television. It likely has more veiwers than the two shows you mention--certainly more than the one that was cancelled
Sorry. I was thinking "Mad Men" the whole time, and I wrote the Walking Dead because they were listed on the same page I was looking at. Mad Men draws about half the viewers as those two shows, yet it has significantly more exposure. Everything else is accurate.
The HBO thing you mentioned is EXACTLY the point. Game of Thrones has more
exposure than nearly any other TV show, yet it is the least available among the most popular shows.
(06-22-2015 11:05 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]When it comes to talking about a conference's 'exposure', seems like the discussion focuses on technical details like the ratings of games, how many homes a network is carried in, etc. We get analyses of whether ESPN-U is a better place to have a game than FS1 and stuff like that.
But IMO this is partially misguided. Yes, exposure is about having games on national networks. Games have to be on to be seen. But i think that maybe even moreso, it's about getting talked about and shown when the games aren't on. The real sports exposure comes when you are talked about and highlighted on shows like PTI, GameDay, Around the Horn, and of course SportsCenter. Those shows draw bigger ratings than many games and some of them are on every day.
Concerning the AAC, I was hopeful that one good thing about signing with ESPN might be that they would work the AAC into those shows to promote us, but if this past year is indication, no dice. You can watch Game Day all morning and never hear anything about the AAC mentioned at all, ditto for these other shows.
Bottom line seems to be: If you aren't P5, you are invisible or nearly so even if your games are airing. If you don't make the SportsCenter highlights and the PTI clowns don't have you in their rundown the next day, or if Jim Rome or Colin Cowherd aren't yapping about you on the radio, it's almost as if the game wasn't played.
Usually the pregame and highlight shows only focus on the top 25. Get ranked and you'll get talked about.
(06-22-2015 12:42 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ] (06-22-2015 11:20 AM)DavidSt Wrote: [ -> ]The only schools from the AAC that have gotten the exposure in being talked about are UCF, East Carolina and Memphis. They made a big deal with Memphis who almost upset UCLA last year. Their named game up a few times. Then, they were talked about for a few days when they beat BYU in the bowl game when some BYU players were sore losers and started a free wailing of fists. Reminds me of the Oregon Player that was a sore loser when his team lost to Boise State.
You obviously didn't see the fight at the end of the game. The Memphis player got in his face and in his space (perhaps unintentionally). The BYU player shoved and 3(!) Memphis guys started swinging at him with fists and helmets.
I thought one of the BYU players swung his helmet at a Memphis player. Fists are one thing, but helmets are another.
(06-22-2015 01:08 PM)DavidSt Wrote: [ -> ] (06-22-2015 12:42 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ] (06-22-2015 11:20 AM)DavidSt Wrote: [ -> ]The only schools from the AAC that have gotten the exposure in being talked about are UCF, East Carolina and Memphis. They made a big deal with Memphis who almost upset UCLA last year. Their named game up a few times. Then, they were talked about for a few days when they beat BYU in the bowl game when some BYU players were sore losers and started a free wailing of fists. Reminds me of the Oregon Player that was a sore loser when his team lost to Boise State.
You obviously didn't see the fight at the end of the game. The Memphis player got in his face and in his space (perhaps unintentionally). The BYU player shoved and 3(!) Memphis guys started swinging at him with fists and helmets.
I thought one of the BYU players swung his helmet at a Memphis player. Fists are one thing, but helmets are another.
Point is, though, that fight was all over the highlight shows for a few days. Memphis got more 'exposure' from that fight than all the other games they played last year.
Whether it was good or bad exposure is another issue, but the talking head shows matter greatly.
(06-22-2015 12:20 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ]When it comes to football games--there are three primary keys. One is to be on a network that has a lot of actual subscribers. You cant be seen if the broadcasting network isn't actually hooked to someone's TV. Second---you want a network that is the "go to" network for sports programming. That way people who are casually looking for a game to watch---and just any game will do---will be be checking out that network to see what on. As These folks tune in you will increase your odds of attracting casual viewers who may enjoy your style of play and become actual fans of your games when they are see your team over multiple exposures. The third primary key for exposure is time slot. The best time slots will allow your game to be on a network when the largest football viewing audience is available. So for college football, exposure means getting on the largest subscriber network, that is a primary destination for college football fans, at a time when the most fans would be searching for college football on tv.
*Sigh* ... this is just the kind of nitzy analysis that ignores the important exposure factors I mentioned. You can have all of those things, but if the talking-head shows ignore you, your exposure is very limited.
E.g., Memphis probably got more exposure after their bowl game last year - when the highlights of the BYU fight were prominently featured on shows like Sports Center for several days- than they got during the 3 hours ESPN was showing the actual game.
I think that exposure is best used as a relative term. For a TV show, it is about viewers, long term and short term. However, there is an incredibly important caveat: shows should be compared to the viewers that the same show would receive in another scenario. In other words, there might be 8 million viewers for a show on ESPN, and 10 million for a show on FOX. However, since the FOX show is a different show, it's impossible to tell which one has better exposure. One show might just be better than the other. Instead, one would have to compare the 8 million ESPN viewers to the "would be" viewers if it was aired on FOX.
Factors that influence exposure:
*time of day
*day of week
*access
*general popularity of the channel
*promotion
It's also worth noting that not all exposure is created equally. Some demographics are better than others and positive exposure is better than negative.
In the context of schools, I think that exposure equals impressions times the strength of those impressions (i.e. degree to which people will remember them, in what context, and in what light). Obviously, like with TV shows, this understanding is best used when comparing it to a "would be" value.
(06-22-2015 12:45 PM)adcorbett Wrote: [ -> ] (06-22-2015 12:20 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ]Walking Dead is the most popular show on cable television. It likely has more veiwers than the two shows you mention--certainly more than the one that was cancelled
Sorry. I was thinking "Mad Men" the whole time, and I wrote the Walking Dead because they were listed on the same page I was looking at. Mad Men draws about half the viewers as those two shows, yet it has significantly more exposure. Everything else is accurate.
The HBO thing you mentioned is EXACTLY the point. Game of Thrones has more exposure than nearly any other TV show, yet it is the least available among the most popular shows.
True. But Game of Thrones is a very unique situation as it has a series of best selling books that basically created a built-in audience before it ever aired a single episode. That said, I see your point. What you are saying is "possible"---but its probably not the norm.
When ECU was in the top 25 last season, we were talked about a ton
(06-22-2015 01:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (06-22-2015 12:20 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ]When it comes to football games--there are three primary keys. One is to be on a network that has a lot of actual subscribers. You cant be seen if the broadcasting network isn't actually hooked to someone's TV. Second---you want a network that is the "go to" network for sports programming. That way people who are casually looking for a game to watch---and just any game will do---will be be checking out that network to see what on. As These folks tune in you will increase your odds of attracting casual viewers who may enjoy your style of play and become actual fans of your games when they are see your team over multiple exposures. The third primary key for exposure is time slot. The best time slots will allow your game to be on a network when the largest football viewing audience is available. So for college football, exposure means getting on the largest subscriber network, that is a primary destination for college football fans, at a time when the most fans would be searching for college football on tv.
*Sigh* ... this is just the kind of nitzy analysis that ignores the important exposure factors I mentioned. You can have all of those things, but if the talking-head shows ignore you, your exposure is very limited.
E.g., Memphis probably got more exposure after their bowl game last year - when the highlights of the BYU fight were prominently featured on shows like Sports Center for several days- than they got during the 3 hours ESPN was showing the actual game.
Those talking head shows are the lowest rated things on ESPN. I think you vastly overstate their importance. Is it better to be pushed on those shows---of course. Is it a huge factor---I doubt it. I think the 3 factors I mentioned vastly outweigh the benefit of being talked about on Sports Center.
One more thing---whats discussed by the talking heads is typically what people were watching. Its kind of a self fulfilling prophecy. If you have the 3 factors I discussed, you will eventually start getting some play on the talking head shows.
I think you can also consider the composition of the audience when talking about "exposure". Aside from total numbers, who is watching SportsCenter and PTI, etc? For example, do those shows have lower overall ratings, but with an audience comprised mostly of the younger viewers who are more coveted by advertisers? I'll admit to being an aging fart who lost interest in SportsCenter, etc years ago, as they became less and less about substance and more and more about style. As a result, any exposure on those outlets is largely irrelevant to me, and I suspect I'm not alone in being over 30 and tuning out SportsCenter. So for us old guys, whether it's fair or not it's better to have an established name and a convenient timeslot as far as picking up casual viewers is concerned.
Also, aside from their own teams most fans are probably most interested in their teams' primary rivals and prominent conference mates, so the higher overall level of engagement a conference's fans have, the more "secondary" fans would likely be interested in each of those conference's teams. It's a generalization, but I suspect that it's true to say that SEC fans are more vested in other SEC football games than ACC fans would be in other ACC football games, with the opposite happening during basketball season. Those engaged fans will seek out "exposure", whether it's on broadcast networks, conference or team networks, radio, the internet, twitter, etc.
Quo, you're not talking about exposure. You're talking about "buzz".
Exposure is what AttackCoog and others have said--having games on ESPN vs ESPN2 vs U vs News vs ESPN3, Thursday 5 pm start vs Saturday 2pm start, etc.
Buzz is what people are interested in, what the talking head shows are talking about. The talking head shows don't follow talking points from HQ in Bristol--theyr'e too worried about keeping their ratings up so that they stay in their chairs rather than being replaced by the next Syracuse sports journalism BA and the next retired jock. So if Houston is 10-0 with Case Keenum putting up crazy numbers, that's what PTI etc are going to talk about, rather than the game on ESPN-U between 7-3 Minnesota and 5-3 Northwestern.
Because the game was played in a baseball park, both benches were on the same side of the field with the Memphis band/fans largely behind the BYU bench. Memphis players basically had to walk over to the BYU bench to celebrate in front of fans. BYU players started throwing punches which Memphis players returned. Culminated in a blindside back of the head sucker punch from a BYU player who had been knocked the **** out earlier.
http://www.barstoolsports.com/boston/gre...ocked-out/
(06-22-2015 04:40 PM)johnbragg Wrote: [ -> ]Quo, you're not talking about exposure. You're talking about "buzz".
Exposure is what AttackCoog and others have said--having games on ESPN vs ESPN2 vs U vs News vs ESPN3, Thursday 5 pm start vs Saturday 2pm start, etc.
IMO, "buzz" IS exposure. Just having a game on doesn't mean anybody is getting exposed to it. The talking head shows establish and reflect what people are interested in.
Without buzz, exposure isn't worth much. E.g., in recruiting, a kid doesn't care about being on ESPN-U at 9 PM, he cares about being on sportscenter. That's real exposure.
A number of years ago a bunch of televised MAC games late in the year were entertaining high scoring games. Due to that they were talking about those games and future games on shows like Around the Horn and Pardon the Interruption. This also started the trend of calling it "Maction" before it was official.
SO yes getting your games on tv matters but yes in order to be talked about you need to do something to get noticed. IN the MAC's case that year it took a bunch of crazy high scoring (and competitive) games.