Seems like measuring these #'s would be much easier/faster than getting linear TV #'s.

They do not release publicly unless it suits them.

They provide data to conference offices with STRONG encouragement to the league office to NOT send the data to any public university members, rather limiting access to viewing at the league office or a verbal report.

They do not like having the data out in the wild.

Most of the FBS games they carry are in the several thousand range, probably getting 5 figures for a decent game involving a Big XII team, guesstimating.

The FCS games usually are in the few hundred range.

ESPN+ is carrying a West Virginia-Kansas game in a couple of weeks, so it will be interesting to see how many folks will watch that. That might be the biggest non-UFC sporting event they have carried in the short history of that service (behind that US Open Cup Final they carried this year, perhaps).

Of course, anything UFC they carry probably gets 100-200K or more.

(09-09-2019 04:16 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  They do not release publicly unless it suits them.

They provide data to conference offices with STRONG encouragement to the league office to NOT send the data to any public university members, rather limiting access to viewing at the league office or a verbal report.

They do not like having the data out in the wild.

They're like any other corporation. Apple and Google don't release all of their data; they don't let the public laugh out loud about some phone model or home automation device that might be a total bust, and they don't necessarily want their competitors to know which new product is doing far better than expected. They release only information that they think will boost their stock price and/or public image, plus anything they might be legally required to report.

(09-10-2019 01:16 AM)sctvman Wrote:  Of course, anything UFC they carry probably gets 100-200K or more.

UFC might be one of the best deals they've ever made, in terms of number of viewers gained versus dollars paid out by Disney.

I "happened" to have AState's 2015 show up in my email inbox. This is the data from a story I did in early 2016.

There were four games telecast that ratings were available for (USC on P12 was not available)
Louisiana a Tuesday night ESPN2 drew 351,000 plus 42,863 online.
At South Alabama also an ESPN2 Tuesday drew 287,000 on TV and online had 41,778.
At Appalachian State a Thursday ESPNU drew 200,000 and online 31,767
Bowl game on the first Saturday of bowl season vs La.Tech 1,450,000 viewers online unavailable to me

The online games

Missouri 136,960
Missouri State 7958
at Toledo (no data available to me)
Idaho 11,549
Georgia State 13,500
at ULM 11,722
at New Mexico State 12,354
Texas State 21,930

(09-10-2019 01:16 AM)sctvman Wrote:  Most of the FBS games they carry are in the several thousand range, probably getting 5 figures for a decent game involving a Big XII team, guesstimating.

The FCS games usually are in the few hundred range.

ESPN+ is carrying a West Virginia-Kansas game in a couple of weeks, so it will be interesting to see how many folks will watch that. That might be the biggest non-UFC sporting event they have carried in the short history of that service (behind that US Open Cup Final they carried this year, perhaps).

Of course, anything UFC they carry probably gets 100-200K or more.

I think your guesstimate is way off.

Those numbers arkstfan mentioned are probably the ones that tuned into some portion of the game itself, not the entire game.

That 137,000 includes people who were watching for 2-3 minutes.

I saw a number for CAA.tv, when they had CAA games, they were getting less than 2,000 total viewers for men’s basketball games online (and that was a high number for them). At any time this probably meant maybe 500-600 were watching the game. That is probably the way all those leagues are.

With the new FloSports deal, that number probably will be just as low or even lower. Even with linear TV losing popularity by the day, all these lower mid-major leagues have to have some sort of TV presence in order to get viewers.

That’s why the CAA signed with Flo, because it allowed them to have a package on CBSSN.

(09-10-2019 02:59 PM)sctvman Wrote:  Those numbers arkstfan mentioned are probabiy the ones that tuned into some portion of the game itself, not the entire game.

That 137,000 includes people who were watching for 2-3 minutes.

I saw a number for CAA.tv, when they had CAA games, they were getting less than 2,000 total viewers for games online (and that was a high number for them). At any time this probably meant maybe 500-600 were watching the game. That is probably the way all those leagues are.

With the new FloSports deal, that number probably will be just as low or even lower. Even with linear TV losing popularity by the day, all these lower mid-major leagues have to have some sort of TV presence in order to get viewers.

That’s why the CAA signed with Flo, because it allowed them to have a package on CBSSN.

Carrot ESPN gave the Sun Belt for ESPN+ was two more appearances in football on linear TV.

If I were a commissioner and all ESPN was offering was ESPN+, I'd be making my calls to CBSSN and Stadium to try find something else. You have to have some content that isn't behind a pay wall.

I get why they don't want to publish the numbers but it still pisses me off. I really wanna know how many people are watching which games.

(09-10-2019 04:11 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(09-10-2019 02:59 PM)sctvman Wrote:  Those numbers arkstfan mentioned are probabiy the ones that tuned into some portion of the game itself, not the entire game.

That 137,000 includes people who were watching for 2-3 minutes.

I saw a number for CAA.tv, when they had CAA games, they were getting less than 2,000 total viewers for games online (and that was a high number for them). At any time this probably meant maybe 500-600 were watching the game. That is probably the way all those leagues are.

With the new FloSports deal, that number probably will be just as low or even lower. Even with linear TV losing popularity by the day, all these lower mid-major leagues have to have some sort of TV presence in order to get viewers.

That’s why the CAA signed with Flo, because it allowed them to have a package on CBSSN.

Carrot ESPN gave the Sun Belt for ESPN+ was two more appearances in football on linear TV.

If I were a commissioner and all ESPN was offering was ESPN+, I'd be making my calls to CBSSN and Stadium to try find something else. You have to have some content that isn't behind a pay wall.

In what location do you not pay for ESPN and CBSsports? In what locations does Stadium exist as a primary channel and not a weak secondary digital OTA?

When Idaho was making their presentation to stay in the SBC.
The online numbers were brought up fourth most in the conference at that time. I doubt if it was first it would have made a difference.

(09-14-2019 01:50 AM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(09-10-2019 04:11 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(09-10-2019 02:59 PM)sctvman Wrote:  Those numbers arkstfan mentioned are probabiy the ones that tuned into some portion of the game itself, not the entire game.

That 137,000 includes people who were watching for 2-3 minutes.

I saw a number for CAA.tv, when they had CAA games, they were getting less than 2,000 total viewers for games online (and that was a high number for them). At any time this probably meant maybe 500-600 were watching the game. That is probably the way all those leagues are.

With the new FloSports deal, that number probably will be just as low or even lower. Even with linear TV losing popularity by the day, all these lower mid-major leagues have to have some sort of TV presence in order to get viewers.

That’s why the CAA signed with Flo, because it allowed them to have a package on CBSSN.

Carrot ESPN gave the Sun Belt for ESPN+ was two more appearances in football on linear TV.

If I were a commissioner and all ESPN was offering was ESPN+, I'd be making my calls to CBSSN and Stadium to try find something else. You have to have some content that isn't behind a pay wall.

In what location do you not pay for ESPN and CBSsports? In what locations does Stadium exist as a primary channel and not a weak secondary digital OTA?

As for Stadium, only a few that are primary: Dallas-Ft Worth, Lafayette LA, Austin TX. Yet while that are some stations that are LD (low digital power) and weak broadcasts like Houston, there are many that are on the sub-channels with the main station that are high powered. These are mainly the stations that broadcast the big networks. So if Stadium is a sub-channel on the stations that broadcast networks like ABC, FOX..etc, that same signal is available with the sub-channels. If you need to find a specific area, use the link below to find which station is Stadium on. (if its not on station that is LD or CD, it is most likely on a big network tower.)

https://s23455.pcdn.co/wp-content/upload...-11-19.pdf

Otherwise, you can watch Stadium via a plethora of other ways like Xumo, Pluto, website, casting from web to TV, the games are shown on the Roku Channel.

(09-14-2019 01:50 AM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(09-10-2019 04:11 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(09-10-2019 02:59 PM)sctvman Wrote:  Those numbers arkstfan mentioned are probabiy the ones that tuned into some portion of the game itself, not the entire game.

That 137,000 includes people who were watching for 2-3 minutes.

I saw a number for CAA.tv, when they had CAA games, they were getting less than 2,000 total viewers for games online (and that was a high number for them). At any time this probably meant maybe 500-600 were watching the game. That is probably the way all those leagues are.

With the new FloSports deal, that number probably will be just as low or even lower. Even with linear TV losing popularity by the day, all these lower mid-major leagues have to have some sort of TV presence in order to get viewers.

That’s why the CAA signed with Flo, because it allowed them to have a package on CBSSN.

Carrot ESPN gave the Sun Belt for ESPN+ was two more appearances in football on linear TV.

If I were a commissioner and all ESPN was offering was ESPN+, I'd be making my calls to CBSSN and Stadium to try find something else. You have to have some content that isn't behind a pay wall.

In what location do you not pay for ESPN and CBSsports? In what locations does Stadium exist as a primary channel and not a weak secondary digital OTA?

Your viewers are mostly already paying for access to those channels. When you are asking small fan bases to pony up for another monthly subscription there is little money to be made and your potential fan and potential recruit aren't seeing your games because they aren't interested enough yet to pay.

A few years ago they estimated (using total season viewership numbers) that MAC ESPN3 football games were only drawing a little over 3K viewers a game. Those are the numbers with ESPN3—a service that did not require the viewer to sign up for a separate paid subscription outside of their regular cable or ISP.

https://www.hustlebelt.com/maction/2015/...s-analysis

(09-16-2019 10:38 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(09-14-2019 01:50 AM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(09-10-2019 04:11 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(09-10-2019 02:59 PM)sctvman Wrote:  Those numbers arkstfan mentioned are probabiy the ones that tuned into some portion of the game itself, not the entire game.

That 137,000 includes people who were watching for 2-3 minutes.

I saw a number for CAA.tv, when they had CAA games, they were getting less than 2,000 total viewers for games online (and that was a high number for them). At any time this probably meant maybe 500-600 were watching the game. That is probably the way all those leagues are.

With the new FloSports deal, that number probably will be just as low or even lower. Even with linear TV losing popularity by the day, all these lower mid-major leagues have to have some sort of TV presence in order to get viewers.

That’s why the CAA signed with Flo, because it allowed them to have a package on CBSSN.

Carrot ESPN gave the Sun Belt for ESPN+ was two more appearances in football on linear TV.

If I were a commissioner and all ESPN was offering was ESPN+, I'd be making my calls to CBSSN and Stadium to try find something else. You have to have some content that isn't behind a pay wall.

In what location do you not pay for ESPN and CBSsports? In what locations does Stadium exist as a primary channel and not a weak secondary digital OTA?

Your viewers are mostly already paying for access to those channels. When you are asking small fan bases to pony up for another monthly subscription there is little money to be made and your potential fan and potential recruit aren't seeing your games because they aren't interested enough yet to pay.

Sorry paying is paying.

I don't generally watch any sports channel unless it is a team I care about. I get stats, highlights, and discussions off the internet, haven't watched a recap, pre-game, or sports center in probably 5-6 years. Most people I know under 30 never watched them. I also can count the number of people 35 and over I know with cable on two hands.

One cost $100-200 a month.

One cost 5.99 a month.

This info accurately replicates what the statistical trends say is happening.

(09-17-2019 11:03 AM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 10:38 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(09-14-2019 01:50 AM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(09-10-2019 04:11 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(09-10-2019 02:59 PM)sctvman Wrote:  Those numbers arkstfan mentioned are probabiy the ones that tuned into some portion of the game itself, not the entire game.

That 137,000 includes people who were watching for 2-3 minutes.

I saw a number for CAA.tv, when they had CAA games, they were getting less than 2,000 total viewers for games online (and that was a high number for them). At any time this probably meant maybe 500-600 were watching the game. That is probably the way all those leagues are.

With the new FloSports deal, that number probably will be just as low or even lower. Even with linear TV losing popularity by the day, all these lower mid-major leagues have to have some sort of TV presence in order to get viewers.

That’s why the CAA signed with Flo, because it allowed them to have a package on CBSSN.

Carrot ESPN gave the Sun Belt for ESPN+ was two more appearances in football on linear TV.

If I were a commissioner and all ESPN was offering was ESPN+, I'd be making my calls to CBSSN and Stadium to try find something else. You have to have some content that isn't behind a pay wall.

In what location do you not pay for ESPN and CBSsports? In what locations does Stadium exist as a primary channel and not a weak secondary digital OTA?

Your viewers are mostly already paying for access to those channels. When you are asking small fan bases to pony up for another monthly subscription there is little money to be made and your potential fan and potential recruit aren't seeing your games because they aren't interested enough yet to pay.

Sorry paying is paying.

I don't generally watch any sports channel unless it is a team I care about. I get stats, highlights, and discussions off the internet, haven't watched a recap, pre-game, or sports center in probably 5-6 years. Most people I know under 30 never watched them. I also can count the number of people 35 and over I know with cable on two hands.

One cost $100-200 a month.

One cost 5.99 a month.

This info accurately replicates what the statistical trends say is happening.

And how many have a cable replacement like Sling, YouTube, PlayStation that includes fees for services like ESPN?

(09-17-2019 11:13 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(09-17-2019 11:03 AM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 10:38 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(09-14-2019 01:50 AM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(09-10-2019 04:11 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Carrot ESPN gave the Sun Belt for ESPN+ was two more appearances in football on linear TV.

If I were a commissioner and all ESPN was offering was ESPN+, I'd be making my calls to CBSSN and Stadium to try find something else. You have to have some content that isn't behind a pay wall.

In what location do you not pay for ESPN and CBSsports? In what locations does Stadium exist as a primary channel and not a weak secondary digital OTA?

Your viewers are mostly already paying for access to those channels. When you are asking small fan bases to pony up for another monthly subscription there is little money to be made and your potential fan and potential recruit aren't seeing your games because they aren't interested enough yet to pay.

Sorry paying is paying.

I don't generally watch any sports channel unless it is a team I care about. I get stats, highlights, and discussions off the internet, haven't watched a recap, pre-game, or sports center in probably 5-6 years. Most people I know under 30 never watched them. I also can count the number of people 35 and over I know with cable on two hands.

One cost $100-200 a month.

One cost 5.99 a month.

This info accurately replicates what the statistical trends say is happening.

And how many have a cable replacement like Sling, YouTube, PlayStation that includes fees for services like ESPN?

Judging from the numbers Sling and others put out, only around 35% or so of the subscribers that quit paying cable or satellite convert over to OTT services. The rest just go with OTA and a on demand service like Netflix, Prime or Hulu and soon to be Apple TV+.
The OTA households has gone from 20 million households to now around 26 million households in a few years and that number keeps growing every quarter.

A couple of P5 games (WVU@Kansas, Kansas State@Oklahoma State) are going to be on ESPN +.

(09-18-2019 07:01 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  A couple of P5 games (WVU@Kansas, Kansas State@Oklahoma State) are going to be on ESPN +.

Yea, the idea that + was just going to be a dumping ground for stuff they don't want to put on TV never really made sense. When you look at the individual channel carriage fees, I believe + is second only to Big ESPN, and channel number three isn't even close. It might take a couple seasons to get the conferences acclimated to the idea, but they're going to put a ton of quality stuff online-only to turn the, like, buck fifty they get from U and News into five bucks from +.

With Kansas State/Oklahoma State being a top 25 team versus a near top 25 team, that game might get a non-UFC record viewership on ESPN+. I wonder how NFL Primetime is doing too, but that is spread over several days.