How do they figure these ratings? By people leaving it on the same channel for so long or what about people with DVR?
Sugar Bowl TV ratings - down double-digits
Can't tell if serious...
Could also mean ESPN3 is being used more. I'm a huge fan of ESPN3 on my TV via the XBox. Or even on a laptop. All kinds of awesome picture in picture features and the like. The ratings services don't track streams, so who knows.
what I was thinking. I don't know anyone outside the fraternity houses that has cable. All my friends who didn't make the trip watched the game through an xbox.
Blame VaTech. Their helmets don't have wings.
There are a couple of factors I believe led to the decrease in ratings.
1) Overload of games on Jan. 2, 2012 when more viewers actually had the day off work and were free to watch
2) Two Eastern Time Zone teams and the game started at 8:30pm. Nevermind that it didn't end until just after midnight. Many viewers I suspect had to work yesterday and today and that late start would tune more viewers out at the end of the game. Nothing like killing the main market area for both teams.
3) I know Michigan sold the majority of their tickets. My last read on the Virginia situation was that they were having a hard time selling out tickets. This would lead me to belive that more viewers were less excited about watching VT play.
Just a couple of conclusions I have drawn on the matter.
Scanning the crowd at the game, VT seemed to have quite a following. After all of the ticket sales problems, I didn't expect that.
Congratulations Team 132!
we had them out numbered 3 to 2. There were several thousand 'Bama fans there too wearing the maroon. Most were rooting for M too, adding to the hype for the big game next year.
That's good to know. Couldn't tell that from the TV broadcast.
Yes, my sense in the superdome was about 3 to 2 M to VT fans as well. Of course I couldn't really see most of the Michigan side of the stadium. There were at least a couple thousand empty seats in the stadium and probably 5% or more on the VT side were wearing maize. In the French Quarter the day of the game it seemed like 4-1 in favor of Michigan fans.
So I'm partially at fault. :(
I didn't watch (obviously), but I'm sure many people did.
I don't know about that. I somewhat follow politics (although pretty casually), and I cannot imagine that many people actually tune in to "watch" the Iowa Caucus. Seems like that would be something that you could just flip to on a commercial and flip back to the game.
for recuriting but also getting some exposure in primetime something that we have not had in a while. This is awesome news thanks for the post!
reason for the ratings to be down was VT. I would have loved to see what Boise St or Ks St would have done for the ratings.
Hell no one knows what a Hokie is anyway.
This guy believes ratings would have been higher had his team been included...
are a NATIONAL program. I laugh every time I hear that. What a joke.
Dewitt is in Clinton County. East Lansing is in Ingham County. It's sort of national.
Did we win?
I think the general sloppiness of the game probably turned off some viewers. If I'd been a neutral fan, I'd have probably turned it off at halftime, especially given that it was played on a weeknight.
Kinesiologynerd's happiness was up by double digits.
I don't think it was sloppiness I think it was that Virginia Tech had a month to prepare for us, and were actually a better team than the team that played vs. clemson. Don't listen to your Spartan coworkers who say that Georgia was a better team than VT. They lost to Boise State, South Carolina, and LSU. Their best win was against Auburn.
Whatever the case, it's true that compared to Oregon-Wisconsin and Okla State-Stanford, our game didn't feature the same kind of action. It's nothing to apologize for. Not every game can be a wild shootout.
I have watched about 80% of the games thus far on my dual-screen setup here, which is off the Nielsen radar. I did, however, watch the Sugar Bowl on the actual TV, so I tried to boost the ratings for the game I actually, really cared about. Of course, karma will get me somehow - every third commercial will be an Allstate commercial as a result.
Another factor - this was the first Sugar Bowl in decades that didn't have a top-10 ranked team. This certainly has an affect as well, especially since VT isn't traditionally a big draw for any part of the country.
sentiments exactly. VT is not a national team.
Also there is normally an SEC team in the sugar bowl. All of the south rise together during bowl season, i'm sure they were not really interested in this match up.
I watched the game, and as a Michigan alum and fan, was thrilled with the victory.
However, there are two reasons that I believe viewership is significantly down:
- The date. When all the games were on New Year's Eve and New Year's Day, you could gorge yourself, watching game after game. Once you are into the regular work week, it becomes much more difficult. For instance, I allowed my 10 year old to stay up and watch the entire game. I know he was very tired this morning.
- The Broadcast Network (ESPN.) I am cheap. Living in the Chicago area, I get CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox, & a slew of other local channels . . . for free. To get ESPN, it would cost me another $700 a year. For the Michigan games I want to see, I can go to the local bar, spend $20 - $30, and still end up way ahead. I resented having most of the bowl games on ESPN. If all the games were on major networks, I'd watch more games. Here's the deal: as a Michigan alum, I will gladly make the effort to find a place to watch the Sugar Bowl. But I'm not going to leave my house and my family to watch a ton of games I don't care that much about.
For the casual football fan, to have the TV on all day New Year's Day, flipping between CBS, NBC, & ABC, is no problem. However, to carve out time multiple nights, during the work week, and have to go out to a friend's house or a bar to catch a game between two teams I don't care about (WVa? Clemson? LSU? Alabama? Not going to happen.)
Wanting to watch bowl games is not enough for me to pony up for cable. Can I afford it? Of course. But I don't care enough about other teams. If I can watch most Michigan games, and also local pro teams, that's enough for me.
If I had been able to watch most of the BCS bowls on January 1, on major networks, I would have been added to the viewership numbers.
Wow you really are cheap, so cheap you don't seem at all embarrassed to make this post. Actually how did you make this post, do you steal your neighbors wifi signal?
AT&T Uverse phone & internet with wifi is $60 a month, which I can live with. I can also live with getting content from mgoblog, and like I said, catching some Michigan games a block from my home. I probably would be more torn and would pony up for cable if I lived somewhere else that didn't have such decent major network reception. But yeah, I guess I'm pretty cheap. What can I say?
Last year's Sugar Bowl had some extra intrigue because the country knew OSU was starting players that had no business playing in that game. But the whole greed, money, Tressel's "ethical" and convenient promise that you could play if you come back next year and sit out 5 games issue allowed it to happen.
There was no drama leading up to this game other than people thinking Virginia Tech had no business playing in it. And while we were the most improved team in country this year, the Big Ten being down again wasn't going to put up ratings like last year. All things considered, a 6.3 isn't that bad.
I thought having Michigan in would guarauntee a higher rating, but this is pretty abysmal.
Some past Sugar Bowls:
2010: 8.50 Cincy - Florida: Tebow's last game, makese sense...but Cincinatti??
2009: 7.80 Utah - Alabama: Curiousity over Utah I suppose?
2008: 7.00 Georgia - Hawai: Same? Still, a game with Hawaii outdrawing Michigan...
2005: 9.5 Auburn - Virginia Tech: Another Va Tech game much higher...
Considering Michigan fans put up the best non-BCS rating of all time (9.13 at the Capitol One Bowl vs. Florida) I would have expected something similiar for our trip back to the big time.
I think the high ratings for the 2005 Sugar Bowl was because the top 3 teams in the country were undefeated and Auburn was left out of the title game. BCS haters might have been rooting for them to win as yet another example to prove that the BCS does not work.
Hawaii/Georgia and Utah/Alabama....I got nothing.
All of those games have an SEC team. NO is close for all of those teams.
A lot of people watched the game on espn3, I'm pretty sure that was not factored into the numbers
put this game on CBS or ABC instead of espn on Jan1 and it would be much better ratings.
Uncompelling match-up to people who don't wear Maize or Maroon & Orange
It was a Tuesday night right after a lot of Americans just had to go back to work for the first day after break (like me). If it was any other big ten team vs Virginia Tech I wouldn't have watched it in all likelihood
There was a lot of people who were against this matchup. Obviously we were pumped up for it, but a lot of others look at it similarily to the Orange bowl tonight and don't really care.
M fans, Congrats on the win. For me, a win is a win is a win. MSU was for the most part dominated by UGA in our game (especially John Jenkins, Alec Ogletree, and Jarvis Jones) but in the end came out with a W. Embrace the Sugar Bowl win. Good for the seniors and good for the program.
The reason for the drop off in ratings is that people are fed up with the BCS. People are realizing that the BCS decisions have a lot to do with money and very little to do with football. There was a lot of national talk about this game in particular and how several smaller name yet higher ranked schools were passed over to pick 2 names that would fill up more bars and hotels. I am taking off my Spartan glasses for a minute (shocking, I bet) and speaking as a fan of the sport when I say I would love to have seen one of those teams in the game instead. Imagine the intrigue in a Michigan vs. Boise State game: Establishment vs. the anti-establishment. Or how about the heisman trophy winner against Bud Foster's hard hitting defense.
I think you get what I am trying to say. Some of these writers sound like they agree:
Anyways, here's to hoping another team from Michigan will be winning in New Orleans this week.
Flame away I guess.
That Grantland article seems overly harsh and very attacky toward Michigan. Yes we had a favorable schedule, but I don't think this year was "one of the emptiest 11-win seasons in CFB history"
Of course, none of this means the Big Ten is "back," and none of this means that Michigan is back, either; the Wolverines didn't even win their own division within the conference. Yet nobody carries the flag for misguided Big Ten pretension quite like Michigan does, so let us permit the Wolverines their moment of glory before Urban Meyer squashes their dreams for the next decade.
I'd say you're understating things a bit.
Fuck Ohio and Urban Liar
Enough of that sugar-coating Weinreb ( could not resist the irony ), tell us how you really feel . I guess since Urban is going to win endless National Championships before the season even starts, I don't know why we in the rest of the Big1G even feel it necessary to field teams or worse yet have the audacity to make tOSU play football when we already know the inevitable outcome. We as well as Sparty should enjoy our little insignifigant victories before we are crushed by years of tOSU supremacy. Woe be us for basking in this brief moment of false glory.
But I should have known that the fine folks here would beat me to it.
Weinreb went further than the other naysayers, probably to justify being paid for saying the same thing that ten other sports columnists did.
After firing up the google machine, it is revealed that he's from State College, PA and grew up loving PSU. His animosity toward Michigan in that article makes a little more sense now
This is completely due to the move of the BCS games to cable. I a good case study for is what happened to MNF when it moved from ABC to ESPN. While the NFL did their best to give it a second tier schedule which didn't help, even the highest rated MNF cable games don't approach the broadcast numbers. Being down 11% is about right since cable reaches about 15% fewer homes. They get lower viewership by moving sporting events to cable, but make more money in the end.
what about an 11 win MAC team or an 11 win Big East team. Virginia Tech had 11 wins and we beat them we weren't even the worst 11 win team this year.
A lame ass rematch!!! Screw Bama they had their shot and lost... Boycott this game and let's prove a point
Another factor that I haven't seen anyone mention is that CBS, ABC and NBC were all showing new shows, rather than repeats. Shows usually don't start back up this early (usually not until the second or third week of January) so past Sugar Bowls likely have not had that sort of competition. Tuesday cable ratings will probably be available around 8 or 9 EST (though due to New Years this week it might be more like afternoon or evening) which will indicate how big a factor cable news was.
Cable news ratings are available, and across the six available networks (Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, Headline News, CNBC and Fox Business News) ratings were up by about 2.5 million viewers (73%) vs. Monday night. The competition alone is enough to account for the drop vs. last year. Trying to pin this on the matchup (which I have already seen people elsewhere doing -- poor Boise State was robbed by Michigan) doesn't take the facts into consideration.
Edited: Nothing to see here, the entire point has already been made by someone else. Missed it in my laziness, sorry.
I think maybe more people were interested in the MSU-Wisconsin basketball game.
I'm a C-FB addict!
I watch a lot of games, 3 TVs and Internet, every Saturday. I do this for pleasure and monatorial purpose. I keep data bases on all 120 teams, with all pertinent stats & misc. info(weather, day of week & time of day, etc.)
I have 2 basic tenents: The Big 10 & ACC, are the two weakest conferences in the BCS. Their strength of schedule, are a joke. Wager high on any game out conference, taking the underdog with the points and generally take the over. These 2 conferences will try to run of scores on weaker opponents. The Big 10, loves "trying" to beat up on the Mac Conference, with dismal results, I may add. ACC always schedules the weakest opponents from the SEC & Big East.
The SEC is good but again over rated. Drop the worst team, from each BCS Conference & the Big 12, presents the most fear. But, on ESPN, a stooge for the BCS, it was big 10 & SEC all year. I get a good laugh, when they are blatantly promoting, as order or paid by the BCS.
I pay no heed to the hype on that major cable sports network. Their job, is to promote BCS teams & their players(i.e. Richardson & Ingram for the Heisman). The BCS & ESPN force the NCAA as to what games to schedule & when. They also influence every NCAA investigation and punishment. Even to the point of trying to cover-up scandels, i,e. Penn St(6mos); Ohio st. (7 mos), Auburn (over a year) and many others. It's always enjoyable when the predictors from ESPN, go out on a limb and pick a 30 point BCS team to win straight-up.
When was the last time "top-to-bottom", that a Big Ten or ACC team scheduled a previous years, ranked opponent, that was not in conference.
Having Mich-VaTech game in a BCS Bowl, was a slap in the face to college football. It was actually one game I took a pass on. Knowing, that it was a totally inferior choice. It's a wonder the ratings were as high as they were.
Watch the ratings for Monday nights game. Myself & my colleagues are taking a pass on that "joke of a game," also.
From the OP:
As an aside, this year's "New Year's Day" games on January 2nd also took ratings hits, with only the Gator Bowl (OSU-FL) getting higher rating (2.2 vs 1.7). The Outback Bowl was a 5.0, down from last year's 7.0, and Capital One was a 2.5, down from last year's 3.7.
So viewership fron last year is down even more (as a percentage) for the Outback and Capital One Bowls than the Sugar Bowl, and the reason for the Sugar Bowl drop is the matchup? I think those making that argument need to go back to the drawing board. The Ohio-Florida bowl game had such low ratings to start with it's not hard for it to get a bump. It looks like there is a significant drop in viewership across the board, though, so instead of the matchup, some of the other points people have already made must be in play (people using ESPN3, not having access to cable, the fact that these games are on the 2nd and 3rd instead of the 1st).
I've not seen ratings yet for the Cotton Bowl, but it will be interesting to see its ratings. It was on a Friday night on a free network (no cable fees) and had according to many a better matchup with higher ranked teams, so it has a lot going for it that should push it in a positive direction, so if it come out with a rating close to or lower than the Sugar Bowl, I don't think people can continue with the claim the matchup is the problem.