HIGHLY CONCENTRATED CFB VIEWERSHIP: 📺🏈
2016-23 Total Nielsen-Rated Viewers

Check this out, gang:
50% of football viewership comes from just 18 teams

In updating TV data to add in this year, I continue to be amazed by how heavily concentrated viewers are among so few brands pic.twitter.com/F5P1zG8ZlM

— Tony Altimore (@TJAltimore) January 24, 2024

Poor aggie

I wonder if this includes streaming viewers on platforms like Hulu, YouTubeTV, Fubo, etc.

Maybe they should make their own conference.

G-5 TEAMS ON MAJOR CHANNELS:
2016-23: ESPN + OTA Networks

A key problem for G-5 schools is that even if they play great + fun football, most people don't see it because they're not on the main TV channels. The OTA networks and main ESPN drive viewership, and we don't see enough… pic.twitter.com/2U6CKUg6oN

— Tony Altimore (@TJAltimore) January 24, 2024

Not a single Big12 team… oh well atleast we don't have to play with the divas anymore

boognish_bear said:

---

G-5 TEAMS ON MAJOR CHANNELS:
2016-23: ESPN + OTA Networks

A key problem for G-5 schools is that even if they play great + fun football, most people don't see it because they're not on the main TV channels. The OTA networks and main ESPN drive viewership, and we don't see enough… pic.twitter.com/2U6CKUg6oN

— Tony Altimore (@TJAltimore) January 24, 2024

---

Question....when ESPN is calling the shots (ie realignment and who is on TV) and they for the most part only put these 18 on, how can other schools get views (if they aren't on or aren't on as much)??

Like most posters here, I'm an avid college football fan. I like to watch ball.
My viewing habits are going to be the one or two "must see" teams that I support. After that, I'm going to want to watch a "relevant" game. It's that "relevance" that I feel is the single most important factor (almost the only factor) driving viewership numbers.
"Relevance" in this context means "how does it affect the national picture?". Does at least one of the teams have a chance to be at the top of the rankings? What are the odds of a national championship race changing loss? That, as I see it, drives viewership more than anything.
A couple of my supported teams have ultra-large fan bases. That's a good place to start, but if they're playing cruddy ball and have three losses by mid-October, their viewership numbers are unremarkable. The ultra-large fan base just can't move the needle when compared to the entire college football fan world. They don't tune in when the game is nationally irrelevant.
The broadcaster doesn't matter all that much. If undefeated Alabama plays undefeated LSU in November, we're all watching even if the game is played on FS2.
Becoming nationally relevant is therefore the trick. It's obviously better to be born on top. If you're born on top, you just have to win. For those not born on top, they have to schedule, play, and win games against those on top. Easier if your conference has those top teams built in. Otherwise, getting non-con agreements can be tough.

That's probably a really good indicator of what the eventual conference realignment ends at.

Random thoughts:

List is clearly dominated by state flagship schools.

The state of Alabama absolutely punches way above its weight. Fewer people than the DFW metroplex and two schools on that list.

No public schools from the state of California is . . . surprising? UCLA probably continues to get bailed out as a travel partner for USC but football is dying on the west coast.

Clemson and FSU are as good as gone and they be SEC. I don't see how ND stays out of the B10.

Noteworthy that UW and Oregon are on the list and still couldn't command full shares from B10.

A lot to proud programs going to be left out when this is over.

Most surprising to me, not a single school on that list is a basketball power although Michigan and Florida each have proud basketball histories. That group has won a total of 6 NCAa tournaments, including three when the NIT was more important. Nick Saban alone has more national championships as a coach (7) then this group has basketball championships.

BellCountyBear said:

---

Maybe they should make their own conference.

---

An 18 school conference of the very top doesn't have enough inventory. Better if someone puts up enough cash to consolidate top 24 to top 32…ignoring other externalities that are obstacles

Apple is prone to use exclusivity to drive fervor. Could a company with such strong balance sheet entice these schools to leave current conferences?

IMO, we're only one flip from P2 to P2 away. Say, Michigan getting pissed and going to SEC, or UGa going to BIG (with FSU).

They forgot to list the home channel for Baylor football… ESPN+

CFB VIEWERS BY CHANNEL + DAY
Last Two Seasons

Football viewership is largely determined by channel!

As new network contracts come into play, teams and confs on major channels will continue to see huge viewership numbers, and teams on more extraneous cable channels won't.… pic.twitter.com/916W2jgQiQ

— Tony Altimore (@TJAltimore) January 24, 2024

I guess we are not really shooting for the top recruits most of the time anyway… But I would think our lack of exposure on primetime TV is another obstacle to overcome

Only surprise on that list for me is Wisconsin. Who the hell watches Wisconsin games other than people in Wisconsin.

This is why I think Yormark gets it when he says the Big 12 needs to be the premier basketball conference in the nation. He gets that football is not our conference's pathway forward. There will be network/online/streaming money for basketball.

DanaDane said:

---

Only surprise on that list for me is Wisconsin. Who the hell watches Wisconsin games other than people in Wisconsin.

---

Supposedly, 2/3 of the teams immediately outside the top 18 are Michigan State and Iowa, so it makes sense why the B1G is getting so much money.

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

DanaDane said:

---

Only surprise on that list for me is Wisconsin. Who the hell watches Wisconsin games other than people in Wisconsin.

---

Supposedly, 2/3 of the teams immediately outside the top 18 are Michigan State and Iowa, so it makes sense why the B1G is getting so much money.

---

I actually thought Michigan St or Iowa would be in the Top 18 moreso than Wisconsin. But, I agree overall. It makes sense why it is basically already a Power 2 and makes me wonder if someday it will just be a Power 1.

boognish_bear said:

---

G-5 TEAMS ON MAJOR CHANNELS:
2016-23: ESPN + OTA Networks

A key problem for G-5 schools is that even if they play great + fun football, most people don't see it because they're not on the main TV channels. The OTA networks and main ESPN drive viewership, and we don't see enough… pic.twitter.com/2U6CKUg6oN

— Tony Altimore (@TJAltimore) January 24, 2024

---

Since when were Washington and Oregon state group of 5 teams from 2016-2023?

Actually there are 7 teams that really drive ratings: OHIO ST, UT, ALABAMA, MICH, ND, GEORGIA and USC. Another 8 that kinda of matter: LSU, OKLAHOMA, OREGON, FL ST, WASH, TENN PENN ST and WISC.

DanaDane said:

---

Only surprise on that list for me is Wisconsin. Who the hell watches Wisconsin games other than people in Wisconsin.

---

You'd be surprised. Most Packer fans are UW fans. I grew up in Chicago and we annually made trips to Camp Randall. I still watch them today.

Remember: Tony Altimore is a clickbait loser who makes up stats

DanaDane said:

---

Only surprise on that list for me is Wisconsin. Who the hell watches Wisconsin games other than people in Wisconsin.

---

I don't have numbers to back this up but I feel like their games are always either on ABC or Fox at 11AM thus getting lots of views as the only "big" name school on.

Karab said:

---

Remember: Tony Altimore is a clickbait loser who makes up stats

---

Yeah he makes up all kinds of stuff.

No offense to anyone participating/invested in this discussion, but I'll be really glad when fans finally see this college football viewership conversation for what it is -- a lame, but frustratingly effective attempt by the television networks to pass their concerns/priorities onto fans.

There's really no good reason why fans of any sport should give a solitary **** about television ratings. With so many streaming options available, it has no impact on the availability of games, and it's never had any impact on the entertainment value of games.

Many of the highest viewed games are lopsided snoozefests, while the Big 12 plays consistently competitive, entertaining games. I couldn't care less about ESPN or Fox's viewership or revenue figures or what either network believes I, as a college football fan, should be watching. My priorities will always be (in order) my team, games that affect my team and non-Big 12 matchups I think will be entertaining/competitive. I don't give a **** about brands. I only want to watch entertaining games. If those happen to involve blue blood programs, good for them. But I will never watch a game because it involves one.

The bottom line is blue blood programs will always draw more casual viewers than non-blue blood programs. So to me, TV ratings are a horribly uninteresting way to view or judge college football programs. I care about quality and entertainment value, and I would imagine most diehard fans are the same. I'll be happy when fans reject the TV network-created caste system that relies on TV ratings for the sham it is.

boognish_bear said:

---

G-5 TEAMS ON MAJOR CHANNELS:
2016-23: ESPN + OTA Networks

A key problem for G-5 schools is that even if they play great + fun football, most people don't see it because they're not on the main TV channels. The OTA networks and main ESPN drive viewership, and we don't see enough… pic.twitter.com/2U6CKUg6oN

— Tony Altimore (@TJAltimore) January 24, 2024

---

In other words, ESPN+ sucks donkey.

What these polls tell me is that people like to win. True in sports and politics. When they don't win they cheat; lie, do anything to win. What a sad commentary.

I always check the Badger schedule. That way I can squeeze in couple hours to mow, blow, and edge the yard. Unless my better half wants me to taker her grocery shopping.