MashedPotatoes said:

---

The game against Houston was over before halftime. A close game would have resulted in better ratings.

---

As I recall we had a 25 point lead at halftime and had been totally dominant from the opening tip. Conversely, as I also recall, the ratings were good for the subsequent championship game against Gonzaga when for a change the actual two best teams in the country met in the finals - even though that one ultimately turned into a blowout win as well.

There have been a lot of Final 4 blowouts, every one outperformed ours by a lot. Also, our final was not particularly well-viewed in NCAA title game standards. It was fine but TV rating, which is relative, was I believe second-lowest of all time.

Do I really care? No. It would be nice to have a bigger draw, but we're not a traditional power and our alumni base isn't that big. It's just interesting, and doesn't require our justification. It just is what it is, and flies in the face of what many pundits claim is the best thing about the tournament - non-traditional runs and new faces.

One of the many negative aspects of having so much money in college athletics is it has fans discussing -- and often concerned about -- TV ratings.

That shouldn't be a priority for fans of these or any sports, which are about on-field/on-court competition.

That these TV networks and advertisers have successfully made their own priorities those of the fans is kind of gross. You have Twitter spats about which athletic programs make more money or draw more eyeballs, completely irrespective of which has actually been more successful from a competitive standpoint or is doing more with the resources they have.

I couldn't care less what any of these games draw. I hope these Final Four games are great, competitive games and that those who want to watch them do so and enjoy them. And if the ratings numbers are bad (which is all relative as these numbers will almost certainly represent some of the best non-NFL numbers of the year), so be it. This isn't about the TV networks.

I put those green and gold panties on just like the rest of this board but come on folks! We are NOT going to outdraw big programs - ever. If you want to see us win a ratings battle then maybe you could find a lot of Baylor alums serving as missionaries in foreign countries listening live on initernet radio in the middle of the night. That's about the only ratings war we will ever have a shot at winning.

It's just TV share, which relates what's popular vs. whatever else is on at any given time. Ultimately it doesn't matter individually - you watch what you watch, who cares what interests other people. The problem is corporately, because these networks make macro decisions based on what's popular. And while there's typically a big song and dance about how great the tourney is because it offers the little guy a seat at the table, ultimately the public doesn't watch or support the little guy. They want the traditional cast, and that's borne out in the numbers.

That's what's interesting and disappointing about March. Every time you watch an event, you vote for it. The networks own these events, and the fact that neutrals don't support non-traditional programs with their viewing power means that they will be increasingly crowded off stage. Even if there are incredible games and brilliant stories. That's what sucks about these numbers.

The takeaway is wrong in this excerpt. Not surprising from someone just trying to piece something together.

Even the Ku v Marquette commentary on the Iraq War.. probably not the case. The reason is not due to BU .. we can blame that part on UH if we want. The clear issue as many here said was the first half deficit. And not a surprise.. KU v Marquette is on here too. Again they are making a leap and our game was a terrible example. Butler v Vcu would probably be a much better example.


Largest halftime deficits in Final Four semifinal history:
33-Michigan St. 50, Penn 17 (1979)
29-Kansas 59, Marquette 30 (2003)
27-UCLA 65, Wichita St. 38 (1965)
25-Baylor 45, Houston 20 (2021)

NCAA and CBS always seems to put the "marquee" matchup as the 2nd FF game. It usually features the "big name" teams, gets played in prime time, etc. And of course, UCLA/Gonzaga (i.e., the greatest dynasty in the history of the sport now reduced to an upstart dark horse vs. the "Team of Destiny" on its way to claim the first undefeated season in 35 years) delivered "ONE OF THE GREATEST GAMES IN HISTORY" (not unlike the greatest World Series game of all time is generally considered to be Game 6 in 1975, when Fisk waves the walkoff HR inside the foul pole in extra innings for the Red Sox win; yet most forget that the Reds came back and rather nonchalantly won Game 7).

Conversely, the BU/UH game drew the afternoon slot, featured two former conference rivals from one part of the country, neither of whom had had national success in a generation or more, and was over midway through the first half.

The only other national finals where the losing team was as overhyped as Gonzaga, and that was over by midway through the first half, was 2009 when the media made such a huge deal about Michigan St playing in the finals in Detroit as the beacon of hope for everyone in the auto industry being thrown out of work during the GM bailout. IIRC, UNC was up 30-10 before the under 8 timeout of the first half.

parch said:

---

It's just TV share, which relates what's popular vs. whatever else is on at any given time. Ultimately it doesn't matter individually - you watch what you watch, who cares what interests other people. The problem is corporately, because these networks make macro decisions based on what's popular. And while there's typically a big song and dance about how great the tourney is because it offers the little guy a seat at the table, ultimately the public doesn't watch or support the little guy. They want the traditional cast, and that's borne out in the numbers.

That's what's interesting and disappointing about March. Every time you watch an event, you vote for it. The networks own these events, and the fact that neutrals don't support non-traditional programs with their viewing power means that they will be increasingly crowded off stage. Even if there are incredible games and brilliant stories. That's what sucks about these numbers.

---

They'll only be crowded off stage if the universities allow them to be. So far they have not. The NCAA tournament is one of the few pure events remaining in big-money college sports. If it's not protected, it's on the schools who cave under the weight of the millions and the fans who allow them to.

We, as fans, endorse TV ratings as a valid criteria of inclusion every time we give these silly discussions oxygen. The NCAA tournament is a meritocracy. It's about the games, not how much the TV networks make off them.

If CBS doesn't feel like it's making enough off the Final Four qualifiers, they're free to pass on the rights next round. Many others would love to air those games.

bear2be2 said:

---

One of the many negative aspects of having so much money in college athletics is it has fans discussing -- and often concerned about -- TV ratings.

That shouldn't be a priority for fans of these or any sports, which are about on-field/on-court competition.

That these TV networks and advertisers have successfully made their own priorities those of the fans is kind of gross. You have Twitter spats about which athletic programs make more money or draw more eyeballs, completely irrespective of which has actually been more successful from a competitive standpoint or is doing more with the resources they have.

I couldn't care less what any of these games draw. I hope these Final Four games are great, competitive games and that those who want to watch them do so and enjoy them. And if the ratings numbers are bad (which is all relative as these numbers will almost certainly represent some of the best non-NFL numbers of the year), so be it. This isn't about the TV networks.

---

Couldn't have said it any better. Took the words right out of my mouth.
I could care less what programs draw better ratings, or which ones do not.

bear2be2 said:

---

parch said:

---

It's just TV share, which relates what's popular vs. whatever else is on at any given time. Ultimately it doesn't matter individually - you watch what you watch, who cares what interests other people. The problem is corporately, because these networks make macro decisions based on what's popular. And while there's typically a big song and dance about how great the tourney is because it offers the little guy a seat at the table, ultimately the public doesn't watch or support the little guy. They want the traditional cast, and that's borne out in the numbers.

That's what's interesting and disappointing about March. Every time you watch an event, you vote for it. The networks own these events, and the fact that neutrals don't support non-traditional programs with their viewing power means that they will be increasingly crowded off stage. Even if there are incredible games and brilliant stories. That's what sucks about these numbers.

---

They'll only be crowded off stage if the universities allow them to be. So far they have not. The NCAA tournament is one of the few pure events remaining in big-money college sports. If it's not protected, it's on the schools who cave under the weight of the millions and the fans who allow them to.

We, as fans, endorse TV ratings as a valid criteria of inclusion every time we give these silly discussions oxygen. The NCAA tournament is a meritocracy. It's about the games, not how much the TV networks make off them.

If CBS doesn't feel like it's making enough off the Final Four qualifiers, they're free to pass on the rights next round. Many others would love to air those games.

---

What have you seen out of university presidents and conference chairmen in the last 10 years that leads you to believe they won't make decisions based solely on economic self-interest? The NCAA tournament's format was created in an era of amateurism. That era is dead. The format will change, like it always does and probably excluding the NCAA entirely, to favor elite programs who bring in more revenue and disadvantage those that don't bring in revenue equal to the others. If not exclude them entirely.

The NCAA tourney will kneel at the altar of revenue and ratings and die the same death every good and pure amateurism-based event has and will in this era. We can plug our ears and say we don't care about who watches what and who brings in what revenue, but it will affect us and it will suck because C.R.E.A.M.

Ratings are important to Baylor in the sense that the more people watching our games, the more exposure we get. If it's also while winning a natty, it's even better.

parch said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

parch said:

---

It's just TV share, which relates what's popular vs. whatever else is on at any given time. Ultimately it doesn't matter individually - you watch what you watch, who cares what interests other people. The problem is corporately, because these networks make macro decisions based on what's popular. And while there's typically a big song and dance about how great the tourney is because it offers the little guy a seat at the table, ultimately the public doesn't watch or support the little guy. They want the traditional cast, and that's borne out in the numbers.

That's what's interesting and disappointing about March. Every time you watch an event, you vote for it. The networks own these events, and the fact that neutrals don't support non-traditional programs with their viewing power means that they will be increasingly crowded off stage. Even if there are incredible games and brilliant stories. That's what sucks about these numbers.

---

They'll only be crowded off stage if the universities allow them to be. So far they have not. The NCAA tournament is one of the few pure events remaining in big-money college sports. If it's not protected, it's on the schools who cave under the weight of the millions and the fans who allow them to.

We, as fans, endorse TV ratings as a valid criteria of inclusion every time we give these silly discussions oxygen. The NCAA tournament is a meritocracy. It's about the games, not how much the TV networks make off them.

If CBS doesn't feel like it's making enough off the Final Four qualifiers, they're free to pass on the rights next round. Many others would love to air those games.

---

What have you seen out of university presidents and conference chairmen in the last 10 years that leads you to believe they won't make decisions based solely on economic self-interest? The NCAA tournament's format was created in an era of amateurism. That era is dead. The format will change, like it always does and probably excluding the NCAA entirely, to favor elite programs who bring in more revenue and disadvantage those that don't bring in revenue equal to the others. If not exclude them entirely.

The NCAA tourney will kneel at the altar of revenue and ratings and die the same death every good and pure amateurism-based event has and will in this era. We can plug our ears and say we don't care about who watches what and who brings in what revenue, but it will affect us and it will suck because C.R.E.A.M.

---

This sounds like some aggy BS.

We can't win on the field, but our stadium is bigger than yours.
We can't win on the court....but we got bigger ratings than you because our school is bigger....etc

Yada, yada, yada.....who cares.

Baylor is never going to be Big State U and I'm okay with that.

https://www.fox26houston.com/news/mens-final-four-2023-ticket-prices-drop-least-expensive-since-2014

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

https://www.fox26houston.com/news/mens-final-four-2023-ticket-prices-drop-least-expensive-since-2014

---

Thankfully I sold mine in the 500 level for a decent price after we lost. Was regretting having done so when UT led by 13 with 10 min left Sunday, but was ultimately vindicated.

MashedPotatoes said:

---

The game against Houston was over before halftime. A close game would have resulted in better ratings.

---

I wonder if COVID also impacted people's interest that year. There wasn't much in person attendance all year, and games were being played in mostly empty arenas.

I think it's like a lot of things. Older people aging out of the all sports all the time and younger people don't really care. I use to watch all the big games but with limited time, and Baylor (or insert dallas pro team) not participating or being competitive, I find myself not really caring regardless of matchup.

In terms of basketball, Baylor can get higher ratings if we make more runs to Final Fours and championships. Villanova turned into a "blue blood" ratings-wise because they won 2 national championships in a short span of time, and one of them was one of the best teams of the past 20 years.

We need to try and always be in the Sweet 16, Elite Eight and get to at least another Final Four soon so that people will just assume that we're great, and more people from other parts of the country will watch just to see good basketball.

For football, we just need to go find another RG3.

whitetrash said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

https://www.fox26houston.com/news/mens-final-four-2023-ticket-prices-drop-least-expensive-since-2014

---

Thankfully I sold mine in the 500 level for a decent price after we lost. Was regretting having done so when UT led by 13 with 10 min left Sunday, but was ultimately vindicated.

---

Just checked StubHub. Prices are 40-50% lower than last week.

i love the tournament and watch most every game from the get go. but i'm old.

maybe low attendance will stop this madness of holding the finals in football stadiums. when we went to the b12 football championship, i found myself longing for bill snyder family stadium. i can't imagine watching hoops from those seats.

uconn will pull a lot of eastern tv eyeballs. the big east is still a major draw. the others, not so much. i do consider uconn a blue blood.

tmcats said:

---

i love the tournament and watch most every game from the get go. but i'm old.

maybe low attendance will stop this madness of holding the finals in football stadiums. when we went to the b12 football championship, i found myself longing for bill snyder family stadium. i can't imagine watching hoops from those seats.

uconn will pull a lot of eastern tv eyeballs. the big east is still a major draw. the others, not so much. i do consider uconn a blue blood.

---

It will still draw 65K+. Just folks won't be paying way over face to sit in the nosebleeds.

When BU played Duke in Reliant in 2010 in front of 48K it was an incredible experience. You're watching from a distance but the noise level compensates for it. We sat in the club level and could see fine, just a long way from the court. Surprisingly, the folks with some of the worst sightlines were those in the lowest 20-25 rows closest to the court (because of the minimal slope).

A quick check of StubHub shows 500 and 600 level (upper deck) tickets as low as $115 for both rounds. Club level (300) as low as $270 on the ends (sidelines still $400+). Lower level (100) start at $400+ on the ends. IIRC, face value for tickets sold to the public (mostly 500/600 level) was $230 for all sessions.


By comparison, the Women's FF is feeling the influx of eager Iowa, LSU and SC fans. Cheapest upperdeck seats for Friday's semis only are $350+.

iowa's caitlin clark is a huge draw. she's the most entertaining player in the game presently as well as the best shooter.

tmcats said:

---

iowa's caitlin clark is a huge draw. she's the most entertaining player in the game presently as well as the best shooter.

---

Not unlike Sabrina Ionescu, who was the anointed next superstar of the game in 2019.....until she was defended by Didi Richards and went 6-24 from the field in the semis.

Will be interesting to see if SC's lockdown defender can do similarly.

whitetrash said:

---

tmcats said:

---

iowa's caitlin clark is a huge draw. she's the most entertaining player in the game presently as well as the best shooter.

---

Not unlike Sabrina Ionescu, who was the anointed next superstar of the game in 2019.....until she was defended by Didi Richards and went 6-24 from the field in the semis.

Will be interesting to see if SC's lockdown defender can do similarly.

---

I think it's gonna be hard to beat South Carolina in this tournaments. Mulkey has done an absolutely amazing job with LSU, and they got dismantled by South Carolina. Curious to see how it all plays out.