TV ratings

[ragtimejoe1]

Any gurus on here? I was curious and wanted to compare wsu to WYO. Outside of 1 game on Fox, wsu was typically below 400-500k viewers.

When looking for WYO, it appears Nielsen doesn't collect cbssports data. Is that true? If so, I'm guessing the network tracks it somehow or what data does the conference use to approach tv partners?

It's the off-season and I was just curious. I definitely could have missed cbssports ratings but they seem hard to find?

 

[PorkerPoke]

Found a site with Wyoming listed numerous times - just not CBSSN. In fact, no CBSSN was listed. You have to figure the BYU game should have some decent numbers if the Idaho game on TruTV is listed at 85K.

This is all I could find:

Wyo - ASU FS1 253k
Idaho - Wyo TruTV 85k
Wyo - WSU CW 399K

 

[Itsux2beaewe]

I’m curious to see a comparison against goat U. Some #s I’ve seen goat U doesn’t have higher viewership as I recall. The outlier is the CU games, but my guess is it’s CU interest not the goats.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

I’m curious to see a comparison against goat U. Some #s I’ve seen goat U doesn’t have higher viewership as I recall. The outlier is the CU games, but my guess is it’s CU interest not the goats.

Here's all the 2024 games reported by Nielsen (I'm guessing). Cbssports games aren't on there; also guessing because Nielsen doesn't gather data on subsidiary companies?

College Football TV Ratings

College football TV ratings for the 2024 regular season, bowls, College Football Playoff and National Championship.

www.sportsmediawatch.com

I don't notice any mwc team really dominating ratings. Station, time, and name opponent seem to be biggest factor.

I wish I knew more about all this market stuff because the ratings don't seem to support the idea that there's some huge difference in the MWC. Maybe related to targeted advertising rather than just tv ratings? At the end of the day though , wouldn't it be eyeballs on your advertisement with the main demographic being college sports fans? I guess if you're a car dealer in Boise, maybe you'll pay more than one in Laramie? I have no idea.

 

[307bball]

Here's all the 2024 games reported by Nielsen (I'm guessing). Cbssports games aren't on there; also guessing because Nielsen doesn't gather data on subsidiary companies?

College Football TV Ratings

College football TV ratings for the 2024 regular season, bowls, College Football Playoff and National Championship.

www.sportsmediawatch.com

I don't notice any mwc team really dominating ratings. Station, time, and name opponent seem to be biggest factor.

I wish I knew more about all this market stuff because the ratings don't seem to support the idea that there's some huge difference in the MWC. Maybe related to targeted advertising rather than just tv ratings? At the end of the day though , wouldn't it be eyeballs on your advertisement with the main demographic being college sports fans? I guess if you're a car dealer in Boise, maybe you'll pay more than one in Laramie? I have no idea.

I've pretty much made my peace that I don't understand the marketing world. So many of us have tried to quantify and point out how UW is a valuable brand that people want to watch with data that shows ratings and such..... But over and over Wyoming is evaluated, by people that have to write checks, as a bad way to get eyeballs. Either we are missing something or they are.

 

[TheRealUW]

I'm certainly not a guru by any means, but I do know that the rankings of various "media markets" include much more than just population and current/potential viewers in each DMA (designated market area).

Economic data for the area factors rather heavily into the overall media market ranking. Each area's GDP growth, employment rates, and average/median income are considered. The idea is that people who are doing better economically will be more prone to consume media on a regular basis and to actually act on advertisements they see while consuming that media.

 

[PorkerPoke]

I've pretty much made my peace that I don't understand the marketing world. So many of us have tried to quantify and point out how UW is a valuable brand that people want to watch with data that shows ratings and such..... But over and over Wyoming is evaluated, by people that have to write checks, as a bad way to get eyeballs. Either we are missing something or they are.

This might help explain.

DMA’s 2024-25:

NIU - Chicago 3
SJSU - SF 10
UNLV - LV 40
UNM - ABQ 48
UH - Honolulu 69
AFA - CS 87
UTEP - EP 89
UNR - Reno 103
WYO - Cheyenne 194 Casper 198 combined 117

A high DMA number doesn’t necessarily mean interest (). The DMA means the potential for tv sets. Multiple DMA’s are applicable such as Cheyenne at 194 and Casper at 198.

CSU - Denver 17
OSU - Portland 23
USU - SLC 28
SDSU - SD 30
FSU - Fresno 55
WSU - Spokane 66
BSU - Boise 98

Wyoming is basically at the bottom of 200 markets. What many brown and gold glasses wearing enthusiasts get excited about is our saturation is high as in how many TV sets tune in versus are simply available just like a crowd over 23,000 becomes the 5th largest city in the state of Wyoming. We have a dinky stadium and a mediocre attendance for the FBS even though we approach big time numbers averaging 75% of capacity.

It’s only going to get worse for the MWC as 7 of the MWC 2026 members had a lower 2024 attendance average than all but USU and that is all of the larger MWC DMA’s except for UNLV.

I am no media wizard, but despite some saturation of available TV sets in small markets, the numbers are on the bleaker side with the MAC and CUSA dominating the lower numbers as compared to the 2026 version of the MWC which will be likely to be below Sun Belt numbers. Anyone wonder why Texas State said no to the future MWC?

It’s the classic case of the potential looks good on paper but the reality is something less promising.

 

[cowpoke pride]

This might help explain.

DMA’s 2024-25:

NIU - Chicago 3
SJSU - SF 10
UNLV - LV 40
UNM - ABQ 48
UH - Honolulu 69
AFA - CS 87
UTEP - EP 89
UNR - Reno 103
WYO - Cheyenne 194 Casper 198 combined 117

A high DMA number doesn’t necessarily mean interest (). The DMA means the potential for tv sets. Multiple DMA’s are applicable such as Cheyenne at 194 and Casper at 198.

CSU - Denver 17
OSU - Portland 23
USU - SLC 28
SDSU - SD 30
FSU - Fresno 55
WSU - Spokane 66
BSU - Boise 98

Wyoming is basically at the bottom of 200 markets. What many brown and gold glasses wearing enthusiasts get excited about is our saturation is high as in how many TV sets tune in versus are simply available just like a crowd over 23,000 becomes the 5th largest city in the state of Wyoming. We have a dinky stadium and a mediocre attendance for the FBS even though we approach big time numbers averaging 75% of capacity.

It’s only going to get worse for the MWC as 7 of the MWC 2026 members had a lower 2024 attendance average than all but USU and that is all of the larger MWC DMA’s except for UNLV.

I am no media wizard, but despite some saturation of available TV sets in small markets, the numbers are on the bleaker side with the MAC and CUSA dominating the lower numbers as compared to the 2026 version of the MWC which will be likely to be below Sun Belt numbers. Anyone wonder why Texas State said no to the future MWC?

It’s the classic case of the potential looks good on paper but the reality is something less promising.

Post of the year candidate right here.

 

[PAPoke]

I think it's worth adding some additional context to the WyomingTV ratings conversation.

Eight of the 12 Wyoming games last season kicked off at 4:30 PM MT or later. That means most of these games were happening in low-competition windows, late evenings for the East Coasters, when there just weren’t many other college football options on TV. These aren't prime, competitive slots like noon or 3:30 PM ET, where the Big Ten, SEC, and TV Networks stack their highest-value games. So while the MWC games drew decent numbers, part of that was a byproduct of being the only show on TV at that hour... Not necessarily because there was overwhelming demand for the product.

This is a pattern I've seen before, especially with the Pac-12 After Dark model. When games air late, people tune in because there’s not much else on... Especially on the West Coast. But that doesn’t necessarily translate to a loyal or engaged audience. It’s passive viewership. People watching out of habit or boredom aren’t the same as fans who’ll show up, buy tickets, or move the needle in media rights deals.

So, yes, some of the numbers look impressive on the surface, but I think we need to think harder about why. When the spotlight comes from being the last game left on the stage, it doesn’t mean you’re the headliner; it just means the venue hasn’t closed yet. Let’s not confuse convenience viewership with market strength.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

This might help explain.

DMA’s 2024-25:

NIU - Chicago 3
SJSU - SF 10
UNLV - LV 40
UNM - ABQ 48
UH - Honolulu 69
AFA - CS 87
UTEP - EP 89
UNR - Reno 103
WYO - Cheyenne 194 Casper 198 combined 117

A high DMA number doesn’t necessarily mean interest (). The DMA means the potential for tv sets. Multiple DMA’s are applicable such as Cheyenne at 194 and Casper at 198.

CSU - Denver 17
OSU - Portland 23
USU - SLC 28
SDSU - SD 30
FSU - Fresno 55
WSU - Spokane 66
BSU - Boise 98

Wyoming is basically at the bottom of 200 markets. What many brown and gold glasses wearing enthusiasts get excited about is our saturation is high as in how many TV sets tune in versus are simply available just like a crowd over 23,000 becomes the 5th largest city in the state of Wyoming. We have a dinky stadium and a mediocre attendance for the FBS even though we approach big time numbers averaging 75% of capacity.

It’s only going to get worse for the MWC as 7 of the MWC 2026 members had a lower 2024 attendance average than all but USU and that is all of the larger MWC DMA’s except for UNLV.

I am no media wizard, but despite some saturation of available TV sets in small markets, the numbers are on the bleaker side with the MAC and CUSA dominating the lower numbers as compared to the 2026 version of the MWC which will be likely to be below Sun Belt numbers. Anyone wonder why Texas State said no to the future MWC?

It’s the classic case of the potential looks good on paper but the reality is something less promising.

I get the DMA potential but the part I don't understand is DMA is supposed to reflect TV potential, correct? We have decades showing that in the G5 level, DMA doesn't seem correlated with ratings. Likewise, at P5 level, national ranking, opponent national ranking, and network drive actual ratings more than DMA. There has to be more to it?

I think it's worth adding some additional context to the WyomingTV ratings conversation.

Eight of the 12 Wyoming games last season kicked off at 4:30 PM MT or later. That means most of these games were happening in low-competition windows, late evenings for the East Coasters, when there just weren’t many other college football options on TV. These aren't prime, competitive slots like noon or 3:30 PM ET, where the Big Ten, SEC, and TV Networks stack their highest-value games. So while the MWC games drew decent numbers, part of that was a byproduct of being the only show on TV at that hour... Not necessarily because there was overwhelming demand for the product.

This is a pattern I've seen before, especially with the Pac-12 After Dark model. When games air late, people tune in because there’s not much else on... Especially on the West Coast. But that doesn’t necessarily translate to a loyal or engaged audience. It’s passive viewership. People watching out of habit or boredom aren’t the same as fans who’ll show up, buy tickets, or move the needle in media rights deals.

So, yes, some of the numbers look impressive on the surface, but I think we need to think harder about why. When the spotlight comes from being the last game left on the stage, it doesn’t mean you’re the headliner; it just means the venue hasn’t closed yet. Let’s not confuse convenience viewership with market strength.

How do fans showing up and buying tickets to attend live move the needle in media deals? If we had 30-35k home attendance every home game, I don't think our media value would be improved? I agree with you on timeslot and network being most important which perplexes me more? If those are the biggest ratings drivers and ratings drive advertisement, and DMA isn't correlated to ratings, then what is "market" that drives this stuff?

I understand all the things we see on message boards like DMA, national following for religious schools, etc., but the TV ratings seem mostly driven by time, network, and other available games as pointed out above. Why would an advertiser pay more to reach 300k/televised game for say csu than 300k/game for WYO? Is it who is watching? In the new pac vs MWC, they have better teams and bigger stadiums but at the end of the year, their total TV viership will be close to ours. We could even beat them depending on home slate of ooc, networks, timeslots, etc. I guess I just don't get it.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

I'm certainly not a guru by any means, but I do know that the rankings of various "media markets" include much more than just population and current/potential viewers in each DMA (designated market area).

Economic data for the area factors rather heavily into the overall media market ranking. Each area's GDP growth, employment rates, and average/median income are considered. The idea is that people who are doing better economically will be more prone to consume media on a regular basis and to actually act on advertisements they see while consuming that media.

This seems logical.

I guess it isn't the total number of people watching but the demographic of who is watching? So let's say 300k for bsu vs csu has more value than 300k watching WYO vs UNM? The difference would be the assumption that the 300k watching bsu vs csu would be more likely to buy a product?

 

[307bball]

I get the DMA potential but the part I don't understand is DMA is supposed to reflect TV potential, correct? We have decades showing that in the G5 level, DMA doesn't seem correlated with ratings. Likewise, at P5 level, national ranking, opponent national ranking, and network drive actual ratings more than DMA. There has to be more to it?


How do fans showing up and buying tickets to attend live move the needle in media deals? If we had 30-35k home attendance every home game, I don't think our media value would be improved? I agree with you on timeslot and network being most important which perplexes me more? If those are the biggest ratings drivers and ratings drive advertisement, and DMA isn't correlated to ratings, then what is "market" that drives this stuff?

I understand all the things we see on message boards like DMA, national following for religious schools, etc., but the TV ratings seem mostly driven by time, network, and other available games as pointed out above. Why would an advertiser pay more to reach 300k/televised game for say csu than 300k/game for WYO? Is it who is watching? In the new pac vs MWC, they have better teams and bigger stadiums but at the end of the year, their total TV viership will be close to ours. We could even beat them depending on home slate of ooc, networks, timeslots, etc. I guess I just don't get it.

Your questions are well stated. My guess is that without deep marketing knowledge it may be beyond the ability of people posting here to answer well. This stuff felt hard to understand 20 years ago and now there are AI algorithmic strategies that are completely opaque to us.

All I know is that the folks who pay for broadcast rights don't give a flying flip about Wyoming. I don't think they care about Wyoming or any other school... They just care about money. Whatever they are calculating pretty much leaves us out.

 

[PorkerPoke]

Think about this…

One of the loyal advertisers for Wyoming football has been the Wyoming Department of Health with their horrible country hick adult diabetes commercial featuring a fan getting ready to inhale a ketchup/mustard coated hot dog at a Wyoming football game oblivious to his poor health.

If that is the best local/regional advertisement option doesn’t it say a lot that there isn’t much of a corporate option in Wyoming?

 

[PorkerPoke]

This seems logical.

I guess it isn't the total number of people watching but the demographic of who is watching? So let's say 300k for bsu vs csu has more value than 300k watching WYO vs UNM? The difference would be the assumption that the 300k watching bsu vs csu would be more likely to buy a product?

I wonder if that measurement while sounding equal reached a “broader” audience. Let’s say the csu game was on Fox with a national measurement in prime time at 4 pm eastern while the Wyoming game was on FS1 at 9 pm eastern time with only a late game on ESPN for competition meaning it was likely on in every sports bar to avoid showing replays of the PRCA rodeo from Calgary 3 months earlier.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

I wonder if that measurement while sounding equal reached a “broader” audience. Let’s say the csu game was on Fox with a national measurement in prime time at 4 pm eastern while the Wyoming game was on FS1 at 9 pm eastern time with only a late game on ESPN for competition meaning it was likely on in every sports bar to avoid showing replays of the PRCA rodeo from Calgary 3 months earlier.

That goes back to the networck/timeslot, right? In other words FS1 knows the timeslot they are buying games for. Why pay more for bsu vs csu rather than WYO vs UNM if both games will be 300k?

The networks theoretically want to add value to their available timeslots but it doesn't look like there is a big difference in ratings among g5 teams other than what's driven by network and timeslot.

To flip your scenario, WYO vs UNM on espn or espn 2 in a good timeslot would be around 800k minimum while bsu vs csu on TruTV in the same timeslot will likely be less than 100k.

Not arguing or anything; just trying to explain why I get confused on this topic.

 

[PorkerPoke]

The networks theoretically want to add value to their available timeslots but it doesn't look like there is a big difference in ratings among g5 teams other than what's driven by network and timeslot.

I get confused as well because there is a difference between streaming and over the air programming. Arguably, all over the air can be streamed with the difference the availability of venues (air, cable, satellite and computer).

Anyone anywhere can watch the MWN broadcasts with a computer or phone or streaming device (Firestick, Roku, etc).

I just don’t know how the final viewing numbers are derived, but it seems obvious that the big names ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox and ESPN carry clout that can’t be obtained using the MWN app on a streaming device.

The newer media players are CW, Tru, TNT and Max of which the pee12 is likely pursuing. The MWC had some Tru in 2024 but won’t in 2025.

Supposedly the pea12 wants to be dominant in the evening hours which means 9-10pm eastern starts (6-7 local) as there won’t be as many big P4 teams starting that late.

I agree network and time slot are the most significant factors.