2009.01.11
Orange Bowl ratings no bonanza for FOX
Geez, I thought I was the only one who didn't see much of Virginia Tech's 20-7 victory over Cincinnati in the 75th FedEx Orange Bowl on New Year's night.
From my seat in the West Press Box, located in the far-removed end zone at Dolphin Stadium, the contest was a veritable rumor at times. The only way of seeing what really transpired on a play on the other end of the field was by watching a television monitor in the box.
Obviously, the small turnout of writers onhand for the game were not included in the television ratings count.
While I'm sure this is not breaking news to some Tech fans, the Orange Bowl was hardly a ratings hit for FOX. The contest drew an overnight rating of 6.1, which was down 23 percent from a 7.9 that the network attracted for last year's Sugar Bowl -- Georgia's 41-10 thumping of Hawaii -- which also aired on New Year's Day.
The 6.1 rating was the lowest ever for a BCS bowl, falling far behind the previous record low of 7.6 for the 2007 Orange Bowl between Louisville and Wake Forest.
In comparison, the Rose Bowl on ABC more than doubled the Orange Bowl, drawing a 12.6 overnight rating for Southern California's romp over Penn State. Even then, the 12.6 marked the third-lowest overnight for the Rose Bowl since 2000, ahead of last year's USC-Illinois game (12.0) and the 2003 contest pitting Oklahoma and Washington State.
Counting last year's Orange Bowl, which pitted Tech vs. Kansas, which drew a 7.4 rating, the Hokies have now been involved in two of the seven lowest-rated games in the 45 BCS bowls held since 1998.
Thanks in large part to some guy named Michael Vick, Tech hasn't always been a ratings flop. The Hokies' 46-29 loss to Florida State in the Jan. 4, 2000 Sugar Bowl BCS title game drew a 17.5 rating, which was the No. 3 alltime highest rating for a BCS bowl game coming into this season. Only Texas' 41-38 victory in the 2006 Rose Bowl (21.7) and Oklahoma's 13-2 win over Florida State in the 2001 Orange Bowl (17.8) rated higher coming into this year.
Meanwhile, the 23 bowl games televised by ESPN and ESPN2 saw an 8 percent increase in viewers, registering a 2.5 rating (2.8 million-plus homes) compared to a 2.3 mark last season (2.6 million homes).
On Saturday, Dec. 27, the Champs Sports Bowl delivered ESPN’s second-largest bowl audience ever. Florida State’s 42-13 victory over Wisconsin averaged 5,098,000 homes, based on a 5.2 rating. ESPN’s most-watched bowl game ever was the Alamo Bowl on December, 30, 2006, between Iowa and Texas. It was watched by an average of 5,521,000 homes, based on a 6.0 rating.
The reasons for the low rating are simple:
#1 - The ACC was down this year. A four-loss VT team won the conference with defense.
#2 - Cincinnati is not a nationally known football program. They were very good this year, but they have no football history.
Comment by William — January 12, 2009 @ 6:25 am
...and by 8:30 New Year's night most non-Hokies (Bearcats) were pretty much footballed out!
Comment by Brian — January 12, 2009 @ 6:47 am
Perhaps Fox should have gotten better guys in the booth because those guys were complete jokes. "And Tyrod Taylor scores. Touchdown West Virginia!". It seemed like they didn't know what teams were in front of them or what down it was.
"This guy Evans has not had an impressive night. Take away that one long 32 yard run he got and it is really not impressive at all". Like, name me one running back that isn't the case on? Oh, he was only named the OB MVP.
Obviously a VT/Cincy matchup was only going to interest the 2 schools and the hard core CFB fanatic. And, after games that started at 11 AM, that fanatic may have seen enough too. But Fox could have gotten better than those 2 guys too.
Comment by Bob H — January 12, 2009 @ 9:45 am
I don't think it was Virginia Tech that caused the ratings "FLOP" for Fox. If Tech was a ratings flop ESPN wouldn't have them on thursday nights twice a year. The problem came with the Big East contribution. Besides West Virginia the Big East has no football tradition so if I am sitting in my living room in California on New Years day and see Cincinatti listed on my TV guide, there is probably going to be alot of switching back and forth between several programs that I am keeping an eye on. Most of the country feel that if you play football in Ohio and if your any good you probably become a Bukeye. If the game had been Tech and WVU you would have had a much better ratings, and possibly a better game. Right now I don't believe the Big east deserves an automatic BCS bid (some might say that about the ACC as well) however you look at FSU, Miami, BC, and VT there is alot more football tradition there. I am thinking the mountain west is more deserving of an automatic BCS bid over the Big East (Boise St. Utah).
Go Hokies
Comment by Golfman2 — January 12, 2009 @ 9:52 am
Besides the fact that it wasn't supposed to be one of the all time great BCS games to start with, Fox shot itself in the foot with the number and length of commercial breaks. Football was an afterthought. You could check in on the Orange Bowl every little while and get the score and not have missed much, particularly if you kept checking in on commercials. Other BCS games on Fox were almost as bad. BCS has turned into an acronym for Ballooning Commercial Segments. It's fine to make the money. Don't bitch about it when people choose not to spend the evening watching commercials.
Comment by The Lizard — January 12, 2009 @ 11:05 am
Golfman2, I agree with most of what you say concerning the Big East. Except for WVa and maybe long ago Syracuse, the schools don't have great football traditions. However, I'd hate to see the Big East lose it's auto bid in the BCS. I have a soft spot for the Big East, because without that conference affiliation, Va. Tech would not be where it is today. Boise St and Utah have real good programs. Maybe in the future the Pac-10 will get greedy and want the revenue from a Conference Championship Game. That would mean adding two teams, would Utah and Boise St. be a good fit?? Go Hokies!!
Comment by Justafan — January 12, 2009 @ 11:13 am
BTW, I like Boise St. but they have to get rid of that terrible blue turf. I can't watch a game on that stuff.
Go Hokies!!
Comment by Justafan — January 12, 2009 @ 11:32 am
I agree, I have actually turned off one of their games because the turf was annoying to look at. And maybe it isn't the conference but the school. If Cincinatti continued to play well and became a program with longevity and qualty wins, then there would be more of an audience. The everyday college football fan doesn't know about up and coming football programs, they only know about the "Traditional" programs and that is another reason USC vs. Penn St had such ratings. If Notre Dame had played Michigan this year in a bowl (even though they both stunk this year) it would have probably been one of the highest rated bowls.
Comment by Golfman2 — January 12, 2009 @ 11:48 am
The ACC was actually rated the number one conference in the country by Jeff Sagarin of USAToday.com before the bowl games, believe-it-or-not!
This was mostly due to the fact that the SEC had 5 teams ranked worse than the ACC's worst team, Duke, which was ranked 53rd in the nation. 4 ACC teams played the toughest schedules in the country out of all of the Division 1-A and 1-AA schools.
Unless your own team is playing in a bowl game, do any of the bowl games have any meaning to you, other than the top 2 bowl games?
Comment by Nelson — January 12, 2009 @ 12:45 pm
Maybe it wasn't the teams so much as the production and professionalism of the announcint team. I was at the Orange Bowl so can't comment directly on that but the Fox BCS games I did see were underwhelming. The TV screen seldom showed the down clock and almost never the timeouts remaing. The spoting crews didn't provide good details or statistics on player accomplishments or team trends. In all, I thought Fox did a poor job and I can't wait for ESPN to reclaim the contract.
Comment by Walt — January 12, 2009 @ 1:31 pm
Per the conversation about Big East teams and football tradition, the University of Pittsburgh has an excellent football tradition and a couple of national championships. True, the last of them came back in 1976 with Tony Dorsett and Hugh Green, but that's not exactly ancient history, is it?
FWIW, the BCS is more likely to expand than contract to fend off anti-trust complaints and creation of a playoff system by the NCAA.
Comment by W&MHokieFan — January 12, 2009 @ 2:09 pm
I hope all of the BCS games eventually rate at 0.0; maybe at that point, we will have a national playoff system.
Comment by J.G. — January 12, 2009 @ 4:08 pm
Although VT's offense did a decent job in the Orange Bowl, for the most part VT's offense has been very painful to watch this season and only the most hardcore purists could get excited about the prospect of a defensive struggle. Given the likely expectation of a low-scoring game involving two non-glamor teams, it's not surprising that viewer interest was low.
Comment by Ray — January 12, 2009 @ 10:11 pm
Who cares about TV Ratings - It's all about M-O-N-E-Y anyhow!
GO HOKIES!
PS: My thoughts are that the #1 Team for 2008 National Championship should have been UTAH!
Comment by Bob — January 12, 2009 @ 10:40 pm
I agree with Bob, Utah took it to Alabama and they were ranked #1 for several weeks this season. Come on Obama and push the playoff agenda.
Comment by Golfman2 — January 13, 2009 @ 9:41 am
Fox coverage of All the BCS games was atrocious and have heard this and read this everywhere. No wonder by the time the Orange Bowl arrived viewers were tuning out on their coverage. As die hare college football fans my wife and I watched pretty much all the bowl games but even as a Hokie fan we were very disappointed in Fox and their whole OB presentation. Seemed like they were doing football for the first time ever. ESPN is not the greatest but compared to Fox they were much more entertaining. Go Hokies in 09!!!
Comment by Bill Lipscomb — January 13, 2009 @ 11:15 am
"Who cares about TV Ratings - It's all about M-O-N-E-Y anyhow!" Agree it's all about the money, but without the TV ratings, you don't get the money! That's why got FOX's poor coverage - BCS went for money vs quality: "Let's see, instead of letting the network who covered CFB all year all over the country broadcast our most important games, we'll give the contract to a company who broadcast ZERO college games." Guarantee none of ESPN/ABC commentators would have stumbled over recalling Bud Foster's last name like Eddie George did: "Bud, Bud, Bud, uh...(look down at the sheet), uh...Foster". BTW, they stink at NASCAR too (minimizing the race screen on last laps to show screens of the driver's wife and his crew chief - who cares?)
Comment by Okie Hokie — January 13, 2009 @ 5:25 pm
Doesn't Pitt have 9 National Championships? More than Florida, Penn State, Texas, etc... At least VT has a "Reserved for National Championship" trophy case. Know your history and know that the Big East has the best television markets of ALL the conferences. (BCS and non-BCS)
Comment by Mike — January 13, 2009 @ 6:41 pm
Why would the big east lose its bcs bid? They are 3-1 since the split in bcs games. Its hard to argue the fact they don't deserve their bid. The acc has only one bcs win the last ten years. If anybody is in danger of losing there bid it would be the acc. The ratings sucked because the game didnt get the hype as much as other games did.
Comment by mike r. — January 13, 2009 @ 8:40 pm
How do these add up?
- The 6.1 rating was the lowest ever for a BCS bowl, falling far behind the previous record low of 7.6 for the 2007 Orange Bowl between Louisville and Wake Forest.
- Counting last year's Orange Bowl, which pitted Tech vs. Kansas, which drew a 7.4 rating, the Hokies have now been involved in two of the seven lowest-rated games in the 45 BCS bowls held since 1998
How was 7.6 the previous record low if just last year the Orange Bowl drew a 7.4? Wouldn't that mean VT has been in the two lowest-rated BCS bowls ever (as opposed to two of the seven lowest)?
Can someone clarify? Randy?
Comment by huh? — January 16, 2009 @ 10:15 am