P2 vs non from 2015-2016 in two charts
This is the top level view to show the differences between the P2 and ACC/B12/PAC.
The charts show total (2015+2016) regular season viewers for each school. This means no conference champ games, no bowl games, no playoff games (since those all get much higher viewership and skew the data).
I also drew a line showing the schools above 20 million viewers total for those two seasons. This should help to compare the size and to show who doesn't make the cut from both levels. Conclusions are pretty obvious here. The P2 has a LOT more schools with value.
It will be awhile before I have more years. I still have a lot of data entry to do. But happy to chop up these two years for any requests @Will Stewart
8 Replies
1y
Note the Lamar Jackson effect for Louisville.
Also interesting was how strong a school like Texas remained with viewers despite two bad 5-7 seasons.
And a reminder that the Big Ten network launched in 2007 and SEC network in 2014. So some teams that look lower than expected most likely had games on there and we don't have tv numbers for those networks.
We only have numbers for ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, ESPN, ESPN-2, ESPN-U, ESPN-News, FS1, and sometimes CBS-SN/NBC-SN.
** Edited by HokieAl at 2/13/2025, 1:12:25 PM
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
1y
... what usually happens when it gets presented is that it devolves into squabbling about how many network appearances each school made (as opposed to being shunted off to SECN, BTN, ACCN), whether the numbers are "true viewership," blah-blah-blah-blah-blah.
Bluntly put, Pollyannas will stick their fingers in their ears and go icanthearyou-icanthearyou-icanthearyou-icanthearyou, and NATTs will circle like sharks and tell you how bad VT and the ACC suck.
Most people won't read (or absorb) the details and will instead go straight to the charts, point at them, and yell loudly. There's no nuance. So the comment section devolves into the author explaining what the data means, EVEN THOUGH YOU JUST EXPLAINED IT IN THE ARTICLE.
Other than that, cool, cool. đ
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
V
VTDC
1y
(In response to this post by Will Stewart)
1y
I know the data very well at this point and can see the patterns. So Iâve already found it very useful to get feedback here on my test charts/tables.
The short answer is that there are six clear groups.
1. P2 top tier that out perform everyone else by multiples. E.g. Ohio State
2. P2 mid tier that is always strong and justifies their spot. E.g. Texas A&M
3. P2 bottom tier that does bad numbers even when they have a good year. E.g. Northwestern
4. Non-P2 top tier that always pulls good numbers. E.g. Clemson
5. Non-P2 mid tier that is solid and gets a strong boost when they play top tier teams. E.g. VT
6. Non-P2 bottom tier that has poor numbers. E.g. Wake Forest
** Edited by HokieAl at 2/13/2025, 2:21:02 PM
(In response to this post by Will Stewart)
1y
Your username is Hokie AL and not Hokie Aye-Eye, correct?đ
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
1y
(In response to this post by Will Stewart)
1y
I've been here since Hokie Central days back when I was in college.
and I can confirm it is A L
My posts are real, and they are spectacular
(In response to this post by MP4VT2004)
1y
...a lowercase "L" or uppercase "i". I assumed it was the former, but was not 100% sure. And yeah, I knew you have been on the boards for a long time. I've read many of your posts. đđŧ
(In response to this post by HokieAl)