With all due respect to Harry Minium and his misinformed reporting on viewership, we've seen our games with 2-3K viewers at any given single point in time.

The Cardinals/Brewers game currently showing live on FB Live has reached as high as 60K viewers on a Wednesday afternoon. Just gives a point of comparison and how much work we have to do.

Will be interesting to see how facebook reports out numbers for these games. If last week is any indication it's not very useful information. It was reported that there were 4.3 million "views" for the Phillies/Mets. Views defined as 3 seconds or more -- which again most people have videos set to start automatically as you scroll by. This goes back to how FB counts views...but is not adequate to give a true counter of viewership for a three hour event. Perhaps we don't get anything better, but you know that when 60 to 70K are watching it live at any one time it's almost impossible to get to 4 million true watchers. Over 2,000 shares though (which has exponential reach), and I believe this is the key for us. When we are going Facebook only, we as fans have to share the live feed. If we proactively do that we can help contribute to growing our own brands.

Nielsen also has a similar counting methodology, but one minute has to be watched to count. That's a hugely significant variance. You don't need me to tell you that. To get true viewership or at least comparable numbers, FB is going to have to increase their time for counting from three seconds to 60 seconds for live video streams. Otherwise, TV rating comparisons are going to be pointless.

If Alabama/LSU was on Facebook, viewership would be huge. Just comes down to supply and demand. People don't care to watch most teams in our conference. That's just reality. Until we get our own fans to care, no one else will. If you can get 20,000+ to a game (I know, that's not everyone on here), why are only 10% of those fans watching away?

What makes you think most people have videos set to start automatically? I don't and my wife dont and I asked both of my sons and only 1 did.

I forget which Middle game that listed 2000 views as a high but if that number is correct it says more about the two fanbases and their fans that less than 2k watched any part of that game. Probably less than 1500 because I assume 1/4 were other fans, like CUSA or fans that just "scrolled" over it....most people have videos set to start automatically.

If a Western game on BEIN gets 5k in views and most people dont have that package...2k viewing something that is free and a greater % of fans have, says more about the two teams playing and their fans.

But then again I dont believe the views were correct

Shall we ask Cambridge Analytica for the real viewer count?

(04-11-2018 02:06 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  What makes you think most people have videos set to start automatically? I don't and my wife dont and I asked both of my sons and only 1 did.

I forget which Middle game that listed 2000 views as a high but if that number is correct it says more about the two fanbases and their fans that less than 2k watched any part of that game. Probably less than 1500 because I assume 1/4 were other fans, like CUSA or fans that just "scrolled" over it....most people have videos set to start automatically.

If a Western game on BEIN gets 5k in views and most people dont have that package...2k viewing something that is free and a greater % of fans have, says more about the two teams playing and their fans.

But then again I dont believe the views were correct

Two things. First, Autoplay is typically a default setting on facebook. For them not to play you usually have to turn off the setting at some point after you sign up.

Second, let's look at the 2000 example. It's a snapshot at the given moment in time. If 2000 are watching at the start of the game, 1000 drop out, and 1000 more come in at some point and start watching the game that's 3,000 people who actually watched at least a portion (not 2000), but the original 2000 number never changes much on the screen.

But again the biggest problem with Facebook's "numbers" is the fact they count a 3-second window as a view.

We know a few hundred thousand will watch our games if they're on a convenient channel like ESPN2.

If they have to seek it out on Stadium, Facebook, or BeIn only the hardcore few will be watching.

(04-11-2018 02:31 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(04-11-2018 02:06 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  What makes you think most people have videos set to start automatically? I don't and my wife dont and I asked both of my sons and only 1 did.

I forget which Middle game that listed 2000 views as a high but if that number is correct it says more about the two fanbases and their fans that less than 2k watched any part of that game. Probably less than 1500 because I assume 1/4 were other fans, like CUSA or fans that just "scrolled" over it....most people have videos set to start automatically.

If a Western game on BEIN gets 5k in views and most people dont have that package...2k viewing something that is free and a greater % of fans have, says more about the two teams playing and their fans.

But then again I dont believe the views were correct

Two things. First, Autoplay is typically a default setting on facebook. For them not to play you usually have to turn off the setting at some point after you sign up.

Second, let's look at the 2000 example. It's a snapshot at the given moment in time. If 2000 are watching at the start of the game, 1000 drop out, and 1000 more come in at some point and start watching the game that's 3,000 people who actually watched at least a portion (not 2000), but the original 2000 number never changes much on the screen.

But again the biggest problem with Facebook's "numbers" is the fact they count a 3-second window as a view.

I dont have a clue on how they keep up with it but you would think more than 2000 fans of both teams would be interested in watching and seek it out. I dont use facebook and only signed up to watch CUSA sports. I dont remember having to click a button to control auto play....might have I just dont recall doing it. I do know my PC settings is no auto video and I had to click on it to start the video.

The thing about 2k or not....you have to think the numbers will grow as people get use to watching sports on facebook. So I expect our numbers will grown over time but never huge numbers because the interest is not there.

(04-11-2018 03:10 PM)MUsince96 Wrote:  We know a few hundred thousand will watch our games if they're on a convenient channel like ESPN2.

If they have to seek it out on Stadium, Facebook, or BeIn only the hardcore few will be watching.

espn was not willing to pay and would have took control of all CUSA content just as they do with the MAC and SBC. Plus there's a number of schools in CUSA that does not put out good enough (picture) quality for espn+ and a long tern deal locking it up.

CUSA gets 5.6 million a year and plays a really small % of games on Friday compared to the MAC and SBC. And none Tuesday/Wednesday games.

For what....a few more fans of that team to watch? 85% of "TV" games will be on espnu and viewing numbers in the 50 to 150k.

You might think its best for the CUSA because its easier for you to view....well if a fan wanted to watch there's not many games of your team you wont get to watch. To be honest it's not that hard to find where a team will be playing....

CUSA puts out a schedule with links or listing

I understand that but that's not how you grow the fanbase and get from..
non fan-->casual fan-->die hard fan

It's not hard for me to watch these obscure channels and cast websites on to my TV because I have the equipment. I'm a diehard. I'm thinking of the bigger picture than just myself and folks who already follow every game.

Anybody get the feeling that we are being used as a guinea pig for the P5 in expanding their influence???

clt says you are the product. Cancel your facebooks.

(04-11-2018 07:04 PM)MUsince96 Wrote:  I understand that but that's not how you grow the fanbase and get from..
non fan-->casual fan-->die hard fan

It's not hard for me to watch these obscure channels and cast websites on to my TV because I have the equipment. I'm a diehard. I'm thinking of the bigger picture than just myself and folks who already follow every game.

This is the crux of the issue right here (even if some wkcc fans can't understand it), which is why I wanted us to have some ESPN exposure until the world eventually goes all streaming - which is slowly moving toward that every day.

Apples to oranges for sure.
But if some significant percentage of those 3-second views are people who for various reasons would NEVER be surfing the obscure sports channel realm of cable TV, then we have opened up access to a new market. That’s part of the solution... but if even 1 in 100 who scroll by stop to watch, or even talk about it at work next day with their friends who are more into sports.. then we are moving forward.

(04-12-2018 01:51 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  Anybody get the feeling that we are being used as a guinea pig for the P5 in expanding their influence???

I'm all ears

(04-12-2018 01:51 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  Anybody get the feeling that we are being used as a guinea pig for the P5 in expanding their influence???

Seems more like 1 down. Now just 4 more G5 conferences to go make irrelevant.

(04-12-2018 07:35 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(04-11-2018 07:04 PM)MUsince96 Wrote:  I understand that but that's not how you grow the fanbase and get from..
non fan-->casual fan-->die hard fan

It's not hard for me to watch these obscure channels and cast websites on to my TV because I have the equipment. I'm a diehard. I'm thinking of the bigger picture than just myself and folks who already follow every game.

This is the crux of the issue right here (even if some wkcc fans can't understand it), which is why I wanted us to have some ESPN exposure until the world eventually goes all streaming - which is slowly moving toward that every day.

If you cant get 2000 of your fans to watch on facebook you are not going to grow your fanbase from espnu.

If being able to watch games easily on TV built your fanbase Western would be sold out for all basketball and football games.... most are shown on the Western TV channel anda large % of those that arent are on FCS. You can go back to the 80s on basketball being shown...tape delayed and The 90s live. Western averaged around 8k even in down years when the games were delayed....the average has dropped steadily once the games were shown live

So being on TV does not grow a fanbase that actually attend games. Every team in this conference had more games on some form that a fan could watch from their home in the last few (3 or 4) years than they did in the previous 10 years. Yet actual attendance drops.

If being on espn was the key to growing fans....the MAC should be way ahead of CUSA in attendance. Diehard fans attend games. Rest my case...no correlation

(04-12-2018 10:23 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(04-12-2018 07:35 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(04-11-2018 07:04 PM)MUsince96 Wrote:  I understand that but that's not how you grow the fanbase and get from..
non fan-->casual fan-->die hard fan

It's not hard for me to watch these obscure channels and cast websites on to my TV because I have the equipment. I'm a diehard. I'm thinking of the bigger picture than just myself and folks who already follow every game.

This is the crux of the issue right here (even if some wkcc fans can't understand it), which is why I wanted us to have some ESPN exposure until the world eventually goes all streaming - which is slowly moving toward that every day.

If you cant get 2000 of your fans to watch on facebook you are not going to grow your fanbase from espnu.

If being able to watch games easily on TV built your fanbase Western would be sold out for all basketball and football games.... most are shown on the Western TV channel anda large % of those that arent are on FCS. You can go back to the 80s on basketball being shown...tape delayed and The 90s live. Western averaged around 8k even in down years when the games were delayed....the average has dropped steadily once the games were shown live

So being on TV does not grow a fanbase that actually attend games. Every team in this conference had more games on some form that a fan could watch from their home in the last few (3 or 4) years than they did in the previous 10 years. Yet actual attendance drops.

If being on espn was the key to growing fans....the MAC should be way ahead of CUSA in attendance. Diehard fans attend games. Rest my case...no correlation

So how do you propose a fan base is grown if not for people finding the team on TV (whether ESPN or local)? Where people go from mild to no interest, to buying tickets.

I think it's winning + exposure that doesn't require hoops to jump through.

That's how we grew ours. Winning and at minimum having games on local TV through the old syndicated ESPN Plus. Going from a rarely full 16,500 seat football stadium up until 1990 to a new stadium that regularly has 24-30K fans. And sellouts of 40K+ for big games.

pretty pathetic honestly

(04-12-2018 11:26 AM)MUsince96 Wrote:  

(04-12-2018 10:23 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(04-12-2018 07:35 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(04-11-2018 07:04 PM)MUsince96 Wrote:  I understand that but that's not how you grow the fanbase and get from..
non fan-->casual fan-->die hard fan

It's not hard for me to watch these obscure channels and cast websites on to my TV because I have the equipment. I'm a diehard. I'm thinking of the bigger picture than just myself and folks who already follow every game.

This is the crux of the issue right here (even if some wkcc fans can't understand it), which is why I wanted us to have some ESPN exposure until the world eventually goes all streaming - which is slowly moving toward that every day.

If you cant get 2000 of your fans to watch on facebook you are not going to grow your fanbase from espnu.

If being able to watch games easily on TV built your fanbase Western would be sold out for all basketball and football games.... most are shown on the Western TV channel anda large % of those that arent are on FCS. You can go back to the 80s on basketball being shown...tape delayed and The 90s live. Western averaged around 8k even in down years when the games were delayed....the average has dropped steadily once the games were shown live

So being on TV does not grow a fanbase that actually attend games. Every team in this conference had more games on some form that a fan could watch from their home in the last few (3 or 4) years than they did in the previous 10 years. Yet actual attendance drops.

If being on espn was the key to growing fans....the MAC should be way ahead of CUSA in attendance. Diehard fans attend games. Rest my case...no correlation

So how do you propose a fan base is grown if not for people finding the team on TV (whether ESPN or local)? Where people go from mild to no interest, to buying tickets.

I think it's winning + exposure that doesn't require hoops to jump through.

That's how we grew ours. Winning and at minimum having games on local TV through the old syndicated ESPN Plus. Going from a rarely full 16,500 seat football stadium up until 1990 to a new stadium that regularly has 24-30K fans. And sellouts of 40K+ for big games.

Winning helps but at this point all of us have a very limited number of fans to pull from. That number might grow if you are winning at a high level year in year out. If you are doing that and a local fan still would rather watch on TV than attend a game....

That fan is not the type to buy a ticket to most home games. Nope he is not paying $24 plus parking and food at the game. Not when he can sit at home watch on HD 50+ clear TV and drink a six pack of 24oz beer for the cost of 1 at the stadium.

Same thing with cheap dollar night fans...they might attend every home game at a $1 ($5) a ticket. But they are not going to pay full price. I'm talking most but you might get a couple out of every 100.

Easy being a fan and sit at home watching games without costing you a penny...that is what TV does. It does not grow your attendance.

Below id Western's attendance when games started being shown live and the other was delayed 1 hour to after the game ended. Winning big plays a big role but other than that TV hurt attendance..

All home games were shown and while losing plays a role it played less of a role when games were shown delayed. I'm sure the numbers would have been even higher without any TV




________________________________________________________

Agree to disagree. I'm an adult who goes to multiple football and basketball games a year. All because I discovered and could follow Marshall on TV as a child.

Out of sight, out of mind.