Wins - Attendance - Viewers, Who Makes All 3 Lists?

SchwartzUndGold

Scout Team
Nov 20, 2019
97
132
33
I watched a YouTube video and how college football could evolve down to 25 teams in a super FBS. It struck me that 3 factors are important to TV Broadcasters. Basically it comes down to viewership, winning program, and home attendance. Obviously viewers is the critical component to the networks but winning and home attendance are necessary for the former to happen. I used some recent data to create 3 tables, one for each factor. From a table join it was possible to find out which football programs showed up on all 3 lists. There are some surprises and of the obvious ones in the list of 30 college football programs. The lower your score the better.
Top-30.jpg
 

ghostOfHomer777

HR Heisman
May 20, 2014
7,907
8,647
113
It makes me wonder if there is a "magic number" of teams and an adequate amount of parity in order to keep college football fans engaged.

I'd imagine that if the number got too small OR if there was too little parity ... then fans could/would get bored with the product.

I love the original spirit of collegiate athletics ... and as the money sports drift too much towards being a defacto minor-league for the pros ... my interest could wane. I love seeing guys play football for the love of the game. If it already is a paycheck deal on the collegiate level ... then I'd rather just watch the non-money collegiate sports (or even high school sports).
 

SchwartzUndGold

Scout Team
Nov 20, 2019
97
132
33
It makes me wonder if there is a "magic number" of teams and an adequate amount of parity in order to keep college football fans engaged.

I'd imagine that if the number got too small OR if there was too little parity ... then fans could/would get bored with the product.

I love the original spirit of collegiate athletics ... and as the money sports drift too much towards being a defacto minor-league for the pros ... my interest could wane. I love seeing guys play football for the love of the game. If it already is a paycheck deal on the collegiate level ... then I'd rather just watch the non-money collegiate sports (or even high school sports).
I'm in your corner.
 

Clownhater

HR All-State
Jun 10, 2020
935
1,106
93
61
Iowa City
I am curious about the wins rank. How far back did you go? I mean Texas at #4? If this is all time I get it, but I would think they would pick a more relevant date to pick the number of wins. Who cares if Minnesota had winning teams back in th 60s', same with Nebraska in the 90s'. IMO only viewership and attendance should matter to form the 25. Also, I would think profitability and merchandising would play a role.
 
  • Like
Reactions: desihawk

ichawk24

HR Heisman
Nov 21, 2005
8,962
8,769
113
One of the biggest draws of college football is that it is played in every state, and most state schools have a lot of state kids on their rosters.

If college becomes 25 teams, suddenly the personal attachment that so many have would be gone. Why would they care anymore?

The fans of 40 big time teams suddenly becoming "second tier" most likely aren't going to watch the big 25 on tv.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hawk_82 and F5n5

Clownhater

HR All-State
Jun 10, 2020
935
1,106
93
61
Iowa City
One of the biggest draws of college football is that it is played in every state, and most state schools have a lot of state kids on their rosters.

If college becomes 25 teams, suddenly the personal attachment that so many have would be gone. Why would they care anymore?

The fans of 40 big time teams suddenly becoming "second tier" most likely aren't going to watch the big 25 on tv.
I agree somewhat, but the alumni of those schools outside those 25 will still support their schools, see Central and Wartburg in DII. Even schools with no history such as Iowa State will still have fans show up. Fans will become regionalized outside the state boundaries.....look at the NFL.
 

BonzoFury

Team MVP
Feb 4, 2022
265
404
63
I watched a YouTube video and how college football could evolve down to 25 teams in a super FBS. It struck me that 3 factors are important to TV Broadcasters. Basically it comes down to viewership, winning program, and home attendance. Obviously viewers is the critical component to the networks but winning and home attendance are necessary for the former to happen. I used some recent data to create 3 tables, one for each factor. From a table join it was possible to find out which football programs showed up on all 3 lists. There are some surprises and of the obvious ones in the list of 30 college football programs. The lower your score the better.
Top-30.jpg
When is your data from? Michigan #1 in wins (and Texas #4) with Minnesota ahead of Iowa doesn't seem too current.

Interesting breakdown though
 

SchwartzUndGold

Scout Team
Nov 20, 2019
97
132
33
I am curious about the wins rank. How far back did you go? I mean Texas at #4? If this is all time I get it, but I would think they would pick a more relevant date to pick the number of wins. Who cares if Minnesota had winning teams back in th 60s', same with Nebraska in the 90s'. IMO only viewership and attendance should matter to form the 25. Also, I would think profitability and merchandising would play a role.
I found the data at the NCAA website. It matches that on Winsapedia.
 

BBHawk

HR Legend
Oct 31, 2001
27,431
20,237
113
Iowa City
I watched a YouTube video and how college football could evolve down to 25 teams in a super FBS. It struck me that 3 factors are important to TV Broadcasters. Basically it comes down to viewership, winning program, and home attendance. Obviously viewers is the critical component to the networks but winning and home attendance are necessary for the former to happen. I used some recent data to create 3 tables, one for each factor. From a table join it was possible to find out which football programs showed up on all 3 lists. There are some surprises and of the obvious ones in the list of 30 college football programs. The lower your score the better.
Top-30.jpg
Fake news...no ISU...

😉
 
  • Like
Reactions: grayhair81

BonzoFury

Team MVP
Feb 4, 2022
265
404
63
I found the data at the NCAA website. It matches that on Winsapedia.
I'd suggest that if you're talking about negotiating modern day TV deals and restructuring power conferences... anything pre-80s (roughly the time college games became widely televised) is irrelevant. Win rank over the last 40 years or so would seem a better measure...especially as you're paring it with TV viewership.

You'd see many of the same teams but there would be some significant shifts.

BTW, can you link to that Youtube vid?
 
Last edited:

The Deplorable Sleeping Dog

HR Heisman
Gold Member
May 9, 2018
5,631
7,498
113
It makes me wonder if there is a "magic number" of teams and an adequate amount of parity in order to keep college football fans engaged.

I'd imagine that if the number got too small OR if there was too little parity ... then fans could/would get bored with the product.

I love the original spirit of collegiate athletics ... and as the money sports drift too much towards being a defacto minor-league for the pros ... my interest could wane. I love seeing guys play football for the love of the game. If it already is a paycheck deal on the collegiate level ... then I'd rather just watch the non-money collegiate sports (or even high school sports).
I hate to agree but spot on. Something useful the vast wasteland of Congress could maybe fix.

I saw a similar scenario play out in HS and collegiate debate. As a more national circuit developed a smallish number of teams created a closed system. Within that group an even smaller category of super programs developed.

Well the super programs had the advantages of the deep money NIL team, not the money. Got entitled to special tournaments for like the national top ten round robin. Special tutors at summer camp...and yes debate camp is pretty ****ing nerdy, so the special kids got even better.

This filtered down to the individual states. When I was in HS, debate was common. You'd run into kids from little schools, like maybe Buffalo Grove, etc.. and almost every 4A or whatever the big schools were in the 70s. Slowly these programs just gave up because they couldn't compete with the four national programs: Valley, Dowling, IC West, and CR Wash. Then large schools, like Dav Central (they were once outstanding), CB Abe Lincoln, etc... became noncompetitive, or won so little they just couldn't justify the activity. So now there's maybe a dozen schools in Iowa that do interscholastic debate.

There's no money in HS debate. There are billions of dollars at play in college football and most of it is in some other school's vault. This will kill competition in the one place Darwinian markets do not apply. First, the less wealthy will start just dropping FB because they cannot afford it. The special teams then get progressively more market share and begin demanding monetary concessions, like Texas, so their facilities and recruiting budget grow and the next bottom tranche will give up because they just do not have the money to compete. Eventually it will shrink to a premium league of the wealthiest programs/donor base. Probably no more than 24 and Iowa will not make that cut.

 

Hawk_4shur

HR Legend
Jan 2, 2009
14,974
19,609
113
In college football, the money is flowing like water over Niagara Falls. Viewership is through the roof. Attendance is high. The product on the field is outstanding.

So, I guess it's time to fix it. Let's make some dramatic changes quickly or ... or ... well, I don't have a frickin' clue what will happen.

Let's get rid of almost all of the traditional rivalries. I mean, maybe Indiana and Purdue fans can listen to their battle for the Old Oaken Bucket on the radio. Same with the Apple Cup, USC v UCLA, and so many others. You have to have at least 25 million viewers or you're out. Army/Navy was cute for a while - time to make even more room for the big boys.

How is Iowa supposed to put a team on the field with only $200 million? Obviously, all of the sports other than basketball have to go. The payments on that new private 737 for the football team are way more important than wrestling. Wait? Is a 737 really big enough? Might need a 747.

And while we are at it - just lose the school colors altogether. Uniforms should adopt the colors of their sponsor like a bag of Doritos, or a can of Coke. Marching bands? Ha! We need to have Taylor Swift or Lady Gaga at halftime.

College Football is an amazing success. It needs to be fixed.

:mad:
 
Last edited:

uihawk82

Team MVP
Nov 17, 2021
187
239
43
I watched a YouTube video and how college football could evolve down to 25 teams in a super FBS. It struck me that 3 factors are important to TV Broadcasters. Basically it comes down to viewership, winning program, and home attendance. Obviously viewers is the critical component to the networks but winning and home attendance are necessary for the former to happen. I used some recent data to create 3 tables, one for each factor. From a table join it was possible to find out which football programs showed up on all 3 lists. There are some surprises and of the obvious ones in the list of 30 college football programs. The lower your score the better.
Top-30.jpg
How is Michigan the #1 ranked in Wins over the last 10-20 years? How far back did you go, 1900?

Iowa is solid in Viewer and attendance and decent in wins. It seems like over the last 20 years and at least the last 10 years Iowa is better than 38th in wins.
 
Feb 25, 2008
51,345
23,877
113
It makes me wonder if there is a "magic number" of teams and an adequate amount of parity in order to keep college football fans engaged.

I'd imagine that if the number got too small OR if there was too little parity ... then fans could/would get bored with the product.

I love the original spirit of collegiate athletics ... and as the money sports drift too much towards being a defacto minor-league for the pros ... my interest could wane. I love seeing guys play football for the love of the game. If it already is a paycheck deal on the collegiate level ... then I'd rather just watch the non-money collegiate sports (or even high school sports).
I did a thread on the main board about a P5/6 CFB division based on revenue. That trimmed the highest division down to 70/74 teams. I think you could get away with that and still have some semblance of what CFB has always been.
 
Feb 25, 2008
51,345
23,877
113
I watched a YouTube video and how college football could evolve down to 25 teams in a super FBS. It struck me that 3 factors are important to TV Broadcasters. Basically it comes down to viewership, winning program, and home attendance. Obviously viewers is the critical component to the networks but winning and home attendance are necessary for the former to happen. I used some recent data to create 3 tables, one for each factor. From a table join it was possible to find out which football programs showed up on all 3 lists. There are some surprises and of the obvious ones in the list of 30 college football programs. The lower your score the better.
Top-30.jpg
Iowa makes the list, so I will allow it........
 

SchwartzUndGold

Scout Team
Nov 20, 2019
97
132
33
How is Michigan the #1 ranked in Wins over the last 10-20 years? How far back did you go, 1900?

Iowa is solid in Viewer and attendance and decent in wins. It seems like over the last 20 years and at least the last 10 years Iowa is better than 38th in wins.
See earlier response. You could adjust wins but it would change the results marginally.