Dogs run wild at the dance
It was the sweet 16 in March of 1999 and Duke was up against Tulsa. The game was over by half-time and Duke went on to record a 41 point victory in a 97-56 yawner. It was the first game of the day and the only one being played at the time. I am sure that most television sets were off, on another station or playing to an empty house as basketball fans kept themselves busy with something which would pass the time faster until the more competitive matches of the day came up.
What followed was truly shocking, as dog after dog after dog went on to win or play to the buzzer in an exact opposite of the Duke/Tulsa game which had set the table. Every time a favorite would mount a run there would be a mystery traveling call or an offensive charge. I am not sure of the exact numbers, but I am sure that those types of possession calls were severely lopsided in favor of the underdog throughout the rest of the tournament. The tournament played out on a day by day basis with each day belonging to the underdog, Temple beating Cincinnati, Purdue over Miami, SW Missouri state by 30 over Tennessee, Ohio State over Auburn and the list goes on until finally, a 9.5 point underdog, UCONN upends the heavily favored Blue Devils to win the tournament and punctuate the shocking dog run.
So what's behind all of this? Despite the NCAA'S public stance against gambling, it has long been recognized that sports without gambling is like cars without fuel, and since the marriage of big time sports and television, this has never been more true. Afterall, who's going to sit and watch a first round game like Duke over Florida A&M, a game which Duke won by 41, unless the spread is -42. Catch my drift? If you watched the last 2 minutes of that game you do. Remember, they sell just as many commercials (or more) in the final 5 minutes of a game as they do in the first 5 minutes - they need an audience, and when point spreads are involved, you don't necessarily need a close game to ensure one. NCAA games are increasingly being played to and around the pointspread as a point of interest, and it's not the old nickel and dime point shaving scams that are at the root of it - it involves much, much bigger fish in the frying pan. Here's a post off the AP wire regarding last year's tourney which forms the basis for one theory;
Final Four ratings hit all-time low
"Even a thrilling national championship game could not prevent TV ratings from falling to an all-time low for CBS. Connecticut's upset of Duke on Monday night posted a 17.2 national rating and a 27 share, the lowest since CBS began televising the event in 1982.
The 1999 tournament as a whole had a 6.8/15 share, down 7 percent from last year's 7.3/17. The previous mark of futility was a 7.2 in 1997, the year Arizona defeated Kentucky in the title game. This year's championship game was down 3 percent from last season's Kentucky-Utah final, which had a 17.8 rating and 28 share. It was the lowest-rated NCAA championship game since the 1972 UCLA-Florida State final, which was played in the afternoon.
"The games weren't as close as they had been last year," said CBS spokeswoman Leslie Ann Wade. "You're always a little disappointed even when it's a high number because you'd like to see it higher. This is one of our favorite events and this doesn't do anything to alter our affection for it."
Only 14 of the 63 games were decided by five points or under, just one went into overtime and 17 were blowouts of 20 points or more. Last year's tournament had 20 games within five points, five in overtime and 11 determined by 20 points or more.
"When you have close games through the whole tournament, people start to catch on, make an investment and end up with us on Monday night," added Wade. "I think that hurt us a little bit."
Ratings for most of the West Coast cities fell because there were no representatives from the region, unlike last year when both Stanford and Utah made the Final Four. The championship game dropped 28 percent in Los Angeles and 13 percent in San Francisco.
For the women's championship game between Purdue and Duke, ESPN set a record with the biggest rating in the network's four-year history of broadcasting the event.
The game posted a 4.3 cable rating in ESPN's universe of 75.8 million homes, an increase of 16 percent from last year's Tennessee-Louisiana Tech title game that had a 3.7.
Overall tournament ratings were also up this year for the women. Games on ESPN rose 24 percent and ESPN2 had a 8 percent increase, compared with last season.
The rating is the percentage of TV households in the nation tuned to a program, and each network point represents 994,000 homes. The share is the percentage tuned to a program among those televisions on at the time.
Remember this article when factoring in the media, most important, television, when you do your basketball handicapping this season. You see, these are not small statements, and the media is not the interested by-stander that they would have you believe they are - they foot the bill! It's television and television contracts which fuel college sports today, and it would be naive and irresponsible to think that the interests of television are secondary when this much is on the table. So what does television want? An audience. Close games and great underdog stories like Gonzaga and Valpo the year before make great TV, but almost as good is a nice close ATS game with the pointspread never secure until the games final shot.
It was the sweet 16 in March of 1999 and Duke was up against Tulsa. The game was over by half-time and Duke went on to record a 41 point victory in a 97-56 yawner. It was the first game of the day and the only one being played at the time. I am sure that most television sets were off, on another station or playing to an empty house as basketball fans kept themselves busy with something which would pass the time faster until the more competitive matches of the day came up.
What followed was truly shocking, as dog after dog after dog went on to win or play to the buzzer in an exact opposite of the Duke/Tulsa game which had set the table. Every time a favorite would mount a run there would be a mystery traveling call or an offensive charge. I am not sure of the exact numbers, but I am sure that those types of possession calls were severely lopsided in favor of the underdog throughout the rest of the tournament. The tournament played out on a day by day basis with each day belonging to the underdog, Temple beating Cincinnati, Purdue over Miami, SW Missouri state by 30 over Tennessee, Ohio State over Auburn and the list goes on until finally, a 9.5 point underdog, UCONN upends the heavily favored Blue Devils to win the tournament and punctuate the shocking dog run.
So what's behind all of this? Despite the NCAA'S public stance against gambling, it has long been recognized that sports without gambling is like cars without fuel, and since the marriage of big time sports and television, this has never been more true. Afterall, who's going to sit and watch a first round game like Duke over Florida A&M, a game which Duke won by 41, unless the spread is -42. Catch my drift? If you watched the last 2 minutes of that game you do. Remember, they sell just as many commercials (or more) in the final 5 minutes of a game as they do in the first 5 minutes - they need an audience, and when point spreads are involved, you don't necessarily need a close game to ensure one. NCAA games are increasingly being played to and around the pointspread as a point of interest, and it's not the old nickel and dime point shaving scams that are at the root of it - it involves much, much bigger fish in the frying pan. Here's a post off the AP wire regarding last year's tourney which forms the basis for one theory;
Final Four ratings hit all-time low
"Even a thrilling national championship game could not prevent TV ratings from falling to an all-time low for CBS. Connecticut's upset of Duke on Monday night posted a 17.2 national rating and a 27 share, the lowest since CBS began televising the event in 1982.
The 1999 tournament as a whole had a 6.8/15 share, down 7 percent from last year's 7.3/17. The previous mark of futility was a 7.2 in 1997, the year Arizona defeated Kentucky in the title game. This year's championship game was down 3 percent from last season's Kentucky-Utah final, which had a 17.8 rating and 28 share. It was the lowest-rated NCAA championship game since the 1972 UCLA-Florida State final, which was played in the afternoon.
"The games weren't as close as they had been last year," said CBS spokeswoman Leslie Ann Wade. "You're always a little disappointed even when it's a high number because you'd like to see it higher. This is one of our favorite events and this doesn't do anything to alter our affection for it."
Only 14 of the 63 games were decided by five points or under, just one went into overtime and 17 were blowouts of 20 points or more. Last year's tournament had 20 games within five points, five in overtime and 11 determined by 20 points or more.
"When you have close games through the whole tournament, people start to catch on, make an investment and end up with us on Monday night," added Wade. "I think that hurt us a little bit."
Ratings for most of the West Coast cities fell because there were no representatives from the region, unlike last year when both Stanford and Utah made the Final Four. The championship game dropped 28 percent in Los Angeles and 13 percent in San Francisco.
For the women's championship game between Purdue and Duke, ESPN set a record with the biggest rating in the network's four-year history of broadcasting the event.
The game posted a 4.3 cable rating in ESPN's universe of 75.8 million homes, an increase of 16 percent from last year's Tennessee-Louisiana Tech title game that had a 3.7.
Overall tournament ratings were also up this year for the women. Games on ESPN rose 24 percent and ESPN2 had a 8 percent increase, compared with last season.
The rating is the percentage of TV households in the nation tuned to a program, and each network point represents 994,000 homes. The share is the percentage tuned to a program among those televisions on at the time.
Remember this article when factoring in the media, most important, television, when you do your basketball handicapping this season. You see, these are not small statements, and the media is not the interested by-stander that they would have you believe they are - they foot the bill! It's television and television contracts which fuel college sports today, and it would be naive and irresponsible to think that the interests of television are secondary when this much is on the table. So what does television want? An audience. Close games and great underdog stories like Gonzaga and Valpo the year before make great TV, but almost as good is a nice close ATS game with the pointspread never secure until the games final shot.
....Great Insights!
