forums

The U Part 2- Ratings Flop?

Tad Footeball

Tad Footeball

1996 Interim Big East Conference Commissioner
Joined
Feb 6, 2014
Messages
19,337
Sure, this year's Heisman was a weak lead-in but maybe Cohen overestimated the appeal of featuring Javon Nanton, Randy Phillips, Pee Wee Allen and some dork from The New Times would have to the rest of country?

image.webp
 
Advertisement
9pm, Saturday night, Christmas season = lower ratings

I know at least 5-6 people had Christmas parties last weekend.
 
The heisman ceremony ran late. IIRC, the nelson ratings are taken at the start of a program. I have to question the accuracy of that number.
 
The whole "The U" thing has become a joke at this point. It's a dying brand on a ventilator. The Monty Burns humps on the BOT are too physically weak to pull the plug out of the wall, but they're yanking on it with all their collective lucky sperm club might.
 
SFbayCane said:
The heisman ceremony ran late. IIRC, the nelson ratings are taken at the start of a program. I have to question the accuracy of that number.
Click to expand...

You might be right but they seem to get an accurate # for every Sunday evening program like 60 Minutes that follow football.
 
if this is correct, why is ESPN running this joint non-stop then? they are not re-airing the boz or youngstown boys.
 
Advertisement
Ratings suck cause no-one gives a ****. Corben trying to live off the past for his own self gain. It does help keep a dying brand alive for a few more moments unless there is a "180"
 
not that surprised considering the time slot and time of year. also this one wasn't as interesting. the U part one had the race riots, drugs, history of miami becoming a melting pot and how the canes helped bring everyone in the community together. the U part 2 seemed like more of an infomercial. I feel like it didn't reveal as much about the program as did the first one and with all the coverage of the shapiro scandal, there wasn't much left to cover
 
I work in TV ratings. A few things probably go in to this.

1. Heisman Ceremony was the lowest rated in a decade...everyone knew who was winning and there was no dynamic personality (Manziel in 2012, Jameis in 2013) to promote. Weaker lead-in almost always equals weaker performance in live or live+same day viewing. Therefore that comparison to the last 2 years is not apples to apples.

2. DVR is more prevalent every single year, and that viewership won't be in for 2 weeks.

3. Didn't seem like people were as excited about this one nationally...probably felt to a lot of people like the same thing again, and why do that on a Saturday night?

The Heisman running long actually had a slightly positive effect on the overnights...in the finals that came out this morning we got bumped down to a 1.2 HH rating, which is what he was referencing.

HH is kind of a garbage measurement for a niche program like this on a cable network in my opinion, so I looked at Men 18-49 (target demo)...actually ranked 2nd on the night in that demo, just a tick below its lead-in. Which essentially means that, when put in context, ESPN is going to be very happy with its performance, even if it isn't as highly rated as the last few years were in a vacuum.

I would wait a few years if I were them to commission a U3 chronicling Al's signature win next year against an unranked Climpson, however (that's a joke, people).
 
Advertisement
cowboycane said:
I work in TV ratings. A few things probably go in to this.

1. Heisman Ceremony was the lowest rated in a decade...everyone knew who was winning and there was no warped personality (Manziel in 2012, Jameis in 2013) to promote. Weaker lead-in almost always equals weaker performance in live or live+same day viewing. Therefore that comparison to the last 2 years is not apples to apples.

2. DVR is more prevalent every single year, and that viewership won't be in for 2 weeks.

3. Didn't seem like people were as excited about this one nationally...probably felt to a lot of people like the same thing again, and why do that on a Saturday night?

The Heisman running long actually had a slightly positive effect on the overnights...in the finals that came out this morning we got bumped down to a 1.2 HH rating, which is what he was referencing.

HH is kind of a garbage measurement for a niche program like this on a cable network in my opinion, so I looked at Men 18-49 (target demo)...actually ranked 2nd on the night in that demo, just a tick below its lead-in. Which essentially means that, when put in context, ESPN is going to be very happy with its performance, even if it isn't as highly rated as the last few years were in a vacuum.

I would wait a few years if I were them to commission a U3 chronicling Al's signature win next year against an unranked Climpson, however (that's a joke, people).
Click to expand...

FIFY
 
I coulnt watch it and won't watch it. Ever. I was there, went to mis games, was in grad school, knew a couple of players. We've all witnessed the fall, and I think most of us know we lost our soul with the Orange Bowl demolition. It is what it is.
 
Cane1996 said:
ESPN came to Corben and asked him to make the sequel.

It wasn't for his own "selfish gain".
Click to expand...

Not true. He pitched it multiple times and only got the green light from ESPN in the last year. Everything is about personal gain with that guy. Go ask Kevin Brinkworth.
 
Back
Top