For college basketball fans around the country, March is the best month on the calendar. The first two weekends 2023 men's NCAA basketball tournament provided more than the usual amount of drama. There were big upsets, buzzer beaters, big comebacks, and a ballroom filled with Cinderellas.
As March draws to a close, we are left with just four teams standing, and there is not a blue-blood or top seed in sight. To some people watching teams like San Diego State and Florida Atlantic square off for a chance at the National Title game is fun. For others, the lack of top teams or teams with "name recognition" is a concern. The talking heads are already predicting gloom and doom for ticket sales and televison ratings.
https://twitter.com/NicoleAuerbach/status/1640525254056628224
But why do people expect the rating will be low? For me, this begs an interesting scientific question. Historical television ratings are fairly easy to find. A simple google search provides Final Four viewing data back to at least 2002.
So what does the data actually tell us?
I went ahead and compiled these data in an attempt to spot trends that might be informative. I have the data for all three Final Four games for the previous 20 NCAA Tournaments. As a first pass, I looked at the data from the view point of things that are quantifiable. I compared three different variables to the television ratings and applied the scientific method, as one does.
Here are the variables that I compared and the related hypotheses.
1) The difference between the two seeds
Hypothesis No.1: More people will watch the game if they believe that the two teams are evenly matched and less people will watch a perceived mismatch
2) The sum of the two seeds
Hypothesis No. 2: More people will watch the games if both team have a higher seed and are therefore "good teams." Less people will watch if the sum of the seeds is large, such as a No. 9 seed (like Florida Atlantic) playing a No. 4 seed (such as San Diego State)
3) The final margin of victory (as a proxy for the "excitement" of the game)
Hypothesis No. 3: More people will watch if the final margin of victory is close than if it is a blowout. Note that this may not accurately capture the situations where a game was close for 35 minutes and got out of hand late or vice versa, but it is a reasonable metric to study.
The result pertaining to the first two hypotheses are shown below in Figure 1.
 |
| Figure 1: Comparison of the total number of TV viewers (in millions) to the sum and difference between the seeds of the participants in the previous 20 Final Fours |
On things to note about this data from the beginning is that the time slot and round matter. As a general rule, the early national semifinal on Saturday draws the lowest audience while the championship game usually draws the largest audience of the three Final Four games over the weekend. Therefore, these datasets must be handled separately.
Figure 1 clearly shows that the first two hypotheses listed above are not correct. There is no correlation between either the sum or the difference between the seeds of the teams playing in the Final Four and television viewership, which one possible exception.
In the case of the early semifinal games only, there is a weak, but noticeable correlation. However, in both cases it is in the opposite direction as expected. It turns out that larger seeds and bigger difference between seeds correlates to more viewers. It seems as though fans enjoying seeing the Davids/Cinderellas in the final weekend after all.
The third hypothesis is evaluated in Figure 2.
 |
| Figure 2: Comparison of the total number of TV viewers (in millions) to the final margin of victory in each game in the previous 20 Final Fours. |
In this case, there does appear to be a somewhat weak, but real correlation in all three sets of data (timeslots). In essence, there is evidence to support the third hypothesis listed above. People like to watch games that are close. As the margin of victory grows, viewers tune out. This seems logical.
While this analysis is interesting, it does not answer one of the core questions surounding this Final Four. Is the absence of teams such as Duke, North Carolina, Kansas, Kentucky, UCLA or other "blue blood" teams going to impact ratings?
This question is more difficult to answer, because the blue-blood nature of a program cannot be quantified. Instead, I think it is best just to look at the numbers. Tables 1, 2, and 3 below give the match-ups and television ratings for each Final Four game back to 2002.
Table 1 compares the games played in the early national semifinal timeslot. Table 2 compares the games played in the large national semifinal timeslot. Table 3 compares the national championship games and also shows the total viewership for the weekend. In each case, the number in paratheses is the ranking compared to the other years.
 |
| Table 1: Match-up and television ratings for the previous 20 national semifinal games in the early timeslot. |
 |
| Table 2: Match-up and television ratings for the previous 20 national semifinal games in the late timeslot. |
 |
| Table 3: Match-up and television ratings for the previous 20 national champion games. |
Note here that the games broadcast on TBS are shaded while the remaining games were all televised on CBS. While many of the games on TBS do fall towards the bottom of the list, the two national semifinal games in 2015 are ranked No. 1 and No. 2 in this timeframe.
As I look at the position as various "blue blood" teams in the three tables above, it is difficult to spot any pattern. Teams like Duke, Kentucky, Kansas, North Carolina, and UCLA appear at the top of each list, but they also frequently appear at the bottom. Last year's all-blue-blood national title game featuring No. 1 Kansas versus No. 8 North Carolina drew the second lowest number of eyeballs over the past 20 years.
In contrast, some the of Final Four contests involving smaller schools or schools that are not frequent participants in the Final Four to my eye tend appear in the top half of each table more often that not. Butler, Wichita State, South Carolina, Oregon all appear in games in the top five of each table.
Perhaps that best comparison would be to look at the viewership for the two Final Fours in the last 20 years at the opposite ends of the spectrum but which were close in time: 2008 and 2011.
In 2008, for the first and only time, all No. 1 seeds (Kansas, UCLA, Memphis, and North Carolina advanced to the Final Four. If the theory that top seeds with name recognition is the most desirable for television viewership, this Final Four should appear very high on the tables above.
In 2011, there were no top seeds in sight in the final weekend. The 2011 Final Four featured No. 8 Butler, No. 11 Virginia Commonwealth, No. 3 UConn, and No. 4 Kentucky. On paper the 2011 Final Four looks the most similar to the 2023 Final Four. Based on "conventional wisdom" the 2011 Final Four should have drawn record-low viewership.
But that is not what happened. The reality was quite the opposite.
Overall, the 2011 Final Four drew more televison viewers for all three games than did the 2008 Final Four. The total number of viewers in 2011 ranks No. 8 over the past 20 years while the 2008 Final Four ranks No. 14. The national semifinal between No. 8 Bulter and No. 11 Virginia Commonwealth (which is the most similar to this weekend's clash between No. 5 San Diego State and No. 9 Florida Atlantic) ranks No. 7 for the early timeslot.
Time will only tell how many eyeballs this weekend's games will draw. At this point, I am concerned that some of the predictions of low viewership will become a self-fulfilling prophesy. But the prevailing theory that the lack of top seeds or familiar teams will depress viewers is not supported by the facts. In reality, the data suggests to me that the 2023 might place in the top half of viewership in the last 20 years.
Furthermore, the assertion that there are no familiar names in Houston this year isn't even correct. UConn has a chance to claim a fifth National Title since 1999 this weekend. In the same timeframe, Duke and North Carolina have five National Titles combined. On Saturday, UConn will a Miami team who shared the ACC regular season title. Is that not big-time enough for some people? Moreover, would a Final Four featuring Alabama, Houston, and Purdue actually been more compelling to casual fans?
If nothing else the shade that some are throwing on the 2023 Final Four is simply insulting. The teams who made it this far did so by winning games in the single elimination format that most of the same people claim makes it the best and most exciting sporting event of the year (which it is). Complaining about the result is stupid and disrespectful to the student athletes who will take to the court on Saturday.
I, for one, am looking forward to Saturday and especially the early game featuring Florida Atlantic and San Diego State. I expect a competitve and exciting game. The fact that both of those teams are still playing is a testament to what makes March Madness great. Just sit back and enjoy it.
Comments
Post a Comment