Top ten USFL TV markets

The USFL has hit the field. Discuss it here!
User avatar
johnnyangryfuzzball
Head Coach
Posts: 1852
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2019 8:22 pm

Re: Top ten USFL TV markets

Post by johnnyangryfuzzball »

4th&long wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 2:46 pm The USFL will not be targeting smaller cities for the reason I posted above about market size, just like XFL 2.0 targeted.
But is there really much of a correlation? I know that's the conventional wisdom, but over-focusing on big markets is not a guarantee of ratings success.

For the past 20 years, NBC grossly overemphasized big cities like New York, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and Washington in its NHL coverage (and similarly when it carried arena football). Viewership consistently declined throughout. Having teams in Chicago didn't help the WFL, the old USFL nor the original XFL, where both leagues' Chicago teams were participants in the worst-attended and least-watched games.

But the Alliance/AAF did well in the ratings as a largely regional southern league in relatively small markets—better than the USFL did this year.

Remember, this is—at its best—second tier football. Football is at its best when it connects with a fanbase. The 2020 XFL chose markets that, though they had NFL teams, also had enough openings in the February-to-April season to slide into the scene and engage fans. Seattle had no NHL or NBA team, and they embraced the Dragons. St. Louis of course went wild for the Battlehawks. You go back to 10 years ago, the most successful teams in the UFL were places like Omaha and Sacramento—mid-sized cities, smaller than the NFL, but enough attention to draw 20,000 fans a game most nights.

And when fans are engaged with a team, that does, believe it or not, translate into a national following that is good for TV, especially in this age where we are more connected than ever and people can move across the country while still keeping hometown connections. Take a look at what Buffalo has managed to do in the NFL; the Bills Mafia has followers nationwide. (Much of the team that helped build that, even in the darkness of those awful drought years, is now with the XFL.) Or the Green Bay Packers, for that matter. Then look at the Giants and Jets, and how irrelevant they are.

Big cities can be helpful, but they're not the be-all and end-all. A league built in smaller markets, especially when it has no pretenses of being the next NFL, I firmly believe such a league can be a success.
4th&long
MVP
Posts: 6443
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2019 2:27 pm

Re: Top ten USFL TV markets

Post by 4th&long »

johnnyangryfuzzball wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 9:16 pm
4th&long wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 2:46 pm The USFL will not be targeting smaller cities for the reason I posted above about market size, just like XFL 2.0 targeted.

But the Alliance/AAF did well in the ratings as a largely regional southern league in relatively small markets—better than the USFL did this year.

Remember, this is—at its best—second tier football. Football is at its best when it connects with a fanbase. The 2020 XFL chose markets that, though they had NFL teams, also had enough openings in the February-to-April season to slide into the scene and engage fans. Seattle had no NHL or NBA team, and they embraced the Dragons. St. Louis of course went wild for the Battlehawks. You go back to 10 years ago, the most successful teams in the UFL were places like Omaha and Sacramento—mid-sized cities, smaller than the NFL, but enough attention to draw 20,000 fans a game most nights.
But the AAF had lower ratings than the USFL despite playing in the home bound winter period , and XFL 2.0 had much better ratings in comparison to AAF because they were in big cities. So what you say doesn't hold.
Also its easier to get fans in attendance in a larger market with a bigger pool of people to draw from, in general. Yes you can do well in football strong yet small markets with no major sports competition like UFL Omaha or Birm in both USFL's. But recall Omaha had an NFL QB in Jeff Garcia to help draw and it was only 4 games.

Sacramento (UFL), Orlando (AAF) or even StLouis (XFL 2.0) are not not small cities being number 20, 17 and 23 in Nielsen DMA, yet have no NFL/NHL(or NBA) or MLB (sans Stl). So if you go smaller that's a least mid-sized and lacks other sports competition. That's partially why XFL 3.0 went Orlando over TB.

Nielsen Households for
Sacramento (UFL): 1,459,260 #20
Orlando (AAF): 1,731,360 #17
StLouis (XFL 2.0): 1,239,210 #23

Compared to smaller cities in AAF / USFL 2.0:
Birmingham (USFL): 730,440 #44 ( now in 1983 Birm may have been bigger in relation to what we see today)
NOLA (USFL): 663,520 #50
Memphis (AAF): 619,610 #51

San Antonio (AAF): 1,031,180 #31
SLC (AAF): 1,100,260 #30
(these 2 are border line)

In total here was the TV Nielsen DMA's (households) by league total:
XFL 2.0 = 22%
USFL = 16.1%
AAF = 9.2%
and XFL 3.0 = 12.4%

Now Nielsen is not quite the same as physical MSA size which helps attendance but they mostly overlap.

So we shall see what happens but I suspect USFL will be looking to improve ratings in its larger TV markets through marketing and a hub. When looking at expansion its noteworthy that XFL and USFL mesh well.
Post Reply