Running head: The Big Sky Conference, Football, Television, and Social Media The Social Gridiron: Understanding Social Media Interaction with Big Sky Conference Football Games Televised On ROOT SPORTS Jonathan Oglesby Weber State University 1 The Big Sky Conference, Football, Television and Social Media 2 Abstract The purpose of this study was to survey and understand social media interaction with Big Sky Conference football games televised on ROOT SPORTS. The study tracked social media comments made by users, through particular hashtags, in connection with three different games - Southern Utah vs. Montana State, Eastern Washington vs. Montana, and Montana vs. Montana State. The study supported previous research regarding television viewers using social media to be part of a larger community, and the results of this study indicated engagement goes up with rivalry games with cultural impacts, like the Montana-Montana State game. The study also revealed how different social media channels are used, with Twitter being used for in-game conversation, lnstagram being used to show the viewer doing something related to the game, and Facebook being used as a promotional tool. This study also found there is a sizable female fan base that interacts with Big Sky football on social media, which could help to legitimize the impact of this fan base on the conference and ROOT SPORTS. This study opened up the potential for future research, including looking at gender-related social media usage in sports. The Big Sky Conference, Football, Television and Social Media 3 Introduction Sports are one of the more popular types of activity to participate in and entertainment to consume in the United States. They occupy significant amounts of time in daily lives, and also occupy significant amounts of airtime on television. There is an active audience that follows televised sports in the United States, across an entire spectrum of individual sports, leagues, and levels of play. This audience is not only valuable; they hold significant interest to media outlets, whether traditional (television/radio/newspaper) or more cutting-edge (on line video streaming/social media). The media is also an important part of society, and we interact with its products like television, on line streaming and social media on a daily basis. Media has a relationship with consumers, and both sides play important roles in the other's existence, and fulfill the other's needs. The importance of televised sports to America's media markets is easy to demonstrate. Sports Business Daily reported the 2006 NFL television contract with CBS, NBC, FOX, and ESPN featured a payout of $20.4 billion, supporting the idea that television broadcasting of sports is a valued and featured product on broadcast television (Street and Smith's Sports Group, 2007). Sports leagues also receive tremendous income from broadcast rights, with the NBA receiving $24 billion from ESPN and Turner Sports in a 2014 deal (Ourand & Lombardo, 2014). But, how is that investment in broadcast rights resonating with the sports viewing audience? In today's media market, the Nielsen ratings no longer are the sole factor in determining whether the viewing public was engaged and interested in a televised sporting event. Instead, fans are increasingly turning to social media to view televised games, share their The Big Sky Conference, Football, Television and Social Media thoughts on televised games, and to share how the televised game affected them while the game is being played. The new question for television sports producers and sports organizations has become this- when fans discuss televised sporting events on social media, what are they saying? Also, what social media platforms are they saying it in? 4 Unfortunately, these questions cannot be readily answered by existing research. While previous studies have provided a valuable framework on traditional spoken conversations face­to- face while viewing television, there is little discussion on how viewers are speaking with others on social media, and even less dealing with televised sports' connection to social media (boyd & Ellison, 2008). Coleman (2010) went as far as to call it "a mistake" to not study social media's impact on media at large (p. 490). With Twitter and other social media continuing to spread, it is important to examine how social media conversation impact sports television. Gantz and Lewis (2014) mentioned how viewers are turning to new media, at the expense of watching traditional sports media. Social media is easier to use than some traditional media, as it collapses information down to a portable cell phone device that fits in a pocket (Marwick & boyd, 2010). In terms of how viewers are using social media, Harrington, Highfield, and Burns (2013) said Twitter provides a new means of communication for viewers about television, referring to the hashtags that will start on television-related comments during games. Also, viewers will watch for the reaction of other viewers on Twitter, and will let Twitter activity influence future discussions about a program (Schirra, Sun, and Bentley, 2014). Social media is becoming a valuable tool for networks engaged in broadcasting sports, so its usage should be studied so it can be effectively utilized and monetized. The Big Sky Conference, Football, Television and Social Media 5 For these reasons, this thesis examined information on the conversation topics of sports television viewers during live broadcasts of college football games, within the realm of social media. With media companies spending so much money on televised sporting events, they deserve to know what their viewership is thinking and talking about while watching their broadcast, and the media deserves to better understand audiences, as social media interaction is a necessary part of the media business (Childs, 2003; Qualman, 2009). The goal of this thesis was to shed light on how sports television fans are using social media to demonstrate engagement with a televised event, and how that may indicate some intriguing circumstances amongst audiences. Overall, the thesis found people engage with social media while viewing sports on television, in part to be included in a social event. The research suggested Twitter is the primary tool for in-game conversations between fans. They enjoy sharing pictures and engaging with hashtags, to show off their exploits to a larger community of viewers. The level of engagement in this study was linked to the cultural significance of the game, with the largest engagement coming from a state-wide rivalry game. Seminal Studies of Broadcast Audiences When reviewing literature regarding this area of study, a few studies stood out. The studies supported the need for studying television audiences, suggested ways of how to best observe those audiences, helped establish a profile of sports television viewers, explained types of comments sports television viewers make, and social media television. All of these prior studies helped provide a valuable foundation for this particular study. The Big Sky Conference, Football, Television and Social Media 6 Why Studying Television Audiences Matter There are significant factors that indicate why studying the media and audiences matter. In "Particp@tions," a journal on the study of television audiences, Baker and Mathjis (2003) noted how media studies matter to academia, because media affects so many different parties. The authors noted media affects public policy, economics, sociology, psychology and other related fields (Blumler, McQuail, & Brown, 2003). In Barker and Mathjis' writing, media studies, which they defined as studies of the media and how it interacts with audiences, are vitally important studies, as they help to give answers about the media's role in society. For instance, Barker and Mathjis (2003) mentioned how the media are often blamed for a variety of negative things happening in society. However, they counter that having more academic study of the relationships between media and audiences helps to positively inform the public about the intentions and influences of both parties - media and audiences. Also, having more academic study of media and audiences helps to increase the discourse among researchers of various communication theories and practices (Blumler, McQuail, & Brown, 2003). Another reason studying broadcast audiences is important is they are changing rapidly, in terms of scope and engagement (Livingstone, 2004). In other eras of media, broadcast audiences were viewed as largely lifeless bodies that could not communicate with each other about the media they were viewing (Drotner, 2005). However, audiences have been theoretically developed to be understood as more complex and seen as an active group that not only reacts to media, but can create its own media for other sources (Baym, 1999). These The Big Sky Conference, Football, Television and Social Media audiences no longer wait for media to come to them; they go and create media that corresponds with their interests and passions (Jenkins, 2005). Observing and Understanding Broadcast Audiences While there have been numerous studies on audiences, the primary understanding of how television viewers are understood come from James Lull in his seminal 1984 study titled "Ethnographic Studies of Broadcast Media Audiences." This study focused on providing the proper methodological study model for "exploratory, interpretive, or phenomenological works ... ," (Lull, 1984, p. 84). 7 Lull notes the primary methodological issues for a qualitative ethnographer are "(1) sampling, (2) observational techniques, (3) stages of data collection, and (4) organizing and presenting data," (pp. 80-81). Lull also discusses observational techniques as "naturalistic studies in communication, such as those that analyze conversational form, may require precise documentation of verbal interaction," (p. 82). Lull (1984) states the timeline of data collection should occur in several different stages. Lull (1984) states the timeline of data collection should occur in several different stages. There are two stages of Lui l's recommendations that best inform this project on social media and sports. In stage one, Lull said " ... family histories, biographical sketches, and descriptions of the physical environment are the primary elements recorded" (pg. 83). In stage two, Lull said the researcher must "create and sustain rapport with family members while maintaining the disinterested eye and ear of the objective-observer-reporter," (pg. 83). As keeping an impartial feeling while gaining trust can be a delicate issue for a researcher to handle, Lull (1984) The Big Sky Conference, Football, Television and Social Media recommends conversing with study subjects but never starting and conducting conversations and activities. For studies on television viewers, Lull's methods were found to be practical and workable. In a three day study of families and their uses of television, where 329 people were studied, 85 observers researched families in their homes, despite not knowing any of them. Using the method of study which was previously outlined, Lull (1984) stated that "respondents strongly indicated that their television viewing was not altered because of the observer," (p. 85). Lull also indicates "this is an encouraging finding for ethnographers of audience behavior, 8 since it indicates that even though some audience members modify their behavior with the observer present, these changes apparently do not involve the disruption of routine patterns of television use," (pp. 85-86). Numerically, 75.9 percent of those researched said, when surveyed, that the observer's presence made "no difference" in their behavior (Lull, 1984, p. 84). Overall, Lull (1984) helped to establish how television viewers largely operate, and how they react to research being done on them. But, much of the established research on television viewing does not focus on what viewers are doing in the era of new media. In fact, Ducheneaut, Moore, Oehlberg, Thornton, and Nickell (2008) reported that most research in the area of television viewing was done to find audience intent, and why they chose certain television shows, instead of observing their social activities during television viewing. Profile of Sports Television Viewers There are other seminal studies that illustrate the viewing behaviors and attitudes of television sports viewers, as an individual viewership group. For instance, Gantz, Wang, Paul, The Big Sky Conference, Football, Television and Social Media and Potter (2006) studied TV sports fans and compared their viewing with that of fans of other television programming. The study used self-administered questionnaires, filled with open­ended questions looking at the viewing of several different television genres. The questionnaires focused on four elements of viewing: "what people did before their show came on, their motives for watching, the things they did and felt while watching, and the behaviors and feelings they experienced after viewing," (Gantz, Wang, Paul, & Potter, 2006, p. 103). Overall, the study found that sports television fans' viewing is more "content oriented," (Gantz, Wang, Paul, & Potter, 2006). Specifically, the study featured an entire section on "concomitant behaviors," or things which happen during the game, like" 'talk with others about the show or game'; 'talk with others about other things'; ... 'yell out at the characters, players, teams, or action'; ... " (Gantz, Wang, Paul, & Potter, 2006, p. 104). After the survey results were tallied, sports fans watching televised sporting events "strongly endorse feeling excited, ... yelling at a player/character, hoping or praying for a positive outcome, and talking about the show/game," (Gantz, Wang, Paul, & Potter, 2006, p. 110). Like other previous research, Gantz, Wang, Paul, and Potter (2006) also found that fans who watched televised sporting events were "more actively involved in viewing. They appeared more focused on viewing and were more likely to feel-and display-a wide range of emotions," (pg. 112). This study helps to paint a portrait of sports viewers, but it also spurs some additional thoughts. For instance, there is a lack of information on whether or not sports viewers carry over their conversation to non-interpersonal communication opportunities, like social media. Also, there is little information on how sports viewers communicate via social media. 9 The Big Sky Conference, Football, Television and Social Media 10 Another theme of research on sports television audiences is the types of conversation topics they have during the broadcast, in both interpersonal and mediated forums. For some viewers, watching sports on television is an educational experience. For instance, Raney (2006) said some individuals watch sports so they can learn more about the sport, and have future conversations about the topic to boost social involvement. Also, Wenner (1998) said there are a variety of motives for sports television viewers, and social interaction is firmly among them. One scholar researched the idea of sexual desire and sports, and how it relates to fans' context-based comments on athletes. Nelson (2002) noted there are particular comments sports fans and viewers make that indicate sexual attraction towards the athletes involved in games. And while these comments aren't at the forefront, these comments, when referenced towards male athletes, include words like" 'attractive,' 'beautiful,' 'buff,' 'cute,' 'good looking,' 'sexy,' and 'studly,"' (Nelson, 2002, p. 408). Comments which referenced the attractiveness of female athletes were /1 'appealing,' 'attractive,' 'babes,' 'beautiful,' 'cute,' 'honeys,' 'hot,' 'lookers,' 'sexy,' and 'ugly,"' (Nelson, 2002, p. 408). In this study, sports television viewers were linking into a community that discussed gender-related issues. The issue of gender communication is a frequent issue in sports broadcasting, and not just in television. Syndicated sports radio/television host Jim Rome is known for his confrontational interview style, as well as his strong opinions. Nylund (2004) analyzed Rome's attitudes and discussion of issues like homosexuality and gender roles. While most sports talk is generally viewed as misogynistic and simple-minded, Rome's editorial policy on his show opened up a conversation about those issues (Nylund, 2004). The Big Sky Conference, Football, Television and Social Media 11 One particular incident noted how mediated sports broadcasting can start an informed conversation about an important political topic. Nylund noted how Rome had a caller who was homophobic in his views, which ultimately led to Rome disconnecting him as a caller. While that may seem like a level of intolerance, Nylund noted how Rome's disagreement with a traditionally-held belief actually led to awareness of the issue. Additionally, the act made it acceptable for other callers to join the program and discuss their views on a topic that some consider to be politically taboo (Blumler, McQuail, & Brown, 2003). It is intriguing to see all of this research on conversations about-and-around sports broadcasting, especially when they are about socially-important issues. However, while there is research that indicates they are being done via interpersonal communication and traditional media forms like radio, there is little research to see whether or not sports broadcasts are spurring similar conversations on social media platforms, or other new media. Comments and Television Viewers There has been a broad discussion of conversations television audiences have. Some of the research has helped to classify particular elements of the conversation. Ducheneaut, Moore, Oehl berg, Thornton, and Nickell (2008) filled a research gap in understanding television audiences, and focused their research on types of comments made by television viewers. The five different types of comments they identified from their research were: content-based, context-based, logistical, non-sequitur, and phatic. Content- based comments "directly reference the content that is on or recently shown on the screen," (Ducheneaut, Moore, Oehlberg, Thornton, & Nickell, 2008, pg. 143). Context- The Big Sky Conference, Football, Television and Social Media 12 based comments "are relevant to the show in its greater content, but perhaps not the specific episode or moment that is being viewed. Examples are references to the actors, past episodes, show trivia, etc," (Ducheneaut, Moore, Oehl berg, Thornton, & Nickell, 2008, p. 143). Logistical comments are comments about the setting of the viewing area, or in reference to things like volume of the television (Ducheneaut, Moore, Oehlberg, Thornton, & Nickell, 2008). A non-sequitur comment is a "social exchanges such as asking about one's family, or talking about events unrelated to the TV program," (Ducheneaut, Moore, Oehlberg, Thornton, & Nickell, 2008, p. 143). Finally, a phatic comment is a "involuntary reactions from the audience like laughter, gasps, groans, 'Whoa!', etc," (Ducheneaut, Moore, Oehlberg, Thornton, & Nickell, 2008, p. 143). The explanation of these comments provided the framework to understanding comments in this study, and is heavily utilized in the discussion of results. Social Media and Television Viewing As social media's role in daily lives has continued to grow, research has developed that simultaneously survey why viewers watch television, and then whether or not social media engagement helps to complement those needs. Gillmor (2006) noted viewers are looking for people to have intelligent conversations with about media, and are increasingly turning to social media to find it (Gillmor, 2006). Whereas media has long been a conversation topic in common life, social media allows the conversation to grow and have more robust discussions (Levy & Windahl, 1984; Webster & Ksiazek, 2012). The need for connectivity is part of a phenomenon known in the digital world as the Internet Paradox, where social interaction is how people feel supported and part of a larger The Big Sky Conference, Football, Television and Social Media 13 group (Kraut, Patterson, Lundmark, Kiesler, Mukophadhyay, & Scherlis, 1998). However, in the search of connection, social media is also a way that fans differentiate themselves in the group. For instance, the most involved and connected fans are part of a community, and the amount of their activity in the social media community sets them apart (La Rose & Eastin, 2002). Viewers not only use social media to differentiate themselves from one another; they also use social media to protect brands they identify with, in response to information from other sources (Brown & Billings, 2012). Wahn and Na (2011) focused on how television viewers use Twitter during television programs, and how the messages connected with the context of the programs. Wahn and Na (2011) did a review of television viewing, and found viewers are always looking for ways to engage with other viewers. For years, the television industry struggled to find ways to adequately address that need for connectivity, but social media platforms like Twitter allowed them to connect to a larger group of viewers with similar interests. The research found the conversation on social media got stronger during commercial breaks, as viewers wanted to discuss their feelings on what they just saw, which were a political speech and a reality television show (Wahn & Na, 2011). The study also noted how television viewers who used social media used a variety of different devices and platforms to converse with other viewers. Overwhelmingly, they found television viewers prefer group viewing, and the connection through social media has made group viewing possible, through hashtags on Twitter and the sharing of video clips (Wahn & Na, 2011). Bober (2014) agreed with the findings of Wahn and Na (2011), expressing the need for television viewers to find connectivity with others during a broadcast, or to be connected in The Big Sky Conference, Football, Television and Social Media some way. Their need for connectivity, specifically during sports broadcasts, increased as the broadcast went on, or as the intensity of the moment increased (Bober, 2014). The need for connectivity was also especially high during large events, like the Super Bowl or Olympics (see also NielsenWire, 2010; NielsenWire, 2010). In summary, all of the previously mentioned studies helped to confirm other research studies that suggest human beings are looking for more connection and ways to feed their media passion, and they are finding it in social media. Social media brings connection, and a greater equity in connection, and that fulfills one of the primary needs of television viewers. While there are a few studies that are beginning to explore this topic, this study will further expand on the research. Television Viewers and Their Social Media Usage There are several types of social media platforms that exist, but some have greater benefits for television viewers to build connectivity that simply do not exist in other types of social media. As Wahn and Na (2011) previously established, Twitter is an ideal tool to help 14 viewers find connectivity they are looking for, and television-related topics frequently trend on the social media service (Deller, 2011). Twitter's characteristics, such as linking a hashtag around a particular topic, allows viewers searching for comments from others about a particular show to quickly find them, and viewers actively use these in connections to live programming (Broadcast Engineering, 2012). Twitter also allows viewers to make short, instantaneous comments about a particular issue, as the platform forces users to share information in 140 characters or less. It also helps viewers to engage with other viewers when The Big Sky Conference, Football, Television and Social Media searching for information about a particular topic. Overall, Wahn and Na (2011) found the beauty of social media usage during television viewing is its ability to bring people together from wide-range of background, forming a united bond around the viewing experience of a particular program. Since Wahn and Na (2011) suggested television viewers are using a large number of 15 social media outlets to engage with others, it is important to analyze Facebook's potential usages by television viewers, which wasn't a primary focus of Wahn and Na's reseach. Ross, et al. (2009) found Facebook is not as viable a means for social media sharing as Twitter, as it is slower and lacks the instant messaging capabilities that Twitter may have. So, extroverted people who are looking to quickly share information- which is how Gantz, Wang, Paul, and Potter (2006) defined sports viewers- may not be as apt to use a social media platform like Facebook, as it's slower and more methodical. Like Wahn and Na, a 2009 study on Facebook found people use social media to engage with others over a variety of issues (Ross, Orr, Sisic, Arseneault, Simmering, & Orr, 2009). This particular study dug further, looking at personality traits that could affect overall usage. While Facebook may not allow in the moment engagement as much as a social media platform like Twitter, Facebook allows the ability to post pictures and statuses that are more permanent. For instance, some Facebook users post pictures of themselves at sporting events almost as much as pictures of family (Ross, Orr, Sisic, Arseneault, Simmering, & Orr, 2009). Research suggests Facebook is more of a tool to post a summary of an event with photos after it happens, instead of the live, organic conversation that surrounds an event in the moment. The Big Sky Conference, Football, Television and Social Media 16 lnstagram is a mix between Facebook and Twitter, as it allows users to post pictures of themselves in a faster-pace digital environment, while also allowing them space to comment on various things related to the context of the photo. Like Twitter, lnstagram allows users to link their photos to the content of others through hashtags and tagging other users in the comments. In a sense, Facebook is like a story on a news website, while Twitter and lnstagram are living, breathing sources of information. A recent social media study found lnstagram allowed users to connect in similar means as Twitter, and established eight different types of lnstagram posts (Hu, Manikonda, & Kambhampati, 2014). Two of these types of posts - posts about friends, and posts about activities - could be used in conversations about television programs, as long as they hold the necessary hashtags to link them into conversations. This particular study found images of friends and activities are two of the three most popular types of content posted, and they deal with a variety of different subsets within those genres (Hu, Manikonda, & Kambhampati, 2014). It is important to note this study didn't deal with lnstagram usage in sports; however, it helps to explain using lnstagram in television viewing. While there is more research becoming available about how people are using social media tools, there is less research available to indicate how sports viewers are specifically using the tools. There's research that indicates they definitely are using the tools, but very little research to indicate how they're using them in relationship to the game broadcast, and to other fans watching the broadcast. Thus, it is a goal of this study to fill the research gap across a range of social media platforms. The Big Sky Conference, Football, Television and Social Media 17 Research Questions This study focused on the comments made by Big Sky football viewers of social media, in reference to the broadcast of Big Sky football they are viewing'. The social media platforms that were utilized for the research were Facebook, Twitter, and lnstagram. There were three research questions that guided this study: 1. How do audiences use each social media platform (Twitter, Facebook, and lnstagram)? 2. How do audiences use social media platforms (Twitter, Facebook, and lnstagram) before the football game, during the football game, and after the football game? 3. What types of comments are made on social media platforms (Twitter, Facebook, and lnstagram)? Methodology In order to carry out this research effectively and efficiently, this study focused on ROOT SPORTS' production of Big Sky Conference football games. The Big Sky Conference and ROOT SPORTS were valid audiences for this study, as their broadcasts are large enough (available to a multi-state audience) to make sure the findings are legitimate, but a manageable audience to use for a study of this kind as compared to Pac-12 football games. Also, the conference is small enough to genuinely benefit from the findings of this study, and workable enough to possibly change their work flow as a result of suggestions from the findings. 1 The study inherently assumes they are viewing the game, as Big Sky football games on ROOT SPORTS cannot be legally streamed via a web service. The Big Sky Conference, Football, Television and Social Media 18 For this study, social media comments were examined across the three different social media platforms - Facebook, Twitter, and lnstagram - related to ROOT SPORTS' production of Big Sky Football. The three games that served as the basis for the research will be Southern Utah at Montana State (November 7, 1 p.m. MST kickoff); Eastern Washington at Montana (November 14, 1 p.m. MST kickoff); and Montana at Montana State (November 21, 1 p.m. MST kickoff). Comments made on Facebook, Twitter and lnstagram for 24 hours prior, and then 24 hours after were aggregated. The comments were available on publically accessible social media, so there was no need to engage in any intrusive study. The comments were aggregated by a web service, Hashtracking.com, which gathers comments made via Twitter and lnstagram that use a particular hashtag2. The program sorts the comment in order, based upon their posting time, and then delivers them in a linear format. The hashtags used for the Hashtracking.com aggregation were the individual game hashtags - #SUUvsMSU, #EWUatUM, and #BrawloftheWild - and ROOT SPORTS' hashtag, #WHEREiROOT. For Facebook, posts made on the weekly pre-game posts about each televised game, any in-game posts made about the game, and postgame comments were all collected. On Twitter and Facebook, ROOT SPORTS uses a special hashtag- #WHEREiROOT- that allows viewers for each game to engage in conversation about the game and telecast. This was a vitally important piece to use during the research, as it was one of the hashtags used on 2 The usage of Hashtracking.com was suggested by the associate commissioner of an NCAA Division-I conference, who had previously used the service for similar market research, on the recommendation of a professor at Northeastern University. The service was found to be reliable, as a search on Twitter and lnstagram of the hashtags revealed the same posts as the list Hashtracking.com aggregated. The Big Sky Conference, Football, Television and Social Media Hashtracking.com. Finally, with lnstagram, the comments were tracked with the individual hashtag of the game, which were not accessible until about a week before kickoff. The final data came from the content analysis of the final data, which was the basis of previously listed research. The content analysis of this data was conducted in a directed fashion, which Hsieh and Shannon (2005) said involves entering the analysis with a pre-determined coding process that is informed by previous research. This study took a directed approach, as several previously-discussed studies informed this study's coding process. Coding Comments 19 Each of the comments were coded, according to the five types of comments - content, context, logistical, non-sequitur, phatic - Ducheneaut, Moore, Oehlberg, Thornton, and Nickell (2008) identified that television viewers make. Each genre is different, and has different ways it would look in a social media setting, especially when dealing with sports. A content-based comment during a television sports broadcast would deal with information graphics, pre-produced packages, or different camera angles of the game, among other things. Another content-based comment would be about commercials and various advertising elements. If a sports viewer were to make a comment on social media about a telecast, they would certainly do the same things as viewers in conversation with others in a room do. However, social media users could share a video clip from the game, and then make a comment about it in some way. For instance, they might share a clip of a touchdown and say "That catch was amazing." That type of comment would be an example of a content-based comment on social media. The Big Sky Conference, Football, Television and Social Media A context-based comments is identified as a comment about things related to the broadcast, but in a larger scope than just the specific telecast (Ducheneaut, Moore, Oehl berg, Thornton, & Nickell, 2008). For a sports telecast, a context-based comment would be something about the various broadcasters participating in the telecast or comments about athletes. Also, a context-based comment would discuss past games or game telecasts. For instance, social media users will frequently use vintage highlights of past games to illustrate a point or thought they are having about a game on a current telecast. One type of comment relates to the viewing but not to the telecast. These logistical comments, defined by Ducheneaut, Moore, Oehlber, Thornton, and Nickell (2008), are comments about the setting of the viewing area, or in reference to things like how loud the television is (pg. 143). In a sports setting, sports viewers frequently post about where they're viewing a game on social media. For instance, people will frequently post pictures of 20 themselves on lnstagram watching a game at a local bar, or they will complain about the size of the television they are watching the game on. Non-sequitur comments in their 2008 study are social exchanges about topics that aren't connected to the program, or the program's content, and are frequently side conversations between a few of the viewers (Ducheneaut, Moore, Oehlberg, Thornton, & Nickell, 2008). An example of a non-sequitur comment on social media about televised sports would be "Watching the Montana-Weber State game. Wish my sister would stop talking about her love life." The Big Sky Conference, Football, Television and Social Media 21 Phatic comments are expressions and reactions to an event, like "Whoa," or "Vay!" and are important in maintaining social comfort in a room (Ducheneaut, Moore, Oehlberg, Thornton, & Nickell, 2008). Phatic-response comments could be content/context-based, as a phatic response could be made about the broadcast and its actors, or in response to a logistical or non-sequitur comment. In a social media setting, the only way a research could know if a phatic comment was connected to a game would be ifthe viewer used a particular hashtag to link to a conversation amongst viewers about the game. So, it would be like "Vay! #UMatWSU." While these types of comments were created from coding comments of viewers in a physical space, they are still just as applicable to viewers making comments on social media. Whether viewers are in-person, or using a social media platform, they are still seeking connection and looking to have conversations about topics (Bober, 2014). That need for connection is consistent, whether on social media or in-person, meaning the types of comments viewers make on social media should be consistent with in-person conversations. Results There were a total of three different games (Southern Utah at Montana State; Eastern Washington at Montana; Montana at Montana State) that provided the baseline for the social media analysis, and a total of four different hashtags (#SUUvsMSU; #EWUatUM; #BrawloftheWild; #WHEREiROOT) that were used. In the presentation of the results, the data from the hashtag for each game will be discussed, as will various points of interest from each piece of research. Also, the storylines surrounding each game will be discussed, as it adds context to the results. The types of comments social media users made will be discussed, as will The Big Sky Conference, Football, Television and Social Media 22 individual themes within those comments. Additionally, there were several overlying points of interest from the entire data set, and those will also be analyzed and discussed after the discussion of each individual game's data. The study supported previous research in that sports viewers are looking to be part of an event, and use social media to do so. Twitter was the most popular social media platform used for communication between viewers, and the comments they made were predominantly context-based or logistical. Explanation of Qualifications and Classifications During the analysis of the results of this study, it became clear that certain pieces of data were extremely interesting for discussion in the results. Those issues included social media engagement by gender, engagement by platform, and social media engagement by different channels. While it was easy to qualify engagement by platform and channel, classifying results based upon gender requires a discussion of how the data was classified. For example, a classification was made by looking at their username on the platform and their profile picture. They were then separated into three categories- male, female, and undistinguished (See Appendix G for an example of each on Twitter). An example of an undistinguished user could be someone who has a gender-neutral name with no profile picture, or a company who has an account on various social media channels. A person may have a clearly identifiable female name and image that is deemed as upholding female traits and could be male based on the inability to verify with each user. However, separation into categories was done as systematically as possible. Another clarification is with regard to classifying comments, retweets or sharing of existing social media posts. These types of comments were classified by what type of comment The Big Sky Conference, Football, Television and Social Media 23 the original post was about. So, if there was a retweet of a tweet that discussed game strategy, that tweet was regarded as a content-based tweet. Southern Utah vs. Montana State Explanation of Storylines Surrounding Game The Southern Utah-Montana State matchup took place on November 7, 2015, and featured a variety of different storylines that engaged their fan bases. For instance, Southern Utah was in the midst of an undefeated run through the Big Sky, while Montana State was fighting for a win to stay in playoff contention. Montana State is one of the Big Sky's charter members, and has an active fan base that has celebrated multiple conference championships in the last ten seasons. Additionally, their home games boast one of the highest annual attendances in the Big Sky Conference. Southern Utah joined the Big Sky in 2012, but won its first conference football title in 2015. Southern Utah's fan base has experienced little success traditionally in conference football play, but has experienced a good amount of success as a Big Sky member in football. Southern Utah prevailed in this particular game, beating Montana State 34-23. Explanation of Game Results To establish the sheer numbers of people who posted about this game, there were a total of 384 tweets about this game, using #SUUvsMSU and #WHEREiROOT. There were also four posts on lnstagram, and three posts on Facebook. There was a total of 289 posts using #SUUvsMSU, and 205 of them were content-based comments, meaning they related to events happening with the television broadcast. Frequently, users would tweet about game scenarios, The Big Sky Conference, Football, Television and Social Media 24 or they would tweet about a play that just happened on the broadcast. There were 62 context-based comments that were made, usually regarding words of affirmation regarding a particular team. The other 22 posts were logistical posts, as users proclaimed their location where they were viewing the game. Twitter users were split on how they posted these comments, with 50 percent using desktop and the other half using mobile devices (Oglesby, Southern Utah vs. Montana State, 2015). There were 95 tweets made using #WHEREiROOT, and 90 of them were logistical comments about where users were viewing the game. Of the comments using this hashtag, 84 percent of them included a picture, and 73 percent of them were sent on mobile devices. Only three tweets were sent using this hashtag that discussed the actual content of the telecast, and only two discussed events surrounding the game. The logistical comments provided locations where people were watching the game, with fans watching the telecast on satellite television across the states of Montana and Utah, with multiple fans tweeting they were watching the game in Texas and California (Oglesby, Southern Utah vs. Montana State, 2015). As far as the gender of who was using Twitter, 140 tweets were sent by males, 89 tweets were sent by females, and 155 tweets were sent by indistinguishable sources (Oglesby, Southern Utah vs. Montana State, 2015). The female comments tended to be more logistical, such as telling where they were watching the game, although there were several content-based comments from females on Twitter. The male comments were predominantly content-based on Twitter. The Big Sky Conference, Football, Television and Social Media 25 Only four posts were made on lnstagram using either hashtag, and two of them were logistical comments made by females, while the other two were content-based comments made by an indistinguishable figure- a media outlet. An example of an lnstagram comment for this game from an indistinguishable figure was @rootsportsnw, saying "The view ... ," while showing a view of the stadium the game was to be played on. The three comments on Facebook were all made by indistinguishable figures, all of them bodies promoting a product. One of them was a logistical comment made by a local restaurant in Cedar City, Utah, where Southern Utah is located, as they promoted their establishment as a place to watch the game. Another comment was a content-based comment, as ROOT SPORTS made a post that previewed the game. The final comment was a post made by Montana State University, providing an outlet to buy last-minute tickets (Oglesby, Southern Utah vs. Montana State, 2015) (See Appendix C and Appendix D for more information). Discussion of Game Results After analyzing the data, there were a few significant points that stood out. The biggest standout was the gender-usage of each social media outlet. While women were not in the majority of Twitter users, it is interesting to note that 89 different tweets were sent by people identified as women, given the Twitter engagement for this study was predominantly people identified as male. In a sports world that is thought to be predominantly male-driven, these results suggests that women are a sizable fan base that to be taken seriously. The comments for this particular game weren't just comments in support of their particular teams, either. For instance, @Jessica Nakken and @AnaJaws were female social media users who discussed game situations within the content of the Southern Utah-Montana State broadcast on Twitter, and The Big Sky Conference, Football, Television and Social Media 26 also proudly proclaimed they were sad they weren't able to view the game in person, but were happy to be watching on television (Oglesby, Southern Utah vs. Montana State, 2015). Their tweets included @AnaJaws saying "TOUCHDOWN #MALIKBROWN #AGAIN #SUUvsMSU 26-17." @AnaJaws also tweeted out "Can't wait for this game!!!" Additionally, lnstagram wasn't used for this game nearly as much as it was for other games, but it was interesting that both gender­confirmed users were women. Again, the data suggests that women are an active part of fan bases in the Big Sky Conference, and that they should be acknowledged as an audience (See Appendix B for more information). The Twitter results indicated that Twitter is a social media channel where people go to get information. For instance, 155 of the tweets came from indistinguishable sources, with most of those coming from users that appeared to be media outlets. Some of those outlets included @ROOTSPORTS_NW, @SkylineSportsMT, and @SUUGameday (Oglesby, Southern Utah vs. Montana State, 2015). The sheer number of tweets they sent provided a quick narrative of the events of the game, from which fans could interact with the broadcast. Also, Twitter provided viewers a chance to make their own content-based comments on the game, allowing them to discuss game situations in a quick, linear conversation with others. However, one of Twitter's great tools is its versatility, which makes it tough to analyze but easy to use for a wide variety of things. For instance, fans in this game made 208 content-based comments, like giving score updates and relaying in-game scenarios. Additionally, there were also 112 logistical comments, which conveyed a viewers' locations when watching the game. They both used Twitter as a common place to make their comments in a quick way insofar as immediately after a play or action in the game (See Appendix C and Appendix D for more information). The Big Sky Conference, Football, Television and Social Media Additionally, it was interesting that all of the limited Facebook posts about the game were made by companies who were looking to advertise a product they had, whether it be restaurant, television, or ticket sales. For instance, a local barbecue restaurant in Cedar City, 27 Utah- Sonny Boy's BBQ- advertised for a watch party they were hosting for the game (Oglesby, Southern Utah vs. Montana State, 2015). Basically, they were using Facebook as a billboard, hoping to build interest in their product through the interaction with fans who were interested in the game. These businesses were trying to get fans interested in an event, and were using Facebook to promote the event. One area of particular interest was what device fans use to make social media posts. For this particular game, it was an even split, with half using desktop computers and the other half using mobile devices (Oglesby, Southern Utah vs. Montana State, 2015). The desktop users are most likely television viewers, as it is highly unlikely a fan would have a desktop computer at a game. Also, Big Sky games on ROOT SPORTS are not available to be streamed off-site. However, someone using a mobile device does not help indicate where they are watching the game, as a fan could easily use a mobile device when watching a game at the stadium or on television. Eastern Washington vs. Montana Explanation of Storylines Surrounding Game The Eastern Washington vs. Montana game took place on November 14, 2015, with two teams who desperately needed wins to stay in the hunt for the FCS playoffs. Eastern Washington was in first place in the Big Sky Conference for much of the season, until a three-game losing skid at the end of the season caused them to miss the postseason. Montana is The Big Sky Conference, Football, Television and Social Media 28 undoubtedly the Big Sky's most well-known program, with a national reputation and an extremely active fan base. Eastern Washington won a national title in 2010, and also has an active fan base that uses social media. This particular game finished with a 57-16 Montana victory. However, in the context of this game, some of the biggest storylines surrounding the game hand nothing to do with it. For instance, the terror attacks in Paris 3 took place the weekend of this game, and there were also a mixture of important college football games, including games such as Oregon upsetting Stanford, Washington State upsetting UCLA, and Oklahoma beating Baylor. Also, in the Big Sky Conference, Southern Utah traveled to Portland State in a showdown with conference title implications. Explanation of Game Results To begin, this particular game saw the lowest engagement of any of the three games that were analyzed. Perhaps it could be attributed to the large point total differential, or the lack of suspense. There were only 56 total tweets for this game, with 34 tweets coming from #EWUatUM and 22 tweets coming from #WHEREiROOT. There were only four posts on lnstagram, and there was only one Facebook post using the hashtag, and it was a promotional message from ROOT SPORTS (See Appendix C for more information). For #EWUatUM, there were 22 context-based comments, six content-based comments, and six logistical comments. The context-based comments were overwhelmingly supportive 3 On November 13, 2015, a series of terrorist attacks struck the Paris area, killing 130 people. The attacks prompted the country to declare a state of emergency. The Big Sky Conference, Football, Television and Social Media 29 phrases like @Dayday_Martin's tweet of "Let's go griz," (Oglesby, Eastern Washington vs. Montana, 2015). Another example included @GrizNation03's tweet of "#EWUatUM Go Griz! Get that W !! !"or @Shinar Squirrel saying "Last home game of the regular season #GoGriz #prideofMT #EWUatUM #upwithmontanaboys." The content-based comments all came from retweets of a play that was posted by @UMGRIZZLIES_FB, of a sack and fumble-return for a touchdown by Montana (Oglesby, Eastern Washington vs. Montana, 2015). For example, @UMGRIZZLIES_FB said "Watch: Varnes Sanders puts in a HUGE sack and Herbert Gamboa returns the fumble for at TD!" The logistical comments merely showed photos of where viewers were watching the game, like @joemccaffery tweeting a photo of two boys watching the game, saying "Washington-Grizzly Stadium!!" As for #WHEREiROOT, the engagement was even less. Logistical tweets made up half of the final tally, with 11 tweets proclaiming where viewers were proudly watching the game. Locations where fans were watching the game on satellite television varied from Alaska, to Little Rock, Arkansas, to Gilbert, Arizona (Oglesby, Eastern Washington vs. Montana, 2015). For example, one tweet, from @zachdundas showed a picture of him and his family watching the game from Rose City Futsal in Portland, while @josephjleroy showed a picture of himself watching the game on his couch from Gig Harbor, Washington. One of the anomalies of this hashtag came from the five non-sequitur comments related to it. @Sam_Comf sent out a tweet using the hashtag saying "Dollar dog night is hard to beat!!!!" (Oglesby, Eastern Washington vs. Montana, 2015). This post had nothing to do with the game itself, but having to do with a concessions promotion. The other six tweets were context-based comments, primarily using affirmative statements about their respective team (Oglesby, Eastern Washington vs. Montana, The Big Sky Conference, Football, Television and Social Media 2015). For example, one from @killawilliams98 showed a picture of he and himself on the sideline saying " .. Access granted!" The lnstagram posts all used #WHEREiROOT, and three of the posts were logistical, while one of the posts was context-based (Oglesby, Eastern Washington vs. Montana, 2015). 30 One of them came from @shinar squirrel, who posted a picture of a male and female sitting in the stands at Washington-Grizzly Stadium, saying "Last home game of the regular season!" The lack of participation on lnstagram in this game doesn't mix with the other games, where lnstagram was used more significantly. There are many possible explanations for this, but something about this game failed to engage lnstagram users (see Appendix C and Appendix E for more information. As far as the gender usage during the game, 26 of the 56 tweets were from male-identified sources, while only 12 of the tweets were from female-identified sources. Indistinguishable sources sent out 18 tweets. All four of the lnstagram posts were made by males, although three of the photos featured females in the photo. Two of the photos featured fans at the game, while one was a picture of Montana's stadium from an earlier game in the season. The other came from a fan watching the game. The one Facebook post came from ROOT SPORTS, an indistinguishable source, to promote the game (Oglesby, Eastern Washington vs. Montana, 2015). Discussion of Game Results Overall, there was a lack of engagement in the hashtags, which was rather peculiar. The promotion of the hashtags by ROOT SPORTS and the Big Sky Conference was the same as the The Big Sky Conference, Football, Television and Social Media other games, and the institutions were involved in helping promote them the same they were in other games where there was much more engagement. Again, the Paris terror attacks 31 happened the day before the game, and that could have made an impact on engagement. Whether that had a direct impact on the participation of fans in the game's social media can not be known, but it would seem to be a logical explanation. Also, with so many high-level football games happening on the west coast in the Pac-12 Conference (Oregon-Stanford, Washington State-UCLA), it would make sense that fans could have had their attention and their interaction split. With Washington State and Eastern Washington being so close in proximity, it is very possible that their fan bases overlapped enough to have a significant effect. Also, the game wasn't very exciting, ending in a comfortable Montana win. The outcome of the game may not have captured the audience's attention, prompting their need for engagement. With the limited results in mind, the interaction by gender appeared to be significantly different. Only 12.5 percent of the Twitter interaction came from women, which is well below the margin set in the other two games (33.3 percent in Montana-Montana State; 23.2 percent in Southern Utah-Montana State) that were analyzed. The overall lack of interaction from this game and smaller sample size make it difficult to suggest gender social media usage trends. The gender usage of lnstagram was intriguing to note, albeit an extremely small sample size of 4 posts, as all of the posts were made by men this time, whereas there were no male lnstagram users in the Southern Utah-Montana State game. However, with such a small sample size, it is difficult to analyze and argue gender social media usage trends (see Appendix B for more information). The Big Sky Conference, Football, Television and Social Media 32 In spite of the limited participation, there were some common themes that tied this game with the other games. For instance, the diversity of comments Twitter users made was evident, as there was a mixture of logistical (6), content (12), context (23), and non-sequitur comments (5) being made. Also, the logistical comments again came from all over the country, which demonstrates the Big Sky Conference's football product is a recognizable brand in several parts of the country, and that the league's institutions have fans in various parts of the country. Again, some of the logistical comments indicated viewers were watching the game in Manhattan, Washington, California, Missouri, and various parts of Montana. One of the other common themes was the use of Facebook. Again, it was not viewers who used Facebook in this game, it was a business looking to promote a product. In this case, it was ROOT SPORTS promoting the game's telecast. While there was only one use of Facebook, this continues to suggest that Facebook's user demographic is changing, and also how it's being used is changing, as businesses are increasingly using it as an advertising tool. Also, it seems to indicate fans aren't using Facebook to engage when watching football games. The usage of desktop users for Twitter was highest for this game, compared to the other two games. 37 tweets, or 66 percent of all tweets, were sent on desktop devices (Oglesby, Eastern Washington vs. Montana, 2015). While attendance at the game may have been deterred by windy, rainy conditions at Washington-Grizzly Stadium at kickoff, this game represented the highest percentage of desktop computers sending out tweets. Montana vs. Montana State Explanations of Storylines Surrounding Game The Big Sky Conference, Football, Television and Social Media 33 There are several rivalries in the Big Sky Conference, but no rivalry matches the intensity and ferocity of the annual football game between Montana and Montana State, officially known as the "Brawl of the Wild," but colloquially known as "Cat-Griz." The football game has been operating for over one hundred years, with Montana holding a 72-37-5 advantage. This year's game featured a variety of interesting subplots, chiefly being Montana needing a victory to reach playoff contention. Montana State, who reached the playoffs in 2014, was not in playoff contention, which created a storyline around the game surrounding the job security of Bobcats coach Rob Ash. Additionally, this particular rivalry game was the first for Montana coach Bob Stitt, who was finishing up his first season with the Grizzlies. The November 21 game featured a variety of storylines. The game's momentum changed several times, as Montana State took an early lead in the game. There was also controversy over several penalties, primarily surrounding a roughing-the- kicker penalty. However, the Grizzlies eventually went on to a 54-35 road win over the Bobcats in Bozeman, Montana, which proved to be the final game for Ash as the head coach at Montana State. The win helped Montana enter the FCS playoffs, where they lost in the second round to North Dakota State. Explanation of Game Results By far, this game featured the most engagement of any of the three games analyzed. In particular, this game featured 1,954 lnstagram posts, 2,289 tweets on Twitter, and 18 posts on Facebook (See Appendix C and Appendix F for more information). Both hashtags that were used The Big Sky Conference, Football, Television and Social Media for this game- #BrawloftheWild and #WHEREiROOT- saw usage on all three platforms, but particularly on Twitter and lnstagram (Oglesby, Montana vs. Montana State, 2015). 34 Beginning with usage of #BrawloftheWild on Twitter, there were 1,193 tweets using that particular hashtag. Of those, there were 694 context-based comments, 358 content-based comments, 110 logistical comments, 20 non-sequitur comments, and 11 phatic comments. 620 of the tweets were sent by males, 383 tweets were sent by females, and 182 tweets were sent by indistinguishable figures (see Appendix F for more information). As far as context-based comments, so many of the comments involving #BrawloftheWild were simply words of affirmation regarding their teams, like the almost cliche "Go Griz!". However, there were a few slightly different context-based comments within the sample. For instance, current Chicago Bears receiver, and former Montana player, Marc Mariani tweeted, using his @marcmariani80 account, "One of my favorite days of the year baby!! Let's go @UMGRIZZLIES_FB!! It's go time!" (Oglesby, Montana vs. Montana State, 2015). That particular tweet featured 29 retweets and 14 favorites. Additionally, other examples of context-based tweets included a tweet by a Bozeman-area apartment complex, @StadiumViewMSU, saying "Happy #CatGriz day to you!!!! Keep warm with some handwarmers from our lovely staff!" (Oglesby, Montana vs. Montana State, 2015). Examples of content-based comments using the #BrawloftheWild included fans actually using comments from the broadcasters as the basis for their social media engagement, like @Rustlerslfan tweeting "To quote the TV announcer 'an ideal first half for Montana Griz.' Griz over Bobcats 37-14," (Oglesby, Montana vs. Montana State, 2015). Other fans involved The Big Sky Conference, Football, Television and Social Media 35 themselves with the actual discussion of game scenarios. For instance, @jkolattukudy tweeted, in reference to a one-handed touchdown catch by Montana receiver Jamaal Jones, "That was an appropriate use of one hand. TOUCHDOWN MONTANA!" (Oglesby, Montana vs. Montana State, 2015). One tweet featured commentary a particular play, where Montana was flagged for roughing-the-kicker. In response, @trubluePensfan tweeted "Are these kickers acting majors," (Oglesby, Montana vs. Montana State, 2015). There were also hundreds of tweets and retweets of updating scores throughout the game, like @ajmazzolini tweeting "HALFTIME: Grizzlies 37, Bobcats 14." The logistical tweets simply announced where people watched the game, with locations all over the country and the world. Examples of them include @RedFlute_6 tweeting she was watching the game in Ferndale, Washington, or @hanhow92 stating a group of Montana fans were watching the game in Portland, Oregon. Another example came from @JasonDAdams73, who was watching the game from @TorreyPinesPub in Las Vegas. This game was the only game that featured a wide range of non-sequitur comments, as well as phatic comments in tweets. An example of a phatic comment came from @ConorB76, who tweeted "Pooooooooooooooooooor Bobcats!" (Oglesby, Montana vs. Montana State, 2015). An example of a non-sequitur tweet came from @jtvortec, tweeting "@WVRclothing #brawlofthewild #catgriz," or @TeamUPTOP tweeting "bullock_darcie24 syds102 #BrawloftheWild #uptop #enjoythemoment #uptopclothing" (Oglesby, Montana vs. Montana State, 2015). These tweets had nothing to do with the situation of the game, but primarily dealt with the hashtag. The Big Sky Conference, Football, Television and Social Media 36 For #WHEREiROOT, there were 1,096 tweets. In terms of types of comments, 806 tweets featured logistical comments, 112 tweets featured content-based comments, and 178 tweets featured context-based comments. In terms of the gender usage, 602 tweets were sent by men, 377 tweets were sent by women, and 117 tweets were send by undistinguishable figures, primarily ROOT SPORTS (see Appendix B, Appendix C, and Appendix F for more information). 73.5 percent of the interaction on Twitter, or 806 tweets, dealt with logistical comments, and they helped showcase the size of the audience for this game. With that in mind, the logistical comments featured viewers watching the game from all over the country and world, with locations such as Los Angeles; New York City; Salt Lake City; Phoenix; Atlanta; Chicago; Washington, D.C.; Honolulu; Budapest, Romania; San Diego; Ireland; Portland, Oregon; and Las Vegas being prominently mentioned as locations where fans were watching the game. Most of the comments noted viewers watching the game at a watch party that was hosted by a local chapter of their rooting institution's alumni association (Oglesby, Montana vs. Montana State, 2015). For example, one tweet from @mcphek said "Watching the game in Kauai! Go Griz!" with a picture of other Montana alumni with her. The four other categories were represented less in this sample size. Examples of the content-based comments included @GuyNordahl's "Halftime blues!" referring to the game being at halftime, or@ garceauglaser's tweet of "Touchdown Montana State!" (Oglesby, Montana vs. Montana State, 2015). Examples of context-based comments using the hashtag included @davidburgess 461's "go go grizzlies," or @Cassidy_burts's tweet of "The griz should where black not white, because it's a funeral for the cats," (Oglesby, Montana vs. Montana The Big Sky Conference, Football, Television and Social Media State, 2015). A phatic comment came with @BrendaKrueger68's tweet of "Gooooo GRIZ!!" while a non-sequitur comment was @TimThom52623223 simply tweeting "#whereiroot." 37 The 1,954 lnstagram posts were primarily composed of logistical comments, with 1,329 comments, or 68 percent, being logistical. Of the other comments, 254 of them were content-based, 293 were context-based, and 78 of the comments were phatic comments. 66 percent, or 1,290 posts, were made by women, with 1,057 of those being logistical comments about where the ladies were watching the game. An additional 21 percent, or 410 of the lnstagram posts, were sent by men, while the remaining 13 percent, or 254 posts, were made by indistinguishable figures (Oglesby, Montana vs. Montana State, 2015). All of the lnstagram posts utilized photos of some kind, and the photos were classified based upon the content that was in the written description of the photo. So, a photo of people watching the game, stating their location, was a logistical comment, while a photo of fans tailgating, like @w.l.p_ posted, was a context-based comment. A photo of the score graphics on television was a content-based comment, while photos with phrases like "GOOOOOO CATTTSSSS!" was a phatic comment. While Facebook was not used at nearly the level of the other social media channels, there were a total of 18 comments made on Facebook. Of those comments, ten posts were logistical comments, seven posts were context-based comments, and one post was content-based. Only two men posted, while 11 women and five indistinguishable figures posted using Facebook (Oglesby, Montana vs. Montana State, 2015). The comments included pictures of children watching the game, or Erin Dilts Thomas posting a photo of here entire young family wearing Montana State gear, proudly proclaiming she was "Watching the Bobcat/Griz game with a few future Cats!" (Oglesby, Montana vs. Montana State, 2015). The comments from the The Big Sky Conference, Football, Television and Social Media 38 indistinguishable figures came from businesses, or from ROOT SPORTS promoting its upcoming broadcast of the game. There was also a post from the Big Sky Conference promoting the game (Oglesby, Montana vs. Montana State, 2015). Overall, like the other games, Facebook was not well-used by football fans during the game. Discussion of Game Results First, it should be noted the sheer participation and interaction in the social media conversation surrounding the game. By process of comparison of all the games, fans apparently feel strongly about rivalries such as these, compared to conference games against any number of opponents in the league. This game had 4,261 social media posts using the provided hashtags for this game, whereas the next-highest ranking game - Southern Utah-Montana State - had only 391 posts made using the game hashtags (Oglesby, Montana vs. Montana State, 2015; Oglesby, Southern Utah vs. Montana State, 2015). The engagement and participation in this particular game suggests how rivalry games, particularly ones like the "Brawl of the Wild," are not just games; rather, they are events that people want to be a part of, and want to be included in. This need for inclusion links back to the arguments made by Wahn and Na (2011), and how people engage in social media to be part of a conversation. This is also demonstrated by the 906 logistical tweets that were sent about where fans were watching the game, or how they were watching the game (Oglesby, Montana vs. Montana State, 2015). Even the governor of Montana, Steve Bullock, got involved in the discussion of the game's intensity and atmosphere. Bullock brought out the flag before the game, and tweeted later, using @Governor Bui lock, that "Only Old Glory can bring the Cats & The Big Sky Conference, Football, Television and Social Media Griz together. Honored to bring out flag at #brawlofthewild #whereiroot." (Oglesby, Montana vs. Montana State, 2015) This particular tweet was retweeted four times. The gender analysis again revealed interesting results with regards to social media 39 platforms and usage. Similar to the social media engagement surrounding the Southern Utah­Montana State game, female engagement consisted of about a third of all the social media surrounding the game (Oglesby, Montana vs. Montana State, 2015). Again, while this does not suggest women are now a main audience for football, it does suggest that broadcast entities, and advertisers, need to be making decisions about content and advertising strategies that includes the importance of marketing to female buyers. Correlating the two games together, it also could indicate that Montana State has a very strong female fan base, as the female response was strong for the other game in this study involving Montana State. More broadly, it is clear that females are active social media audiences beyond just stating they are watching an event, as they make content-based comments to suggest knowledge and deeper engagement. Unlike other games analyzed, the use of profanity, or allusion to profanity, in social media posts was extremely high. In all, 37 percent of all social media posts regarding this game, or about 1,577 posts, included profanity in the post, or used a hashtag that alluded to profanity. Twitter and lnstagram were the main forums for these types of posts. Examples of those hashtags are #FTG or #FTC, or some fans would blatantly use profanity without masking it (Oglesby, Montana vs. Montana State, 2015). For example, @Billsfan3939 tweeted "Fuck the #Cats go #Griz." This trend, unique to this sample, indicates the passion and engagement fans have in the game, to the point where they would openly use profanity. The Big Sky Conference, Football, Television and Social Media 40 In addition to social media reflecting the state of Montana being divided, often times families were divided, with photos of family members wearing the colors of different teams. A prime example of a tweet like that came from @krportnell, who tweeted "#whereiroot- Iron Horse in Missoula- House Divided!!!" and then included a photo of his family members wearing different apparel, with an older male and an older female wearing different team jerseys, with other family members contrasting each other (Oglesby, Montana vs. Montana State, 2015). This speaks to a larger cultural significance of the game, as the social media interaction suggests it plays a significant role in the culture of families across Montana. For this particular game, a large majority of the tweets (87.5 percent) were sent from mobile devices, which could help indicate where fans turn for interaction. There were watch parties held all over the country for the game, which could indicate why there was so much interaction on Twitter using mobile devices. For instance, for #BrawloftheWild, 84 percent, or 995 tweets, were sent on mobile devices. For #WHEREiROOT, 92 percent, or 1,008 tweets, were sent on mobile devices (Oglesby, Montana vs. Montana State, 2015). In comparison, when combining the two hashtags, only 208 tweets were sent on desktop computers (Oglesby, Montana vs. Montana State, 2015). This does not give a definitive answer as to where fans are watching the game, but it would suggest that fans use their mobile devices for social media interaction regardless of their setting, even if they have a traditional desktop computer available. While Facebook was still not the central platform used by audiences, the larger sample size did provide some information on who uses Facebook to interact during games. Of the 18 posts on Face book using the hashtags, ten of the posts were logistical and 11 of them were by The Big Sky Conference, Football, Television and Social Media 41 women (Oglesby, Montana vs. Montana State, 2015). Looking at the photos which were shared in connection with the logistical comments, it would appear women with children were the primary female users, as the photos frequently involved kids or entire families sitting on couches, watching the game on ROOT SPORTS while being outfitted in school apparel (Oglesby, Montana vs. Montana State, 2015). Again, with such a small sample size compared to Twitter, it is tough to suggest a trend. Discussion of Research Question-Related Findings Question One Findings - How do audiences use each social media platform (Twitter, Facebook, and lnstagram)? Twitter was the overwhelming favorite in this study, generating 2, 729 tweets of the total 4, 713 social media posts from this study, or 58 percent (Oglesby, Southern Utah vs. Montana State, 2015; Oglesby, Eastern Washington vs. Montana, 2015; Oglesby, Montana vs. Montana State, 2015) (see Appendix A for more information). Of all the examined games, Twitter was the most popular form of social media, as used by Big Sky football fans engaging with the ROOT SPORTS broadcasts. In all, 2, 729 tweets were sent using the assigned hashtags during the allotted review time, in comparison to 1,962 lnstagram posts and 22 Facebook posts made using the hashtags, with Twitter composing 58 percent of all surveyed social media (Oglesby, Eastern Washington vs. Montana, 2015; Oglesby, Montana vs. Montana State, 2015; Oglesby, Southern Utah vs. Montana State, 2015). During the Montana-Montana State game, there were 2,289 sent tweets during the time period (Oglesby, Montana vs. Montana State, 2015). The Big Sky Conference, Football, Television and Social Media 42 Again, Twitter fulfills viewer's needs to feel connected, per Wahn and Na (2011), but it also fulfills the needs of sports viewers. Remember, sports viewers, according to Gantz, Wang, Paul & Potter (2006) are extroverted people who are always looking to quickly share and receive information. There is perhaps no quicker social media platform that delivers news, content, and information about others in a network faster than Twitter, so it would make sense that Twitter was the most preferred social media platform. lnstagram's numbers reflect an overall popularity, but they are skewed because of the massive participation in the Montana-Montana State game. However, as Hu, Manikonda, and Kambhampati (2014) argued, lnstagram carries many of Twitter's same features, which allows it to quickly link fans and viewers together, around a television program or an event. The "Brawl of the Wild" is certainly an event, as Montana's governor attended the game, and it is a cultural part of the state. The total number of posts on that game (1,954) helps to explain how a live event with cultural significance, which people either participate in person or watch on a television, fuels them to watch to be a part of something (Bober, 2014). With ROOT SPORTS' non-streaming agreement with the Big Sky Conference, the only way to participate in these events is in-person, via social media, or by watching on television (see Appendix A for more information). With this information in mind, it would make sense for the Big Sky Conference and ROOT SPORTS to spend most of their promotional efforts on Twitter-related marketing. For instance, if funds were limited, based on the collected data, it would be wise to invest in Twitter ads and scheduled tweets, as compared to sponsored lnstagram posts, with sponsored Facebook posts coming last. It would seem Twitter's ability to quickly induce interaction, as The Big Sky Conference, Football, Television and Social Media discussed by Wahn and Na (2011), made it the most popular social media channel to use. The collected results also seemed to support Gantz, Wang, Paul, & Potter (2006), who said that sport fans are extroverted people looking to quickly share information and get feedback. So, 43 Twitter's 140-characters-or-less profile is the best platform to build connectivity, in comparison to longer-form writing, such as Facebook. In terms of lnstagram, the amount of fans using lnstagram was not very high, except for one game. However, as noted in regard to gender and social media use, it would be wise to use the data from this study to create a plan to use lnstagram's attributes to promote the growth of a fan base through some type of promotion or contest, using hashtags to link into the community. By seeking the two most popular posts according to Hu, Manikonda & Kambhampati (2015)- posts of friends and activites- the conference and ROOT SPORTS can help build a community of Big Sky football fans on lnstagram, that then engage with the teams and the broadcast in other ways. Like Facebook, it appears lnstagram's photo record of events is best to be promoted for postgame usage. The lack of engagement on Facebook has several potential takeaways. First, it could be an indication of how fans and other entities surrounding Big Sky football and ROOT SPORTS are using the social media platform, and maybe they're not using correctly or in the right frame of mind. However, it seems it could also be the start of how Facebook could become obsolete, as people in general, but specifically sports fans, need information and interaction quicker than Facebook can provide it (Ross, et al., 2009). Again, looking at the engagement of fans in this study, the people using Facebook were either older people, mothers posting pictures of their families' watching the game, or they were businesses who were just looking to post information The Big Sky Conference, Football, Television and Social Media 44 about a topic (Oglesby, Southern Utah vs. Montana State, 2015; Oglesby, Eastern Washington vs. Montana, 2015; Oglesby, Montana vs. Montana State, 2015). That isn't exactly a vibrant, constantly active group of users, and that lack of influence and interaction with Big Sky football fans watching ROOT SPORTS could cause social media users who are synonymous with that group to move away from Facebook entirely. However, while the data suggested Facebook is not the best way to interact with Big Sky football fans during ROOT SPORTS broadcasts, Facebook should not be dropped from the marketing plan of either the Big Sky or ROOT SPORTS. Instead, Facebook should be used for its strengths, like posting a summary of an event after it happened to spur additional conversation and connection, as Ross, et al. (2009) suggested. An example of this would have been using photos of the Montana-Montana State game, and then posting them in a photo album on the conference's Facebook page, and tagging ROOT SPORTS in the photos. The conversation about the game could have continued in this setting, with instantaneous comments not being as important as during the actual game. Twitter could even be used to encourage users to switch in the postgame, and take their conversation to Facebook. Device usage is also part of understanding how viewers use social media channels. Overall, the device usage data for this study suggested some good things for ROOT SPORTS' broadcasts of Big Sky football. First, there was usage of mobile and desktop devices when posting on social media (Oglesby, Eastern Washington vs. Montana, 2015; Oglesby, Montana vs. Montana State, 2015; Oglesby, Southern Utah vs. Montana State, 2015). For instance, 208 tweets were sent out in the Montana-Montana State game using desktop computers, in comparison to 2,003 tweets being sent on mobile devices. This demonstrates that viewers and The Big Sky Conference, Football, Television and Social Media fans are engaging with the ROOT SPORTS broadcast and Big Sky football from a variety of different locations, whether at home or on the road. And, just because they are not watching 45 the game in a home setting with a desktop computer does not mean they are not watching the game in a public place, with a viewing party, or at a home viewing party, with no access to a desktop computer (Oglesby, Montana vs. Montana State, 2015). In fact, during the Montana­Montana State game, it was extremely popular for fans to be viewing the game at a public place like a bar, with other fans of their respective team, fulfilling that need for connection with both personal and digital means (Oglesby, Montana vs. Montana State, 2015). The Big Sky Conference and ROOT SPORTS just wants fans to be involved with viewing the game, and then participating via the social-media hashtags. Whether fans are tweeting from home, or sending lnstagram posts of pictures of them from a local bar where they are watching the game, it's the engagement that ultimately matters, and the level of engagement. However, there is value in knowing the popularity of mobile posting by social media users, as it could encourage varying types of participation, whether selfie contests or mobile phone polls. Question Two Findings - How do audiences use social media platforms (Twitter, Facebook, and lnstagram) before the football game, during the football game, and after the football game? There were definitely different comments made during the game, compared to before and after games. For instance, content-based comments can only be made about the actual television event, in this case the game broadcasts. So, there were 595 content-based comments made in the whole study, meaning those comments were fundamentally different in makeup and inclusion than the other types of comments (Oglesby, Southern Utah vs. Montana State, The Big Sky Conference, Football, Television and Social Media 2015; Oglesby, Eastern Washington vs. Montana, 2015; Oglesby, Montana vs. Montana State, 2015). Also, while logistical comments can technically be sent before games, most of the logistical comments from this study were made during the games, usually being prompted by ROOT SPORTS asking viewers to send, via social media, where they were watching the game (Oglesby, Southern Utah vs. Montana State, 2015; Oglesby, Eastern Washington vs. Montana, 2015; Oglesby, Montana vs. Montana State, 2015). 46 A lot of context-based comments in this study came in the form of words of affirmation like "Go Cats! #FTG" or "Go Griz! Up with Montana, boys." Usually, those comments in sports are more in the form of pre-game motivation, although they were used during the game for certain periods (Oglesby, Southern Utah vs. Montana State, 2015; Oglesby, Eastern Washington vs. Montana, 2015; Oglesby, Montana vs. Montana State, 2015). For this study, there were very limited examples of non-sequitur comments and phatic comments. However, all of those came during the game (Oglesby, Southern Utah vs. Montana State, 2015; Oglesby, Eastern Washington vs. Montana, 2015; Oglesby, Montana vs. Montana State, 2015). Question Three Findings - What types of comments are made on social media platforms (Twitter, Facebook, and lnstagram)? In terms of social media platforms that were more conducive to particular types of comments, this study helped to indicate clues about the usability of social media. Already, Ross, et al. (2009) found Facebook to be too slow a social media platform for quick posting about a television broadcast. This study indicated that Facebook was not conducive to being involved in an active discussion about a sports broadcast, as only 22 posts of the 4,713 total posts were The Big Sky Conference, Football, Television and Social Media 47 from Facebook, or .4 percent (Oglesby, Southern Utah vs. Montana State, 2015; Oglesby, Eastern Washington vs. Montana, 2015; Oglesby, Montana vs. Montana State, 2015). Also, the only thing Facebook was good for was context-based and logistical comments, such as promotions on where to buy tickets, where to watch the game, or where people were watching the game. Primarly, Facebook was used by companies as a marketing tool and not by fan audiences. By sheer numbers, Twitter was the dominant platform used, and the type of comments that were on it greatly varied by the hashtag that was used in the tweet. For instance, #WHEREiROOT generated 1,006 logistical comments alone, which dominated the comments for that particular hashtag. However, if it was the individual game hashtags, context-based tweets led the way, as 969 tweets came from those hashtags. Content-based tweets were in second­place for both types of hashtags (Oglesby, Southern Utah vs. Montana State, 2015; Oglesby, Eastern Washington vs. Montana, 2015; Oglesby, Montana vs. Montana State, 2015). This shows that Twitter is versitle for fan audiences. The messages are short; it allows for quick engagement; and the features allow for a multi-dimension user experience. lnstagram proved to not be a very popular social media platform, except for the Montana-Montana State game. This makes a small sample size even smaller; however, it does help to lend some context to how Big Sky football fans uses lnstagram when interacting with televised games on ROOT SPORTS. With lnstagram, fans obviously have to post a photo, and of the 1,962 lnstagram posts that were made, 1,334 posts were logistical comments, setting up where fans were watching the game (Oglesby, Southern Utah vs. Montana State, 2015; Oglesby, Eastern Washington vs. Montana, 2015; Oglesby, Montana vs. Montana State, 2015). The Big Sky Conference, Football, Television and Social Media The next highest ranking was context-based comments, which were primarily photos of pregame tailgating activities, or preparing food at home for the game. These comments accounted for 294 posts. (Oglesby, Southern Utah vs. Montana State, 2015; Oglesby, Eastern Washington vs. Montana, 2015; Oglesby, Montana vs. Montana State, 2015). 48 Thus, when posting to social media, Big Sky football fans watching games on ROOT SPORTS are looking for a quick, efficient way to share comments and other media with people of a similar community. The need for connection and conversation, as Wahn and Na (2011) et al. established, means viewers need a forum where they can quickly interact and share with each other, which for this study was Twitter, followed by lnstagram. When wanting to make context-based comments, or share media about where they are watching the game, Twitter and lnstagram were the most popular forums, cementing what Ross, et al. (2009) stated about Facebook being too slow for comments about a particular event, or experience. Simply put, Twitter and lnstagram have capabilities that appear to set them apart, in terms of immediate connection for Big Sky football fans watching games on ROOT SPORTS. Discussion of Unique Themes throughout Research This analysis in this study allowed for surveying and understanding audiences that may not have previously been acknowledged. For example, this study helped to identify a group of fans that might not be getting enough attention and targeted-marketing efforts- female fans of the Big Sky Conference. Using the Montana-Montana State game as an example, which saw the most participation, women made up exactly one-third of all sent tweet, or 760 tweets (Oglesby, Montana vs. Montana State, 2015). Additionally, of the 1,954 lnstagram posts made about the The Big Sky Conference, Football, Television and Social Media game, 1,290 posts, or two-thirds of posts, were made by women (Oglesby, Montana vs. Montana State, 2015). With this information in mind, there are several opportunities for both ROOT SPORTS and the Big Sky Conference to take advantage of. First, there is legitimate data that proves there is an active group of female fans of Big Sky football. ROOT SPORTS can take that 49 information to potential advertisers, with hopes to lure clients that have products featured for women. The conference can use the data to try and grow the fan base, with scheduled tweets promoting women's apparel. Also, the conference would be wise to use female-friendly color schemes in certain tweets to appeal to the fan base, like using pink in connection to breast cancer awareness efforts. Particularly on lnstagram, with such a large female interaction during the Montana-Montana State game, the conference would be wise to try and pilot program where female fans are encouraged to post pictures of them wearing team apparel, with a hashtag that is dedicated specifically to them. Again, as Wahn and Na (2011) stated, fans are searching for engagement, and Broadcast Engineering (2012) stated, hashtags are an effective way to get fans involved on social media. Overall, it would be wise for the Big Sky Conference and ROOT SPORTS to continually invest in learning more about their gender-specific fan bases, in hopes of understanding how to tailor a product specifically for them. The data from this study, while limited, will help to inform those decisions. Discussion of Limitations of the Study The Big Sky Conference, Football, Television and Social Media so Like all studies, there were several successful outcomes of the research, but there were also a variety of limitations that affected the scope of the results. Perhaps the biggest shortfall of the research was the size of the study. While three games helped to provide a good baseline of information on the social media community that watches Big Sky football on ROOT SPORTS, more could have been done to expand the study, to give more information about the interaction. This would have ensured the results were more generalizable, and that the findings were more thorough. Additionally, there are other social media platforms that are likely used by Big Sky football viewers that could have been studied. The additional platforms would've helped to support the existing results, and could have provoked a completely different set of thoughts on media viewers and how they are sharing on their own. Another area this study was limited upon, due to its design, was discerning the genders of social media users. While this study created a formula for deciding gender, there is still some uncertainty that remains with the results. One way to combat this would be to monitor specific accounts, and make the account owner fill out a questionnaire that asked gender-related questions. Only then could the true gender of the user be known. Discussion of Areas of Future Research This study only started to helped the gap of research on fan audiences by looking at the social media interaction of Big Sky football viewers. One of the easiest ways to expand the data surrounding this topic would be to study an entire season's worth of social media interaction with Big Sky games on ROOT SPORTS. The additional games would help to give a deeper The Big Sky Conference, Football, Television and Social Media 51 understanding of viewers, and would give more data to help the Big Sky Conference and ROOT SPORTS more effectively engage fans in their products. Also, information about viewers and their interaction is helpful to advertisers looking to advertise in a broadcast, and more information would only help the broadcast. Another study that could be done, in the context of this study, would examine the social media posts of fans of different teams, looking at what comments they make on particular platforms. Adding another social media platform, like Snapchat and Pinterest, could also deliver more data about Big Sky football viewers and their social media habits. One thing this study did not do was examine the intent of social media users, and that would open up an interesting conversation. A future study could sit down with viewers and record their social media posts, as this study did, but also examine their intent through a series of interviews after the study. The interviews could ask exactly what motivated them to send a particular post on social media, and could also ask the person why they chose a particular platform over the other. Another interesting study would be to examine the intent of social media users who are watching sports, compared with social media users who are watching other television programming. This could help to better understand if there is any differentiation between social media users of different types of programming, and could help contribute to previously done studies on the motivations to engage in social media. For example, this study could ask viewers of college football, professional football, and baseball, and then cross-reference their motivations with the motivations of daytime-programming viewers. There could also be work The Big Sky Conference, Football, Television and Social Media done within each social media platform, examining the demographic of the user who posts about television programming. Conclusion 52 Overall, this study achieved its purpose of helping to better understand the social media interaction of Big Sky football viewers on ROOT SPORTS. There is still much to learn, but the results of this study were consistent with several points made by previous research: 1) that people want a social connection, which they facilitate through social media (Wahn & Na, 2011); 2) viewers, specifically sports viewers, seem to identify with a social media platform that allows for a more instantaneous interaction, such as Twitter (Gantz, Wang, Paul, & Potter, 2006); and 3) Facebook is not built for immediate interactions, in relation to television programming (Ross, et al., 2009). This study expanded the existing research by showing the emergence of lnstagram in sports settings, specifically in recording specific moments in sporting events of cultural significance like the Montana-Montana State game. Also, this study was able to identify how certain types of comments appeared to be more prevalent in certain situations, like content­based comments being most prevalent during the actual game broadcast. One central contribution from this study was identifing a palpable female fan base on social media of Big Sky football. This finding can help ROOT SPORTS and the Big Sky Conference understand the importance of engaging females during the broadcast of Big Sky football games. Additionally, they can use this data to make a compelling pitch to prospective advertisers about the strong female following of Big Sky football telecasts on ROOT SPORTS. This finding can also help the conference and ROOT SPORTS innovate new ways to increase their female following. The Big Sky Conference, Football, Television and Social Media 53 No preexisting research on sports television audiences had explicitly discussed the engagement offemale audiences in sports television, but this study, through data analysis, was able to discern a sizable audience that could encourage additional research on this one topic. Another central contribution was providing data about the types of comments Big Sky football fans are making on social media about the game and its broadcast. From the comments that were examined, there does appear to be a digital conversation about the game that is influenced by the television product, discussing the score and other game scenarios. There is also a large group of fans around the country who are motivated enough by watching Big Sky football on ROOT SPORTS to post on social media about how they are watching it. All of this information can help ROOT SPORTS and the Big Sky Conference continue to create new broadcast elements that encourage these types of discussions on social media, while also trying to find new ways to engage prospective viewers. While there is more work that can be done on all of these topics, this study provides ROOT SPORTS, the Big Sky Conference, and future researchers with valuable information to build upon. There are several interesting themes that were discovered during the course of this study, and additional research into them could prove to be extremely valuable to a variety of groups. Overall, this study helped to showcase the value of researching broadcast audiences in today's social media-driven society, and how groups that engage in this type of market analysis can gain a vital profile of who their media is reaching, how it is reaching viewers, and how viewers are interacting with it. The Big Sky Conference, Football, Television and Social Media References Street and Smith's Sports Group. (2007, September 06). NFL Media Rights Deal. Retrieved September 29, 2011, from Street and Smith's Sports Business Journal: http ://www. sportsb usi nessda i ly.com/Da i ly /lssues/2007 /09 /lssu e-238/N FL-Season­Preview /NFL-Media-Rights-Dea ls-For-07-Season. aspx Baym, N. (1999). Tune In, Log On: Soaps, Fandom, and Online Community. New York: Sage. 54 Blumler, J. G., McQuail, D., & Brown, J. (2003, November). The Conduct of Exploratory Research into the Social Origins of Broadcasting Audiences. Particip@tions. Bober, M. (2014). Twitter and TV events: an exploration of how to use social media for student­led research. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 297-312. boyd, d. m., & Ellison, N. B. (2008). Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 210-230. Broadcast Engineering. (2012, April 25). TV-driving social media interaction popular among U.S. viewers, says survey. Retrieved from Broadcast Engineering: http ://b roa dcastingin Cering.com/n ews/tv _ socia I media _interaction popular_ 04252012/ Brown, N. A., & Billings, A. C. (2012). Sports fans as crisis communicators on social media websites. Public Relations Review, 74-81. Childs, G. (2003). Cell-phones and Mobile Opportunities and Challenges: A broadcaster's perspective. Experts' Meeting. Tokyo: Mitsuibishi Research Institute. The Big Sky Conference, Football, Television and Social Media Coleman, F. G. (2010). Ethnographic Approaches to Digital Media. Annual Review of Anthropology, 487-505. Deller, R. (2011). Twittering on: Audience research and participation using Twitter. Participations, 216-245. Retrieved from Participations. Drotner, K. (2005). Media on the move: Personalized media and the transformation of publicness. In L. S, Audienes and Publics: When Cultural Engagement Matters for the Public Sphere (pp. 187-212). Portland, OR: Intellect. Ducheneaut, N., Moore, R. J., Oehlberg, L., Thornton, J. D., & Nickell, E. (2008). Social TV: 55 Designing for Distributed, Sociable Television Viewing. International Journal of Human­Computer Interaction, 136-154. Fornas, J., Klein, K., Ladendorf, K., Sunden, M., & Svenigsson, M. (2002). Into Digital Borderlands. In J. Fornas, K. Ladendorf, M. Sunden, & M. Svenigsson, Digital Borderlands (pp. 1-47). New York: Peter Lang. Gantz, W., Wang, Z., Paul, B., & Potter, R. F. (2006). Sports Versus All Comers: Comparing TV Sports Fans With Fans of Other Programming Genres. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 95-118. Gillmor, D. (2006). We the Media: Grassroots Journalism By the People, For the People. Sebatopol, CA: O'Reilly Media. Harrington, S., Highfield, T., & Bruns, A. (2013). More than a backchannel: Twitter and television. Participations: Jounral of Audience and Reception Studies, 405-409. The Big Sky Conference, Football, Television and Social Media Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis. Qua/ Health Res, 1277-1288. 56 Hu, V., Manikonda, L., & Kambhampati, S. (2014). What We lnstagram: A First Analysis of lnstagram Photo Content and User Types. Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence. Jenkins, H. (2005). Convergence Culture. New York: NYU Press. Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., Kiesler, S., Mukophadhyay, T., & Scherlis, W. (1998). Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being? American Psychologist, 1017-1031. La Rose, R., & Eastin, M. (2002). A Social Cognitive Explanation of Internet Uses and Gratifications: Toward a New Theory of Media Attendance. Washington, D.C.: International Communication Association . Levy, M. R., & Windahl, S. (1984). Audience activity and gratifications: A conceptual clarification and exploration. Communication Research, 51-78. Livingstone, S. (2004). The challenge of changing audiences: Or, what is the audience researcher to do in the age of the internet? European Journal of Communication, 1-12. Lull, J. (1984). Ethnographic Studies of Broadcast Media Audiences. Broadcasting Research Methods, 80-88. Marwick, A. E., & boyd, d. (2010). I Tweet Honestly, I Tweet Passionately: Twitter Users, Context Collapse, and the Imagined Audience. New Media & Society. The Big Sky Conference, Football, Television and Social Media 57 Nelson, K. (2002). The Erotic Gaze and Sports: An Ethnographic Consideration. Journal of Sport History, 407-412. Nielsen Wire. (2010, February 12). 14% Multi-tasked and go social on the Web during Super Bowl. Retrieved from NielsenWire: http ://blog. n ielsen .com/n ielsenwire/ on Ii ne mo bi le/14-m ulti-tasked-an d-got-socia 1-on­th e-web-du ring-sup er-bowl Nielsen Wire. (2010, February 19). Viewers go surfing during Winter Olympic Opening Ceremonies. Retrieved from NielsenWire: http ://blog. n ielsen .com/n ielsenwire/ on Ii ne mo bi le/vi ewers-go-su rfi ng-d uri ng-wi nter­olym p ic-op en ing-ceremoni es/print/ Nylund, D. (2004). When in Rome: Heterosexism, Homophobia, and Sports Talk Radio. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 136-168. Oglesby, J. C. (2015, November 14). Eastern Washington vs. Montana. Oglesby, J. C. (2015, November 21). Montana vs. Montana State. Oglesby, J. C. (2015, November 7). Southern Utah vs. Montana State. Ourand, J., & Lombardo, J. (2014, October 6). NBA's Nine-Year Media Rights Deals with ESPN, Turner Worth $248. Retrieved from Street and Smith's Sports Business Daily: http ://www. sportsb usi nessda i ly.com/Da i ly /Marni ng-Buzz/2014/10/06/N BA-media­d ea ls.aspx The Big Sky Conference, Football, Television and Social Media Qualman, E. (2009). Socialnomics: How Social Media Transforms The Way We Live and Do Business. Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 58 Ross, C., Orr, E. S., Sisic, M., Arseneault, J. M., Simmering, M. G., & Orr, R. R. (2009). Personality and motivations associated with Facebook use. Computers in Human Behavior, 578-576. Wann, D. (2006). The causes and consequences of sport team identification. In A. Raney, & J. Bryant, Handbook of Sport and Media (pp. 331-352). Mahwah, N.J.: LEA. Webster, J. G., & Ksiazek, T. B. (2012). The Dynamics of Audience Fragmentation: Public Attention in an Age of Digital Media. Journal of Communication, 39-56. Wohn, D. V., & Na, E.-K. (2011). Tweeting about TV: Sharing television viewing experiences via social media message streams. First Monday. The Big Sky Conference, Football, Television and Social Media 5,000 4,500 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 • Seriesl Appendix A Overall Social Media Engagement Tweets 2,729 lnstagram 1,962 Face book 22 Total Posts 4,713 59 The Big Sky Conference, Football, Television and Social Media 60 Appendix B Big Sky Twitter Usage-By-Gender 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 - Eastern Montana- Southern Utah- Washington- Totals Montana State Montana Montana State • lndistinguished 299 18 155 472 • Female 760 12 89 861 • Male 1222 26 140 1388 • Male • Female • lndistinguished The Big Sky Conference, Football, Television and Social Media Appendix C Social Media Engagement by Game 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 II Southern Utah­Montana State • Twitter 384 • lnstagram 4 • Facebook 3 - Eastern Washington- Montana 56 4 1 • Twitter • lnstagram Montana State- Montana 2,289 1,954 18 • Face book 61 The Big Sky Conference, Football, Television and Social Media Appendix D Southern Utah-Montana State Comments 250 200 150 100 so 0 • #SUUvsMSU • #WHEREiROOT Logistical 22 90 Content 205 3 • #WHEREiROOT • #SUUvsMSU Context 62 2 62 The Big Sky Conference, Football, Television and Social Media Appendix E Eastern Washington-Montana Comments 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 • #EWUatUM • #WHEREiROOT • Logistical 6 Content 6 6 Context 22 11 • #WHEREiROOT • #EWUatUM - Non-Sequitur 5 63 The Big Sky Conference, Football, Television and Social Media Appendix F Montana-Montana State Comments 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 • #BrawloftheWild • #WHEREiROOT Logistical 110 806 Content 358 112 Context 694 178 • #WHEREiROOT • #BrawloftheWild Non­Sequitur 20 64 Phatic 11 The Big Sky Conference, Football, Television and Social Media AppendixG Female ~ CanT1nl;,s(utit at O..eg I( T.a>:eascreen captu•e(p I ~ AshleyKors!ien (@Ashlei X~ +- C a Twrtter. Inc. (USJl https://twitter.com/AshleyKorslien : : · Apps ~ www.bigskyconf.co!l" Male 0 1-k>me f Moments .f Notifications ~ Messages Ashley Korslien AshleyKorshen 21 Nov 2015 My niece & nephew are cute, but I can't condone this behavior #Bobcat geor 1s unacceptable_ #CoCriz #brnwlofthew1ld Joshua Dennard JDennard11 · 21 Nov 2015 search TwitEr LMAO @ #bozemanState! You guys really suck ... #gogriz #brawlofthewild t.'l 1 • 4 ••• 65 Q The Big Sky Conference, Football, Television and Social Media 66 Undistinguished Tammy Lacey Retweeted missou lian @missoulian · 21 Nov 2015 Griz have doubled up the Cats and lead 44-22 w/ 3:43 left in 30 t.'l 2 ., •••