Orlando Sentinel: Gators AD Scott Stricklin: Canceling football ‘would shake financial foundation of college athletics’ | Page 4 | The Boneyard

Orlando Sentinel: Gators AD Scott Stricklin: Canceling football ‘would shake financial foundation of college athletics’

freescooter said:
For all the hoopla the National Championship game has been a wash ratingswise relative to the old BCS championship. Except for the first year the ratings are similar. And anecdotally there is not that much buzz. In fact it hasn’t done as well as some of the BCS games. It has ranged from a high of 18.6 in the first year to a low of 13.8 in 2019. Last season it rebounded a bit to 14.2 or so. The last 5 BCS games did 17.2, 15.3, 14.0 ( all SEC Ala-LSU) 15.1 and 14.8..Where there has been a significant fall off is in the New Years Day games. The 2 semi-finals draw about as well as top bowl games did but the no playoff games have dropped quite a bit. For comparison the ratings for the Super Bowl are in the 40s. Last five years for NCAA Basketball ranged from 9.2low to 16 high. the 2 lowest games have been Villanova finals, 9.2 and 10.6. So much for Villanova being a national draw FWIW. Bottom line I think is the CFB National Championship, while not exactly a bust, hasn’t really caught the public imagination, like it was sold to do. And I’m not sure it has helped the sport overall by making it the focus of the season. When you eliminate 80% of the teams by week 2 people lose interest Not gain.
Expand ...
Good post, but your numbers show people haven't lost interest. The number of viewers is essentially the same.
 
MilliniumPrince said:
Good post, but your numbers show people haven't lost interest. The number of viewers is essentially the same.
Expand ...
That was the point. The hype was that this National Championship would be huge. It turns out that it isn’t. The people who watch college football are the people who watch college football. A few more actually watched under the BCS system most years but I think that’s just the overall decline in sports viewing. It didn’t bring new viewers. It didn’t bring new interest. If it ended tomorrow and was replaced by another system the game that was considered the “ best” would do comparable numbers.
 
The NC game last year had 25.59 million watching....LSU-Clemson.

The Semi of Ohio State vs Clemson had 21.15 million...

Beat the pants off of BCS championship games.
 
billybud said:
The NC game last year had 25.59 million watching....LSU-Clemson.

The Semi of Ohio State vs Clemson had 21.15 million...

Beat the pants off of BCS championship games.
Expand ...
Nope. BCS Games drew about the same. Last BCS game had 26.2 million. Highest NCFBC rating was the first year. 34.2. Highest BCs was Texas-USC which drew 36.63. Actually the BCS was a little better over it’s history but only marginally. The semi finals do a little better than the next 2 BCS games except when the 2nd BCS game was the Rose Bowl as traditionally played. Big 10-PAC 12. Those drew 24 some years. But the other bowl games typically do worse now.
 
.-.


>>“First scenario is the season begins on time and isn’t altered much,” Fowler said. “Time is running out though, unless you feel four to six weeks is a lot of time. I'm told by the end of May, there has to be clarity. That’s about the deadline to get things going on time. Athletic directors have to plan for the what ifs. College football is way more complicated than any pro sports.

“Chancellors and presidents will make decisions for their schools, not the athletic directors.”

Without a vaccine and President Donald Trump extending social distancing nationwide into May, Fowler says the more likely scenarios include with a delayed start to the season this fall or one that begins in 2021. The latter has growing interest, he says.

“The people who are going to make these decisions will be guided by the epidemiologists and biotech people,” Fowler said. “Scenario 1 doesn’t feel super realistic. Scenario 2, the season starts late and maybe is shortened a bit. Reshuffling the Playoff sounds problematic. People are worried about the second wave. There’s a third scenario that’s gaining momentum — football in the spring — beginning at some pint in February.<<
 
Good sense should prevail...we can be "normal" when it is safe to be normal.
 
MilliniumPrince said:
We are already down to 32. Hell, less than 32 who have a legitimate shot of winning. Yet, we still watch. Fans in states with no NFl team watch the NFL. Fans of schools with no shot of sniffing the playoffs watch now. That won't change on a large scale.

I believe you if you say you won't watch. You will not be in the majority on that one.
Expand ...
Ratings are already low outside the South. If they formalize a split to 32, fans of NC State (left out) won’t suddenly become fans of Clemson. And fans of Indiana (left out) won’t start wearing Ohio State jerseys.

32 would be a yawner.
 
.-.
A 32-team super league would make it difficult to maintain the fiction that it's still college sports, imo. It would be the XFL, no matter the name on the front of the jerseys. I wouldn't watch a second of it.
 
Waquoit said:
A 32-team super league would make it difficult to maintain the fiction that it's still college sports, imo. It would be the XFL, no matter the name on the front of the jerseys. I wouldn't watch a second of it.
Expand ...
Yeah, you might be right about what a 32 team super division for college football might feel like. I would still watch, but certainly with less passion. The fan bases would probably narrow to quite a bit, to something more like pro sports.

Thing is, because the NCAA doesn’t do anything to reset competitive balance, no matter what they do to narrow the college football pool the product will be terribly flawed on that their will be permanent losers and permanent winners. Right now that flawed is thinly veiled below the pool of 130 teams. Narrow that pool to 30,40, 50 or 60 and those bottom teams will be absolutely nailed to the floor.
 
Exit 4 said:
Yeah, you might be right about what a 32 team super division for college football might feel like. I would still watch, but certainly with less passion. The fan bases would probably narrow to quite a bit, to something more like pro sports.

Thing is, because the NCAA doesn’t do anything to reset competitive balance, no matter what they do to narrow the college football pool the product will be terribly flawed on that their will be permanent losers and permanent winners. Right now that flawed is thinly veiled below the pool of 130 teams. Narrow that pool to 30,40, 50 or 60 and those bottom teams will be absolutely nailed to the floor.
Expand ...
I think this is absolutely right but, and it is a big BUT, if 32 teams can be convinced that they will make more money than in the current system I have no doubt that they will do it.

The one experiment that I could see happening this fall is playing without fans. It is a silly idea but one we have been moving toward for a while now. No one outside the fans themselves cares much about them so it will be fascinating to see if games even make sense played in an empty arena. I talked to a guy who played hoops in for BU the year they played their tourney without fans because of a measles outbreak I think. He said it was really hard to keep focused. Felt like a scrimmage not a real game. But then BU lost. If they one he might have said it was great. Hard to imagine a whole season of football played as a true made for tv event though
 
Can college football be played without fans in the stands? Paul Finebaum shares his thoughts

>>“I think so but I will say this Ryan, after talking to a lot of people last week, ADs, commissioners and head football coaches, I think there is clearly a line drawn about football without fans and it just seems like it would make the sport look extraordinarily desperate and I think he could have a long term effect,” Finebaum said on the show. “Now you weigh that against no football and I understand the argument.

“Jimbo Fisher said the other day, listen I don’t want it, and I’m paraphrasing, you know sometimes you just have to do things that you don’t want to do. I just have a hard time believing that the five Power 5 commissioners, as you trickle down to college presidents, are going to do that. Because if you can’t put people in the stands, why is it safe to put people on the field and locker rooms? And I think another thing you have to consider if college campuses aren’t open, I don’t see any way that they’ll be football.<<
 
.-.
Exit 4 said:
Yeah, you might be right about what a 32 team super division for college football might feel like. I would still watch, but certainly with less passion. The fan bases would probably narrow to quite a bit, to something more like pro sports.

Thing is, because the NCAA doesn’t do anything to reset competitive balance, no matter what they do to narrow the college football pool the product will be terribly flawed on that their will be permanent losers and permanent winners. Right now that flawed is thinly veiled below the pool of 130 teams. Narrow that pool to 30,40, 50 or 60 and those bottom teams will be absolutely nailed to the floor.
Expand ...

One has to start to question the current major college sports business model, especially for football. No other country has such a system in place. Plus, even in the US, the Ivy league and others walked away from football in partiular decades ago and have done all right. I just think the rules and regulations that being part of a University is going to become too burdensome to these big-time programs. Should these 32 big-tme programs split, I think in less than a decade, the will split from their respective universities, too. Such a split would have less of an impact on basketball, hockey, baseball and soccer as there are alternate and arguably better routes to a professional career in each respective sport that college. The NCAA will go back to what it was 50 years ago with some 'big' programs; but, it will be back to being focused on Amateur sports.
 
huskymedic said:
Expand ...

I'm not sure if they can/or will do this for football. I guess if their media partners require it, they will. I can see it for basketball. It would be weird, but better than cancelling the season.
 
.-.
Imagine that...


>>I just have a couple of more lifestyle questions, then I’ll let you go. People are still holding out hope for some kind of abbreviated baseball season this summer, college football will start in late August. NFL right after that. Do you think those sports seasons are in jeopardy? Are we going to have college football this fall?

—>You know, to be honest with you, Peter, I don’t know. I really don’t. And it’s sort of along the same line as the question you asked about the schools. It’s really going to depend on what actually evolves over the next couple of months. You know, regarding sports, I believe, and I think this is going to be implemented by the initiation and the initiative of the people who own these clubs. If you could get on television, Major League Baseball, to start July 4. Let’s say, nobody comes to the stadium. You just, you do it. I mean people say, “Well you can’t play without spectators.” Well, I think you’d probably get enough buy-in from people who are dying to see a baseball game. Particularly me. I’m living in Washington. We have the World Champion Washington Nationals. You know, I want to see them play again. But there’s a way of doing that because there have been some proposals both at the level of the NFL, Major League Baseball, National Hockey League, to get these people tested, and to put them in big hotels, you know, wherever you want to play. Keep them very well surveilled, namely a surveillance, but have them tested, like every week. By a gazillion tests. And make sure they don’t wind up infecting each other or their family. And just let them play the season out. I mean, that’s a really artificial way to do it, but when you think about it, it might be better than nothing.<—
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,271
Messages
4,560,889
Members
10,451
Latest member
WashingtonH


Top Bottom