TV Ratings for playoffs down 36% on NYE | Page 2 | The Boneyard

TV Ratings for playoffs down 36% on NYE

Status
Not open for further replies.
[/QUOTE] Why not, if they're the better team. There are lots of reasons for losing games. If a fluke loss, absolutely.[/QUOTE]

So if Florida had upset Alabama in the SEC Championship Game Alabama should then play in the playoffs? You lose and you are out, no fluke losses at the end of the season!
 
HartfordHank said:
So if Florida had upset Alabama in the SEC Championship Game Alabama should then play in the playoffs? You lose and you are out, no fluke losses at the end of the season!
Expand ...

You don't think Alabama would have belonged if FL had won on a bad call or last second field goal? The best teams should be playing, not just those with the better record. Shouldn't Iowa have been replaced by OSU in the Rose Bowl?
Iowa didn't play a tough schedule. And Oklahoma beat three teams with back up QB's. Stanford should have been in the playoff instead of the Sooners.
 
BlueDogs said:
Until they let some underdogs into the mix and move away from the usual suspects year over year, the audience will stagnate. The Power 5 consolidation is a move away from parity. Number one rule of American entertainment is an underdog story. It precisely why the "Cinderellas" stories carry the NCAA year over year. The NCAA is shooting itself in the head.
Expand ...

Yes! Rocky was a great movie even thought he didn't win the big fight against Apollo. It was his underdog story that we love.
 
Nostical said:
You don't think Alabama would have belonged if FL had won on a bad call or last second field goal? The best teams should be playing, not just those with the better record. Shouldn't Iowa have been replaced by OSU in the Rose Bowl?
Iowa didn't play a tough schedule. And Oklahoma beat three teams with back up QB's. Stanford should have been in the playoff instead of the Sooners.
Expand ...

I totally disagree with "the best x teams should be playing" crowd. Determining that is too subjective. I think all playoff participants should earn it on the field, not by reputation and an eye-test.

Having said that, I support an 8 team playoff as a compromise. All five P5 champs and then use subjectivity to determine the most deserving G5 champ and the two best at large. Seed and bracket them like the hoops tourney. First round at the home of the higher seed. Semi-finals at two of the New Year's Day bowls (not NYE -- we saw this year why that was not a good idea)
 
Nostical said:
You don't think Alabama would have belonged if FL had won on a bad call or last second field goal? The best teams should be playing, not just those with the better record. Shouldn't Iowa have been replaced by OSU in the Rose Bowl?
Iowa didn't play a tough schedule. And Oklahoma beat three teams with back up QB's. Stanford should have been in the playoff instead of the Sooners.
Expand ...

If Alabama lost they lost. Doesn't matter if it is a last second field goal or a bad call! If they lost they weren't the better team!

Iowa and OSU were not part of the playoff, doesn't matter where they played. Iowa won their division and OSU didn't win theirs.

Oklahoma beat all of the teams they were scheduled to play. That is all you can do. They lost one game to Texas in a rivalry game. It would have been nice if they had to play in a Championship Game.

Stanford had two losses. You can't afford to have two losses when you are trying to get into the playoffs.
 
.-.
The 8 team would make sense this year and probably in general. OU in what seems to be an awful B12, that because the commissioner was so vocal when they were snubbed last year probably got a favorable invite. Good to see they were completely embarrassed. OU fans are a slight notch below all SEC fans in terms of annoyingness.

HartfordHank said:
If Alabama lost they lost. Doesn't matter if it is a last second field goal or a bad call! If they lost they weren't the better team!

Iowa and OSU were not part of the playoff, doesn't matter where they played. Iowa won their division and OSU didn't win theirs.

Oklahoma beat all of the teams they were scheduled to play. That is all you can do. They lost one game to Texas in a rivalry game. It would have been nice if they had to play in a Championship Game.

Stanford had two losses. You can't afford to have two losses when you are trying to get into the playoffs.
Expand ...
 
The real prob is the size of the conferences It was great to go to 14 or 15 teams, now teams are suffering the consequences. NOBODY plays everybody, except in the B12. It's even worse in BB. Check Iowa's FB sked and last years Puirdue BB sked. Notre Dame is in the ACC WHO do they play?????Big money has RUINED every thing and placed us as the loser in the AAC.:(:(:(:(
 
Nostical said:
[QUOTE="HartfordHank, post: 1526528, member: 1065] Do you want a playoff where a team that just lost a championship game plays in the playoffs again?
Expand ...

Why not, if they're the better team. There are lots of reasons for losing games. If a fluke loss, absolutely.[/QUOTE]

Because sports are decided on the field by who wins and loses.
 
brasssbonanzaa said:
Everyone else is just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
Expand ...

If my innocent use of "warrior" caused an outcry among those who felt I was somehow correlating football players to defenders of our freedom, how can you disrespect the memories of so many who lost their lives on that fateful collision with an iceberg. Where's the outrage?
 
.-.
kemba said:
What exactly are you suggesting?

And cinderella stories don't carry the NCAA year after year. They are a nice subplot. NCAA would rather Duke, UConn, Kentucky in the final four than Butler and VCU.
Expand ...
Actually, Duke, Kentucky, UNC, and one of Butler, VCU, or Kansas would be just fine for them. A--holes.
 
Drew said:
please. Its not like CFB ratings on TV during the entire season suck. Is anyone shocked the playoff on NYE got lower ratings? Both games still had more viewers than the NCAA Basketball tournament average from last year (link: http://www.ncaa.com/news/ncaa/artic...ament-has-highest-average-viewership-22-years) and the regular season games get insane amounts of viewership.

Even some of the smaller bowls have had ridiculous numbers. 1.5 million people watched a meaningless game between Arkansas State and Louisiana Tech in the New Orleans Bowl. (Link: http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings/)

also what is the reason for going to 8 from a real competition standpoint? The CFP and NCAA tournament are like government- once you expand it you can't take it back. Do 68 teams really deserve to be in the NCAA Tournament for basketball? The regular season means absolutely nothing there. CFB has the craziness associated with the regular season and that only comes with the playoff being limited to 4 teams.

The CFP and ESPN will both look at this and play out the obligated games for next year's playoff on Dec 31 and then will have to figure out a way to tell the Rose Bowl committee to F off and let them play the playoff games on Jan 1 every year. Everyone involved knew this was going to happen and thats why they tried like crazy to move the date of the Rose Bowl. If the Rose Bowl doesn't budge then play the first Semi Final at 12ET, Rose Bowl at 4ET and second Semi Final at 8ET on Jan 1 every year. They'll figure it out and the ratings and popularity will be fine.
Expand ...
That's not my point. I was pointing out that they get their ratings from the same subsection of the population who religiously watches college football under any circumstances. They however do not do as well among casual sports fans, and collegiately unaffilitated NFL fans in large cities, primarily because of the reasons I put out there. The potential exists for college football to put up NFL-size numbers if there was an NFL-sized playoff structure. That the college football semifinals get 15-18 million viewers this year and the NFC and AFC championship games get 50 million apiece tells you all you need to know about what's being left on the table by the college football commissioners. With the level of popularity of the sport, the baked-in New Years Day holiday as a prime spot to play the games, if they finally created a structure where the casual sports fan would be interested in following either a local program, one with a good storyline, or whatever it may be because there's a shot they could actually make it into the playoffs and to the national championship, ratings would go up across the board. College football has pigeonholed itself in terms of TV ratings for years because of this ridiculous mentality that more teams having a shot to play for the championship is a bad thing or "not possible" when really it's just a ploy to protect the chosen few programs. They're content with their same audience 1/3 the size of an NFL playoff game watching every year. Hopefully they'll eventually come to the realization that an eight-team playoff that gives more teams a shot, and encourages more fans to watch, and creates more of a "win it on the field and not on a computer or in a back room" mentality among fans will significantly boost their ratings.
 
Nostical said:
If my innocent use of "warrior" caused an outcry among those who felt I was somehow correlating football players to defenders of our freedom, how can you disrespect the memories of so many who lost their lives on that fateful collision with an iceberg. Where's the outrage?
Expand ...
I don't know if you're directing this at me, but I never commented on that, and frankly I've not once in my life heard any offense taken by the very generic term "warrior" with respect to those who do and have served.
 
You also have to wonder how many potential regular season viewers have been left on the sidelines over the years because their team lost early in the season, or got a second loss late in the year and the casual sports fan just assumes they no longer have a shot to make the playoffs (or formerly BCS title game). I mean, let's be honest, if anyone not in the top of the SEC, FSU or Clemson, Ohio State, or possibly OU/Texas loses a game in the first few weeks of the season, the perception is their chances at the playoff are basically done. We've come to the point where even Notre Dame is considered to be on the outside looking in! After their loss to Clemson, even though they were in the top four for a while, the general thought was they had little shot of staying there unless they manhandled the rest of their competition and got some lucky breaks.

A four-team playoff is an improvement over the BCS, but even still those in charge of this whole thing are leaving tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in ad revenue on the table because large segments of football fans tune the sport out because of the perception that one or more teams they're interested in are playing for nothing. And let's face it, for people who are primarily pro sports fans, they don't give two craps about the opportunity to play in a glorified exhibition game they call a bowl game.
 
brasssbonanzaa said:
That's not my point. I was pointing out that they get their ratings from the same subsection of the population who religiously watches college football under any circumstances. They however do not do as well among casual sports fans, and collegiately unaffilitated NFL fans in large cities, primarily because of the reasons I put out there. The potential exists for college football to put up NFL-size numbers if there was an NFL-sized playoff structure. That the college football semifinals get 15-18 million viewers this year and the NFC and AFC championship games get 50 million apiece tells you all you need to know about what's being left on the table by the college football commissioners. With the level of popularity of the sport, the baked-in New Years Day holiday as a prime spot to play the games, if they finally created a structure where the casual sports fan would be interested in following either a local program, one with a good storyline, or whatever it may be because there's a shot they could actually make it into the playoffs and to the national championship, ratings would go up across the board. College football has pigeonholed itself in terms of TV ratings for years because of this ridiculous mentality that more teams having a shot to play for the championship is a bad thing or "not possible" when really it's just a ploy to protect the chosen few programs. They're content with their same audience 1/3 the size of an NFL playoff game watching every year. Hopefully they'll eventually come to the realization that an eight-team playoff that gives more teams a shot, and encourages more fans to watch, and creates more of a "win it on the field and not on a computer or in a back room" mentality among fans will significantly boost their ratings.
Expand ...

I agree with a lot of this. But there is no 'college football'. It's about 18-20 schools attempting to create every advantage for themselves while getting as much revenue as they can.
 
People will grow tired of the playoff because it will basically be the same teams over and over. Alabama, Ohio State, Florida, LSU, Oklahoma, USC, etc. It's like the movie "Groundhog Day".

It's also like a mini-NFL, with even fewer teams able to win the championship (at least the NFL has 32 teams).
 
.-.
Redding Husky said:
People will grow tired of the playoff because it will basically be the same teams over and over. Alabama, Ohio State, Florida, LSU, Oklahoma, USC, etc. It's like the movie "Groundhog Day".

It's also like a mini-NFL, with even fewer teams able to win the championship (at least the NFL has 32 teams).
Expand ...

First, the P5 had too much power and has managed to suck up the bulk of media dollars with help from the main networks. The goal is to drive the bottom half of D-1 into oblivion as competitors for dollars. The system is designed to ensure recruiting and coverage stay among the elect teams. The 4 team championship reaffirms their dominance and keeps the $$ engine flowing. The system is a sham, and they will kill the golden goose as people lose interest other than a handful of schools and their alumni. The was the most boring bowl season I can remember in a long time. They need to move to a 16 team format. It will take 4 weeks. 2 weeks Dec. and 2 weeks Jan.
 
Redding Husky said:
People will grow tired of the playoff because it will basically be the same teams over and over. Alabama, Ohio State, Florida, LSU, Oklahoma, USC, etc. It's like the movie "Groundhog Day".

It's also like a mini-NFL, with even fewer teams able to win the championship (at least the NFL has 32 teams).
Expand ...

This isn't really borne out in numbers.

The NBA starts the year with a half
dozen teams that can win (in a good year) - it's never been more popular.

The EPL has 5-6 clubs that lord
over everyone - they print more money than a banana republic in hyperinflation.

ESPN doesn't show Duke, Carolina and Kentucky constantly because no one watches.

Baseball hasn't seen this kind of parity in decades and it's not exactly growing their ratings.
 
I'm curious what's going to happen next year in terms of the bowls being on New Year's Day. Next year Jan 1 is a Sunday. How is that going to match up against what I'm assuming will be Week 17 in the NFL? It's clearly no coincidence that there are no Bowls on Monday night or last Sunday? This year the Bowls end on Saturday the 2nd. Are they going to match up the Bowl games with the NFL? I can't remember what they've done in the past.
 
UCFBfan said:
I'm curious what's going to happen next year in terms of the bowls being on New Year's Day. Next year Jan 1 is a Sunday. How is that going to match up against what I'm assuming will be Week 17 in the NFL? It's clearly no coincidence that there are no Bowls on Monday night or last Sunday? This year the Bowls end on Saturday the 2nd. Are they going to match up the Bowl games with the NFL? I can't remember what they've done in the past.
Expand ...

The Rose Bowl and Sugar Bowl will be played on Jan 2
 
UCFBfan said:
I'm curious what's going to happen next year in terms of the bowls being on New Year's Day. Next year Jan 1 is a Sunday. How is that going to match up against what I'm assuming will be Week 17 in the NFL? It's clearly no coincidence that there are no Bowls on Monday night or last Sunday? This year the Bowls end on Saturday the 2nd. Are they going to match up the Bowl games with the NFL? I can't remember what they've done in the past.
Expand ...
College bowls have never gone head to head with the NFL, just as the NFL does not hold Saturday games during the college regular season. It's not so much a gentlemen's agreement (though I'm sure that is part of it) as a business decision. They are competing, more or less, for the same eye balls.

There is no Monday Night Football game for week 17 and the New Year Holiday is observed by most workers the following Monday, Jan. 2.
 
Redding Husky said:
People will grow tired of the playoff because it will basically be the same teams over and over. Alabama, Ohio State, Florida, LSU, Oklahoma, USC, etc. It's like the movie "Groundhog Day".

It's also like a mini-NFL, with even fewer teams able to win the championship (at least the NFL has 32 teams).
Expand ...
I don't think you can say that just yet. In two years 7 different teams have been in it. Definitely think we get some new blood next year too, Tennessee for example.
 
.-.
Brochacho said:
I don't think you can say that just yet. In two years 7 different teams have been in it. Definitely think we get some new blood next year too, Tennessee for example.
Expand ...
In two years, only 5 conferences have been represented. That will not change going forward. At 10-0, Houston was ranked #19 in the CFP rankings behind a handful of 2 loss teams. Even if they are perfect, a G-5 program has virtually no shot at getting into the playoff, and the gap between virtual and literal is almost non-existent and shrinking.
 
Husky25 said:
In two years, only 5 conferences have been represented. That will not change going forward. At 10-0, Houston was ranked #19 in the CFP rankings behind a handful of 2 loss teams. Even if they are perfect, a G-5 program has virtually no shot at getting into the playoff, and the gap between virtual and literal is almost non-existent and shrinking.
Expand ...
I don't think that's a slight at Houston, they didn't play a ranked team until the 11th week of the season.
 
History Geek said:
Having said that, I support an 8 team playoff as a compromise. All five P5 champs and then use subjectivity to determine the most deserving G5 champ and the two best at large. Seed and bracket them like the hoops tourney. First round at the home of the higher seed. Semi-finals at two of the New Year's Day bowls (not NYE -- we saw this year why that was not a good idea)
Expand ...

Although I'm a big proponent of running an FCS-style 16 team tourney, I also realize that the P5 will never give up their conference championship money, nor will they be running to vote for more inclusion to the G5 in the playoff format. Having said that, I could live with your proposal of an 8-team "Champions" bracket, where at least one of the G5 gets inclusion.

As we have all seen over the last 2 years with UCF and Houston, the AAC can handle their business against some of the "blue bloods". While the chances of one of our teams winning it all would be extremely low, they deserve the chance to play for it all...
 
There was only one ranked G-5 team to start the season. The AP's perception creates the G-5 reality when it comes to the CFP. It's not only a slight against Houston, but an indictment of the P-5/G-5 system itself.
 
UConnDan97 said:
Having said that, I could live with your proposal of an 8-team "Champions" bracket, where at least one of the G5 gets inclusion.
Expand ...
I've been thinking 8 teams all along, I think its the happy medium. Give each P5 champion an automatic bid, and then a bid to the highest rated G5 champion, and finally 2 at large bids. If there is no ranked G5 champion, give 3 at larges.
Husky25 said:
There was only one ranked G-5 team to start the season. The AP's perception creates the G-5 reality when it comes to the CFP. It's not only a slight against Houston, but an indictment of the P-5/G-5 system itself.
Expand ...
And how many ranked G5 teams will there be to finish the season? Probably 3.

First off, I fully believe an undefeated Memphis makes the playoff. They were sitting at 8-0 and ranked 13th. From that point of the season on, the top 12 in the CFP ranking lost a combined 17 times. Memphis had Navy, @Houston, @Temple, SMU, and then likely Temple again in the AAC championship game. If Memphis wins out, combined with how the other teams fared to end the season, Memphis is in the group of Oklahoma, Stanford, and Iowa at the very least.

As to Houston, I feel like they are kicking themselves for giving a home and home to Texas State. Most definitely kicking themselves over the UConn loss. If Houston goes undefeated, they almost certainly end the season in the top 10. The UConn loss wrecked their perception, as did weak finishes from Cincy and Memphis. But back to my point about Texas State, I feel that if that is a series vs any P5 team, even a school like Kansas, Houston breaks into the ranking quicker. Next year they start off with a neutral site game against Oklahoma, have Louisville at home, and the Texas State game is on the road. I think Houston is going to absolutely sprint through the AAC next season (look at their schedule) and Oklahoma/Louisville are very likely to be ranked when Houston plays them. If an undefeated Houston can't make the CFP next season, then I think it is fair to complain about the P5/G5 as it related to the playoff.
 
I stopped reading after, if Houston goes undefeated, they finish in your he top 10," because you made my point for me. If Houston goes undefeated they should have been playing in the late games on Friday, not the early game.
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,342
Messages
4,566,026
Members
10,466
Latest member
Eil Rule


Top Bottom