TV ratings will determine out football future. | Page 2 | The Boneyard

TV ratings will determine out football future.

Woof 101 said:
No argument here @huskyrob1, not always perfect english on this forum. Maybe only near fatal but it is plain for all to see the impact of nine losing seasons. When you go from The Fiesta Bowl and regular crowds of 30K to rankings in the last five of 130 schools and crowds of sit anywhere you want, it's easy to understand some using the word fatal.
Expand ...
Thank you Mr Zuckerberg.
 
CL82 said:
In before @Guapo says “triple option.”
Expand ...

I very much want Edsall to succeed but if UCONN is forced to make a change in the next couple years they must try the triple option, it just makes soooo much sense for UCONN. I personally have a mild obsession with the Paul Johnson offense and can't get enough of it. I even watch Cal Poly & Citadel highlights for fun.

FCS Citadel beat GTech last year running the Triple option. Just amazing.
 
Last edited:
metsfan2323 said:
I very much want Edsall to succeed but if UCONN is forced to make a change in the next couple years they must try the triple option, it just makes soooo much sense for UCONN. I personally have a mild obsession with the Paul Johnson offense and can't get enough of it. I even watch Cal Poly & Citadel highlights for fun.

FCS Citadel beat GTech last year running the Triple option. Just amazing.
Expand ...


<3
 
Programs are set in the FBS world, in terms of relevance, as almost all distributions are, on a Bell Curve.

Reaching the midpoint of that curve in the near future would be quite an undertaking but is do-able.
 
billybud said:
GT won three games last year and lost to the Citadel by a field goal...
Expand ...

Which kept them from winning 4 games or two more than we did. Think we could recruit better than FCS Citadel? Yup, Much better.
 
.-.
The Citadel. with their triple option...did lose to Towson, Elon, Wofford, Samford, VMI, and Chattanooga...
 
businesslawyer said:
Excellent, excellent attempt to try to hide yet another useless Edsall sucks thread with a headline and first sentence that makes it seem like you really wanted to discuss something else.
Expand ...
And what did I say that was wrong? We do not play an exciting watchable style of football. You disagree with that?

Our ratings, if high, could make us very attractive? You disagree with that?
 
Our ratings arent going to be high or someone would be paying us more than MAC money per game. We have no following, weve sucked for a decade and our home opponents arent for the most part any good. Of course good rating would make us more valuable but thats as useless as saying if i looked like Ashton Kushner i wouldnt have to work so hard to earn money
 
Guapo said:
Right. That’s awesome. I hate Tech.

but love the triple option
Expand ...

So many teams now run what amounts to a double option...the zone-read. The beauty of the veer or triple O was that it would put 11 on 10 with a running QB. The spread zone-read takes advantage of a spread defense and "space" to achieve their result.

The triple O is successful to an extent now because it is an outlier offense and defenses haven't played teams lthat use it nor practiced much against it...preparing for GT in a week was always a tough go.

Rich Rodriguez is credited with being the father of the read-option that now has many variants, Memphis, under Norvell, developed a potent offense with run centric ball that forces a D to commit to stopping the run with 7-9 in the box, which opens up the play action pass...

Georgia State, when it won three IAA championships, successfully ran a "flex-bone" modified triple O. The same offense that Monken at Army used. Now Monken is (2020) offensive coordinator at Georgia and I am curious if he will have scheme impact there under Kirby Smart.

Miami (and FSU) changed college ball with speed on defense and changed the use of the triple option...with their emphasis on speedy defenders...Miami beat Nebraska in the Orange Bowl and beat Oklahoma's option three straight times. The only three losses Oklahoma had in the three seasons of 85-87, were to the Canes. After Nebraska lost to FSU in back to back Orange Bowls...Osborne changed their offense.

I have watched the Darwinian survival of the fittest over the past 60 years...offenses evolve to solve defenses and defenses evolve to stop offenses...it will never be static.

And we will see triple options adopted by programs who think that will give them an advantage....the disadvantage in recruiting is that cut block specialists aren't an NFL commodity and great receivers may not be attracted.
 
Last edited:
.-.
businesslawyer said:
Our ratings arent going to be high or someone would be paying us more than MAC money per game. We have no following, weve sucked for a decade and our home opponents arent for the most part any good. Of course good rating would make us more valuable but thats as useless as saying if i looked like Ashton Kushner i wouldnt have to work so hard to earn money
Expand ...
Our ratings could be high if we were an interesting offensive team. Lots of big plays. Wow factor.
 
Palatine said:
Our ratings could be high if we were an interesting offensive team. Lots of big plays. Wow factor.
Expand ...

Lots of interesting football gets played in in FCS and small FBS conferences. How often do you watch?

No one is going to watch a meaningless football game just because teams score a lot. If they did, the Big XII would be the most watched conference in the country. I don't doubt that, at the margins, more people find high scoring games entertaining, but talking about our tv ratings is utterly meaningless until we're good enough to play meaningful football.
 
Actually our ratings would improve if we WON football games. Almost doesn’t matter how. If we were to figure out how to clamp down on offenses, nearly impossible with the current rules which heavily favor offense, but if we did and won games 21-7 and upset a few teams doing it we’d get as much burn as if we won games 56-49. Maybe more because everyone does that now
 
San Diego State has had two 11 win seasons and two 10 win seasons in their last five...I don't know how much that has propelled them into the ratings.

It is winning...and it is winning against teams that grab national notice that may raise ratings.
 
businesslawyer said:
Our ratings arent going to be high or someone would be paying us more than MAC money per game. We have no following, weve sucked for a decade and our home opponents arent for the most part any good. Of course good rating would make us more valuable but thats as useless as saying if i looked like Ashton Kushner i wouldnt have to work so hard to earn money
Expand ...
1590765681452.png

"What? I work plenty hard pal! You know what..."
 
.-.
huskyrob1 said:
Everyone knows I've been one of FHCRE's biggest critics, but I have to ask who has been doing the recruiting lately? They've picked up some decent players in 2021, so far.
Expand ...
That's one reason I'm back on the HCRE bandwagon. I admit I only know what I read here about recruiting but it appears it's trending up. We should have a team with some seasoning playing a schedule with winnable games. We win those games, we turn a few heads, we get more looks... That's how you build a program. And that's preferable to me right now than bringing in another guy and giving him another 5 years. I'm not getting any younger.
 
Recruiting is trending up. Interest is actually building with the move to independence. Edsall will return the team to competence and at a price we can currently afford.

I don't comprehend the timing of or reason for this thread. Especially after we've landed what looks to be a few studs on the recruiting trail.

If UCONN football was a stock, it's recommendation right now would be a "buy"...
 
BlueDogs said:
I think the objective is dollar arbitrage. You take an AAC Or independent team, for example, making net $5 Million and you let them in for 10 Million for 5 years. You negotiate a reduced add-on rate with ESPN. So, instead of $42 Million, you move that to $30 Million. The net result is the conference picks up another $20 MM, the new entrant picks up another $5 M a year, and ESPN has paid down for the add while leveraging up a new team into higher market tier.
Expand ...

Why would ESPN pay a $25m premium for a property they already own, then watch a league "partner" they basically own walk away with an extra $20m. premium? They aren't killing the AAC just yet. Too many time slots to fill. The plan is to keep it on a strict diet for an extended period. They accomplished that with the last contract and we walked. Bold move but might just work out. And ESPN really doesn't have much incentive to rock the boat, especially in uncertain times for the college sports landscape. But if they can sell that smoke more power.
 
Jimdish255 said:
Why would ESPN pay a $25m premium for a property they already own, then watch a league "partner" they basically own walk away with an extra $20m. premium? They aren't killing the AAC just yet. Too many time slots to fill. The plan is to keep it on a strict diet for an extended period. They accomplished that with the last contract and we walked. Bold move but might just work out. And ESPN really doesn't have much incentive to rock the boat, especially in uncertain times for the college sports landscape. But if they can sell that smoke more power.
Expand ...
Certain markets (and products) become more valuable when repositioned and packaged as premium be it by realignment or otherwise - Kind of like like turning PBR into a cache beer that hipsters pay twice the price for. Any market that gets a B1G team becomes immediately more valuable and commands more advertising dollars...
 
.-.
Jimdish255 said:
Why would ESPN pay a $25m premium for a property they already own, then watch a league "partner" they basically own walk away with an extra $20m. premium? They aren't killing the AAC just yet. Too many time slots to fill. The plan is to keep it on a strict diet for an extended period. They accomplished that with the last contract and we walked. Bold move but might just work out. And ESPN really doesn't have much incentive to rock the boat, especially in uncertain times for the college sports landscape. But if they can sell that smoke more power.
Expand ...
Liked for the last sentence, a common phrase in the Balkans.
 
What makes for great football TV?

Lots of scoring.

Chuck plays.

Trick plays.

Feats of athleticism like amazing catches or escapes.

Winning really helps but you can be entertaining if you do the above.
 
UMass 62...Liberty 59 (2018) would fit that mold.

So would Louisville 62...Wake Forest 59 (2019) as well.

Entertaining? Maybe to some.

I would rather watch a game like Georgia 23...Notre Dame 17 (2019)

or...Florida 24....Miami 20 (2019)...but that's me.
 
I was against re-hiring Edsall in the first place because I worried he would turn off fans. It is true that he seemed to lack offensive imagination and when UConn played good teams, he played to not lose by too much.

RE 1.0 won't bring back fans. But...then they hired Lashlee...which gave me hope that at least Benedict understood that interesting offense mattered. But...he left. The last two years the offense has sputtered due to talent, but I don't think it was that predictable and boring. Pindell was fun to watch and there seems to be some WR talent.

I think due to a talent gap, we really don't know yet what an RE 2.0 offense is. I know it won't be triple option (sorry @Guapo ). Let's see what he rolls out this year.
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,269
Messages
4,560,651
Members
10,452
Latest member
WashingtonH


Top Bottom