(06-17-2013 11:05 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-17-2013 10:23 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-17-2013 09:40 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-17-2013 08:56 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-17-2013 08:42 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  It is not reasonable to use the NFL as an example because all of the franchises are considered to be of roughly equal quality regardless of variances in attendance and winning, which are not perceived to be structural. E.g., the Raiders may be the worst team in the NFL right now and the Ravens the best, but no Ravens fan thinks the Raiders belong in a different, lesser league, nor does any other NFL fan.

In contrast, despite being FBS, the vast bulk of college football fans do not regard schools such as Utah State and UT-San Antonio to be on the same level as Alabama and Michigan, so there is a completely different dynamic there. Bottom line: the NFL playoffs would lose legitimacy if any teams were systematically ineligible. That is not true with CFB. Nobody will consider a CFB playoff with say Alabama/Ohio State/USC/FSU to be illegitimate because theoretically, ECU was not eligible for the playoffs. And so viewership will not decline for those playoffs.

Again, your missing the point. In your example, UTSA fans think they belong in the same division with Alabama and LSU. I never said if "America" would view the championship as more or less legitimate without the G5. What I have said is that G5 fans are very likely to fall into 3 groups. One group will continue to watch FBS as before. One group will lose interest and watch little or no FBS football. And the final group will be angry activist that do not watch FBS, aggressively fight the expulsion via letter writing campaignes aimed at political figures/ advertisers, and promote/participate in grass root campaingns that boycott advertisers of FBS telecasts.

Bottom line, theres simply no way a split is what the networks want. The fact is, nobody wants it other than a few ADs. Where are network execs screaming for a split? Where are the sports columns demanding a split? Where are the letter writing campaigns from fans demanding a split? Where is this massive movement demanding a split and demanding it now? The reality is theres no demand and no real economic purpose served by a split. Perhaps that could change, but at this point, I don't see it happening. It simply makes no sense in the current environment.

I get your point. I just don't think college fans behave the way you think they do. Heck, many fans of G5 schools are very angry about the selection structure of the playoffs, the structure of the playoff money distribution, the ties to access bowls and how they are all tilted heavily to favor P5, but the networks are unconcerned about that and don't seem to fear a G5 boycott. They are pissed that their schools are frozen out of the P5, and yet networks don't care about that either.

As for who is clamoring for what, I think you miss the point: Yes, having the G5 theoretically eligible for the playoffs does not hurt viewership and therefore the networks don't mind them being eligible. But there's also no evidence that excluding the G5 would hurt viewership either, just as excluding all the FCS teams doesn't hurt viewership.

I mean, let's review here:

1) All of those hundreds of FCS schools are frozen out of FBS bowls and playoffs, and the networks don't seem to think that hurts ratings.

2) The money and entry structure of the FBS playoffs and access bowls will heavily favor P5 and this pisses off many G5 fans, but the networks don't seem to care.

3) Historically, the Rose bowl was the most exclusionary bowl, excluding even most power schools from P5 conferences, everyone not in the B1G or PAC, and yet ratings were the highest of all bowl games.

... and yet we're supposed to think that because the chances of a G5 like ECU making the playoffs would go from "very slim" to "none" if the playoffs were P5-only, that this would move the ratings needle? Seriously?


IMO, anyone who thinks that in my example, LSU/Ohio State would draw less ratings than LSU/Cincy is just not being realistic.

Again--you keep using a erroneous point about FCS fans. Why would FCS fans be angry? Didnt each FCS school make its own choice to play at the FCS level? Thats much different from half of FBS being tossed from that level against the will of the school administrations.

Sure, LSU vs Ohio would probably draw better viewers than LSU and Cinci---but that would really be dependent on the level of TV exposure Cinci had that year and the quality of team they had. We have already seen that G5 vs P5 games can draw just as effectively as P5- vs P5 games.

We are not going to agree here--simply because your position is effectively that the G5 have zero value and no affect on viewership. Thats a thesis that I simply dont buy.

If LSU-Ohio State would probably draw better than LSU-Cincy, then it's hard to imagine why the networks would think that a P5-only deal would be harmful to their interests, such that they would recommend to the P5 that they not do that.

Would LSU vs Ohio St for sure outdraw Cinci vs LSU? Wasnt the 2010 Butler vs Duke the highest rated NCAA championship game since 1999? By your theory, theres no possible way Duke vs Butler should have outdrawn N Carolina vs Michigan the prior year---but it did--by a whopping 31%.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/06...27172.html

(06-17-2013 11:17 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-17-2013 11:05 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-17-2013 10:23 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-17-2013 09:40 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-17-2013 08:56 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Again, your missing the point. In your example, UTSA fans think they belong in the same division with Alabama and LSU. I never said if "America" would view the championship as more or less legitimate without the G5. What I have said is that G5 fans are very likely to fall into 3 groups. One group will continue to watch FBS as before. One group will lose interest and watch little or no FBS football. And the final group will be angry activist that do not watch FBS, aggressively fight the expulsion via letter writing campaignes aimed at political figures/ advertisers, and promote/participate in grass root campaingns that boycott advertisers of FBS telecasts.

Bottom line, theres simply no way a split is what the networks want. The fact is, nobody wants it other than a few ADs. Where are network execs screaming for a split? Where are the sports columns demanding a split? Where are the letter writing campaigns from fans demanding a split? Where is this massive movement demanding a split and demanding it now? The reality is theres no demand and no real economic purpose served by a split. Perhaps that could change, but at this point, I don't see it happening. It simply makes no sense in the current environment.

I get your point. I just don't think college fans behave the way you think they do. Heck, many fans of G5 schools are very angry about the selection structure of the playoffs, the structure of the playoff money distribution, the ties to access bowls and how they are all tilted heavily to favor P5, but the networks are unconcerned about that and don't seem to fear a G5 boycott. They are pissed that their schools are frozen out of the P5, and yet networks don't care about that either.

As for who is clamoring for what, I think you miss the point: Yes, having the G5 theoretically eligible for the playoffs does not hurt viewership and therefore the networks don't mind them being eligible. But there's also no evidence that excluding the G5 would hurt viewership either, just as excluding all the FCS teams doesn't hurt viewership.

I mean, let's review here:

1) All of those hundreds of FCS schools are frozen out of FBS bowls and playoffs, and the networks don't seem to think that hurts ratings.

2) The money and entry structure of the FBS playoffs and access bowls will heavily favor P5 and this pisses off many G5 fans, but the networks don't seem to care.

3) Historically, the Rose bowl was the most exclusionary bowl, excluding even most power schools from P5 conferences, everyone not in the B1G or PAC, and yet ratings were the highest of all bowl games.

... and yet we're supposed to think that because the chances of a G5 like ECU making the playoffs would go from "very slim" to "none" if the playoffs were P5-only, that this would move the ratings needle? Seriously?


IMO, anyone who thinks that in my example, LSU/Ohio State would draw less ratings than LSU/Cincy is just not being realistic.

Again--you keep using a erroneous point about FCS fans. Why would FCS fans be angry? Didnt each FCS school make its own choice to play at the FCS level? Thats much different from half of FBS being tossed from that level against the will of the school administrations.

Sure, LSU vs Ohio would probably draw better viewers than LSU and Cinci---but that would really be dependent on the level of TV exposure Cinci had that year and the quality of team they had. We have already seen that G5 vs P5 games can draw just as effectively as P5- vs P5 games.

We are not going to agree here--simply because your position is effectively that the G5 have zero value and no affect on viewership. Thats a thesis that I simply dont buy.

If LSU-Ohio State would probably draw better than LSU-Cincy, then it's hard to imagine why the networks would think that a P5-only deal would be harmful to their interests, such that they would recommend to the P5 that they not do that.

Would LSU vs Ohio St for sure outdraw Cinci vs LSU? Wasnt the 2010 Butler vs Duke the highest rated NCAA championship game since 1999? By your theory, theres no possible way Duke vs Butler should have outdrawn N Carolina vs Michigan---but it did--by a whopping 31%.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/06...27172.html

I never said LSU-Ohio State would out-draw LSU-Cincy for sure. It's just that usually, if Cincy and Ohio State are of comparable quality (and they would have to both be top-4 calibre teams to make the playoffs), usually Ohio State would get higher ratings since they are the "bigger brand name".

In any event, for the networks to tell the P5 that they would get paid less if the G5 were excluded, the networks would have to expect that the ratings would be less for LSU-OSU and for the playoffs on an ongoing yearly basis as a result of say a G5 fan boycott, and neither of us thinks the ratings would be less, not consistently so.

(06-11-2013 05:06 PM)UCbball21 Wrote:  Cincinnati, UConn, and BYU legitimately deserve an invite as of now. Schools like USF, UCF, and Houston still have some work to do but tons of growth potential to warrant an invite in the coming years. Schools like Tulane, Navy, most of the MWC, etc. will never deserve an invite. Programs like ECU, SMU, Memphis, Boise St., SDSU, and Temple are tweeners for a variety of reasons that could potentially earn an invite much farther down the road.

Nonsense. Leave it to a Cinci fan to place UC and BYU in the same category. BYU won a national championship before the selective welfare system known as the BCS. BYU won big without any handouts. Cinci on the other hand was a cellar CUSA team until the Big East and BCS money bailed them out. They didn't start winning until they were able to sell recruits on their upcoming BCS status. Let's be real - about half of the BCS schools, regardless of league, are deadweight, and are being subsidized by 10 to 15 elite programs. My point is if you're dishing out welfare money, dish it out equitably. Words like "earning" and "deserves" are irrelevant.

It seems the same crap is just spewed based on seeing it spewed in other threads with little to know factual evidence of how the minds of college football work. It's like everyone is just looking down the same tunnel without realizing that there are alternatve paths to the light.

Edit: also hilarious people spouting off things they "believe" to be as "fact". Instead of saying X school is similar to Y school in the opinion of casual fans, how about conducting a scientific poll to find out if that is really true? I bet if you call grandma jenkins and say "What do you know about Southern California and Northern California football?" I bet she would say "IDK they sound the same..?" But any *real**casual* fan would tell you otherwise. Claiming "fact" about somethign when it's fiction just perpetuates something that's not true.

(06-17-2013 12:54 PM)ecu92 Wrote:  

(06-11-2013 05:06 PM)UCbball21 Wrote:  Cincinnati, UConn, and BYU legitimately deserve an invite as of now. Schools like USF, UCF, and Houston still have some work to do but tons of growth potential to warrant an invite in the coming years. Schools like Tulane, Navy, most of the MWC, etc. will never deserve an invite. Programs like ECU, SMU, Memphis, Boise St., SDSU, and Temple are tweeners for a variety of reasons that could potentially earn an invite much farther down the road.

Nonsense. Leave it to a Cinci fan to place UC and BYU in the same category. BYU won a national championship before the selective welfare system known as the BCS. BYU won big without any handouts. Cinci on the other hand was a cellar CUSA team until the Big East and BCS money bailed them out. They didn't start winning until they were able to sell recruits on their upcoming BCS status. Let's be real - about half of the BCS schools, regardless of league, are deadweight, and are being subsidized by 10 to 15 elite programs. My point is if you're dishing out welfare money, dish it out equitably. Words like "earning" and "deserves" are irrelevant.

True. All of the market value in the P5 is concentrated in the upper 50% of those football conferences in the standings.

(06-17-2013 12:54 PM)ecu92 Wrote:  Let's be real - about half of the BCS schools, regardless of league, are deadweight, and are being subsidized by 10 to 15 elite programs. My point is if you're dishing out welfare money, dish it out equitably. Words like "earning" and "deserves" are irrelevant.

Big difference between schools like USF and ECU and "deadweight" schools in the P5 club like Wake Forest or Vanderbilt is that the elite programs have chosen to associate with them (share "welfare" with them) and not with us, and as the revenue bread-winners they have the right to do that, so I'm not sure who your equity argument is pitched at?

(06-17-2013 07:15 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-16-2013 08:01 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(06-16-2013 07:51 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  There's no way that a P5 playoff would "decrease viewership". The P5 has all the big TV draws.

They have all the big draws now. The only difference is that they wouldn't have the smaller draws along with them

How are they going to lose the smaller draws? Remember, only 4 teams make the playoffs, not the whole of P5 and G5. And just about all years, all 4 teams will be P5 anyway, so how will the viewing audience be smaller whether the pool from which those 4 were drawn included the G5 or not?

But let's imagine two scenarios, one in which the playoffs include G5 and P5, and one in which the playoffs are P5-only. If the playoffs include both G5 and P5, the four teams picked are #1 LSU, #2 USC, #3 Oklahoma, and from the G5, a 12-0 Cincinnati team is picked by the selection committee over 11-1 Ohio State for #4. Let's say Ohio State and Cincy were essentially tied at #4 in the polls, AP has Cincy #4 and Coaches have Ohio State #4, but the committee chooses Cincy. So it's LSU vs Cincy and Oklahoma vs USC.

Now let's look at that same year, except the format is such that the playoffs are P5 only, the G5 are excluded, so that instead of 12-0 Cincy, 11-1 Ohio State, is chosen instead. The playoffs are LSU vs Ohio State and Oklahoma vs USC.

Are you seriously going to argue that the LSU/USC/OK/Cincy playoffs would attract any more viewers than the LSU/USC/OK/Ohio State? Specifically, that LSU vs Cincy would out-draw LSU vs Ohio State?

I could not say that. And hence, a P5 only playoffs would be worth the same total dollars to the P5, without losing 25% to the G5.

Nice cherry picking there. LSU v. OSU would be a ratings bonanza and would draw a larger TV audience than LSU v. 99% of the teams in the Power 5. Fact is Cincinnati has done very well in television bowl ratings. Last year's Belk Bowl (Cincinnati/Duke) was the most watched Belk Bowl in three years. The 2010 Sugar Bowl (UC/Florida) drew a monster 8.5 rating. Even when you look at regular season contests the Bearcats hold there own--- last year the played in the 3rd most watched Thursday night game and the 2nd most watched Friday night game. I seriously doubt a bowl game pitting a very good LSU v. a very good Cincinnati team would do any worse on a national scale than say a very good LSU v. a vey good mid-tier (by reputation) B1G,ACC, B12, PAC12 team.

(06-18-2013 06:08 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(06-17-2013 07:15 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-16-2013 08:01 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(06-16-2013 07:51 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  There's no way that a P5 playoff would "decrease viewership". The P5 has all the big TV draws.

They have all the big draws now. The only difference is that they wouldn't have the smaller draws along with them

How are they going to lose the smaller draws? Remember, only 4 teams make the playoffs, not the whole of P5 and G5. And just about all years, all 4 teams will be P5 anyway, so how will the viewing audience be smaller whether the pool from which those 4 were drawn included the G5 or not?

But let's imagine two scenarios, one in which the playoffs include G5 and P5, and one in which the playoffs are P5-only. If the playoffs include both G5 and P5, the four teams picked are #1 LSU, #2 USC, #3 Oklahoma, and from the G5, a 12-0 Cincinnati team is picked by the selection committee over 11-1 Ohio State for #4. Let's say Ohio State and Cincy were essentially tied at #4 in the polls, AP has Cincy #4 and Coaches have Ohio State #4, but the committee chooses Cincy. So it's LSU vs Cincy and Oklahoma vs USC.

Now let's look at that same year, except the format is such that the playoffs are P5 only, the G5 are excluded, so that instead of 12-0 Cincy, 11-1 Ohio State, is chosen instead. The playoffs are LSU vs Ohio State and Oklahoma vs USC.

Are you seriously going to argue that the LSU/USC/OK/Cincy playoffs would attract any more viewers than the LSU/USC/OK/Ohio State? Specifically, that LSU vs Cincy would out-draw LSU vs Ohio State?

I could not say that. And hence, a P5 only playoffs would be worth the same total dollars to the P5, without losing 25% to the G5.

Nice cherry picking there. LSU v. OSU would be a ratings bonanza and would draw a larger TV audience than LSU v. 99% of the teams in the Power 5. Fact is Cincinnati has done very well in television bowl ratings. Last year's Belk Bowl (Cincinnati/Duke) was the most watched Belk Bowl in three years. The 2010 Sugar Bowl (UC/Florida) drew a monster 8.5 rating. Even when you look at regular season contests the Bearcats hold there own--- last year the played in the 3rd most watched Thursday night game and the 2nd most watched Friday night game. I seriously doubt a bowl game pitting a very good LSU v. a very good Cincinnati team would do any worse on a national scale than say a very good LSU v. a vey good mid-tier (by reputation) B1G,ACC, B12, PAC12 team.

You miss the point. Coog and others are implying that Cincy -LSU should draw MORE viewers than Ohio State -LSU, if the latter game was from a P5 only playoff, because allegedly a ton of fans of G5 schools would not watch because their schools would be frozen out of the playoffs. I think that is now nonsense.

(06-11-2013 05:20 PM)UCbball21 Wrote:  If dropping conference members was a realistic scenario, the ACC would drop Wake Forest in favor of Cincinnati/UConn and possibly Boston College in favor of UConn. Wouldn't that be nice

I agree with your statement. Some schools are doing next to nothing, yet remain in elite conferences. Wake Forest and Boston College come to mind in the ACC, Purdue and Illinois in the Big Ten, Texas Tech in the Big 12, Washington State in the Pac 12. Also, look at the moves upward for WVU and Utah. Are they better off than the MWC and Big East? IT's certainly debatable. It's not always greener on the other side.

(06-18-2013 07:39 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-18-2013 06:08 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(06-17-2013 07:15 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-16-2013 08:01 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(06-16-2013 07:51 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  There's no way that a P5 playoff would "decrease viewership". The P5 has all the big TV draws.

They have all the big draws now. The only difference is that they wouldn't have the smaller draws along with them

How are they going to lose the smaller draws? Remember, only 4 teams make the playoffs, not the whole of P5 and G5. And just about all years, all 4 teams will be P5 anyway, so how will the viewing audience be smaller whether the pool from which those 4 were drawn included the G5 or not?

But let's imagine two scenarios, one in which the playoffs include G5 and P5, and one in which the playoffs are P5-only. If the playoffs include both G5 and P5, the four teams picked are #1 LSU, #2 USC, #3 Oklahoma, and from the G5, a 12-0 Cincinnati team is picked by the selection committee over 11-1 Ohio State for #4. Let's say Ohio State and Cincy were essentially tied at #4 in the polls, AP has Cincy #4 and Coaches have Ohio State #4, but the committee chooses Cincy. So it's LSU vs Cincy and Oklahoma vs USC.

Now let's look at that same year, except the format is such that the playoffs are P5 only, the G5 are excluded, so that instead of 12-0 Cincy, 11-1 Ohio State, is chosen instead. The playoffs are LSU vs Ohio State and Oklahoma vs USC.

Are you seriously going to argue that the LSU/USC/OK/Cincy playoffs would attract any more viewers than the LSU/USC/OK/Ohio State? Specifically, that LSU vs Cincy would out-draw LSU vs Ohio State?

I could not say that. And hence, a P5 only playoffs would be worth the same total dollars to the P5, without losing 25% to the G5.

Nice cherry picking there. LSU v. OSU would be a ratings bonanza and would draw a larger TV audience than LSU v. 99% of the teams in the Power 5. Fact is Cincinnati has done very well in television bowl ratings. Last year's Belk Bowl (Cincinnati/Duke) was the most watched Belk Bowl in three years. The 2010 Sugar Bowl (UC/Florida) drew a monster 8.5 rating. Even when you look at regular season contests the Bearcats hold there own--- last year the played in the 3rd most watched Thursday night game and the 2nd most watched Friday night game. I seriously doubt a bowl game pitting a very good LSU v. a very good Cincinnati team would do any worse on a national scale than say a very good LSU v. a vey good mid-tier (by reputation) B1G,ACC, B12, PAC12 team.

You miss the point. Coog and others are implying that Cincy -LSU should draw MORE viewers than Ohio State -LSU, if the latter game was from a P5 only playoff, because allegedly a ton of fans of G5 schools would not watch because their schools would be frozen out of the playoffs. I think that is now nonsense.

As I said before, I only have myself as an example---but the NFL is a far stronger draw than college football. When the NFL left Houston, I stopped watching---and I was a season ticket holder. I found plenty of other things to do on Sunday. I was not alone. You can't kick half the fan bases out of FBS and expect viewership to remain unchanged. Talk about beggars belief.....

(06-18-2013 09:30 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-18-2013 07:39 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-18-2013 06:08 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(06-17-2013 07:15 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-16-2013 08:01 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  They have all the big draws now. The only difference is that they wouldn't have the smaller draws along with them

How are they going to lose the smaller draws? Remember, only 4 teams make the playoffs, not the whole of P5 and G5. And just about all years, all 4 teams will be P5 anyway, so how will the viewing audience be smaller whether the pool from which those 4 were drawn included the G5 or not?

But let's imagine two scenarios, one in which the playoffs include G5 and P5, and one in which the playoffs are P5-only. If the playoffs include both G5 and P5, the four teams picked are #1 LSU, #2 USC, #3 Oklahoma, and from the G5, a 12-0 Cincinnati team is picked by the selection committee over 11-1 Ohio State for #4. Let's say Ohio State and Cincy were essentially tied at #4 in the polls, AP has Cincy #4 and Coaches have Ohio State #4, but the committee chooses Cincy. So it's LSU vs Cincy and Oklahoma vs USC.

Now let's look at that same year, except the format is such that the playoffs are P5 only, the G5 are excluded, so that instead of 12-0 Cincy, 11-1 Ohio State, is chosen instead. The playoffs are LSU vs Ohio State and Oklahoma vs USC.

Are you seriously going to argue that the LSU/USC/OK/Cincy playoffs would attract any more viewers than the LSU/USC/OK/Ohio State? Specifically, that LSU vs Cincy would out-draw LSU vs Ohio State?

I could not say that. And hence, a P5 only playoffs would be worth the same total dollars to the P5, without losing 25% to the G5.

Nice cherry picking there. LSU v. OSU would be a ratings bonanza and would draw a larger TV audience than LSU v. 99% of the teams in the Power 5. Fact is Cincinnati has done very well in television bowl ratings. Last year's Belk Bowl (Cincinnati/Duke) was the most watched Belk Bowl in three years. The 2010 Sugar Bowl (UC/Florida) drew a monster 8.5 rating. Even when you look at regular season contests the Bearcats hold there own--- last year the played in the 3rd most watched Thursday night game and the 2nd most watched Friday night game. I seriously doubt a bowl game pitting a very good LSU v. a very good Cincinnati team would do any worse on a national scale than say a very good LSU v. a vey good mid-tier (by reputation) B1G,ACC, B12, PAC12 team.

You miss the point. Coog and others are implying that Cincy -LSU should draw MORE viewers than Ohio State -LSU, if the latter game was from a P5 only playoff, because allegedly a ton of fans of G5 schools would not watch because their schools would be frozen out of the playoffs. I think that is now nonsense.

As I said before, I only have myself as an example---but the NFL is a far stronger draw than college football. When the NFL left Houston, I stopped watching---and I was a season ticket holder. I found plenty of other things to do on Sunday. I was not alone. You can't kick half the fan bases out of FBS and expect viewership to remain unchanged. Talk about beggars belief.....

I think you certainly can. For example, USF was just kicked out of AQ. We were, along with Cincy and UConn, among the three biggest losers in this BCS to Playoffs and realignment transitions, and I am very pissed off about it.

Nevertheless, I know I will watch all the bowls and playoffs in the coming years, just I always have. College football is great fun on TV. A USC - Alabama game won't lose any of its appeal because USF's chances have diminished. It just doesn't work that way.

Let's face it: The "we are all still FBS" idea is a sham, as there clearly is a huge divide between the P5 and the G5, in terms of money and exposure and chances to make the playoffs, all the important stuff. We in the G5 are clearly second-class FBS citizens. The new playoffs provide just a token chance for any AAC team to make the playoffs, a very slim chance. In short, for practical purposes we already HAVE been kicked to the curb and everyone knows it, but you seem to think that significant changes in viewership hinge on whether we have a very slim chance versus no chance at all, on whether our obviously real second-class citizenship within FBS becomes a formal second-class citizenship outside a P5 only playoffs. I think my Ohio State example proves that wrong.

(06-18-2013 09:45 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-18-2013 09:30 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-18-2013 07:39 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-18-2013 06:08 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(06-17-2013 07:15 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  How are they going to lose the smaller draws? Remember, only 4 teams make the playoffs, not the whole of P5 and G5. And just about all years, all 4 teams will be P5 anyway, so how will the viewing audience be smaller whether the pool from which those 4 were drawn included the G5 or not?

But let's imagine two scenarios, one in which the playoffs include G5 and P5, and one in which the playoffs are P5-only. If the playoffs include both G5 and P5, the four teams picked are #1 LSU, #2 USC, #3 Oklahoma, and from the G5, a 12-0 Cincinnati team is picked by the selection committee over 11-1 Ohio State for #4. Let's say Ohio State and Cincy were essentially tied at #4 in the polls, AP has Cincy #4 and Coaches have Ohio State #4, but the committee chooses Cincy. So it's LSU vs Cincy and Oklahoma vs USC.

Now let's look at that same year, except the format is such that the playoffs are P5 only, the G5 are excluded, so that instead of 12-0 Cincy, 11-1 Ohio State, is chosen instead. The playoffs are LSU vs Ohio State and Oklahoma vs USC.

Are you seriously going to argue that the LSU/USC/OK/Cincy playoffs would attract any more viewers than the LSU/USC/OK/Ohio State? Specifically, that LSU vs Cincy would out-draw LSU vs Ohio State?

I could not say that. And hence, a P5 only playoffs would be worth the same total dollars to the P5, without losing 25% to the G5.

Nice cherry picking there. LSU v. OSU would be a ratings bonanza and would draw a larger TV audience than LSU v. 99% of the teams in the Power 5. Fact is Cincinnati has done very well in television bowl ratings. Last year's Belk Bowl (Cincinnati/Duke) was the most watched Belk Bowl in three years. The 2010 Sugar Bowl (UC/Florida) drew a monster 8.5 rating. Even when you look at regular season contests the Bearcats hold there own--- last year the played in the 3rd most watched Thursday night game and the 2nd most watched Friday night game. I seriously doubt a bowl game pitting a very good LSU v. a very good Cincinnati team would do any worse on a national scale than say a very good LSU v. a vey good mid-tier (by reputation) B1G,ACC, B12, PAC12 team.

You miss the point. Coog and others are implying that Cincy -LSU should draw MORE viewers than Ohio State -LSU, if the latter game was from a P5 only playoff, because allegedly a ton of fans of G5 schools would not watch because their schools would be frozen out of the playoffs. I think that is now nonsense.

As I said before, I only have myself as an example---but the NFL is a far stronger draw than college football. When the NFL left Houston, I stopped watching---and I was a season ticket holder. I found plenty of other things to do on Sunday. I was not alone. You can't kick half the fan bases out of FBS and expect viewership to remain unchanged. Talk about beggars belief.....

I think you certainly can. For example, USF was just kicked out of AQ. We were, along with Cincy and UConn, among the three biggest losers in this BCS to Playoffs and realignment transitions, and I am very pissed off about it.

Nevertheless, I know I will watch all the bowls and playoffs in the coming years, just I always have. College football is great fun on TV. A USC - Alabama game won't lose any of its appeal because USF's chances have diminished. It just doesn't work that way.

Let's face it: The "we are all still FBS" idea is a sham, as there clearly is a huge divide between the P5 and the G5, in terms of money and exposure and chances to make the playoffs, all the important stuff. We in the G5 are clearly second-class FBS citizens. The new playoffs provide just a token chance for any AAC team to make the playoffs, a very slim chance. In short, for practical purposes we already HAVE been kicked to the curb and everyone knows it, but you seem to think that significant changes in viewership hinge on whether we have a very slim chance versus no chance at all, on whether our obviously real second-class citizenship within FBS becomes a formal second-class citizenship outside a P5 only playoffs. I think my Ohio State example proves that wrong.

We have been second class citizens for years, but there always remains the chance for a Boise or TCU style run that set a non-AQ up for a BCS win or--given a pair of top 10 finishes in a 3 year period--even a possible run at a championship. Yes, its an improbable long shot---but it is a shot. That shot vanishes the moment we become FCS. I don't know who won FCS last year and don't care. Why would I care about FBS if the team I root for doesn't play FBS? Hell, maybe I might still watch a few bowl games or even the final---but I certainly wont be glued to all those regular season games. FBS viewership will decrease---that is a logical and reasoned conclusion. The only question is the degree to which it will decline.

There is also NO question that a split will hurt the G-5 way more than the P-5. The P-5 may suffer from reduced viewership, but they will survive just fine. The G-5 will be decimated and will slowly sink to level of FCS interest and viewership. The athletic departments of those G-5 schools will be financially destroyed.

(06-18-2013 09:45 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-18-2013 09:30 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-18-2013 07:39 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-18-2013 06:08 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(06-17-2013 07:15 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  How are they going to lose the smaller draws? Remember, only 4 teams make the playoffs, not the whole of P5 and G5. And just about all years, all 4 teams will be P5 anyway, so how will the viewing audience be smaller whether the pool from which those 4 were drawn included the G5 or not?

But let's imagine two scenarios, one in which the playoffs include G5 and P5, and one in which the playoffs are P5-only. If the playoffs include both G5 and P5, the four teams picked are #1 LSU, #2 USC, #3 Oklahoma, and from the G5, a 12-0 Cincinnati team is picked by the selection committee over 11-1 Ohio State for #4. Let's say Ohio State and Cincy were essentially tied at #4 in the polls, AP has Cincy #4 and Coaches have Ohio State #4, but the committee chooses Cincy. So it's LSU vs Cincy and Oklahoma vs USC.

Now let's look at that same year, except the format is such that the playoffs are P5 only, the G5 are excluded, so that instead of 12-0 Cincy, 11-1 Ohio State, is chosen instead. The playoffs are LSU vs Ohio State and Oklahoma vs USC.

Are you seriously going to argue that the LSU/USC/OK/Cincy playoffs would attract any more viewers than the LSU/USC/OK/Ohio State? Specifically, that LSU vs Cincy would out-draw LSU vs Ohio State?

I could not say that. And hence, a P5 only playoffs would be worth the same total dollars to the P5, without losing 25% to the G5.

Nice cherry picking there. LSU v. OSU would be a ratings bonanza and would draw a larger TV audience than LSU v. 99% of the teams in the Power 5. Fact is Cincinnati has done very well in television bowl ratings. Last year's Belk Bowl (Cincinnati/Duke) was the most watched Belk Bowl in three years. The 2010 Sugar Bowl (UC/Florida) drew a monster 8.5 rating. Even when you look at regular season contests the Bearcats hold there own--- last year the played in the 3rd most watched Thursday night game and the 2nd most watched Friday night game. I seriously doubt a bowl game pitting a very good LSU v. a very good Cincinnati team would do any worse on a national scale than say a very good LSU v. a vey good mid-tier (by reputation) B1G,ACC, B12, PAC12 team.

You miss the point. Coog and others are implying that Cincy -LSU should draw MORE viewers than Ohio State -LSU, if the latter game was from a P5 only playoff, because allegedly a ton of fans of G5 schools would not watch because their schools would be frozen out of the playoffs. I think that is now nonsense.

As I said before, I only have myself as an example---but the NFL is a far stronger draw than college football. When the NFL left Houston, I stopped watching---and I was a season ticket holder. I found plenty of other things to do on Sunday. I was not alone. You can't kick half the fan bases out of FBS and expect viewership to remain unchanged. Talk about beggars belief.....

I think you certainly can. For example, USF was just kicked out of AQ. We were, along with Cincy and UConn, among the three biggest losers in this BCS to Playoffs and realignment transitions, and I am very pissed off about it.

Nevertheless, I know I will watch all the bowls and playoffs in the coming years, just I always have. College football is great fun on TV. A USC - Alabama game won't lose any of its appeal because USF's chances have diminished. It just doesn't work that way.

Let's face it: The "we are all still FBS" idea is a sham, as there clearly is a huge divide between the P5 and the G5, in terms of money and exposure and chances to make the playoffs, all the important stuff. We in the G5 are clearly second-class FBS citizens. The new playoffs provide just a token chance for any AAC team to make the playoffs, a very slim chance. In short, for practical purposes we already HAVE been kicked to the curb and everyone knows it, but you seem to think that significant changes in viewership hinge on whether we have a very slim chance versus no chance at all, on whether our obviously real second-class citizenship within FBS becomes a formal second-class citizenship outside a P5 only playoffs. I think my Ohio State example proves that wrong.

There's very little chance now with a 4-team playoff. Probably zero chance. And, the bowl games are increasingly separating P5 from G5. The hope that some have is that the playoff will increase to 8 teams, or maybe even a little more. Then a G5 team would at least have an outside shot. If the playoffs completely shut out G5 (whether 4-team or 8-team) and the bowls don't have any G5 vs. P5 games, than many fans of G5 schools will lose interest, including me. How many? I don't know. It would be very noticeable IMO. I wouldn't notice myself, as I wouldn't be following CFB in general anymore.

We are second-class citizens now in terms of how we're treated by the media and the P5. But not second-class based on competitiveness, in many cases. So a large part of the divide is arbitrary. The fact that they're trying to cut us off doesn't make it sensible from a overall college football standpoint.

I think the future is less, not more.

End result will be 3 different 20-team super conferences.

Super North

East: Penn State, Syracuse, Notre Dame, Pitt, Rutgers

South: Indiana, Michigan, Mich St., Ohio State, Purdue

North: Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Northwestern, Wisconsin,

West: Nebraska, Iowa State, Missouri, Kansas, Kansas State


Super South

North: Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisville, West Va., Maryland

South: Florida, South Carolina, Florida St., Georgia Tech, Georgia

West: Ole Miss, Alabama, Auburn, Arkansas, Louisiana St.

East: North Carolina, Virginia, Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Clemson

Super West

Pacific: California, UCLA, USC, Stanford, Oregon

Northwest: Wash, Oregon St, Wash St, Colorado, Bosie St..

Southwest: Arizona, Arizona St., UNLV, Utah, BYU

East: Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M

(06-18-2013 04:19 PM)goofus Wrote:  I think the future is less, not more.

End result will be 3 different 20-team super conferences.

Super North

East: Penn State, Syracuse, Notre Dame, Pitt, Rutgers

South: Indiana, Michigan, Mich St., Ohio State, Purdue

North: Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Northwestern, Wisconsin,

West: Nebraska, Iowa State, Missouri, Kansas, Kansas State


Super South

North: Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisville, West Va., Maryland

South: Florida, South Carolina, Florida St., Georgia Tech, Georgia

West: Ole Miss, Alabama, Auburn, Arkansas, Louisiana St.

East: North Carolina, Virginia, Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Clemson

Super West

Pacific: California, UCLA, USC, Stanford, Oregon

Northwest: Wash, Oregon St, Wash St, Colorado, Bosie St..

Southwest: Arizona, Arizona St., UNLV, Utah, BYU

East: Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M

Haha, I think Duke has more power in college sports than you think

(06-18-2013 10:06 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  There is also NO question that a split will hurt the G-5 way more than the P-5. The P-5 may suffer from reduced viewership, but they will survive just fine. The G-5 will be decimated and will slowly sink to level of FCS interest and viewership. The athletic departments of those G-5 schools will be financially destroyed.

No doubt about that.

(06-17-2013 08:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-17-2013 12:54 PM)ecu92 Wrote:  Let's be real - about half of the BCS schools, regardless of league, are deadweight, and are being subsidized by 10 to 15 elite programs. My point is if you're dishing out welfare money, dish it out equitably. Words like "earning" and "deserves" are irrelevant.

Big difference between schools like USF and ECU and "deadweight" schools in the P5 club like Wake Forest or Vanderbilt is that the elite programs have chosen to associate with them (share "welfare" with them) and not with us, and as the revenue bread-winners they have the right to do that, so I'm not sure who your equity argument is pitched at?

The point is - Jim Delaney and other BCS mouthpieces have opposed revenue-sharing to the smaller conferences and non-BCS teams based on the "they don't bring enough value" argument; basically saying, these teams need to earn it, to pay their own way. If it's about earning it, everyone should have to earn it. We should have reasonable revenue sharing (as does NCAA basketball), or we should go to a no holds barred survival of the fittest model, which would mean no renevue sharing period, even among the leagues.

(06-19-2013 10:31 AM)ecu92 Wrote:  

(06-17-2013 08:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-17-2013 12:54 PM)ecu92 Wrote:  Let's be real - about half of the BCS schools, regardless of league, are deadweight, and are being subsidized by 10 to 15 elite programs. My point is if you're dishing out welfare money, dish it out equitably. Words like "earning" and "deserves" are irrelevant.

Big difference between schools like USF and ECU and "deadweight" schools in the P5 club like Wake Forest or Vanderbilt is that the elite programs have chosen to associate with them (share "welfare" with them) and not with us, and as the revenue bread-winners they have the right to do that, so I'm not sure who your equity argument is pitched at?

The point is - Jim Delaney and other BCS mouthpieces have opposed revenue-sharing to the smaller conferences and non-BCS teams based on the "they don't bring enough value" argument; basically saying, these teams need to earn it, to pay their own way. If it's about earning it, everyone should have to earn it. We should have reasonable revenue sharing (as does NCAA basketball), or we should go to a no holds barred survival of the fittest model, which would mean no renevue sharing period, even among the leagues.

I think where your point falls flat is in not recognizing the conferences as structural entities. Delaney does not speak for a school, he speaks for a conference, and he is not saying "these teams (schools) need to earn it", he is saying "these conferences need to earn it", and that makes sense since he is talking about the distribution of money among conferences, not schools, which is the way these TV contracts are structured (the networks pay the conferences, not the schools directly). And at that level, there is no doubt that the B1G generates more revenue than the AAC so therefore one can argue it deserves more.

And how the conferences distribute conference-earned money among their members is, of course, a within-conference issue. As a USF fan, I have no standing to tell the SEC or ACC or MWC how it should distribute its money. If the ACC wants to give big-names FSU and Duke the same money as dead-weight Wake Forest, that's something for Wake and FSU fans to argue about if they want, but that's really none of my (USF fan's) business.

(06-17-2013 08:06 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I can tell you, I was a long time season ticket holder of the Oilers. I completely lost interst in the NFL after Oilers left Houston and didn't come back until the Texans started up---and then I bought season tickets for the Texans. During the period I stopped watching, I found plenty of other things to do and didn't miss it at all.

I don't think that all NFL fans feel that way, though. NFL TV ratings are lower in L.A. than they were when the Rams and Raiders were there, and there are some people there who no longer follow the NFL closely, but the L.A. ratings are still pretty good. And that's one reason the NFL doesn't much care that they've now played 18 seasons without a team in L.A. If NFL TV ratings in L.A. were as low as NHL TV ratings, the NFL would be concerned. But that's not the case.

(06-19-2013 02:24 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-17-2013 08:06 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I can tell you, I was a long time season ticket holder of the Oilers. I completely lost interst in the NFL after Oilers left Houston and didn't come back until the Texans started up---and then I bought season tickets for the Texans. During the period I stopped watching, I found plenty of other things to do and didn't miss it at all.

I don't think that all NFL fans feel that way, though. NFL TV ratings are lower in L.A. than they were when the Rams and Raiders were there, and there are some people there who no longer follow the NFL closely, but the L.A. ratings are still pretty good. And that's one reason the NFL doesn't much care that they've now played 18 seasons without a team in L.A. If NFL TV ratings in L.A. were as low as NHL TV ratings, the NFL would be concerned. But that's not the case.

Yes, the truth is that most who watch college football are fans of "college football" as well as fans of their alma mater. That's why games like the Rose Bowl have always garnered huge ratings even though only two teams are involved and until 1998 only schools from two conferences were eligible to play in it. If Coog were correct, the only folks who tune in for the Rose would be the fans of the two teams involved, or at most fans of PAC and B1G schools. But that was never true.