(01-13-2016 03:47 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 02:02 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 04:09 PM)adcorbettpid='12887132 Wrote:  To answer the very valid question you brought up Bison, the reason you cannot decouple the semis from the bowls, is they are not a pure television product. They are at the core, still designed to draw in visitors to the bowl destinations, and the payouts are adjusted accordingly (they pay more to the conferences than the game generates from TV and the live gate). It is why the bowls insisted the semi's remain between Xmas and NYD, to maximize the number of people who can travel to the games, and spend money. Moving the games too early will seriously hamper that revenue stream, so they must remain on NYD, or NYE. Even a situation like this year when NYD was on a Friday and Jan 2nd seemed like a great day for the games, the problem is it encourages visitors to make it a weekend trip, as opposed to a weeklong trip, so that still is not what they prefer.

there is no perfect solution, but that is why the bowls have a tight window they want the games played, which necessitates the championship game being pushed out.

I agree that *the bowls* care about filling hotel rooms and selling tickets. And they also care about tradition.

The CFP bracket games don't need to do anything other than match up the teams to play the game and generate huge TV ratings. It's up to the city that won the bid to sell hotel rooms and tourism.

This is not true. The CFP is funded the simialar to how the bowls are: that is why they use bowls. It is also why they specifically chose the dates they did, DESPITE them being horrible for TV: they have to protect the gate and the tourist aspect of the game. There is no playoff without the bowls, because as a purely TV product (which is what it would be if just the live gate and TV revenue), it would pay less than the top games in the old bowl system did, instead of paying 5 times as much, which is why the conferences absolutely refused to discuss a playoff until the bowls themselves were into it. Keeping the bowls who host it happy is absolutely essential, especially with the semi's replacing the bowls - and you can't remove that aspect because you can only crown so many bowls top level bowls in a given year. A NY's has too many teams for all of the games to appear to be top shelf games. As we are seeing, 6 was probably pushing it.

If you want an idea, consider that the B1G and PAC 12 conference championship games had specific contracts for them that identified their monetary value, $25 million and $14 million a piece. The Rose Bowl pays out $80 million, and does not draw what these two combined do (non Semi final). While their ratings are not quite the same as BCS bowls, they are in the ballpark. And those games payout $80 million a piece, despite only drawing 40% more viewers (which is no chump change, but not worth that much more). The on the ground part makes a big difference, and cannot be overlooked.

You're wrong. The CFP is funded by its mega TV contract. So, CFP games only need to generate mega ratings. The end.

(01-13-2016 02:27 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 02:24 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 02:18 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 02:12 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 02:08 PM)stever20 Wrote:  The Rose Bowl was pretty easily convinced to be a part of the playoff now weren't they?

So it was the CFP's initiative. Then it can be the CFP's initiative to de-link them.

The CFP was a brand new thing. No one knew if it would work. So they tied it to the top bowls as insurance.

Well, now we already have some data saying that just because you semi game is tied to a bowl brand doesn't mean that it's going to have mega ratings.

Actually it does....
Rose Bowl-
SF in '15 14.8 rating 28.16 million viewers
RB in '16 7.4 rating 13.55 million viewers
Sugar Bowl-
SF in '15 15.2 rating, 28.27 million viewers
SB in '16 5.1 rating 8.94 million viewers

So that's why the Rose and Sugar are absolutely going to continue to be in the CFP SF rotation.

You're looking at it from the Bowl's viewpoint. I was talking from the CFP's viewpoint.

Obviously you could argue that the Rose and Sugar may fight to stay apart of the system. Especially if the subsequent data points indicate that being a CFP game does matter. But they might not have that clout, in the end.


Secondly, those numbers could be the product of the teams playing in the bowl game more than it being a CFP game or not. Could also have been the novelty of the first year. We'll see...

but who runs the CFP? Big Ten/Pac 12/SEC/Big 12/etc. Really don't see them making the Rose/Sugar meaningless all of the time.

Meaningless??

How do the Rose ratings compare to past games that aren't CFP semi or BCS title games??


My guess is they're right in line with what the Rose was normally doing.

They would be wrong to let last year's bloated numbers make it seem like that should be the new normal.

(01-13-2016 08:48 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 03:47 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 02:02 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 04:09 PM)adcorbettpid='12887132 Wrote:  To answer the very valid question you brought up Bison, the reason you cannot decouple the semis from the bowls, is they are not a pure television product. They are at the core, still designed to draw in visitors to the bowl destinations, and the payouts are adjusted accordingly (they pay more to the conferences than the game generates from TV and the live gate). It is why the bowls insisted the semi's remain between Xmas and NYD, to maximize the number of people who can travel to the games, and spend money. Moving the games too early will seriously hamper that revenue stream, so they must remain on NYD, or NYE. Even a situation like this year when NYD was on a Friday and Jan 2nd seemed like a great day for the games, the problem is it encourages visitors to make it a weekend trip, as opposed to a weeklong trip, so that still is not what they prefer.

there is no perfect solution, but that is why the bowls have a tight window they want the games played, which necessitates the championship game being pushed out.

I agree that *the bowls* care about filling hotel rooms and selling tickets. And they also care about tradition.

The CFP bracket games don't need to do anything other than match up the teams to play the game and generate huge TV ratings. It's up to the city that won the bid to sell hotel rooms and tourism.

This is not true. The CFP is funded the simialar to how the bowls are: that is why they use bowls. It is also why they specifically chose the dates they did, DESPITE them being horrible for TV: they have to protect the gate and the tourist aspect of the game. There is no playoff without the bowls, because as a purely TV product (which is what it would be if just the live gate and TV revenue), it would pay less than the top games in the old bowl system did, instead of paying 5 times as much, which is why the conferences absolutely refused to discuss a playoff until the bowls themselves were into it. Keeping the bowls who host it happy is absolutely essential, especially with the semi's replacing the bowls - and you can't remove that aspect because you can only crown so many bowls top level bowls in a given year. A NY's has too many teams for all of the games to appear to be top shelf games. As we are seeing, 6 was probably pushing it.

If you want an idea, consider that the B1G and PAC 12 conference championship games had specific contracts for them that identified their monetary value, $25 million and $14 million a piece. The Rose Bowl pays out $80 million, and does not draw what these two combined do (non Semi final). While their ratings are not quite the same as BCS bowls, they are in the ballpark. And those games payout $80 million a piece, despite only drawing 40% more viewers (which is no chump change, but not worth that much more). The on the ground part makes a big difference, and cannot be overlooked.

You're wrong. The CFP is funded by its mega TV contract. So, CFP games only need to generate mega ratings. The end.

Why do you continue to speak on things you don't understand? Even worse act as what you say is the end all be all, much less actually true, It is "funded" by the TV contract, but the bowls are a part of the payout. One reason the pay is so high, is due to locally generated sales. You cannot possibly not know this.

(01-13-2016 08:49 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 02:27 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 02:24 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 02:18 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 02:12 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  So it was the CFP's initiative. Then it can be the CFP's initiative to de-link them.

The CFP was a brand new thing. No one knew if it would work. So they tied it to the top bowls as insurance.

Well, now we already have some data saying that just because you semi game is tied to a bowl brand doesn't mean that it's going to have mega ratings.

Actually it does....
Rose Bowl-
SF in '15 14.8 rating 28.16 million viewers
RB in '16 7.4 rating 13.55 million viewers
Sugar Bowl-
SF in '15 15.2 rating, 28.27 million viewers
SB in '16 5.1 rating 8.94 million viewers

So that's why the Rose and Sugar are absolutely going to continue to be in the CFP SF rotation.

You're looking at it from the Bowl's viewpoint. I was talking from the CFP's viewpoint.

Obviously you could argue that the Rose and Sugar may fight to stay apart of the system. Especially if the subsequent data points indicate that being a CFP game does matter. But they might not have that clout, in the end.


Secondly, those numbers could be the product of the teams playing in the bowl game more than it being a CFP game or not. Could also have been the novelty of the first year. We'll see...

but who runs the CFP? Big Ten/Pac 12/SEC/Big 12/etc. Really don't see them making the Rose/Sugar meaningless all of the time.

Meaningless??

How do the Rose ratings compare to past games that aren't CFP semi or BCS title games??


My guess is they're right in line with what the Rose was normally doing.

They would be wrong to let last year's bloated numbers make it seem like that should be the new normal.

This year's rose bowl was the worst rated EVER. Sorry but that's just the fact. Sorry but the 2 SF games are king now, and everything else just doesn't matter any where near as much as they used to. So Rose Bowl would prefer to be relevant 1 of 3 years than 0 of 3 years. Makes sense to me. Plus in this system, they keep their place on the calendar all the time. So it's best case scenario for the Rose Bowl.

(01-14-2016 04:21 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 08:48 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 03:47 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 02:02 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 04:09 PM)adcorbettpid='12887132 Wrote:  To answer the very valid question you brought up Bison, the reason you cannot decouple the semis from the bowls, is they are not a pure television product. They are at the core, still designed to draw in visitors to the bowl destinations, and the payouts are adjusted accordingly (they pay more to the conferences than the game generates from TV and the live gate). It is why the bowls insisted the semi's remain between Xmas and NYD, to maximize the number of people who can travel to the games, and spend money. Moving the games too early will seriously hamper that revenue stream, so they must remain on NYD, or NYE. Even a situation like this year when NYD was on a Friday and Jan 2nd seemed like a great day for the games, the problem is it encourages visitors to make it a weekend trip, as opposed to a weeklong trip, so that still is not what they prefer.

there is no perfect solution, but that is why the bowls have a tight window they want the games played, which necessitates the championship game being pushed out.

I agree that *the bowls* care about filling hotel rooms and selling tickets. And they also care about tradition.

The CFP bracket games don't need to do anything other than match up the teams to play the game and generate huge TV ratings. It's up to the city that won the bid to sell hotel rooms and tourism.

This is not true. The CFP is funded the simialar to how the bowls are: that is why they use bowls. It is also why they specifically chose the dates they did, DESPITE them being horrible for TV: they have to protect the gate and the tourist aspect of the game. There is no playoff without the bowls, because as a purely TV product (which is what it would be if just the live gate and TV revenue), it would pay less than the top games in the old bowl system did, instead of paying 5 times as much, which is why the conferences absolutely refused to discuss a playoff until the bowls themselves were into it. Keeping the bowls who host it happy is absolutely essential, especially with the semi's replacing the bowls - and you can't remove that aspect because you can only crown so many bowls top level bowls in a given year. A NY's has too many teams for all of the games to appear to be top shelf games. As we are seeing, 6 was probably pushing it.

If you want an idea, consider that the B1G and PAC 12 conference championship games had specific contracts for them that identified their monetary value, $25 million and $14 million a piece. The Rose Bowl pays out $80 million, and does not draw what these two combined do (non Semi final). While their ratings are not quite the same as BCS bowls, they are in the ballpark. And those games payout $80 million a piece, despite only drawing 40% more viewers (which is no chump change, but not worth that much more). The on the ground part makes a big difference, and cannot be overlooked.

You're wrong. The CFP is funded by its mega TV contract. So, CFP games only need to generate mega ratings. The end.

Why do you continue to speak on things you don't understand? Even worse act as what you say is the end all be all, much less actually true, It is "funded" by the TV contract, but the bowls are a part of the payout. One reason the pay is so high, is due to locally generated sales. You cannot possibly not know this.

You keep conflating bowl games and stand alone CFP games (like the NCG, currently).

The only thing the NCG has to do is get mega-TV ratings. It is not on the hook to make local sales, like Bowl games need to do.


Same would be true of CFP semi's were standalone games, not tied to bowls.

(01-14-2016 04:25 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 08:49 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 02:27 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 02:24 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 02:18 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Actually it does....
Rose Bowl-
SF in '15 14.8 rating 28.16 million viewers
RB in '16 7.4 rating 13.55 million viewers
Sugar Bowl-
SF in '15 15.2 rating, 28.27 million viewers
SB in '16 5.1 rating 8.94 million viewers

So that's why the Rose and Sugar are absolutely going to continue to be in the CFP SF rotation.

You're looking at it from the Bowl's viewpoint. I was talking from the CFP's viewpoint.

Obviously you could argue that the Rose and Sugar may fight to stay apart of the system. Especially if the subsequent data points indicate that being a CFP game does matter. But they might not have that clout, in the end.


Secondly, those numbers could be the product of the teams playing in the bowl game more than it being a CFP game or not. Could also have been the novelty of the first year. We'll see...

but who runs the CFP? Big Ten/Pac 12/SEC/Big 12/etc. Really don't see them making the Rose/Sugar meaningless all of the time.

Meaningless??

How do the Rose ratings compare to past games that aren't CFP semi or BCS title games??


My guess is they're right in line with what the Rose was normally doing.

They would be wrong to let last year's bloated numbers make it seem like that should be the new normal.

This year's rose bowl was the worst rated EVER. Sorry but that's just the fact. Sorry but the 2 SF games are king now, and everything else just doesn't matter any where near as much as they used to. So Rose Bowl would prefer to be relevant 1 of 3 years than 0 of 3 years. Makes sense to me. Plus in this system, they keep their place on the calendar all the time. So it's best case scenario for the Rose Bowl.

Just caught your tell stever: you always ... ALWAYS ... supply the numbers. That's your thing.

Except when the numbers don't support your argument.


Makes me suspect these "worst ever" Rose ratings were only 0.1% lower than the next lowest Rose ratings, or something like that.

And if that's true it proves that the Rose in the CFP era, when not a semi game, has ratings that are in-line with the previous era.

It's only one data point, granted. We'll have time to see how it evolves.

well how about this-
RB in '13 9.4 rating, 17.04 million viewers
RB in '14 10.2 rating, 18.64 million viewers
SF in '15 14.8 rating 28.16 million viewers
RB in '16 7.4 rating 13.55 million viewers

before this- the lowest rated one ever was in 2009- 9.4 rating with 17 million viewers.

So no, it's not even remotely close to say that this years ratings were in-line with the previous era. It wasn't even close.

(01-15-2016 12:05 PM)stever20 Wrote:  well how about this-
RB in '13 9.4 rating, 17.04 million viewers
RB in '14 10.2 rating, 18.64 million viewers
SF in '15 14.8 rating 28.16 million viewers
RB in '16 7.4 rating 13.55 million viewers

before this- the lowest rated one ever was in 2009- 9.4 rating with 17 million viewers.

So no, it's not even remotely close to say that this years ratings were in-line with the previous era. It wasn't even close.

+1
Why didn't you just supply the actual numbers in the first place, then? Come on man, that's your thing.


Still a few points to be made:

1) the different era's are apples to oranges

2) it may not be the *bowl* 's decision to make. Note I'm make a very clear distinction here. I'm just talking about people who work for the ToR. I'm not talking about the B1G or PAC conferences.

3) it's only one data point and the teams playing the game (and the quality of the game itself - ie, blow-out) may have much more to do with it than we're giving credit.

(01-15-2016 12:24 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-15-2016 12:05 PM)stever20 Wrote:  well how about this-
RB in '13 9.4 rating, 17.04 million viewers
RB in '14 10.2 rating, 18.64 million viewers
SF in '15 14.8 rating 28.16 million viewers
RB in '16 7.4 rating 13.55 million viewers

before this- the lowest rated one ever was in 2009- 9.4 rating with 17 million viewers.

So no, it's not even remotely close to say that this years ratings were in-line with the previous era. It wasn't even close.

Why didn't you just supply the actual numbers in the first place, then? Come on man, that's your thing.


Still a few points to be made:

1) the different era's are apples to oranges

2) it may not be the *bowl* 's decision to make. Note I'm make a very clear distinction here. I'm just talking about people who work for the ToR. I'm not talking about the B1G or PAC conferences.

3) it's only one data point and the teams playing the game (and the quality of the game itself - ie, blow-out) may have much more to do with it than we're giving credit.

If Different ERA's are apples to oranges, and the new ERA has non SF games being half of a SF- doesn't that say something?

The thing is- I feel like the Big Ten/Pac 12 are going to do a lot to keep the Rose Viable. And the only way now for that is for it to be part of the SF rotation.

next year may be even worse. it's the worst year for the New Years Day bowls- as it'll be played on 1/2.

It does say something ... but that speech is very short, at the moment. Need more data points to conclusively decide. We'll get them.

If CFP semi's removed from bowl games, Rose will still be viable. What does "viable" mean to you?

The thing is, what are the odds the CFP semi's are removed from Bowl games? I don't think it's that high at all whatsoever.

I don't think the Big Ten/Pac 12/Rose Bowl want a game where they are only getting the ratings like this year. Not at all. And that's going to happen pretty much any time the Rose Bowl is not hosting a SF.

(01-15-2016 12:40 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I don't think the Big Ten/Pac 12/Rose Bowl want a game where they are only getting the ratings like this year. Not at all. And that's going to happen pretty much any time the Rose Bowl is not hosting a SF.

The January 1 game ratings are going to be about like this year's every time the semifinals are played on December 31. The NYD games are an afterthought when the semis are played the day before.

One way around that is to move the semis after NYD - which they could have done easily this year on Saturday, January 2, of course - maybe play them in the evening on Jan. 2 or 3. Probably won't happen because the CFP decisionmakers continue to bow down to the bowl games' desire to sell tickets and hotel rooms; they want their games on Jan. 1 at the latest because most of the Jan. 2/3/4 BCS-era games were not sold out.