I am pumped for the game. The two best teams in the nation and a revenge game.

(01-06-2017 12:36 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-06-2017 09:59 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Just saying, CFB has had a lot of history with dynasties. Such things are great for fans of that team ... but bad for general interest in the sport. It's better to have the NCG and CFP churn over every year. Similar to the NFC (cuz the AFC is a cartel).

I think it's generally the opposite for college football and sports in general: the average sports fan actually really enjoys watching dynasties. They never got bored of the Bulls, Yankees or Cowboys of the 1990s or Duke for college basketball or the Patriots and the Cavs/Warriors right now. For the average sports fan that just watches the big games, those dynasties are like marquee performers that they'll always watch. It's really the people that follow a sport closely that get "bored".

I can't tell you how many hardcore baseball fans have complained about all of the nationally-televised Yankees-Red Sox games over the past decade (and they're going to complain about there being "too many Cubs games" for the next decade). They claim that getting more Nats or Rangers games would make schedules more interesting. Same thing about NFL fans complaining about Cowboys and Patriots games always being on national TV or NBA fans with the Cavs and Warriors. The problem is that the average sports fan COMPLETELY disagrees with them as shown by the TV ratings. They *want* to see those Death Star Dynasty Brand Names as much as possible. College football is no exception.

But in college football, its usually several programs, not just one and not for such an extended time. Going back to 2008, 2010 was the only year Alabama wasn't in the hunt in late November. FSU had an incredible run, but Miami, Nebraska, Alabama, Notre Dame, etc., were there also.

(01-06-2017 04:57 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-06-2017 04:02 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-06-2017 03:48 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  fans like to *say* they support the underdogs, but ratings data over and over and over again (in every single sport, whether college or pro) show that they want to see the brand name marquee teams.

We can try to have academic discussions of sports television viewership, round and round and round. But I want to bring this back directly to what the OP was getting at, and that can easily boil down to a single mental-experiment question:

Which CFP National Championship Game, played on Jan 9, 2017, gets higher ratings??
- Alabama vs Clemson
- Washington vs Clemson


I'm going Washington v Clemson, all day. People are sick of Alabama. And the game already has a southern team in Clemson, hungry for it's first national title (in some time?). Would've been better for the sport if Washington had won.

This is obviously a hypothetical presented by you, but let's just go to the ratings data from stever20 this year:

http://csnbbs.com/thread-790962.html

4 of the top 10 highest-rated games of the regular season involved Alabama. Fully half of the top 12 highest-rated games (6 of the top 12) also involved Alabama. None of them involved Washington. That indicates that the general viewer isn't tired of watching Alabama at all.

No, really I was saying it might be higher ratings if it was a 13-0 USC vs. a 12-1 Michigan (or Oklahoma or Texas or Florida or FSU or Ohio St.-not Notre Dame because that would be a rematch).

Rematches don't rate well in college football. LSU-Alabama was the worst rated title game of the last decade.

(01-06-2017 09:21 PM)bronconick Wrote:  Rematches don't rate well in college football. LSU-Alabama was the worst rated title game of the last decade.

I mean this is a little different. This is a rematch from last year, that was a rematch from the same season. It was also a "national championship" game between two teams from the same conference.

That said, I'd personally still rather see different teams.

I will watch. But I just don't have strong feelings about either team.

(01-06-2017 09:21 PM)bronconick Wrote:  Rematches don't rate well in college football. LSU-Alabama was the worst rated title game of the last decade.

Alabama / LSU should not have happened for a lot of reasons. However it was a rematch from the same season. Clemson / Alabama is not.

That said you guys do realize that if the ratings are indeed low there is a much simpler explanation. Clemson and Alabama are essentially from the same region of the country. They may be in two different conferences, which will draw some additional interest for the two, but they are nonetheless both Southeastern.

That arrangement excludes the Midwest, West, Northeast and Upper Midwest. That's a boat load of population and is precisely whey we need to move post haste toward a P4 where all 4 regions of the country are guaranteed to be interested through the semi finals and if the Big 10 champ played the PAC champ and the SEC champ played the ACC champ for the right to the finals every year it would guarantee a larger interest nationwide in the finals.

Then the arguing and speculation would be over which was the second best team that year and I could live with that for the sake of maximizing profits.

(01-06-2017 10:02 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I will watch. But I just don't have strong feelings about either team.

Clemson already took care of business IMO.

(01-06-2017 10:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-06-2017 09:21 PM)bronconick Wrote:  Rematches don't rate well in college football. LSU-Alabama was the worst rated title game of the last decade.

Alabama / LSU should not have happened for a lot of reasons. However it was a rematch from the same season. Clemson / Alabama is not.

That said you guys do realize that if the ratings are indeed low there is a much simpler explanation. Clemson and Alabama are essentially from the same region of the country. They may be in two different conferences, which will draw some additional interest for the two, but they are nonetheless both Southeastern.

That arrangement excludes the Midwest, West, Northeast and Upper Midwest. That's a boat load of population and is precisely whey we need to move post haste toward a P4 where all 4 regions of the country are guaranteed to be interested through the semi finals and if the Big 10 champ played the PAC champ and the SEC champ played the ACC champ for the right to the finals every year it would guarantee a larger interest nationwide in the finals.

Then the arguing and speculation would be over which was the second best team that year and I could live with that for the sake of maximizing profits.

This is true. I would have enjoyed seeing OkSt play LSU.

The reason the NCAA tournament is so popular is because every conference is represented. The entire country is engaged and we love cinderella stories. Gonzaga, VCU, Butler, etc... are fun to watch.

I agree on the predetermined conference matchups as well. At that point every team in the conference has a path to the championship. Win your division play for a CC. Win the CC play for a spot in the NC. The path is predetermined and no human meddling can screw it up or be seen as unfair. Only conference records matter for winning the division so you suddenly would see better OOC matchups as well. Rose and Orange for the semis and Sugar or Cotton for the Championship would be nice.

If that is to happen the PAC needs to be improved the most to keep a somewhat even playing field. I'd have no problem with 6 (OU and friends)heading to the PAC and 4 (UT and friends) to the ACC. It seems like it would be a win win for everyone including ESPN as they could do somethign useful with LHN at that point.

I'm kinda interested just because of good football, but the teams themselves aren't exactly compelling stories outside of the rematch angle. I like Dabo and I usually pull for the underdog, so I'm rooting for Clemson.

Now could you imagine if Fleck eventually got Minnesota into CFP contention (yeah, not happening) and a guy with his personality went toe-to-toe against Saban? That'd be the clash of the titans right there.

P5 football .... Zzzzzzzz

It's the same teams over and over. It's Groundhog Day.

I think the playoff Idea was a bust, No one really cares, They could get up for one game, 2 playoff games not so much. and Access bowls are an afterthought. As for all the rest of bowls, forgetaboutit

(01-07-2017 09:34 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  I think the playoff Idea was a bust, No one really cares, They could get up for one game, 2 playoff games not so much. and Access bowls are an afterthought. As for all the rest of bowls, forgetaboutit

Well we've only completed two playoffs so a bit early to render a final verdict.

That said, I think it is far from optimal.

There is no Cinderella or Wildcard drama that makes the opening interesting. We've had six semi-final games played and only one was truly dramatic.

The playoff is in most years denied the premier college football stage, New Year's Day. The playoff was supposed to return New Year's Day to prominence, how does that work with the semi-finals on New Year's Eve what 8 out of 12 seasons?

The semi-finals are the nightcap after two other games. The semi-finals not only don't get the big stage (NYD) they have warm-up acts in the form of the Citrus and Gator this year.

The semis are the college equivalent of the AFC and NFC championship games but ESPN doesn't treat them like that. The games are played later, they get a warm-up act, and that later start means you don't see the day devoted to hyping the event, most of the hype is during the warm-up games and is just annoying.

Then once you crown your finalists, you put four more warm-up acts on the stage.

If making it an event were the real goal the playoff would be final three games of the season and everyone else would be done by the day before the playoff.

(01-06-2017 10:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-06-2017 09:21 PM)bronconick Wrote:  Rematches don't rate well in college football. LSU-Alabama was the worst rated title game of the last decade.

Alabama / LSU should not have happened for a lot of reasons. However it was a rematch from the same season. Clemson / Alabama is not.

That said you guys do realize that if the ratings are indeed low there is a much simpler explanation. Clemson and Alabama are essentially from the same region of the country. They may be in two different conferences, which will draw some additional interest for the two, but they are nonetheless both Southeastern.

That arrangement excludes the Midwest, West, Northeast and Upper Midwest. That's a boat load of population and is precisely whey we need to move post haste toward a P4 where all 4 regions of the country are guaranteed to be interested through the semi finals and if the Big 10 champ played the PAC champ and the SEC champ played the ACC champ for the right to the finals every year it would guarantee a larger interest nationwide in the finals.

Then the arguing and speculation would be over which was the second best team that year and I could live with that for the sake of maximizing profits.

How would a P4 make a difference? Ohio St. and Washington lost in the first round.

(01-07-2017 10:41 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-07-2017 09:34 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  I think the playoff Idea was a bust, No one really cares, They could get up for one game, 2 playoff games not so much. and Access bowls are an afterthought. As for all the rest of bowls, forgetaboutit

Well we've only completed two playoffs so a bit early to render a final verdict.

That said, I think it is far from optimal.

There is no Cinderella or Wildcard drama that makes the opening interesting. We've had six semi-final games played and only one was truly dramatic.

The playoff is in most years denied the premier college football stage, New Year's Day. The playoff was supposed to return New Year's Day to prominence, how does that work with the semi-finals on New Year's Eve what 8 out of 12 seasons?

The semi-finals are the nightcap after two other games. The semi-finals not only don't get the big stage (NYD) they have warm-up acts in the form of the Citrus and Gator this year.

The semis are the college equivalent of the AFC and NFC championship games but ESPN doesn't treat them like that. The games are played later, they get a warm-up act, and that later start means you don't see the day devoted to hyping the event, most of the hype is during the warm-up games and is just annoying.

Then once you crown your finalists, you put four more warm-up acts on the stage.

If making it an event were the real goal the playoff would be final three games of the season and everyone else would be done by the day before the playoff.

Well I thought the first two were interesting. This year not so much.

(01-07-2017 12:21 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-06-2017 10:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-06-2017 09:21 PM)bronconick Wrote:  Rematches don't rate well in college football. LSU-Alabama was the worst rated title game of the last decade.

Alabama / LSU should not have happened for a lot of reasons. However it was a rematch from the same season. Clemson / Alabama is not.

That said you guys do realize that if the ratings are indeed low there is a much simpler explanation. Clemson and Alabama are essentially from the same region of the country. They may be in two different conferences, which will draw some additional interest for the two, but they are nonetheless both Southeastern.

That arrangement excludes the Midwest, West, Northeast and Upper Midwest. That's a boat load of population and is precisely whey we need to move post haste toward a P4 where all 4 regions of the country are guaranteed to be interested through the semi finals and if the Big 10 champ played the PAC champ and the SEC champ played the ACC champ for the right to the finals every year it would guarantee a larger interest nationwide in the finals.

Then the arguing and speculation would be over which was the second best team that year and I could live with that for the sake of maximizing profits.

How would a P4 make a difference? Ohio St. and Washington lost in the first round.

If the Big 10 champ played the PAC champ for the right to finals every year (Rose Bowl) one of them would have still be involved to get murdered by the winner of (Alabama / Clemson and then most of the country would still be involved for the finals, well at least the first half of it this year.

I just find the Alabama dynasty stale and boring to watch.

Rooting against the USC dynasty was way funner. A lot more dynamic to watch and classic games with OOC opponents (Texas, Notre Dame, Fresno, etc.)

http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-footbal...y2aq8772lg

Sporting News wrote an article on it. Finebaum, as expected, inflates the significance of Alabama's run. There have been better ones. Its just that there were other powers competing with them (as they discuss the 70s in the article).

(01-06-2017 12:36 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-06-2017 09:59 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Just saying, CFB has had a lot of history with dynasties. Such things are great for fans of that team ... but bad for general interest in the sport. It's better to have the NCG and CFP churn over every year. Similar to the NFC (cuz the AFC is a cartel).

I think it's generally the opposite for college football and sports in general: the average sports fan actually really enjoys watching dynasties. They never got bored of the Bulls, Yankees or Cowboys of the 1990s or Duke for college basketball or the Patriots and the Cavs/Warriors right now. For the average sports fan that just watches the big games, those dynasties are like marquee performers that they'll always watch. It's really the people that follow a sport closely that get "bored".

I can't tell you how many hardcore baseball fans have complained about all of the nationally-televised Yankees-Red Sox games over the past decade (and they're going to complain about there being "too many Cubs games" for the next decade). They claim that getting more Nats or Rangers games would make schedules more interesting. Same thing about NFL fans complaining about Cowboys and Patriots games always being on national TV or NBA fans with the Cavs and Warriors. The problem is that the average sports fan COMPLETELY disagrees with them as shown by the TV ratings. They *want* to see those Death Star Dynasty Brand Names as much as possible. College football is no exception.

The days of the Yanks/Sox captivating the country are gone. Baseball is a regional game. You cannot capture LA fans or midwest fans with those ALCS games, unless those viewers are still diehard baseball fans. Any casual fan can appreciate a great series of course. But it would have to take something massive, like the biggest players and managers involved in a multi year rivalry again, which could happen in cycles. But we are far less likely to get back those 03/04 years anytime soon.

The Cubs captured the country this year and the ratings were fantastic compared to a typical World Series. But baseball is still lagging.

Lebron and Curry have captured the country, but these players don't come often. Jordan/Malone, Magic/Byrd... generational players. Can't really use it to gauge anything more than a fleeting interest.

The NFL is declining in ratings. Mostly due to the product IMO, but some of the generational players are leaving. The Pats really aren't that popular historically compared to the Steelers or Cowboys. Whether those fans stay on board beyond Boston after Brady/Bill are long gone remains to be seen.

College needs Heisman or top draft pick type players involved to captivate the country. Watkins possibly fits that mold but he's not a guy looked at as either. There is not a national hatred for Saban either, in that people don't look at him as Vader leading the Death Star. Maybe he is that figure to ardent CF fans, but not so to the masses, like the Belichick hate.

In a nutshell, the interest in football has waned this year compared to previous years and we don't have compelling players or stories. That can change in the next decade or cycle though.

(01-07-2017 01:11 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  I just find the Alabama dynasty stale and boring to watch.

Rooting against the USC dynasty was way funner. A lot more dynamic to watch and classic games with OOC opponents (Texas, Notre Dame, Fresno, etc.)

That's because Carrol had way more energy than Saban, and that Leinart, Bush, Young crop was the most hyped draft class in history. That national championship gave the NFL draft playoff type ratings.

I hope ESPN loses millions.