And unless you can hold it at a large neutral stadium, it has jumped the shark.

I don't know what the obsession is with conferences going beyond 9-10. You're not the SEC and no one but fans from the schools in the conference are gonna tune in unless you're big enough to hold it at a neutral site. Smaller conferences are stronger. You obviously want to stay numeric in case you get raided but it may not always worth it. C-USA is clearly behind the Sun Belt these days because it overexpanded. So what you get an extra TV payday, it's minor compared to being too bloated as a league.

Disclaimer: Not a conference President

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

BCS pd per duim, you expanded what TV allowed
CFP has a 10 m cap, you expand to 12, 2 M in CCG is a wash
bigger foot print is good thing

(08-25-2017 12:18 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  And unless you can hold it at a large neutral stadium, it has jumped the shark.

I don't know what the obsession is with conferences going beyond 9-10. You're not the SEC and no one but fans from the schools in the conference are gonna tune in unless you're big enough to hold it at a neutral site. Smaller conferences are stronger. You obviously want to stay numeric in case you get raided but it may not always worth it. C-USA is clearly behind the Sun Belt these days because it overexpanded. So what you get an extra TV payday, it's minor compared to being too bloated as a league.

Completely disagree. Divisional play is better in almost every way. All P5 CCGs are played at large, neutral sites -- not sure why you cited that.

First, you get to play for a divisional title. It's something to compete for, a banner to hang on the stadium, a distinct element to the game that adds interest. Playing for a title in a CCG and deciding things on the field is better than "choosing" a champion via polls or whatever when inevitable ties come up -- see B12. I can't see how you can argue against that.

And, statistically, having 12+ teams in divisional play leads to better chances of landing a playoff spot than a 10-team. It all comes down to losses, and how they're distributed. This article about the B12 sums it up. The chances of every top team in a 10-team conference playing every other top team in the conference is 100%. In a 14-team conference playing an 8-game schedule (with one permanent x-divisional opponent) , there's a 90% chance that at least one team in each division will avoid the top-3 teams in the other division. There's almost a 40% chance that one of those top 3 teams in a division will face only the weaker teams in the other division. And 8-game divisional play has less losses, and spreads them around to more teams, than a 9-game round robin format.

So with the extra money from a CCG, the cap-feathers and bragging rights, the interest divisional play generates, and the increased chances of the top teams getting a playoff bid... It's hard to make an argument to go back to smaller round-robin conferences.

(08-25-2017 12:18 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  And unless you can hold it at a large neutral stadium, it has jumped the shark.

I don't know what the obsession is with conferences going beyond 9-10. You're not the SEC and no one but fans from the schools in the conference are gonna tune in unless you're big enough to hold it at a neutral site. Smaller conferences are stronger. You obviously want to stay numeric in case you get raided but it may not always worth it. C-USA is clearly behind the Sun Belt these days because it overexpanded. So what you get an extra TV payday, it's minor compared to being too bloated as a league.

Not really getting where you are coming from on this one. The AAC CCG has been well attended and will likely continue to be so as long as its NOT at a neutral site (even some of the P5's are having limited success with neutral site CCG's).

As for viewership---the CCG's do well. The AAC has done very well with 2.05 million watching the game in 2016 and 2.45 million watching the game in 2015. Thats only 130K fewer viewers than the Pac12 CCG drew in 2015. No other G5 CCG's came close to the AAC numbers (the MAC is the only one to crack a million)---but all were among the most watched games of the season for their respective G5 conferences.

As for the CCG's of the major P5 conferences---viewership in 2016 was

Pac12--6.671 million
Big10--9.189 million
ACC---5.338 million
SEC---11.093 million


As college football games go, those are all high audience games. I think the premise of your OP is completely off base.

(08-25-2017 05:43 PM)ColKurtz Wrote:  

(08-25-2017 12:18 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  And unless you can hold it at a large neutral stadium, it has jumped the shark.

I don't know what the obsession is with conferences going beyond 9-10. You're not the SEC and no one but fans from the schools in the conference are gonna tune in unless you're big enough to hold it at a neutral site. Smaller conferences are stronger. You obviously want to stay numeric in case you get raided but it may not always worth it. C-USA is clearly behind the Sun Belt these days because it overexpanded. So what you get an extra TV payday, it's minor compared to being too bloated as a league.

Completely disagree. Divisional play is better in almost every way. All P5 CCGs are played at large, neutral sites -- not sure why you cited that.

First, you get to play for a divisional title. It's something to compete for, a banner to hang on the stadium, a distinct element to the game that adds interest. Playing for a title in a CCG and deciding things on the field is better than "choosing" a champion via polls or whatever when inevitable ties come up -- see B12. I can't see how you can argue against that.

And, statistically, having 12+ teams in divisional play leads to better chances of landing a playoff spot than a 10-team. It all comes down to losses, and how they're distributed. This article about the B12 sums it up. The chances of every top team in a 10-team conference playing every other top team in the conference is 100%. In a 14-team conference playing an 8-game schedule (with one permanent x-divisional opponent) , there's a 90% chance that at least one team in each division will avoid the top-3 teams in the other division. There's almost a 40% chance that one of those top 3 teams in a division will face only the weaker teams in the other division. And 8-game divisional play has less losses, and spreads them around to more teams, than a 9-game round robin format.

So with the extra money from a CCG, the cap-feathers and bragging rights, the interest divisional play generates, and the increased chances of the top teams getting a playoff bid... It's hard to make an argument to go back to smaller round-robin conferences.

Divisional play is better? How? It used to be that conferences had a true round robin where every team played each other and you had no one to blame but yourself if you didn't win the conference title. Now conferences are overexpanded, historic rivalries are destroyed and some teams don't even play each other in conference more than once every six years or so.

And I meant in lesser conferences. Don't overexpand. The AAC would be stronger if it didn't overexpand just to get to a CCG. C-USA would certainly be better if it let its projects develop elsewhere, i.e. all of the brand new programs like UTSA and took just one of the Florida schools.

(08-25-2017 07:10 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Not really getting where you are coming from on this one. The AAC CCG has been well attended and will likely continue to be so as long as its NOT at a neutral site (even some of the P5's are having limited success with neutral site CCG's).

As for viewership---the CCG's do well. The AAC has done very well with 2.05 million watching the game in 2016 and 2.45 million watching the game in 2015. Thats only 130K fewer viewers than the Pac12 CCG drew in 2015. No other G5 CCG's came close to the AAC numbers (the MAC is the only one to crack a million)---but all were among the most watched games of the season for their respective G5 conferences.

As for the CCG's of the major P5 conferences---viewership in 2016 was

Pac12--6.671 million
Big10--9.189 million
ACC---5.338 million
SEC---11.093 million


As college football games go, those are all high audience games. I think the premise of your OP is completely off base.

Just because it had good attendance and TV ratings doesn't mean it's a good idea. The conference would be stronger at 9 or 10. Just because the CCG hasn't been a bomb doesn't mean it's wise to hold one.

(08-25-2017 10:15 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(08-25-2017 07:10 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Not really getting where you are coming from on this one. The AAC CCG has been well attended and will likely continue to be so as long as its NOT at a neutral site (even some of the P5's are having limited success with neutral site CCG's).

As for viewership---the CCG's do well. The AAC has done very well with 2.05 million watching the game in 2016 and 2.45 million watching the game in 2015. Thats only 130K fewer viewers than the Pac12 CCG drew in 2015. No other G5 CCG's came close to the AAC numbers (the MAC is the only one to crack a million)---but all were among the most watched games of the season for their respective G5 conferences.

As for the CCG's of the major P5 conferences---viewership in 2016 was

Pac12--6.671 million
Big10--9.189 million
ACC---5.338 million
SEC---11.093 million


As college football games go, those are all high audience games. I think the premise of your OP is completely off base.

Just because it had good attendance and TV ratings doesn't mean it's a good idea. The conference would be stronger at 9 or 10. Just because the CCG hasn't been a bomb doesn't mean it's wise to hold one.

Wait until Tulsa plays Uconn in a rematch for the AAC championship and 200k watch.

(08-25-2017 10:15 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(08-25-2017 07:10 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Not really getting where you are coming from on this one. The AAC CCG has been well attended and will likely continue to be so as long as its NOT at a neutral site (even some of the P5's are having limited success with neutral site CCG's).

As for viewership---the CCG's do well. The AAC has done very well with 2.05 million watching the game in 2016 and 2.45 million watching the game in 2015. Thats only 130K fewer viewers than the Pac12 CCG drew in 2015. No other G5 CCG's came close to the AAC numbers (the MAC is the only one to crack a million)---but all were among the most watched games of the season for their respective G5 conferences.

As for the CCG's of the major P5 conferences---viewership in 2016 was

Pac12--6.671 million
Big10--9.189 million
ACC---5.338 million
SEC---11.093 million


As college football games go, those are all high audience games. I think the premise of your OP is completely off base.

Just because it had good attendance and TV ratings doesn't mean it's a good idea. The conference would be stronger at 9 or 10. Just because the CCG hasn't been a bomb doesn't mean it's wise to hold one.

No...thats exactly why it is a good idea.

If you dont want 12 members---then dont have 12. We have already established that for the G5---the optimum size is probably 10 (12 max). Any FBS conference can have a CCG with less than 12 members these days. If you have more than 12 members---that was about TV dollars---not a CCG.

That said, conferences arent going to kick out any members---so--the "how many members should we have" decision has been made. The only decision left is whether to have a CCG or not to have one. As they are among the biggest showcase games of any conference and are worth significant money for the P5---they make sense and are not going anywhere.

(08-25-2017 10:24 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(08-25-2017 10:15 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(08-25-2017 07:10 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Not really getting where you are coming from on this one. The AAC CCG has been well attended and will likely continue to be so as long as its NOT at a neutral site (even some of the P5's are having limited success with neutral site CCG's).

As for viewership---the CCG's do well. The AAC has done very well with 2.05 million watching the game in 2016 and 2.45 million watching the game in 2015. Thats only 130K fewer viewers than the Pac12 CCG drew in 2015. No other G5 CCG's came close to the AAC numbers (the MAC is the only one to crack a million)---but all were among the most watched games of the season for their respective G5 conferences.

As for the CCG's of the major P5 conferences---viewership in 2016 was

Pac12--6.671 million
Big10--9.189 million
ACC---5.338 million
SEC---11.093 million


As college football games go, those are all high audience games. I think the premise of your OP is completely off base.

Just because it had good attendance and TV ratings doesn't mean it's a good idea. The conference would be stronger at 9 or 10. Just because the CCG hasn't been a bomb doesn't mean it's wise to hold one.

Wait until Tulsa plays Uconn in a rematch for the AAC championship and 200k watch.

lol....well, you never know. If one of them is 12-0, the games ratings might just surprise you.

(08-25-2017 10:00 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  Divisional play is better? How?

Why play football, or any sport for that matter. Physical exercise? Ok. But most people play sports to compete, and to WIN. Divisional play lets you compete to WIN a division title. It's not a small thing. Lose 2 games in round robin, your season may be over and interest wanes. Lose 2 games in divisional play and you're probably still in the hunt to WIN your division.

Ties are inevitable. A CCG allows you to compete to WIN a conference title, on the field. Not the polls. And divisional 12+ structure gives you a higher chance of competing to WIN a national title vs 10 teams.

You have a nostalgic pining for round robin formats, which has many less chances to WIN something. Progress is taking out multiple ways to WIN something tangible, and make things more boring for fans? It's often said there are no wrong opinions. Your idea challenges that.

So you can't WIN a conference title and be proud? You can't beat your rivals and be proud? Going to 12 smacks of trying to pretend you're the SEC or something. It also splits the pie more ways. The only way those weird tiebreaker scenarios come into play is when three teams tie for a conference title. A smaller conference takes care of that as 8 or 9 guarantees round robin play and ditto for conferences with 9-game schedules.

(08-25-2017 11:33 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-25-2017 10:24 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(08-25-2017 10:15 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(08-25-2017 07:10 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Not really getting where you are coming from on this one. The AAC CCG has been well attended and will likely continue to be so as long as its NOT at a neutral site (even some of the P5's are having limited success with neutral site CCG's).

As for viewership---the CCG's do well. The AAC has done very well with 2.05 million watching the game in 2016 and 2.45 million watching the game in 2015. Thats only 130K fewer viewers than the Pac12 CCG drew in 2015. No other G5 CCG's came close to the AAC numbers (the MAC is the only one to crack a million)---but all were among the most watched games of the season for their respective G5 conferences.

As for the CCG's of the major P5 conferences---viewership in 2016 was

Pac12--6.671 million
Big10--9.189 million
ACC---5.338 million
SEC---11.093 million


As college football games go, those are all high audience games. I think the premise of your OP is completely off base.

Just because it had good attendance and TV ratings doesn't mean it's a good idea. The conference would be stronger at 9 or 10. Just because the CCG hasn't been a bomb doesn't mean it's wise to hold one.

Wait until Tulsa plays Uconn in a rematch for the AAC championship and 200k watch.

lol....well, you never know. If one of them is 12-0, the games ratings might just surprise you.

Actually, I think Tulsa is going to pretty good this. In fact, they were very good many seasons in CUSA. Beat Iowa, Notre Dame and many others. They just can't get the locals into it for whatever reason. Oh yeah, they are in the Sooner state...

(08-25-2017 12:18 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  And unless you can hold it at a large neutral stadium, it has jumped the shark.

I don't know what the obsession is with conferences going beyond 9-10. You're not the SEC and no one but fans from the schools in the conference are gonna tune in unless you're big enough to hold it at a neutral site. Smaller conferences are stronger. You obviously want to stay numeric in case you get raided but it may not always worth it. C-USA is clearly behind the Sun Belt these days because it overexpanded. So what you get an extra TV payday, it's minor compared to being too bloated as a league.

Agree

It really only makes sense for the SEC, Big Ten, and ACC.

Until the P4 comes into existence, then defacto Semi-Finals becomes CCG. Remember not Auto Bids to the CFP Playoffs, so CFP can keep the four team bids.

(08-25-2017 12:18 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  And unless you can hold it at a large neutral stadium, it has jumped the shark.

I don't know what the obsession is with conferences going beyond 9-10. You're not the SEC and no one but fans from the schools in the conference are gonna tune in unless you're big enough to hold it at a neutral site. Smaller conferences are stronger. You obviously want to stay numeric in case you get raided but it may not always worth it. C-USA is clearly behind the Sun Belt these days because it overexpanded. So what you get an extra TV payday, it's minor compared to being too bloated as a league.

Conference Championship Games are usually dumb ideas, but that is irrelevant. They are media scheduled profitable events. Being smart has nothing to do with it. The irony is that here is a prime example of how institutions of higher learning are paid to be dumb.