He1nousOne
The One you Love to Hate.
Posts: 13,285
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 215
I Root For: Iowa/ASU
Location: Arizona
|
RE: Odd thought for AAC Expansion. It's all about numbers.
(08-27-2014 11:10 AM)quo vadis Wrote: (08-27-2014 12:17 AM)He1nousOne Wrote: (08-26-2014 11:44 PM)quo vadis Wrote: (08-26-2014 07:49 PM)He1nousOne Wrote: (08-26-2014 07:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote: It is a complete and total dodge. Your argument - as much as I can gather when untangling the mess of it - seems to be that viewers prefer to see conference champs play rather than see rematches between conference teams because the conference schedule has already sorted out who the best team in that conference is, thus, football will adopt a system that includes conference champs only because that will maximize viewership and hence their money.
That is an argument that should apply to both football and basketball. But apparently you aren't making it for basketball, which makes no sense, since obviously, schools prefer to maximize basketball revenue as well as football revenue.
And it's rather astonishing that you would question why an after-the-fact poll would have less validity than a before-the-fact poll. The issue (as you've framed it) is one of general preference: Generally speaking, people prefer to see conference champs play rather than rematches between conference teams. An after-the-fact poll is tainted because it is almost certainly the case that the experience of watching the rematch game will influence how people evaluate its desirability. Alabama's dull, grinding, 21-0 shutout of LSU was boring to anyone not a Bama fan, and so it is natural that after watching it, many would think "Yeah, rematches suck". In contrast, had LSU-Alabama been a 38-35 classic, then the bias would go the other way.
In contrast, before-the-fact polls have the virtue of tapping viewer mindsets that are unblemished by the results of the game.
As for LSU - Alabama vs USC - Oklahoma, ratings are based on percentages, so it doesn't matter that the population of viewers has gone up since 2005. If anything, LSU - Alabama was at a disadvantage because it was on ESPN while USC - Oklahoma was on ABC.
You are talking about comparing a tournament that has 68 teams and always takes multiple teams from all the major conferences to a tournament that currently has room for FOUR teams. It is a terrible comparison and to try to make it is to be desperately reaching in an attempt to try to attack me for whatever reason. I am not dodging, your point sucks, period.
The reason you think my point sucks is because it undermines your argument completely. It doesn't matter if the NCAA tournament currently takes 68 or 150 teams. If your logic about what people want to watch (conference champions playing each other) is correct than it should apply to basketball as well.
I think the underlying reason for this contradiction is that you probably realize that viewers do not, in fact, care all that much about football conference championships, and for a good reason: Not all conferences are equal. A game between #1, 13-0 Oklahoma and #3, 12-1 Texas is likely to draw more viewers than a game between #1 Oklahoma and #14, 10-3 (but B1G champion) Wisconsin. Nine out of ten fans would rather see the former because they aren't fooled by the "conference champion" label on Wisconsin. All that means is they were the best of a mediocre lot of 13 teams out of 120. Not very impressive credentials.
And, if we compare college football to college basketball, the latter produces a far more legitimate conference champion than the former. In football conferences, teams either play each other only once or sometimes not at all. Even when they play once, you get a weak test of who the best is. E.g., if Stanford goes 9-1 in the PAC and Oregon goes 10-0, and Oregon beat Stanford 28 - 21 in Oregon, that's not a real good indicator that Oregon is really better, because they had the obvious advantage of playing their one game at home. A much better test would be if Stanford got to host Oregon as well, but football doesn't permit that. Thus, saying Stanford was proven to be inferior to Oregon and doesn't deserve a shot at a national playoff is pretty weak coffee.
But basketball provides a much stronger test for conference supremacy. In all the major conferences, each team plays all the others home and away, such that the team that has the best record at the end of the year has really proved themselves to be "best" and that runners-up don't belong in a national playoffs.
So if anything, a far stronger argument can be made that the NCAA basketball tourney should be conference champs only than that a football playoff should be.
And yet you seem to think it's A-OK if not just the runner-up but often six or seven schools from the same conference play in the NCAA basketball tourney (and viewers LOVE this, btw), but that lots more money can be made in college football if only conference champs are allowed to play.
Not very rational.
The biggest reason why you are just far too incompetent to be in a conversation with me is because you cannot comprehend the difference between me talking about what I see happening and what I actually want to happen.
People like you argue your own selfish desires. I simply speak on what I see happening based on previous happenings. So go on thinking you are "debating" someone whom is just pushing their own personal desires and agenda but that is not the case.
If you cannot understand why the large Big Ten following would care to see it's champion go forward and why the large PAC following would care to see it's champion go forward and why the large ACC following would like to see their champion go forward then, as I said before, you need to get out of the South more often.
The conferences WILL want their championships to have meaning in Football BECAUSE they don't mean **** in basketball. They invest in them and more importantly....the Networks invest heavily in them.
Another amoeba mutation. Not once in this exchange have I said that the conferences do not care if their champions make the playoffs, although so far, over the past 20 years, they have continuously agreed to playoff systems (first the BCS, now the CFP) that make playoff participation contingent on rankings, not conference championships. So if you really are "speaking based on previous happenings", you aren't very clued-in as to what those previous happenings have been, since those very same conferences with those very large, new media deals just signed on to a system that has a committee ranking the top 4 teams for the playoffs, and there is no requirement that the teams be conference champions. And they never have made that a requirement, dating all the way back to 1992 and the original Bowl Alliance.
Also, your distinction about me not comprehending the difference between what you want to happen and what you think will happen falls flat, because whether you are discussing one or the other, empirical reality still applies: E.g., you claimed that the reason we will have a champs-only playoffs is because TV networks understand that viewers would rather see champs play than see rematches. I debunked that pretty thoroughly by discussing the LSU-Alabama situation in relation to other past BCS title game matchups. There is little reason to think that "the people" would rather see a game between two conference champs than two other teams that are clearly higher-ranked and had better seasons. Being a conference champ just means you were the best of 13 or so teams, not very impressive credentials in the scheme of things if you otherwise weren't very good. Your notion is also belied by the NCAA tournament, in which the conferences produce FAR more defensible champions than in football, and yet the tournament is WILDLY popular with TV and viewers despite letting everyone and their grandmother in.
Logically and empirically, your ideas just don't stand up.
Logically and empirically you have created your own strawman and ran with it. Congrats I guess?
by all means, continue if you like but you are nothing more than an annoyance at this point that does not take part in conversations, instead you just talk to yourself.
|
|