What we just saw with Baseball is two singular Playoff games achieving higher ratings than many World Series games have achieved as of late.

http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2014/10/...ched-ever/

Quote:Wednesday’s Giants/Pirates National League Wild Card game drew a 3.6 final rating and 5.6 million viewers on ESPN, up 16% in ratings and 18% in viewership from Rays/Indians on TBS last year (3.1, 4.7M) and the highest rated, most-watched Wild Card game ever (six telecasts dating back to 2012). The previous highs were a 3.4 and 5.3 million for Orioles/Rangers in 2012.

Last year’s Reds/Pirates N.L. Wild Card game aired on a Tuesday, earning a 3.0 and 4.6 million on TBS.

The Giants’ 8-0 rout earned the second-highest rating and viewership for any MLB one-game playoff since the turn of the century (ten telecasts), trailing only the 2009 Tigers/Twins AL Central tiebreaker on TBS (4.2, 6.5M). Tuesday’s 12-inning thriller between the Royals and Athletics drew a 3.3 and 5.2 million viewers by comparison.

Considering the state of Baseball, this is a huge affirmation that single game elimination post season games are huge draws for general sports fans. That is what the Networks and College Football are looking to reach out to. What? Need more evidence? One example isn't enough?

http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2014/10/...rs-up-tbs/

The Royals and Athletics game is now the fourth highest rated Wild Card game ever. The buzz from it carried right over into the Giants and Pirates game. Despite it being an absolute blow out, the buzz from this style of elimination game earned that game the second highest rated Wild Card game ever.


Conference Tournaments are coming as is an expansion to at least 6 teams in the National Playoff. With 6 teams you have four teams involved in a similar elimination round.

I agree that making the Wildcard game one game for baseball was a very good approach. It accomplished two things, a) it created two compelling games, b) it made the divisional races in the regular season more meaningful. That was because of things fundamental to baseball, namely: home field advantage not being that huge and thus the old wildcard not much different than winning the division and the difficulty of having a winner take all game otherwise.

Conference tournaments for football are a very different animal and mainly for one reason and that's that we already have big meaningful nationally relevent regular season college football games. Now I'll grant it's possible we end up going this way eventually and maybe there is more money that way, but my money would be on it costing rather than making the conferences money in the long run (especially if it required expansion).

Let's suppose I'm wrong though and we go to semi-finals though. I'll guarantee one thing. They will not have 4 divisions with the winners of each going. No conference will take the risk of having the best two in one division and having another division with a team that might well have an overall loosing record go. What this will ultimately do though is destroy the stakes we see in the regularly season. If the top 4 teams are in the conference playoff, then the stakes just aren't there for enough regular season games. How many people on the west coast really care about who is #4 or #5 in the ACC, etc?

(10-02-2014 10:28 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I agree that making the Wildcard game one game for baseball was a very good approach. It accomplished two things, a) it created two compelling games, b) it made the divisional races in the regular season more meaningful. That was because of things fundamental to baseball, namely: home field advantage not being that huge and thus the old wildcard not much different than winning the division and the difficulty of having a winner take all game otherwise.

Conference tournaments for football are a very different animal and mainly for one reason and that's that we already have big meaningful nationally relevent regular season college football games. Now I'll grant it's possible we end up going this way eventually and maybe there is more money that way, but my money would be on it costing rather than making the conferences money in the long run (especially if it required expansion).

Let's suppose I'm wrong though and we go to semi-finals though. I'll guarantee one thing. They will not have 4 divisions with the winners of each going. No conference will take the risk of having the best two in one division and having another division with a team that might well have an overall loosing record go. What this will ultimately do though is destroy the stakes we see in the regularly season. If the top 4 teams are in the conference playoff, then the stakes just aren't there for enough regular season games. How many people on the west coast really care about who is #4 or #5 in the ACC, etc?

I don't see how they lose money through expansion. Every expansion that has happened has gained money for the expanding conference. I am sorry but there is no logic in the opposing statement. Expansion happens for money, guaranteed money, so to say opposite is just "farting in the wind" so to speak.

Now, your talking point about divisions and leading into a tournament is very valid. I will grant you all those points as being logical and feasible. Where I differ in opinion is that it is a bad thing to have one division winner be garbage. That is simply a way of manipulating the championship game to have your conference's top team in it for sure. In the end, the best finish is for your top team to make it through the tournament anyways right?

A championship game at the end builds credibility. Well two wins instead of one builds even more.

The Big Ten and PAC both got paid 20 million by Fox for their championship games. If that game is worth 20 million then the Semifinals should be worth 15 million. Do the math, that is 50 million dollars. If I am right and we end up with 16 team conferences then that is about 3.8 million divied out per school.

I disagree completely in regards to it destroying the regular season though. Once again, I think that is your traditional bias shining through and I can respect that. That does not make you right though. Baseball's regular season has died because it is boring, long and the games are far too numerous. College football has none of those problems. The regular season games will be just as followed as they are today. ESPN will see to that.

To go even further, four team divisions mean those three games in division will be extremely valuable. You line up all three to be played at the end of the conference season and ratings will be through the roof as the race for the divisions will be up in the air until then.

This isn't hard, if I can figure it out then the extremely capable marketing folks can figure it out too. In fact, they likely already have it figured out and they talked the EXTREMELY traditional folks in Major League Baseball to follow the lead of the Network.

The secret to success in this day and age is no secret.

(10-02-2014 08:59 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  What we just saw with Baseball is two singular Playoff games achieving higher ratings than many World Series games have achieved as of late.

http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2014/10/...ched-ever/

Quote:Wednesday’s Giants/Pirates National League Wild Card game drew a 3.6 final rating and 5.6 million viewers on ESPN, up 16% in ratings and 18% in viewership from Rays/Indians on TBS last year (3.1, 4.7M) and the highest rated, most-watched Wild Card game ever (six telecasts dating back to 2012). The previous highs were a 3.4 and 5.3 million for Orioles/Rangers in 2012.

Last year’s Reds/Pirates N.L. Wild Card game aired on a Tuesday, earning a 3.0 and 4.6 million on TBS.

The Giants’ 8-0 rout earned the second-highest rating and viewership for any MLB one-game playoff since the turn of the century (ten telecasts), trailing only the 2009 Tigers/Twins AL Central tiebreaker on TBS (4.2, 6.5M). Tuesday’s 12-inning thriller between the Royals and Athletics drew a 3.3 and 5.2 million viewers by comparison.

Considering the state of Baseball, this is a huge affirmation that single game elimination post season games are huge draws for general sports fans. That is what the Networks and College Football are looking to reach out to. What? Need more evidence? One example isn't enough?

http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2014/10/...rs-up-tbs/

The Royals and Athletics game is now the fourth highest rated Wild Card game ever. The buzz from it carried right over into the Giants and Pirates game. Despite it being an absolute blow out, the buzz from this style of elimination game earned that game the second highest rated Wild Card game ever.


Conference Tournaments are coming as is an expansion to at least 6 teams in the National Playoff. With 6 teams you have four teams involved in a similar elimination round.

I'm torn by the Baseball play in games as a baseball purist. I mean I get that the ratings were great and that the significance and urgency creates demand. But baseball is sometimes just too flukey to have the whole season come down to one game.

That being said, for college football expanding the playoff is a no-brainer.

Two.
COMPLETELY.
Different.
Sports.

Period. End-of-story. College Football is NOT Major League Baseball. College Football is not college basketball. How people keep missing the obvious is beyond me.

(10-03-2014 07:50 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  Two.
COMPLETELY.
Different.
Sports.

Period. End-of-story. College Football is NOT Major League Baseball. College Football is not college basketball. How people keep missing the obvious is beyond me.

One reason why no need for "Tournament/Extra Games" at the FBS Level...CTE...

http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/study-27-he...d=25932616

(10-03-2014 07:50 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  Two.
COMPLETELY.
Different.
Sports.

Period. End-of-story. College Football is NOT Major League Baseball. College Football is not college basketball. How people keep missing the obvious is beyond me.

Wow, really? Are you serious? They are two different sports???? Oh my god, I didn't even realize...I am so so so sorry.


You are an idiot.

(10-03-2014 12:01 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  I don't see how they lose money through expansion. Every expansion that has happened has gained money for the expanding conference.

Because in order to make money from it, the new playoff games have to draw substantially more viewers than the access bowls they replace will. Remember the access bowls are generating $80 million as a combination of TV draw and the local draw from travelling fans. When you expand playoffs, you completely eliminate the travelling fan revenue that local places get. The gate is not $80 million. But those cities make a lot of money from the 50,000 or so fans who travel in. When you expand the playoffs (remember no other playoff in any sport uses neutral sites other than the NCAA tournament, and even then fans only travel in large numbers to the final four) you kill the golden goose value of the remaining access bowls (they are not paying $80 million for a third place vs fourth place matchup) and the first round playoff games now must make up for it. And they would have to be home fields, which against drastically reduces the revenue. The problem is, as it stands now, the BCS games (as a percentage of the championship game) draw higher ratings than a comparable comparison to any other playoff save for the NCAA tournament (due to sheer number of games). We'll have to see how the playoff games due compared to the old non-playoff BCS games. So it's hard to assume that changing the Access/BCS games to a quarterfinal playoff will drastically alter the viewership, which means the games won't be much more valuable, if at all, and then you have watered the playoffs some, with no real tangible benefit, other than more inclusion.

If the Access bowls were not still so valuable, then expansion would make sense. But as long as they remain viable and big money makers, there is no rush or real need to expand. If one of those changes (the access bowls lose value, or the playoffs prove to be a much bigger hit than the games they replaced) then maybe that sentiment changes. We also have to see how attendance fairs for the semi-final games (in terms of travelling fans - because those that travel are the ones that drop a shitton of money on the local economy, for which the bowls and host cities benefit).

The key to playoff expansion is making sure the regular season means something significant.

In college basketball, the regular season means very little. You are scrapping some for at-large berths and seeding but seeding in a neutral site event isn't that big of a deal.

But college football still has a good bit of growth room.

If you go to 12 with six auto bids and six at-large or 16 with ten auto bids and six at-large there is still a lot to fight for, and if you go to 16 with 10 auto berths you actually increase the number of significant games because more conference championships matter.

If you play the first round at home sites, seeding becomes very significant.

Baseball corrected an error. They had crafted a system where finishing second in a division could be just as valuable as finishing first.

(10-03-2014 07:35 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  I'm torn by the Baseball play in games as a baseball purist. I mean I get that the ratings were great and that the significance and urgency creates demand. But baseball is sometimes just too flukey to have the whole season come down to one game.

That being said, for college football expanding the playoff is a no-brainer.

I'm actually the opposite on this. I agree baseball should respect it's long season with a limited playoff. The one game is very fluky, but I'm OK with it rather than de-emphasizing the regular season results as most playoff expansions have done, this one highlights them as there is now a very big stake in being the divisional winner vs. the wildcard winner (while before it didn't seem like teams cared).

(10-03-2014 07:35 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  I'm torn by the Baseball play in games as a baseball purist. I mean I get that the ratings were great and that the significance and urgency creates demand. But baseball is sometimes just too flukey to have the whole season come down to one game.

I always hate the term baseball purist. If people were truly purists, then they would want to go back to segregated leagues, train rides, deal balls, ugly uniforms, and low tech bats. People use the term "purist" to mean "when I started watching." Not picking on you personally, that term just annoys me to know end, because the people who say, don't actually mean baseball the way it used to be: it's the way THEY remember it.

That said, as a purist, it is only coming down to one game if you compare it to the old Wild Card system. See a true purist, goes back to before the wildcard, and only two divisions in each league, and those two play for the pennant. But if you look at the new wildcard in comparison to the old system where only two got it, it just means that it only comes down to one game, if you are unable to win your division. If you win your division, then it is the same.

I like the idea that it makes it so that wild card teams do no have the advantages they used to (they were still fighting to get in, so they often had an advantage over the team who clinched two weeks ago and was resting players). The only thing I dislike is the potential of the team with the second best record in the game to have their season come down to one game. The Wildcard was primarily introduced because of the season when the Giants won 100+ games, had the second best record in baseball, and did not make the playoffs because they were in a division with the Braves who beat them by one game. That was what pushed it over the edge. The only thing I dislike is the potential for that to happen. Other than that, I think it's a good idea.

(10-03-2014 12:01 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  I don't see how they lose money through expansion. Every expansion that has happened has gained money for the expanding conference. I am sorry but there is no logic in the opposing statement. Expansion happens for money, guaranteed money, so to say opposite is just "farting in the wind" so to speak.

Now, your talking point about divisions and leading into a tournament is very valid. I will grant you all those points as being logical and feasible. Where I differ in opinion is that it is a bad thing to have one division winner be garbage. That is simply a way of manipulating the championship game to have your conference's top team in it for sure. In the end, the best finish is for your top team to make it through the tournament anyways right?

A championship game at the end builds credibility. Well two wins instead of one builds even more.

The Big Ten and PAC both got paid 20 million by Fox for their championship games. If that game is worth 20 million then the Semifinals should be worth 15 million. Do the math, that is 50 million dollars. If I am right and we end up with 16 team conferences then that is about 3.8 million divied out per school.

I disagree completely in regards to it destroying the regular season though. Once again, I think that is your traditional bias shining through and I can respect that. That does not make you right though. Baseball's regular season has died because it is boring, long and the games are far too numerous. College football has none of those problems. The regular season games will be just as followed as they are today. ESPN will see to that.

To go even further, four team divisions mean those three games in division will be extremely valuable. You line up all three to be played at the end of the conference season and ratings will be through the roof as the race for the divisions will be up in the air until then.

This isn't hard, if I can figure it out then the extremely capable marketing folks can figure it out too. In fact, they likely already have it figured out and they talked the EXTREMELY traditional folks in Major League Baseball to follow the lead of the Network.

The secret to success in this day and age is no secret.

Expansion that has happened has been for money yes, but so has the expansion that has not happened. There is a reason the Big 12 is still at 10 and because there is more money at 10 for them than back at 12. Expansion happens when the powers that be think it makes long term sense. Will be it beneficial again, almost certainly, but the current evidence suggest against it being a money maker over the immediate term (at least with teams that are poach-able). Let's not also forget, over-expansion can kill conferences.

For the rest, I guess we'll just agree to disagree. I am traditional in my opinion in what I want something to be, but I always try to speak for what I truly believe is likely and I think September and October will lose a substantial amount of viewers for the big games if a proposal like this goes through. Will there be more for games in Novemember, probably, but the days of having national title hopes on the line every week will be finished if you go something like that and I think a lot of people (but not the ADs) greatly under-estimate how big that's been in turning college football into a national rather than regional sport (as in, people across the country watch games that otherwise don't effect their local teams).

If we are comparing sports, let's also not forget that all the expansion and elimination in college basketball has completely turned the regular season into a regional sport. Even the biggest Duke/North Carolina regular season games or regular season games with #1 vs. #2 don't feel half as big in basketball and rating reflect that.

I think there is a huge conflict with either conference expanding or the playoff expand to 6 or 8. Its probably easier to just expand the playoffs than to think the big 10 or sec will expand to 16. Yet, i'm not sure the big 10 or sec want to close the door on expansion and cement the big 12 and acc by growing the playoffs. I'd rather just see a pac 20 occur and keep the playoffs at 4. Even better would be to have 4 leagues of 16-20 with each league having a 2 game playoff than have a 4 game playoff. For example:

Big 10 adds KU and Missouri
Pac 12 adds Texas, Texas Tech, OU, OSU, KSU, ISU, Baylor, BYU
ACC add Uconn, Cincy, WVU
SEC adds Clemson, Gtech, TCU

Thus, you got 70 programs in the p4. I'd let each league have a 2 game playoff of the pod winners, 4x4 or in the pac 20 4x5. Let ND have special deal with the ACC so they play only 6 games, maybe Navy plays 3 but they can get included in the pod winners of the acc. First 2 weeks of december the 4 conferences have a 2 game playoff among pod winers. Than the pod winners meet jan 1 at a neutral site game, double header say in dallas. The winner of that game meets in a rotated bowl a week later.

(10-03-2014 07:35 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  I'm torn by the Baseball play in games as a baseball purist. I mean I get that the ratings were great and that the significance and urgency creates demand. But baseball is sometimes just too flukey to have the whole season come down to one game.

Every sport can be flukey, not just baseball. That doesn't stop football, college basketball, and other sports from having one-and-done tournaments.

I'd like to see shorter series throughout the MLB playoffs. Keep the wild-card games the way they are and make the division series, LCS, and World Series best-of-three. I know, I know, that would be sacrilege for the traditionalists. But it would be a helluva lot more exciting than a drawn-out best-of-seven series.

Same for the NBA and NHL. Make all of their postseason series best-of-three.

(10-03-2014 11:26 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-03-2014 07:35 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  I'm torn by the Baseball play in games as a baseball purist. I mean I get that the ratings were great and that the significance and urgency creates demand. But baseball is sometimes just too flukey to have the whole season come down to one game.

Every sport can be flukey, not just baseball. That doesn't stop football, college basketball, and other sports from having one-and-done tournaments.

I'd like to see shorter series throughout the MLB playoffs. Keep the wild-card games the way they are and make the division series, LCS, and World Series best-of-three. I know, I know, that would be sacrilege for the traditionalists. But it would be a helluva lot more exciting than a drawn-out best-of-seven series.

Same for the NBA and NHL. Make all of their postseason series best-of-three.

Odds of the better team winning are simply different in each sport. That's a fact.

In baseball, the best team of all time has a lower winning percentage than the worst team that makes the playoffs in the NFL most years. You need more games to figure out who is actually the better team when you're playing baseball than you do when you're playing football.

(10-03-2014 09:17 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(10-03-2014 12:01 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  I don't see how they lose money through expansion. Every expansion that has happened has gained money for the expanding conference.

Because in order to make money from it, the new playoff games have to draw substantially more viewers than the access bowls they replace will. Remember the access bowls are generating $80 million as a combination of TV draw and the local draw from travelling fans. When you expand playoffs, you completely eliminate the travelling fan revenue that local places get. The gate is not $80 million. But those cities make a lot of money from the 50,000 or so fans who travel in. When you expand the playoffs (remember no other playoff in any sport uses neutral sites other than the NCAA tournament, and even then fans only travel in large numbers to the final four) you kill the golden goose value of the remaining access bowls (they are not paying $80 million for a third place vs fourth place matchup) and the first round playoff games now must make up for it. And they would have to be home fields, which against drastically reduces the revenue. The problem is, as it stands now, the BCS games (as a percentage of the championship game) draw higher ratings than a comparable comparison to any other playoff save for the NCAA tournament (due to sheer number of games). We'll have to see how the playoff games due compared to the old non-playoff BCS games. So it's hard to assume that changing the Access/BCS games to a quarterfinal playoff will drastically alter the viewership, which means the games won't be much more valuable, if at all, and then you have watered the playoffs some, with no real tangible benefit, other than more inclusion.

If the Access bowls were not still so valuable, then expansion would make sense. But as long as they remain viable and big money makers, there is no rush or real need to expand. If one of those changes (the access bowls lose value, or the playoffs prove to be a much bigger hit than the games they replaced) then maybe that sentiment changes. We also have to see how attendance fairs for the semi-final games (in terms of travelling fans - because those that travel are the ones that drop a shitton of money on the local economy, for which the bowls and host cities benefit).

Right now we will have three games. What I have said will happen is that we move to 6 teams. That means two more games, two more bowl games. You are overplaying that talking point of loss. More bowls wanted to be in the Playoff system than it would allow. I am sorry but you are wrong, I don't even have to go into the math.

The other expansion of tournament I am talking about is Conference Tournaments.

(10-03-2014 01:09 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(10-03-2014 11:26 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-03-2014 07:35 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  I'm torn by the Baseball play in games as a baseball purist. I mean I get that the ratings were great and that the significance and urgency creates demand. But baseball is sometimes just too flukey to have the whole season come down to one game.

Every sport can be flukey, not just baseball. That doesn't stop football, college basketball, and other sports from having one-and-done tournaments.

I'd like to see shorter series throughout the MLB playoffs. Keep the wild-card games the way they are and make the division series, LCS, and World Series best-of-three. I know, I know, that would be sacrilege for the traditionalists. But it would be a helluva lot more exciting than a drawn-out best-of-seven series.

Same for the NBA and NHL. Make all of their postseason series best-of-three.

Odds of the better team winning are simply different in each sport. That's a fact.

In baseball, the best team of all time has a lower winning percentage than the worst team that makes the playoffs in the NFL most years. You need more games to figure out who is actually the better team when you're playing baseball than you do when you're playing football.

You would need more games in the college basketball tournament to actually determine the best team, too. Every year there are at least a dozen or so games in which the better team is eliminated. That's a huge reason why March Madness is compelling. It's much more fun when there are upsets and near-upsets, when the best team doesn't always win. That's why best-of-three series would be much more fun and much less tedious than best-of-seven.

By the way, the best baseball team of all time is probably the 1927 Yankees, who had a winning percentage of .714. To have a better winning percentage in the NFL regular season, you have to win 12 games, which is a few games more than the worst playoff team usually wins. In fact, only twice in the last 10 seasons has the worst record in the NFL playoffs even been as high as 10-6; in the other 8 seasons, there was at least one playoff team with fewer than 10 wins.

(10-03-2014 08:33 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Right now we will have three games. What I have said will happen is that we move to 6 teams. That means two more games, two more bowl games. You are overplaying that talking point of loss. More bowls wanted to be in the Playoff system than it would allow. I am sorry but you are wrong, I don't even have to go into the math.

Yeah, you do. Seeing as how if I were "wrong," well there would be a bigger playoff right now, now wouldn't there be? SMH. That would mean the powers that be agree with me. And even though you have tirelessly argued against this for years, as I personally worked with a group who tried to lure a bowl, and we spent well over six months studying the financials and how to budget a bowl and where the income comes from (or at least me personally, others spent longer on it) I know for a fact that I am not only right on this, but am actually being conservative on it. And as history points to me being right (reluctance to end bowls, reluctance against a playoff that requires teams to play more than one game, a plus one format instead of a full blown 8-16 team playoff), every single piece of evidence on the matter is on my side of the argument. So yes, if you want to prove it wrong, you ABSOLUTELY must "go into the math" or you are flat wrong. And that would be end of discussion without actual verifiable numbers, to back up a scenario that both the bowls AND conferences have resisted for many years. What, you think they hate making more money?

(10-04-2014 11:41 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(10-03-2014 08:33 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Right now we will have three games. What I have said will happen is that we move to 6 teams. That means two more games, two more bowl games. You are overplaying that talking point of loss. More bowls wanted to be in the Playoff system than it would allow. I am sorry but you are wrong, I don't even have to go into the math.

Yeah, you do. Seeing as how if I were "wrong," well there would be a bigger playoff right now, now wouldn't there be? SMH. That would mean the powers that be agree with me. And even though you have tirelessly argued against this for years, as I personally worked with a group who tried to lure a bowl, and we spent well over six months studying the financials and how to budget a bowl and where the income comes from (or at least me personally, others spent longer on it) I know for a fact that I am not only right on this, but am actually being conservative on it. And as history points to me being right (reluctance to end bowls, reluctance against a playoff that requires teams to play more than one game, a plus one format instead of a full blown 8-16 team playoff), every single piece of evidence on the matter is on my side of the argument. So yes, if you want to prove it wrong, you ABSOLUTELY must "go into the math" or you are flat wrong. And that would be end of discussion without actual verifiable numbers, to back up a scenario that both the bowls AND conferences have resisted for many years. What, you think they hate making more money?

Really? Because they didn't go right to a larger Playoff, THAT means they wont? That is silly but by all means, hold on to that talking point if you like. They didn't leap into the Playoff, they stepped into it. The Powers that be are extremely traditional and of course they didn't want to leap, they took a step. It is pretty obvious that they are going to have to go further. You can see that in the media.


So let me get this straight. You think that the teams that end up in the Playoffs are making less money? You think the Bowls are making less money? You aren't even being specific, you are making a very generalized statement in saying that. More Bowls wanted to be part of THIS Playoff yet somehow you are saying no more Bowls would want to be part of a future expanded playoff. Ok...that makes no sense at all but go ahead and continue telling yourself that it does.

You are flat out wrong, the reason I don't have to go into math is because MORE BOWLS WANTED TO BE PART OF THE PLAYOFF. That ends the argument right there. So go ahead and continue arguing your pointless talking point. It is false, period.

Time will prove although by the time it does I am sure you will have miraculously changed your position and will try to claim it will have always been your perspective. I have seen that happen over and over around here. If you are on the side of traditionalism on this topic, then you are likely going to be wrong eventually.

(10-02-2014 08:59 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  What we just saw with Baseball is two singular Playoff games achieving higher ratings than many World Series games have achieved as of late.

http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2014/10/...ched-ever/

Quote:Wednesday’s Giants/Pirates National League Wild Card game drew a 3.6 final rating and 5.6 million viewers on ESPN, up 16% in ratings and 18% in viewership from Rays/Indians on TBS last year (3.1, 4.7M) and the highest rated, most-watched Wild Card game ever (six telecasts dating back to 2012). The previous highs were a 3.4 and 5.3 million for Orioles/Rangers in 2012.

Last year’s Reds/Pirates N.L. Wild Card game aired on a Tuesday, earning a 3.0 and 4.6 million on TBS.

The Giants’ 8-0 rout earned the second-highest rating and viewership for any MLB one-game playoff since the turn of the century (ten telecasts), trailing only the 2009 Tigers/Twins AL Central tiebreaker on TBS (4.2, 6.5M). Tuesday’s 12-inning thriller between the Royals and Athletics drew a 3.3 and 5.2 million viewers by comparison.

Considering the state of Baseball, this is a huge affirmation that single game elimination post season games are huge draws for general sports fans. That is what the Networks and College Football are looking to reach out to. What? Need more evidence? One example isn't enough?

http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2014/10/...rs-up-tbs/

The Royals and Athletics game is now the fourth highest rated Wild Card game ever. The buzz from it carried right over into the Giants and Pirates game. Despite it being an absolute blow out, the buzz from this style of elimination game earned that game the second highest rated Wild Card game ever.


Conference Tournaments are coming as is an expansion to at least 6 teams in the National Playoff. With 6 teams you have four teams involved in a similar elimination round.

No kidding H1... all my fingernails are gone now, and I starting eating my fingers during the Dodger-Cardinal game last night.