I watched UC/Georgetown what a great Basketball game! Greta shooting, great free throw shooting, great defense it was like a March Madness game. I Flipped on occasion to see what was going on in the rematch and it was just another field goal contest between these two (Defensive) football powers. Kinda boring from what I watched. Two teams from same conference just does not cut it....And I am a fan of the BCS.

I watched UC vs. Georgetown (Take that Quo )

meh. 2 teams from the same region. It happens.

(01-10-2012 03:31 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  So? It's not like they didn't have a chance to make the playoff. All they have to do is win their conference championship. Since they didn't, they're not worthy...

That makes both the regular season, and the post season have meaning. If winning a conference championship isn't a key to getting into a playoff, what's the sense of having conference games in the first place. If that's the case, you just might as well skip the regular season games, have pollsters vote on who would win, and then vote the most popular teams into a playoff, based on their supposed record decided by a vote...

After all, isn't that the argument against a playoff--fear of degrading the importance of the regular season? The requirement that a team win it's conference to be in the championship game does just that----It preserves the integrity of the regular season.

(01-10-2012 03:31 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  So? It's not like they didn't have a chance to make the playoff. All they have to do is win their conference championship. Since they didn't, they're not worthy...

That makes both the regular season, and the post season have meaning. If winning a conference championship isn't a key to getting into a playoff, what's the sense of having conference games in the first place. If that's the case, you just might as well skip the regular season games, have pollsters vote on who would win, and then vote the most popular teams into a playoff, based on their supposed record decided by a vote...

Like I've said, I don't mind a conference championship rule, but we should just make sure that we're not looking at it through the prism of only #2 Alabama in the #1 vs. #2 matchup and examine it if you apply that rule to an entire 4-team playoff. The most important thing for me is to see a plus-one system instituted one way or another. If we get that, then we should all be grateful that we can debate the details.

No, Frank. I'm looking at it through the lens of remembering when the BCS wanted to put Ohio State and Michigan in the BCS Championship game a few years ago. Thankfully they didn't do it that time, and both Ohio State and Michigan went on to lose their bowl games...

I just wonder how it would have worked out for both teams had they given them other matchups. It could have worked out exactly the same way it did for Ohio State and Michigan. But we'll never know...

So that national championship team didn't even win their division? Nice..

(01-10-2012 02:20 PM)Edgebrookjeff Wrote:  1. The game is on ESPN. Despite what some people may believe, roughly 30-40% of American households do not get ESPN in their homes.

The number is closer to about 16%. There are only about 16 million homes who have TV's that don't have ESPN. Anyway, I would liek to point out that the CHampionship game itself actually did much better than 3 of th eother 4 BCS games when compared ot last year. See below:

The only other BCS National Title Game on ESPN was last year, Auburn vs. Oregon, which did a 16.1. But it was down 21% from the game the year before, Texas vs. Alabama. As for this year, the other BCS games did as folows:

Orange Bowl - West Virginia vs. Clemson 4.5 rating, down 37% from 7.1 the previous year (Stan/VT)

Sugar Bowl - Michigan vs. Virginia Tech - 6.3 rating, down 25% from 8.4 the previous year (OSU/Ark)

Rose Bowl - Wisconsin vs. Oregon - 9.9 rating, down 15% from 11.7 the previous year (TCU/Wisc)

Fiesta Bowl - Stanford vs. Oklahoma State - 9.0 rating up 34% from 6.7 the previous year (OU/Uconn)

BCS National Title Game - Alabama vs. LSU - 13.8 rating, down 14.3% from 16.1 (Oregon/Auburn)



Thus, the national title game dropped less than any other game save for the Fiesta Bowl, which had an absolute dog the year before. Thus you simply cannot look at the ratings in a vaccuum and assume it was that matchup.

(01-10-2012 02:40 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(01-10-2012 01:57 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(01-10-2012 01:49 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-10-2012 01:41 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(01-10-2012 01:36 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Also, it's not about what fans *want*. I like playoffs, too (although I personally favor a more limited 4 or 8-team playoff). What I'm talking about is what's realistically on the table today (a plus-one) and what the Big East needs to do in order to continue to be relevant in that new system. If the Big East just sits back wishing for a playoff to happen, they're going to be in the same position as the Mountain West commissioner that brings up proposals every year that get ignored.

We know Frank, all from The Big Ten, SEC and ACC. Nobody else in the country plays football except those conferences.

Nobody wants to watch anybody but those conferences. But wait... Nobody did watch.
CJ

Not at all. I seriously loathe everything about the SEC, but if they have the top 4 teams in the country in a given year, then they should all be in a seeded plus-one. If Cincinnati is #3 and TCU is #4 like in 2009, then they should be in a seeded plus-one, too. There's no issue from me on that point. Maybe it doesn't always come across, but my arguments are based on what I believe realistically can happen (as opposed to what I *wish* would happen). That means taking into account the interests of bowls, power conferences and TV networks as opposed to griping about what's "fair". It's not that a 16-team playoff wouldn't be fun to watch - of course it would! It's just that no one presents real evidence as to why the power conferences and top bowls would allow for that to happen, and if it has no chance of happening, then it's a simple fantasy.

You and I both know that TCU and Cincinnati would never have happened under this new charade that Slive and Delaney are pushing. You know as well as I do that it will be nothing more than a popularity contest orchestrated by ESPN, CBS and other willing accomplices from the media. A team from The Big East (or ACC for that matter, ACC fans are just to arrogant to realize it) will ever be voted into the Top 5. Just as Saban worked the system and cheat his way into The BCS Championship this year by cooking his ballot, the same will happen every year.
CJ

I have to disagree with you on this one Jim, and not because SU is headed for the acc, but because this is a fact: If either FSU or Miami is a one loss or undefeated team, they will get a top 5 vote, no ifs ands or butts. A team like VT would get a shot too. There are several other Acc teams that if they were a one loss or undefeated team would also get a shot just from beating the likes of a strong team like VT, Miami, or FSU.

You know I thought about that when I wrote it. I don't believe we will ever see FSU or Miami go undefeated again. The media tries to pump them up every year and every year they fail. FSU has a better chance than Miami. Miami for all practical purposes is a shell of its former self. Just as Shalala wanted.

As for VT. I don't believe they will ever go undefeated either. They don't call'em the Chokies for nothing.
CJ

(01-10-2012 05:03 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(01-10-2012 02:20 PM)Edgebrookjeff Wrote:  1. The game is on ESPN. Despite what some people may believe, roughly 30-40% of American households do not get ESPN in their homes.

The number is closer to about 16%. There are only about 16 million homes who have TV's that don't have ESPN. Anyway, I would liek to point out that the CHampionship game itself actually did much better than 3 of th eother 4 BCS games when compared ot last year. See below:

The only other BCS National Title Game on ESPN was last year, Auburn vs. Oregon, which did a 16.1. But it was down 21% from the game the year before, Texas vs. Alabama. As for this year, the other BCS games did as folows:

Orange Bowl - West Virginia vs. Clemson 4.5 rating, down 37% from 7.1 the previous year (Stan/VT)

Sugar Bowl - Michigan vs. Virginia Tech - 6.3 rating, down 25% from 8.4 the previous year (OSU/Ark)

Rose Bowl - Wisconsin vs. Oregon - 9.9 rating, down 15% from 11.7 the previous year (TCU/Wisc)

Fiesta Bowl - Stanford vs. Oklahoma State - 9.0 rating up 34% from 6.7 the previous year (OU/Uconn)

BCS National Title Game - Alabama vs. LSU - 13.8 rating, down 14.3% from 16.1 (Oregon/Auburn)



Thus, the national title game dropped less than any other game save for the Fiesta Bowl, which had an absolute dog the year before. Thus you simply cannot look at the ratings in a vaccuum and assume it was that matchup.

That "dog" of a game was in doubt until 7 minutes left in the 4th quarter. There have been many BCS games that were far worse, including the Stanford-Va Tech Orange Bowl from the same year - which was over before halftime.

"Dog of a game" in perception and drawing power prior to the game, not because of the actual game or result. The same would have happened if Cincinnati had lost their last game, and Louisville made it to the Orange Bowl. Louisville vs. Clemson would have been a real "dog of a game" as far as drawing power and perception goes.

ad, with the way the talking heads were pumping up this game, there was no way it could live up to the rep it was supposed to have...

Won't disagree. I am only pointing out that it is hard to point to the matchup as the problem, when every other BCS Bowl dropped even more in ratings, save for the Fiesta. That is all I am saying. If the other four BCS games were down a combined 22.8%, and the Championship game was only down 14.3%, I am just not sure how you can draw that conclusion.

Now, it is possible, you can draw the conclusion that the matchup itself caused widespread loss of interest Entire BCS system, but we've had controversial matchups before, and they seemed to enhance the ratings. But there were so many things to consider. Was it:

• 1) Michigan and VTech in the Sugar Bowl
  2) Or was it because Boise St and K State was left out?
  3) Rose Bowl including a team that was more or less inflated to number 10 and a team with a recent loss?
  4) The Orange Bowl matchup?
  5) Was it two teams from the same conference?
  6) Or was it just how ugly the first game was?
  7) Or was it Oklahoma State being given the shaft?
  8) Are people revolting from the post Janaury 1st dates - note that the Fiesta had the one gain in ratings, and the Rose Bowl had a farily small drop off,, and a very interesting matchup last year

There are just too many variables that have changed to pinpoint it on one thing.

I don't agree that OKST was given the shaft, they lost to freaking Iowa State.
No one wanted to see them get splattered by LSU, except OKST fans.
That said, Alabama and LSU the first time was dull...
That first game set a low interest in the game, and it carried over to now.
#6 pretty much sums it up.

If nothign else, they were given the shaft in this respect:
In 2006, Michgian lost to Ohio State. Their only loss was to the number one team in the nation, and they remained number 2 after the sloss. After florida won the SEC, their arguments for getting the number 2 spot were:

• 1) Their SOS was tougher than Michigan's
  2) The played and beat more ranked teams
  3) They won their conference
  4) The national championship game is not the place to settle a conference championship
  5) No one wants to see a rematch of a game already played

Michigan's counter-argument was

• 1) Their only loss was to the number one team in the nation
  2) They only lost by three points
  3) They lost on a possiblycontroversial call
  4) People want to see a rematch
  

Does any of this sound familiar? Ultimately, Urban Meyer, SEC fans, and Florida won the argument, and they jumped Michigan in the Final BCS poll. But since this was the argument successfully used against the Michigan/Ohio State rematch, and in 2011 the SEC was now using the Michigan argument, I think the fact that the counter points in 2006 were ultimately used to get an SEC rematch mean that OSU was screwed.

Oh, and yes, I beleive OSU would have beaten LSU. LUS's defense is good, but it also gave up nearly 500 passing yards to a WVU offense that lost to Syracuse. Just saying, OSU was an even better offense that WVU, with more dynamic playmakers. They could have dropped 30 or 40 on LSU. And as mediocre as OSU's defense is, can you see LSU scoring 40 on them?

(01-11-2012 05:26 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  If nothign else, they were given the shaft in this respect:
In 2006, Michgian lost to Ohio State. Their only loss was to the number one team in the nation, and they remained number 2 after the sloss. After florida won the SEC, their arguments for getting the number 2 spot were:

• 1) Their SOS was tougher than Michigan's
  2) The played and beat more ranked teams
  3) They won their conference
  4) The national championship game is not the place to settle a conference championship
  5) No one wants to see a rematch of a game already played

Michigan's counter-argument was

• 1) Their only loss was to the number one team in the nation
  2) They only lost by three points
  3) They lost on a possiblycontroversial call
  4) People want to see a rematch
  

Does any of this sound familiar? Ultimately, Urban Meyer, SEC fans, and Florida won the argument, and they jumped Michigan in the Final BCS poll. But since this was the argument successfully used against the Michigan/Ohio State rematch, and in 2011 the SEC was now using the Michigan argument, I think the fact that the counter points in 2006 were ultimately used to get an SEC rematch mean that OSU was screwed.

Oh, and yes, I beleive OSU would have beaten LSU. LUS's defense is good, but it also gave up nearly 500 passing yards to a WVU offense that lost to Syracuse. Just saying, OSU was an even better offense that WVU, with more dynamic playmakers. They could have dropped 30 or 40 on LSU. And as mediocre as OSU's defense is, can you see LSU scoring 40 on them?

That West Virginia game, they just sat in prevent defense the entire time. The yardage means nothing. Secondly, although LSU is not a terrible creative team on the offensive end, neither is Iowa State, and they hung 37 on the cowboys. LSU is faster, stronger and by a wide margain far more talented, than anything the Cyclones had.
ISU shut down their running game and Rutgers, who isn't a run heavy team at all, ran all over ISU. I'm sorry, I just think the difference in athleticism would have resulted in a blow out. Maybe 42-18(depending on how much Les Miles like Oklahoma State).

(01-11-2012 11:12 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  Won't disagree. I am only pointing out that it is hard to point to the matchup as the problem, when every other BCS Bowl dropped even more in ratings, save for the Fiesta. That is all I am saying. If the other four BCS games were down a combined 22.8%, and the Championship game was only down 14.3%, I am just not sure how you can draw that conclusion.

Note that the fast national rating for the championship game was 16.2, so that's the "adjusted" rating for ESPN households only and makes it more comparable to the games that were over-the-air. That fast national rating ranks in 9th place in the history of the BCS championship game, which is below average, but not the complete ratings dog that the media is making it out to be when you put it into the context that it's a cable number. Now, it was still down from last season.

Quote:Now, it is possible, you can draw the conclusion that the matchup itself caused widespread loss of interest Entire BCS system, but we've had controversial matchups before, and they seemed to enhance the ratings. But there were so many things to consider. Was it:

1) Michigan and VTech in the Sugar Bowl

Part of it, although the Orange Bowl rating is what really scares people. That rating was lower than the Outback Bowl and a number of regular season games (which are much less expensive).

Quote:2) Or was it because Boise St and K State was left out?

As much as people continue to complain about the Michigan-VT Sugar Bowl, this certainly isn't true when you actually look deeper instead of making assumptions.

The ratings for the Cotton Bowl featuring K-State (and actually a better matchup on paper vs. #6 Arkansas than if they had hypothetically played #7 Boise State in a "merit-based" Sugar Bowl) were down 19% from last year:

https://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Dail...ights.aspx

The Las Vegas Bowl featuring Boise State was down 36% from last year (which a lower-ranked Boise State team played in):

http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2011/12/...-football/

So, neither K-State nor Boise got good ratings at all, either. Considering those numbers for K-State and Boise, I honestly don't think the Sugar Bowl would have done any better ratings-wise by swapping one of them in for VT. VT was marginally the best of a "bad lot" (not that they are actually bad on the field, but bad by the criteria which drives TV ratings). As I've stated elsewhere, the real lesson from all of these numbers is that the Sugar Bowl wants things changed so that they could have taken a 3rd SEC team to set up an Arkansas vs. Michigan matchup.

Quote:3) Rose Bowl including a team that was more or less inflated to number 10 and a team with a recent loss?

Last year's Rose Bowl featured #3 vs. #5, while every single other Rose Bowl since the 2000 season featured at least one "king" program (USC, Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, Texas, Oklahoma and a Nebraska-Miami national championship game). It was an unusually subpar Rose Bowl matchup.

Quote:4) The Orange Bowl matchup?

I think everyone assumed that game was going to get an ugly rating beforehand, and when WVU started completely blowing it open, it went into the tank even further.

Quote:5) Was it two teams from the same conference?

I think it was less about this than the fact that it was a rematch. If we had ended up with an LSU-Oregon national championship game, there probably would have been a similar drag on ratings.

Quote:6) Or was it just how ugly the first game was?

Same as #5.

Quote:7) Or was it Oklahoma State being given the shaft?

There might be some of that, but Oklahoma State isn't one of the "kings" that draws a lot of ire and the Fiesta Bowl performance tempered a lot of that talk (as they were pretty fortunate to win that game). Whether it's fair or not, if it had been their in-state brethren Oklahoma that had been in that exact same position, the complaints about the national championship matchup would have been through the roof compared to this year.

Quote:8) Are people revolting from the post Janaury 1st dates - note that the Fiesta had the one gain in ratings, and the Rose Bowl had a farily small drop off,, and a very interesting matchup last year

This is one argument that I've seen that I disagree with from a pure TV perspective. In terms of getting exposure to the largest possible audience, weeknight January time slots are actually much better than December dates. That's why the TV networks largely run reruns of all of their shows through December and don't have new shows until after January 1st. It was really much more about the matchups themselves as opposed to the time slots. Plenty of attractive post-January 1st games (such as the Texas-Ohio State Fiesta Bowl a couple of years ago) have received great ratings.

Now, those post-January 1st dates can certainly hurt ticket sales and attendance. What's better for TV is worse for ticket sales in this case.

Quote:There are just too many variables that have changed to pinpoint it on one thing.

I agree with this. The all-SEC national championship game had a trickle-down effect on the other bowls, too. If Oklahoma State had been selected to the title game instead, then the Sugar Bowl would have ended up with #2 Alabama vs. Michigan or Stanford (or even Virginia Tech), all of which would have garnered a much better rating. That would have changed how the BCS bowl lineup looked from top-to-bottom drastically (outside of the Orange, which would have had Clemson-WVU no matter what).