He’s just saying that’s it’s ok to flex-schedule regular season games. People will still pay money and show up.

Yep... or more precisely, that we have some more real-life evidence to corroborate that assertion.

(12-04-2018 03:18 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  Yep... or more precisely, that we have some more real-life evidence to corroborate that assertion.

Wait a sec.......you are taking a victory lap over a single game attendance number that is less than 50% of the previous season's average attendance number?

(12-04-2018 03:34 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 03:18 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  Yep... or more precisely, that we have some more real-life evidence to corroborate that assertion.

Wait a sec.......you are taking a victory lap over a single game attendance number that is less than 50% of the previous season's average attendance number?

Stand by what I said. (Not what you said I said... I was very clear that it was not a victory lap... nor what you said... as-if the previous, not current, season's attendance is relevant... but rather, of course, just what I said.)

I welcome others' insights and comments and questions. But that's all I've got for you, nothing else... I don't go for hyperbole and insult contests as you proved is your approach and desire.

(12-04-2018 04:55 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 03:34 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 03:18 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  Yep... or more precisely, that we have some more real-life evidence to corroborate that assertion.

Wait a sec.......you are taking a victory lap over a single game attendance number that is less than 50% of the previous season's average attendance number?

Stand by what I said. (Not what you said I said... I was very clear that it was not a victory lap... nor what you said... as-if the previous, not current, season's attendance is relevant... but rather, of course, just what I said.)

I welcome others' insights and comments and questions. But that's all I've got for you, nothing else... I don't go for hyperbole and insult contests as you proved is your approach and desire.

LOL

Quote:It's just one game. On its own it "proves" nothing. But it is corroborating evidence that the concern over that subset of a subset of 5.8% of games' attendees is an argument left wanting for any serious substance in comparison to the overall good economically and related, in terms of broader and higher public interest that would be achieved by embracing this format.

Indeed...you tried to take a victory lap for a home game where the attendance is 47% less than stadium capacity. I'm sure you'll be able to persuade college athletic directors and presidents to go along with your "perfect" plan when one of your "success" stories is a game where the ticket sales are 47% of capacity.



If VT is releasing 31k I'd love to know what the real numbers were. South Carolina claims they sold 54k tickets for their game with Akron and there wouldn't have been 54k people in attendance if they counted both the fans and players and staff of both teams twice.

@Kapbaloney, I recall having to repeat myself a few times before I realized you hadn't even bothered to read my follow-ups... you were just droning on with your same circle-backs. I will do you the favor you didn't do me and just admit, I didn't bother to read... and the further favor to not bore you with circle-backs. And again, got nothing for you.

Welcome others comments, questions, insights.

(12-04-2018 06:44 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  @Kapbaloney, I recall having to repeat myself a few times before I realized you hadn't even bothered to read my follow-ups... you were just droning on with your same circle-backs. I will do you the favor you didn't do me and just admit, I didn't bother to read... and the further favor to not bore you with circle-backs. And again, got nothing for you.

Welcome others comments, questions, insights.

Again with the personal attack because I once again pointed out an error with your plan. That's when you know you've won an argument.

(12-04-2018 06:35 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 04:55 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 03:34 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 03:18 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  Yep... or more precisely, that we have some more real-life evidence to corroborate that assertion.

Wait a sec.......you are taking a victory lap over a single game attendance number that is less than 50% of the previous season's average attendance number?

Stand by what I said. (Not what you said I said... I was very clear that it was not a victory lap... nor what you said... as-if the previous, not current, season's attendance is relevant... but rather, of course, just what I said.)

I welcome others' insights and comments and questions. But that's all I've got for you, nothing else... I don't go for hyperbole and insult contests as you proved is your approach and desire.

LOL

Quote:It's just one game. On its own it "proves" nothing. But it is corroborating evidence that the concern over that subset of a subset of 5.8% of games' attendees is an argument left wanting for any serious substance in comparison to the overall good economically and related, in terms of broader and higher public interest that would be achieved by embracing this format.

Indeed...you tried to take a victory lap for a home game where the attendance is 47% less than stadium capacity. I'm sure you'll be able to persuade college athletic directors and presidents to go along with your "perfect" plan when one of your "success" stories is a game where the ticket sales are 47% of capacity.



If VT is releasing 31k I'd love to know what the real numbers were. South Carolina claims they sold 54k tickets for their game with Akron and there wouldn't have been 54k people in attendance if they counted both the fans and players and staff of both teams twice.

I was at S.C./Akron and it was probably about 17-20k at its absolute peak. About 10k of that was students/band/families

After halftime there was maybe 5-8k or so

The topic is the economics of this concept, and the troubleshooting concern brought up was that for the normal two November home games each season (following Consequence Saturday), schools would suffer financially because of the flexibility of the schedule.

South Carolina suffered less financially than Virginia Tech, if The State reported it correctly. Paid attendance was 53,420.

And again, how much better would USC fare if those two November opponents consisted of a cross-division peer in their conference and one other school closer both in terms of geography and in terms of competitive level than Akron was?

And again again... for 94.2% of all games in this framework, there is 2, 3, 4, or 5 weeks of time between the announcement of the slate of games and game day.

(12-05-2018 12:42 AM)_sturt_ Wrote:  The topic is the economics of this concept, and the troubleshooting concern brought up was that for the normal two November home games each season (following Consequence Saturday), schools would suffer financially because of the flexibility of the schedule.

South Carolina suffered less financially than Virginia Tech, if The State reported it correctly. Paid attendance was 53,420.

And again, how much better would USC fare if those two November opponents consisted of a cross-division peer in their conference and one other school closer both in terms of geography and in terms of competitive level than Akron was?

And again again... for 94.2% of all games in this framework, there is 2, 3, 4, or 5 weeks of time between the announcement of the slate of games and game day.

It wasn’t anywhere close to 54k though.

Students/band/recruits/families were about 7-10k of that I’d guess (so no income for S.C.)

There was also an error on the ticket site that was well known and allowed season ticket holders to claim 8 free tickets

As far as people that actually paid face value I’d guess the number was less than 10k

This game was announced on Nov 2, so advance notice wasn’t really an issue. Just no appetite for it. I have some pictures that I will post this morning if I can, but it was by far the worst attended SC game I've ever been to and I haven't missed a game in ten years.

You can see it if your look closely enough but these were about 3-4 minutes before kickoff



https://ibb.co/0KywZjC
https://ibb.co/dQnmXKt

I'm not doubting at all your estimate of the actual attendance... you would know better than I. And I'm not pretending to know how USC counts "paid attendance."

(12-05-2018 06:31 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(12-05-2018 12:42 AM)_sturt_ Wrote:  The topic is the economics of this concept, and the troubleshooting concern brought up was that for the normal two November home games each season (following Consequence Saturday), schools would suffer financially because of the flexibility of the schedule.

South Carolina suffered less financially than Virginia Tech, if The State reported it correctly. Paid attendance was 53,420.

And again, how much better would USC fare if those two November opponents consisted of a cross-division peer in their conference and one other school closer both in terms of geography and in terms of competitive level than Akron was?

And again again... for 94.2% of all games in this framework, there is 2, 3, 4, or 5 weeks of time between the announcement of the slate of games and game day.

It wasn’t anywhere close to 54k though.

Students/band/recruits/families were about 7-10k of that I’d guess (so no income for S.C.)

There was also an error on the ticket site that was well known and allowed season ticket holders to claim 8 free tickets

As far as people that actually paid face value I’d guess the number was less than 10k

This game was announced on Nov 2, so advance notice wasn’t really an issue. Just no appetite for it. I have some pictures that I will post this morning if I can, but it was by far the worst attended SC game I've ever been to and I haven't missed a game in ten years.

My neighbor is a Gamecock Club member and they went. He said there were less people there than were at the Garnet & White game.

(12-05-2018 02:41 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-05-2018 06:31 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(12-05-2018 12:42 AM)_sturt_ Wrote:  The topic is the economics of this concept, and the troubleshooting concern brought up was that for the normal two November home games each season (following Consequence Saturday), schools would suffer financially because of the flexibility of the schedule.

South Carolina suffered less financially than Virginia Tech, if The State reported it correctly. Paid attendance was 53,420.

And again, how much better would USC fare if those two November opponents consisted of a cross-division peer in their conference and one other school closer both in terms of geography and in terms of competitive level than Akron was?

And again again... for 94.2% of all games in this framework, there is 2, 3, 4, or 5 weeks of time between the announcement of the slate of games and game day.

It wasn’t anywhere close to 54k though.

Students/band/recruits/families were about 7-10k of that I’d guess (so no income for S.C.)

There was also an error on the ticket site that was well known and allowed season ticket holders to claim 8 free tickets

As far as people that actually paid face value I’d guess the number was less than 10k

This game was announced on Nov 2, so advance notice wasn’t really an issue. Just no appetite for it. I have some pictures that I will post this morning if I can, but it was by far the worst attended SC game I've ever been to and I haven't missed a game in ten years.

My neighbor is a Gamecock Club member and they went. He said there were less people there than were at the Garnet & White game.

I think so too. Granted a lot of people were huddled on the ramps and in press boxes, but it was mostly pitiful turnout.

Good student turnout overall, actually was probably only about 70% of what a similar nonconference game would be. But no revenue there.

To the OPs original point there just isn’t an appetite for consolation games - fans want to play their season and familiar opponents. Even with great weather it still would’ve been the lowest attended game in decades

Um, pardon the observation, but that's a strawman statement... who said anything about a consolation game?

Not me.

In fact, consistent with "fans want to play their season and familiar opponents," this does that.

To be fair, I certainly can't call foul on anyone for having not read this thread thoroughly any more than I can call foul on anyone for having not read War and Peace...

But the point is made more than once that the structure of this makes it so that, if your school didn't make the NC Pool then, of the 4 games that your school plays that it did not on its own commit to playing, 1 and possibly 2 of those will still end up being conference games (so, by definition "familiar"), and the other 2 and possibly 3 will still end up being schools from somewhere within a West, Central, Southeast or Mid-Atlantic/Northeast region that typically are competitively similar (which ordinarily should be read as "from among your own... whether you're from an autonomous conference or non-autonomous conference).

Similarly, if your school did make the NC Pool, but got eliminated after one or two or three games, you're still going to play others from within the 16-school regional bracket where you were placed... and by definition, against teams of similar achievement that season to your own, so competitively well-matched.

And if one wants to expand this concept of "consolation games" to include any game for which a national championship is beyond any rational possibility to evolve for the participating teams, then be critically-thoughtful enough to recognize that what you have right now and always have had belies the assertion that people won't show up if their team has no shot at the NC.

In fact, I contend that this creates even one more reason for intensified interest over and above what I've already cited here... (just now thought of this... ) which is, by making it so the NC Pool's final four may opt out of their conference championship games (and almost certainly would), it creates some additional drama and opportunity for schools to compete to play for something they otherwise wouldn't have been able to ascend to... ie, playing in their conference's championship game. So, something else to play for that is more within-reach than it has previously been.

And for especially strong conferences... as noted previously... this is total meritocracy based on on-the-field results, so if you have 4 legitimate NC contenders, all 4 of them get to participate in the NC Pool and settle it on the field. No one is screened out on the basis of a subjective committee's decision.

Now that the bowl season has gotten figured out for another year, it may be worth revisiting the vision cast by this post...

(11-08-2018 05:25 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  So, YNot, here's what I come up with, as I think about what you'd posted, in light of the new framework proposed here...

Mind you, it does build from another something I tinkered with last bowl season, hence the 2018 dates.

In doing this, we establish... in light of your general ambition... some vivid carrots for schools to ascend to capturing in the quest to reach, if not the national championship, a Tier One Bowl invite, or if not that, a Tier Two, and if not that, a Tier Three... again, each with some criteria ("carrots") attached for qualifying to play for their bowl game title.



What you'll notice first off, maybe, is that we get the Tier Three Bowls played, then the Tier Two, and finally the Tier Ones... making the prestige of the tiers tied to when they get played makes it easier for fans to follow, instead of the rag-tag mix all over the mid-December to early-January calendar.

What you might notice next is this idea of "qualifiers" for both the Tier Two and the Tier One Bowls. Skinny down the number of bowl titles in any given year, but don't necessarily skinny down the number of teams participating in bowl seasons, but do make each bowl's title more credible by forcing teams to earn the right to play in the actual bowl game in the first place... and where TV is concerned, just make their holiday season that more jolly by adding to the offerings.

Circling back to the premise, if my team doesn't win on Consequence Saturday and, thus, we're compelled to play a slate of 4 games to cap the season from within the Regular Pool, though a national championship is out of the question...

- We conceivably can win our conference's championship and have a shot at a Tier One Bowl, or at least be assured of playing in a Qualifier game for a Tier Two Bowl of our choice...

- Or if not, we conceivably can win 10 games and almost certainly still gain a Tier Two Bowl Qualifier game...

- Or if not, we conceivably can still impress a Tier Two Bowl committee to invite us, as has historically been the protocol...

- Or if not, we conceivably can still gain an invite to a Tier Three Bowl Qualifier game.

So the whole bowl structure really serves us well here to continue to keep things interesting following Consequence Saturday's outcomes.

(Will now exit for awhile to catch up, again, on some things they pay me to do... I say that so no one thinks I'm ignoring any follow-ups, but I really do have to take at least a day away now... thx for the discussion and your insights, con or pro. :) )

(12-06-2018 10:41 AM)_sturt_ Wrote:  Um, pardon the observation, but that's a strawman statement... who said anything about a consolation game?

Not me.

In fact, consistent with "fans want to play their season and familiar opponents," this does that.

To be fair, I certainly can't call foul on anyone for having not read this thread thoroughly any more than I can call foul on anyone for having not read War and Peace...

But the point is made more than once that the structure of this makes it so that, if your school didn't make the NC Pool then, of the 4 games that your school plays that it did not on its own commit to playing, 1 and possibly 2 of those will still end up being conference games (so, by definition "familiar"), and the other 2 and possibly 3 will still end up being schools from somewhere within a West, Central, Southeast or Mid-Atlantic/Northeast region that typically are competitively similar (which ordinarily should be read as "from among your own... whether you're from an autonomous conference or non-autonomous conference).

Similarly, if your school did make the NC Pool, but got eliminated after one or two or three games, you're still going to play others from within the 16-school regional bracket where you were placed... and by definition, against teams of similar achievement that season to your own, so competitively well-matched.

And if one wants to expand this concept of "consolation games" to include any game for which a national championship is beyond any rational possibility to evolve for the participating teams, then be critically-thoughtful enough to recognize that what you have right now and always have had belies the assertion that people won't show up if their team has no shot at the NC.

In fact, I contend that this creates even one more reason for intensified interest over and above what I've already cited here... (just now thought of this... ) which is, by making it so the NC Pool's final four may opt out of their conference championship games (and almost certainly would), it creates some additional drama and opportunity for schools to compete to play for something they otherwise wouldn't have been able to ascend to... ie, playing in their conference's championship game. So, something else to play for that is more within-reach than it has previously been.

And for especially strong conferences... as noted previously... this is total meritocracy based on on-the-field results, so if you have 4 legitimate NC contenders, all 4 of them get to participate in the NC Pool and settle it on the field. No one is screened out on the basis of a subjective committee's decision.

I promise you I have read the posts. I’m just telling you that there isn’t an appetite for this. What better proof do you need than the games from last weekend? Even VT fighting for bowl eligibility against a regional opponent drew significantly less than normal. Even if these were sold as part of a regular season ticket package, fan interest is still going to dwindle

It’s not a good idea

(11-07-2018 10:48 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-07-2018 10:16 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Why is everything so damn complicated? 10 conferences, 10 teams + two wildcards in the CFB playoff. Everyone will sleep on mattresses full of $100 bills.

I'm don't think there would be much interest in that. Way too many G5 teams. Nobody wants to see an e.g. North Texas and Eastern Michigan in the playoffs and a #6 Ohio State and #8 Georgia out because the latter didn't win the B1G and SEC.

Quite ... if there were eight spots, and one was reserved to the highest ranking Go5 champion or independent, with the highest ranking Go5 champion guaranteed a big NYD bowl if not picked, then at least every conference but the ACC that has an incentive for ND to stay independent would have some reason to consider supporting it.

Maybe a play-in game between the 3rd at-large and the highest ranking Go5 champion, at the home stadium of the higher ranked? That would need to be Army/Navy game weekend, which implies a suitably high reserved spot in the non-playoff bowl system for the loser, which itself is not an ideal solution ... that might be ultimately not workable.

Otherwise I don't see winning a pure Go5 spot in a top 8, never mind a spot for every Go5 champion.

Quote: The only reason all the conferences have their champ in March Madness is because there is enough space in the 68 team event for the big conferences to get 6-8 teams in anyway. Hoops moved away from the kind of tournament you envision for FBS almost a half-century ago.

And even there, that is four teams added onto the 64 team tournament that media partners would prefer by allocating eight teams to play for four play-in spots, to have more at-large spots available than would be otherwise available.

(12-08-2018 07:56 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  I promise you I have read the posts. I’m just telling you that there isn’t an appetite for this. What better proof do you need than the games from last weekend? Even VT fighting for bowl eligibility against a regional opponent drew significantly less than normal. Even if these were sold as part of a regular season ticket package, fan interest is still going to dwindle

It’s not a good idea

I'll take you at your word that you've read all the posts, and as such, I'll spare you any repeat of all of the logical and economic reasons I've given for the "why" and the "how" of this. And you're welcome to interpret the games from last weekend as you did, but I obviously see it completely... completely... differently. Five days of ticket sales for a program at its lowest ebb in 25 years for a cold cloudy weather game against an opponent widely considered inferior because of its CUSA status shouldn't get you 31,000 in relatively rural southwestern Virginia. But it did. For the most part, the only time in this framework that you would have just one week to sell tickets would be for those in the NC Pool, and sales for those would be practically as hot as NFL playoff game tickets on one week's notice.

And to the comment about fan interest dwindling... that's as it is now for November games for any team that's disappointed its fans. If anything, this provides some extra and new reasons for fans to take interest in later season games that presently doesn't exist.

If one accepts the goals that are stated in the OP as valid and worthwhile--and that, as such, it lays claim to money on the table that NCAA FBS currently just lets slide off the edge every year--then this framework is at least one of the options that accomplishes those goals... maybe there are others that just haven't been drawn up yet.

Doubtful at this point that we'll find any room for agreement on this but thanks for being one of those who participated in the discussion in a mostly substantive way. I appreciate that.

(12-05-2018 06:31 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(12-05-2018 12:42 AM)_sturt_ Wrote:  The topic is the economics of this concept, and the troubleshooting concern brought up was that for the normal two November home games each season (following Consequence Saturday), schools would suffer financially because of the flexibility of the schedule.

South Carolina suffered less financially than Virginia Tech, if The State reported it correctly. Paid attendance was 53,420.

And again, how much better would USC fare if those two November opponents consisted of a cross-division peer in their conference and one other school closer both in terms of geography and in terms of competitive level than Akron was?

And again again... for 94.2% of all games in this framework, there is 2, 3, 4, or 5 weeks of time between the announcement of the slate of games and game day.

It wasn’t anywhere close to 54k though.

Students/band/recruits/families were about 7-10k of that I’d guess (so no income for S.C.)

There was also an error on the ticket site that was well known and allowed season ticket holders to claim 8 free tickets

As far as people that actually paid face value I’d guess the number was less than 10k

This game was announced on Nov 2, so advance notice wasn’t really an issue. Just no appetite for it. I have some pictures that I will post this morning if I can, but it was by far the worst attended SC game I've ever been to and I haven't missed a game in ten years.

Yes. And as I noted a while back, a better example is probably the SC - LSU game in 2015 or 2016, when a game scheduled for SC was shifted to LSU with about a week beforehand because of a storm in SC that created flooding.

Even by P5 standards, LSU has a large and rabid fan base, LSU normally draws 90,000+ for an SEC game, but attendance for this game was about 40,000.

That is just a huge drop off.