(01-06-2019 02:14 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-06-2019 02:05 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-06-2019 01:19 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Basketball's regular season has become devalued and worthless because its become a mere seeding exercise for the conference tournaments.

Not true. College basketball's regular season was not more popular when there were fewer teams in the NCAA tournament, not even back when the NCAA stupidly limited each conference to only one tournament bid. It might be devalued in your opinion, but now there are more games watched by more TV viewers than ever, and cutting down the number of tournament teams would not make the regular season more popular. The availability of at-large tournament bids drives the February TV ratings, because it adds interest to games between 4th and 5th place teams that would be far less meaningful if there were few or no at-large places in the tournament.

There's still less interest in individual games. "It just doesn't mean more." Each game means less.

Each early-season game means less, but back in the day almost no one was watching those games anyway. The trade off is that dozens of February regular-season games are more interesting because of the availability of at-large bids.

(01-06-2019 01:16 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-06-2019 12:29 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Hancock's view counts for something, he's not a nobody like you or I posting to this forum. He will be in the room meeting with the conference commissioners and university Presidents.

And, he really doesn't have skin in the game. Even if the decision is made to expand to 8, he will keep his job, just like he kept it when he was BCS director and they expanded to 4 with the CFP.

So while yes, ultimately it will be the SEC and B1G and university Presidents that make the call, Hancock obviously has had their confidence for many years and so if he says no expansion now is what he's hearing, that has to be taken seriously.

Hancock is a mouthpiece. He's not a decision maker. He's just repeating the party line until it changes. What he says may be true, but his saying it doesn't give you any more information than before he said it.

So if Hancock said "I've been hearing from several commissioners and they all seem to want to expand to 8 teams as soon as next year, if possible", that wouldn't give us any more information than before he said it?

Hancock is more than a mouthpiece, he's the Director, so of course the commissioners want his input.

(01-06-2019 01:19 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-06-2019 10:40 AM)orangefan Wrote:  A couple of observations.

First, I do like the four team format, in particular because it preserves the importance of the regular season. I fear that if the playoffs are expanded to 8 that there is a real risk that the importance of many regular season games would be watered down.

Second, I think the biggest problem with the playoff format is that the semis are only on New Years Day once every three years. I would favor moving them to New Years Day permanently. It could be done if during years that the Rose Bowl is not a semifinal, the first semifinal were played in the 1 pm time slot, leaving the Rose on New Years in the 5 pm slot.

The other notable problem has been the dominance of a handful of teams. I'm not sure what can be done about that, but I don't think going to 8 would make a difference.

Ive never really understood this argument---especially with respect to making the P5 champs AQ.

If conference champs are AQ, then OOC games become far less meaningful than now. And as those games give us more information about how a team stacks up nationally, that would be a bad thing.

(01-06-2019 02:05 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-06-2019 01:19 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Basketball's regular season has become devalued and worthless because its become a mere seeding exercise for the conference tournaments.

Not true. College basketball's regular season was not more popular when there were fewer teams in the NCAA tournament, not even back when the NCAA stupidly limited each conference to only one tournament bid. It might be devalued in your opinion, but now there are more games watched by more TV viewers than ever, and cutting down the number of tournament teams would not make the regular season more popular. The availability of at-large tournament bids drives the February TV ratings, because it adds interest to games between 4th and 5th place teams that would be far less meaningful if there were few or no at-large places in the tournament.

College basketball got going largely because of the NCAA's control of football TV rights whereas they didn't have control over basketball TV rights.

Thus most universities concluded that investing in basketball was their ticket to relevance in D1 athletics because they could sign a deal with a local TV station to broadcast their games. Of course if you go back into the 60's and 70's there wasn't cable sports TV that was heavily invested in the pros to compete with.

That strategic advantage initially in the 80's created a boom of college basketball on TV as cable opened up. However as local TV deals have gradually gone by the wayside the long term affect is less exposure is less interest and support.

Football driven power conferences haven't helped with seasons extending much more into December and the amount of schools that have directed all their investments toward football at the expense of further investment in basketball. Football telecasts have opened up with the increase of sports networks and is a far easier way to get on TV for most G5.

The last generation of college grads doesn't feel either that D1 sports are important in a way of previous generations. As the schools have increasingly enrolled higher achieving students who will take out-of-state jobs the sports connection is less important.

Dang do you guys miss the point.

1. The presidents aren't voting for an expanded playoff. End of story. Don't shoot the messenger.

2. The current system could enhance itself if not for the intransigence of 1 organization, The Rose Bowl. The whole process is bowing down to 1 bowl game that only benefits two conferences. Their 5 PM exclusivity window already forces 3 SEC schools to play at essentially the same time on New Year's day. I see no reason for the Rose Bowl to move from their 5 PM slot, but I also see no reason for the prohibition of any other Bowl representing conferences not named Big 10 and PAC to be played in an overlapping time on another channel. IMO, the Rose Bowl's exclusive time slot is a restraint on trade. Of course you can get better ratings if you are the only damned game on the tube.

3. For those of you bringing up the NCAA tournament, thanks. The P5 schools could make a helluva a lot more by using the Oklahoma/Georgia case to create their own tournament and should have done this decades ago.

(01-06-2019 02:05 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-06-2019 01:19 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Basketball's regular season has become devalued and worthless because its become a mere seeding exercise for the conference tournaments.

Not true. College basketball's regular season was not more popular when there were fewer teams in the NCAA tournament, not even back when the NCAA stupidly limited each conference to only one tournament bid. It might be devalued in your opinion, but now there are more games watched by more TV viewers than ever, and cutting down the number of tournament teams would not make the regular season more popular. The availability of at-large tournament bids drives the February TV ratings, because it adds interest to games between 4th and 5th place teams that would be far less meaningful if there were few or no at-large places in the tournament.

Correct. Im not saying NCAA tournament expansion hurt the regular season. It didnt. That actually increased interest. Conference tournaments are whats killing the regular season. If the autobid was connected to the regular season conference winner, then the regular season would regain much of its value.

(01-06-2019 02:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-06-2019 01:19 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-06-2019 10:40 AM)orangefan Wrote:  A couple of observations.

First, I do like the four team format, in particular because it preserves the importance of the regular season. I fear that if the playoffs are expanded to 8 that there is a real risk that the importance of many regular season games would be watered down.

Second, I think the biggest problem with the playoff format is that the semis are only on New Years Day once every three years. I would favor moving them to New Years Day permanently. It could be done if during years that the Rose Bowl is not a semifinal, the first semifinal were played in the 1 pm time slot, leaving the Rose on New Years in the 5 pm slot.

The other notable problem has been the dominance of a handful of teams. I'm not sure what can be done about that, but I don't think going to 8 would make a difference.

Ive never really understood this argument---especially with respect to making the P5 champs AQ.

If conference champs are AQ, then OOC games become far less meaningful than now. And as those games give us more information about how a team stacks up nationally, that would be a bad thing.

Not for wildcards. Those kinds of games would be very important to helping one team get one of the limted wildcard slots over another. Also, as the these high quality OOC games would continue to be VERY lucrative, and they would cease to kill your chances of making the CFP right out of the box, more schools would be willing to schedule those kinds of games. I think you'd actually see more of them rather than less of them....which is a good thing for college football.

(01-06-2019 02:57 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Dang do you guys miss the point.

1. The presidents aren't voting for an expanded playoff. End of story. Don't shoot the messenger.

2. The current system could enhance itself if not for the intransigence of 1 organization, The Rose Bowl.

I don't have a problem with accomodating the Rose Bowl. It is the oldest bowl and it has earned its spot to this very day with the highest attendance and highest ratings.

(01-06-2019 03:15 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-06-2019 02:05 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-06-2019 01:19 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Basketball's regular season has become devalued and worthless because its become a mere seeding exercise for the conference tournaments.

Not true. College basketball's regular season was not more popular when there were fewer teams in the NCAA tournament, not even back when the NCAA stupidly limited each conference to only one tournament bid. It might be devalued in your opinion, but now there are more games watched by more TV viewers than ever, and cutting down the number of tournament teams would not make the regular season more popular. The availability of at-large tournament bids drives the February TV ratings, because it adds interest to games between 4th and 5th place teams that would be far less meaningful if there were few or no at-large places in the tournament.

Correct. Im not saying NCAA tournament expansion hurt the regular season. It didnt. That actually increased interest. Conference tournaments are whats killing the regular season. If the autobid was connected to the regular season conference winner, then the regular season would regain much of its value.

That's how it should be, but unfortunately that ship sailed long ago. The ACC, among other conferences, started giving its NCAA autobid to their tournament champ in the 1950s, and the NCAA has never tried to put a stop to that.

(01-06-2019 02:57 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Dang do you guys miss the point.

1. The presidents aren't voting for an expanded playoff. End of story. Don't shoot the messenger.

What if the PAC for its next TV deal is looking at AAC money next contract because they are consistently not part of the playoff discussion?

My guess is there will be presidents angry if the status quo continues.

(01-06-2019 03:27 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-06-2019 02:57 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Dang do you guys miss the point.

1. The presidents aren't voting for an expanded playoff. End of story. Don't shoot the messenger.

2. The current system could enhance itself if not for the intransigence of 1 organization, The Rose Bowl.

I don't have a problem with accomodating the Rose Bowl. It is the oldest bowl and it has earned its spot to this very day with the highest attendance and highest ratings.

Well I have a major problem with it. It affects the other NYD bowls especially for SEC fans. They should have to compete for ratings the way the other bowls on NYDay do. They don't deserve special consideration because it is a business.

(01-06-2019 03:47 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(01-06-2019 02:57 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Dang do you guys miss the point.

1. The presidents aren't voting for an expanded playoff. End of story. Don't shoot the messenger.

What if the PAC for its next TV deal is looking at AAC money next contract because they are consistently not part of the playoff discussion?

My guess is there will be presidents angry if the status quo continues.

Sports revenue is such a minuscule part of the PAC revenue they won't blink. If their TV deal is the issue that has little to do with the CFP and everything to do with their failure to expand and to utilize network connections for carriage. That has nothing to do with the CFP.

(01-06-2019 03:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-06-2019 03:27 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-06-2019 02:57 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Dang do you guys miss the point.

1. The presidents aren't voting for an expanded playoff. End of story. Don't shoot the messenger.

2. The current system could enhance itself if not for the intransigence of 1 organization, The Rose Bowl.

I don't have a problem with accomodating the Rose Bowl. It is the oldest bowl and it has earned its spot to this very day with the highest attendance and highest ratings.

Well I have a major problem with it. It affects the other NYD bowls especially for SEC fans. They should have to compete for ratings the way the other bowls on NYDay do. They don't deserve special consideration because it is a business.

If the money and exposure is there, the presidents will vote for it just like they did expansion to 4 after telling everyone they would never do it.

Now one thing you have mentioned several times in undoubtedly in the president's minds. Paying the players. That threat may discourage them from supporting an expansion.

(01-06-2019 03:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  They don't deserve special consideration because it is a business.

They’re not a business, though. They get sponsors to pick up the tabs.

(01-06-2019 10:40 AM)orangefan Wrote:  A couple of observations.

First, I do like the four team format, in particular because it preserves the importance of the regular season. I fear that if the playoffs are expanded to 8 that there is a real risk that the importance of many regular season games would be watered down.

Second, I think the biggest problem with the playoff format is that the semis are only on New Years Day once every three years. I would favor moving them to New Years Day permanently. It could be done if during years that the Rose Bowl is not a semifinal, the first semifinal were played in the 1 pm time slot, leaving the Rose on New Years in the 5 pm slot.

The other notable problem has been the dominance of a handful of teams. I'm not sure what can be done about that, but I don't think going to 8 would make a difference.

I personally think the regular season is weighted TOO important. In no other sport can an opening week loss be the end of your season's hope for a title.

Teams improve (or get worse) during a season. FBS does not allow for the during the season change.

(01-06-2019 05:08 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(01-06-2019 03:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  They don't deserve special consideration because it is a business.

They’re not a business, though. They get sponsors to pick up the tabs.

It's a commercial enterprise by the Chamber of Commerce of Pasadena. Why should that enterprise limit the exposure of equivalent enterprises in Tampa/St.Pete, Jacksonville, and Orlando a continent away?

(01-06-2019 10:09 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(01-06-2019 08:31 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-06-2019 08:29 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  It's hard to not question that "extremely popular" remark. It needs some context.

The networks are paying a lot more money for the CFP than they were for the BCS. Are they complaining?

That’s my point. Because the ratings and stadiums are indicating something a little different.

In terms of ratings/viewership here's the data:

2014-2018 Current NY6 Bowls + CFP NC Game Viewership: 526.586 million viewers*
2009-2013 Current NY6 Bowls + BCS NC Game Viewership: 493.170 million viewers

*This total is not taking into account the 20 plus million viewers tomorrow night's game is likely to have.

One might counter that in the BCS era there were only 4 BCS Bowls and starting in the 2006-07 season the NC game was hosted by one of the four sites the following week after their official Bowl was played a week earlier. So the above data is skewed since the Cotton and Peach data from 2009-2013 is being used when they were "lesser bowls". And this would be a legitimate point to make.

However, expanding the data out to include the NC games, current NY6 Bowl games, plus the following 7 bowls games - Citrus, Outback, Alamo, Orlando Bowl (Champs, Russell Athletic, Camping World), Holiday, Music City, and Gator the aggregate data is as follows:


2014-2018 - 700.393 million viewers
2009-2013 - 698.650 million viewers

Again, the 2014-2018 doesn't have the 20+ million likely viewers for tomorrow night's game but it is closer than just using the NC game plus the current NY6 bowl games.

The winners appear to be (assuming tomorrow nights' game only gets the lowest number of viewers the BCS NC game received between 2009-2013):

Winners:

Cotton - up 34%
Orange - up 31%
Sugar - up 29%
Peach - up 21%
Music City - up 19.5%
Gator - up 18% (move from ESPN2 to ESPN may have helped)
NC Game - up 2.6%
Rose - up 2.6%

Losers:

Orlando - down 7.5%
Fiesta - down 11%
Alamo - down 14%
Holiday - down 18% (first three years in new era on a trajectory to be a 19% winner, but appears move to FS1 tanked that big time)
Citrus - down 26.5%
Outback - down 40% (move to ESPN2 may have hurt)

If any one has additional insight, for either a winner or loser, I hope you share.

Cheers,
Neil

(01-06-2019 02:57 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Dang do you guys miss the point.

2. The current system could enhance itself if not for the intransigence of 1 organization, The Rose Bowl. The whole process is bowing down to 1 bowl game that only benefits two conferences. Their 5 PM exclusivity window already forces 3 SEC schools to play at essentially the same time on New Year's day. I see no reason for the Rose Bowl to move from their 5 PM slot, but I also see no reason for the prohibition of any other Bowl representing conferences not named Big 10 and PAC to be played in an overlapping time on another channel. IMO, the Rose Bowl's exclusive time slot is a restraint on trade. Of course you can get better ratings if you are the only damned game on the tube.

To some this may appear to be a case of "the pot calling the kettle black". After all, when you think about, why should the CFP semi-final games be played on any day other than January 1? They don't now when those semis are held with Orange/Cotton or Fiesta/Peach. And that has as much to do with the SEC/B12 Sugar as it does the B1G/PAC Rose.

I do, however, agree that if the status quo remains the Rose is the game that should be in the evening time slot - it is after all three hours earlier on the West Coast. But who ever said College Football was sensible?

Cheers,
Neil

(01-06-2019 11:54 AM)Chappy Wrote:  'Member when Bill Hancock said a plus-1 model was "logistically impossible "?

It's not logistically possible.

A plus one is not what we have now. A plus one is to play the bowls ending New Years day then pick the 2 best teams after the bowls and have them play a championship game a week later. You can't get everything organized that quickly.

(01-06-2019 05:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-06-2019 05:08 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(01-06-2019 03:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  They don't deserve special consideration because it is a business.

They’re not a business, though. They get sponsors to pick up the tabs.

It's a commercial enterprise by the Chamber of Commerce of Pasadena. Why should that enterprise limit the exposure of equivalent enterprises in Tampa/St.Pete, Jacksonville, and Orlando a continent away?

I don't believe the 5pm NYD time slot is reserved for the Rose bowl. All other bowl games have independently decided to not put their games on at the same time as the Rose bowl because their ratings suck competing with the Rose bowl.

If the SEC games on NYD would rather compete against the Rose bowl than each other at noon and 1pm they can do so.