(01-12-2021 09:25 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(01-11-2021 09:41 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(01-09-2021 09:08 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(01-09-2021 07:30 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-09-2021 06:35 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Yes, if history is a guide, Notre Dame would not claim jump that much because they often make the top 8 (3 times in 7 years).

The biggest "de facto" situation would be Frank's "KISS" version of 5/1/2, where the "1" would be a de facto AAC bid probably 80% of the time. It would not give much access at all to other G5.

That’s how it’s shaking out right now, although I think that the onus is on the other G5 conferences there to avoid that AAC strength continuing going forward.

Personally, I’d actually be all for the top 2 G5 champs facing off against each other for a playoff spot every year (essentially creating a “G5 Championship Game”). The G5 leagues can then split the revenue from that game in the same manner that the P5 leagues get outsized revenue from their own conference championship games that would become straight up playoff games in an auto-bid system. (Logistically, I think that this would require the G5 leagues to determine their champs by Thanksgiving weekend and then the G5 Championship Game would be played on championship weekend.)

This continues with my theme that the playoff *race* itself is really what’s key even more than who actually makes the playoff itself. That setup would make any G5 school that’s still in its conference championship race at least have a hope for a playoff race, which I think would have a huge downstream impact on increasing the number of meaningful regular season games for many more teams.

Coaches would hate it

Tv would love it

Sun Belt/MAC/CUSA teams would probably like it kore

Would TV really, though?

Since the AAC started its conference championship game, average viewers for CCGs:
PAC12 4.279 million viewers (the lowest average among contract-bowl-conferences)
AAC 2.661 million
MAC 810k
mwc 783k
SBC 616k ('17 to '19 with no CCG before that and '20 CCG cancelled)
CUSA 556k ('15 to '17, televised on non-Nielsen-rated CBSSN since)

Your initial step is to move the non-contract-bowl conferences to Thanksgiving weekend. Do you even have timeslots for them with rivalry games going on? In 2019, the only rated non-contract-bowl-conference games Thanksgiving weekend were:
Cincinnati-Memphis Black Friday ABC 2.51 million viewers
USF-UCF Black Friday ESPN primetime 1.76 million viewers
Navy Houston Saturday ESPN2 primetime 411k
Fresno St-SJSU Saturday late ESPN2 231k
Weekday MACtion got 238k
2 AAC, a MAC, and a SunBelt game listed as n.a. Friday/Saturday.
So I guess you can squeeze them in.

Would they compete for viewers against all those rivalry games? Without being on a stand alone weekend this year, Army-Navy dropped from the 8 million average over four prior years to under 5 million viewers. That was against good-not-great competition.
Say the CCGs don't drop on Thanksgiving/rivalry weekend...say you crowbar them into the lineup and they get the same viewers a week earlier...looks like a wash from what the non-contract-bowl conference games already deliver to TV that weekend.

So then you need the champ vs champ play-in game to do better on CCG weekend. Not just better than the AAC lapping the G4 field - for TV to love the idea, it would have to do better than all five combined. That's five million viewers, or better than a couple of the contract-bowl-conference CCGs each year.

Should it do better as a play-in game to the eight-team playoff? Maybe...but those AAC numbers are what they are because basically each year has had NY6 implications (even 2016 - the CFP Committee four days earlier said 2-loss Navy had a chance to overtake undefeated WMU). This season, Cincinnati was still in the CFP conversation (long, long shot, even longer by kickoff when other results were in) and it was the lowest of all six AAC CCGs. mwc was on OTA Fox and still only got 1.42 million viewers. Play-in game better? Okay. Five million viewers?

There's no track record for non-contract-bowl champs getting home run viewers matched up in bowls. Ball State-SJSU was on OTA CBS in a decent 31 December timeslot and only got 1.77 million viewers. Great timeslot and not much better than 2018 UAB-NIU 1.346 million viewers.

So I don't see it from the TV networks' perspective.

And I don't see it from the AAC's perspective. The CCG plus the viewers we've delivered on Thanksgiving weekend is a big chunk of the value we offer from our side of the media rights deal - this setup would halve that chunk in exchange for a champ vs champ game that isn't ours to sell, may not offer better exposure, and is a risk to lose.

You add stakes to a lot of regular season games, you raise the stakes for title games, and you add an annual david vs goliath matchup like the opening weekend of march madness. It all adds up to more inventory with title implications that keeps more eyes on the sport.

Let me work backwards through your points...
An eight-team playoff definitely adds more inventory with title implications. Three more games in "round-of-eight" or "quarterfinals" would be TV inventory in the CFP. They'll get viewers and make ESPN (or whomever else) money. But how many viewers will they get? Let's stipulate that the CFP final and the semis will get what they'll get. (Although, as I type this, it is looking like a new low for the CFP final despite what should be a very attractive matchup between Alabama and Ohio State.)

Would those three games get semi-finals numbers each? That would be worth a couple hundred million dollars for the TV partner.

But does a 1 vs 8 really set up a compelling must-see-TV matchup? Semis were down this year in part because everything was down but in part because they were expected to be blowouts. ND got blown out by Clemson in the ACC CCG and was expected to be blownout by Alabama. The #5 with the best case to be included was Texas A&M whose resume was highlighted by...a four TD blowout loss to Alabama. So a matchup of Cincinnati vs Alabama would have gotten great viewership...why? FBS football is not NCAA basketball. 85 scholarships vs 12. You can pick a March Madness Cinderella based on senior guards and hot 3-point shooting...and there's not a parallel in Alabama or Ohio State or Clemson vs Cincinnati or UCF or Boise State. I'm not saying they can't win - I truly believe they could. Cincinnati should have beaten Georgia this year with a couple decisions that most NCAA 2014 players would have made, and Boise's statue of liberty win was great (even though neither was against a #1). But you just can't turn those possibilities into the same Cinderella possibilities of March Madness.

Raise the stakes of non-contract-bowl-conference CCGs? Let's go back to what I'm disputing -- the idea that a champ vs champ matchup while the CCGs are going on would be better, or more viewers, or as you say raise the stakes. You're teeing up at best an #8 vs #9 to be overmatched against #1 a week or two later. It's actually not that compelling in CFB terms. Okay, you're adding "playoff" to the conversation, but do you really think that Cincinnati vs Coastal to set up a game vs Alabama would draw better than Cincinnati vs ranked Tulsa to set up a game vs Georgia? What's the difference? I don't see how the former gets more viewers than the latter did.
If you somehow double the viewership of that one game on the first Saturday of December, all you've done is offset the loss of four other games on that Saturday. No net gain.

Raised stakes for CCGs? No, now you need to increase interest in five CCGs in competition with rivalry weekend games when two, three, or four of them in fact are not actually impactful to the eight game playoff. Even if the AAC CCG or one more on Thanksgiving weekend can hold fast, three or more CCGs go to zero value.

Raised stakes for regular season games? I don't see it. Cincinnati-Memphis in 2019 got 2.88 million viewers as the prequel to a CCG with NY6 implications. Move that back a week or two, not so much. War on I4 got viewers on Black Friday because UCF was in the conversation - move that to a rivalry before rivalry weekend? meh. In 2015 Navy at Houston Black Friday got over 3 million viewers because it was a de facto AAC West Division Championship Game to get to the AAC CCG to get to the NY6. Another week earlier to maybe get a guy to a "G5" vs "G5" matchup to be the #8 sacrificial lamb? Probably not 3 million viewers.

8 team playoff gets more viewers.
CCG weekend in an 8 team playoff gets viewers.
Moving the non-contract-bowl-conference CCGs to a highly competitive rivalry weekend loses viewers to set up a champ vs champ that may not get more viewers than the AAC CCG (plus the others) already get.
Moving CCGs and therefore moving back regular season games for the dumb idea of a "G5" vs "G5" loses viewers on CCG weekend, loses viewers on Thanksgiving weekend, and loses viewers in the regular season before Thanksgiving weekend.

Raising the stakes involves more than the title game. Those near misses a potential AAC champ or MWC champ has gets the rest of the G5 tuning in. Any games in the league title hunt for any league have more viewers with skin in the game. Games like A&M vs Tennessee where a likely at-large team has a chance to lose and drop out would get more attention should it be close.

Also a random G5 access slot won't be as likely to get attention as a playoff bid shot. One- the P5 fanbases are all wanting to avoid the G5 team currently and won't pay much attention. However some bleedover viewers from whoever is potentially #1 overall is likely to tune in if they know there's a good shot they'll play them next.

Obviously you'd need to schedule it wisely to avoid issues but this isn't just 4 more invested games- it's adding up a lot more on other games across the different leagues.

(01-13-2021 09:15 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  Raising the stakes involves more than the title game. Those near misses a potential AAC champ or MWC champ has gets the rest of the G5 tuning in. Any games in the league title hunt for any league have more viewers with skin in the game. Games like A&M vs Tennessee where a likely at-large team has a chance to lose and drop out would get more attention should it be close.

Also a random G5 access slot won't be as likely to get attention as a playoff bid shot. One- the P5 fanbases are all wanting to avoid the G5 team currently and won't pay much attention. However some bleedover viewers from whoever is potentially #1 overall is likely to tune in if they know there's a good shot they'll play them next.

Obviously you'd need to schedule it wisely to avoid issues but this isn't just 4 more invested games- it's adding up a lot more on other games across the different leagues.

I largely agree with "SlhNavy", and to the extent I disagree I would put it even stronger: I think people who think expanding to 8 in any format will mean a great big pile of more money are not factoring in what I believe will be steep diminishing returns on the value of these games. To me, what the networks are largely likely to see this as is not much more than the current CFP value, just spread over twice as many games.

IMO, college football fans have a keen eye for mismatches, and they aren't inclined to watch them. And if many CFB fans think #1 Alabama vs say a #3 Big 12 champ Oklahoma is a mismatch in a current CFP semifinal, what are they going to think about a matchup of #1 vs #8?

I suspect 8 teams will be viewed as just "piling it higher and deeper", with not much value-added from a TV view.

But hey, I've been wrong before.

(01-13-2021 09:44 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I suspect 8 teams will be viewed as just "piling it higher and deeper", with not much value-added from a TV view.

Well, isn’t this self-induced when some teams get in because of a thirteenth game and others don’t? If there is any fatigue, I’d target the value of the conference finals rather than the playoff. And I suspect this is part of the problem in that there isn’t a committment to AQ, and no consistent regard for ranking and placement by the committee in an attempt to make all these other games “matter,” even if the committee has kinda betrayed this.

This game can’t get better, more appealing, or attractive because of bowl alliances nobody alive can understand why it still matters, while the system maintains this “Does it matter? Wait and see!” mystique. We’ve lost meaningful rivalries for this ridiculous structure. It deserves the criticism and disconnect it is causing itself.

I’ll take FCS any time now. Even with the drop in quality, the season progresses with its own purpose and tempo, but a purpose nevertheless. Where you can maybe lose a game and not have to feel like that flub has to keep you waiting with cameras in a room finding out the same time we all do if it mattered or not. Heck...when did cfb turn into MTV?

(01-08-2021 09:58 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  ...
About BYU - Notre Dame. IIRC, about 10 years ago, they signed a deal to play each other six times before 2020. But to my recollection, they have only played twice since then, the last time in 2013, so I'm not sure what happened with that deal. Maybe it was somehow superseded by ND's scheduling deal with the ACC.

I do know that just last year, when BYU signed a new TV deal with ESPN, a BYU official said Notre Dame still owed them a game (not four) to be played, a home game for BYU. But I don't know what's up with that either.

Here's the deal on that BYU-Notre Dame football series:
https://fbschedules.com/byu-agrees-6-yea...otre-dame/
In 2010, the schools agreed to what essentially is 2 2-for-1 series when BYU first went independent--2 games in South Bend, 1 game in Provo. BYU played the first 2 road games in South Bend in 2012 and 2013.

In 2014, Notre Dame entered into their ACC scheduling agreement and as a result had to cancel several games to accommodate the new commitments. By January 2016, BYU's AD announced that as part of this change, ND approached BYU about cancelling the 2nd 2-for-1 deal which BYU agreed to do. https://fbschedules.com/future-byu-notre...-one-game/
Here's his quote:
“I would say that the second two-for-one series is off the table. We do definitely need to clear up the first contract. Notre Dame had a schedule agreement with the ACC and it was a great opportunity for them. To think that they joined a conference out of football was a big thing. And so for them to do that changed things and that can happen for us. So I would really be hypocritical to think that I’d hold them to the fire for doing something that’s really good for them. But we’ve played them twice out there, and they need to return this game. But the second series of three games, I understand that.”

So the original 6-game deal is now 3 games, with the 2 in South Bend having happened in 2012/2013. ND still owes 1 game from that original intact series. At that time, they said for sure the outstanding game would not happen prior to 2020 due to other schedule commitments, but BYU would be patient waiting for the return game. Some have speculated that eventually ND would buy out the last game since it still isn't on future schedules, but that is where things are now.

(01-13-2021 03:59 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(01-13-2021 09:44 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I suspect 8 teams will be viewed as just "piling it higher and deeper", with not much value-added from a TV view.

Well, isn’t this self-induced when some teams get in because of a thirteenth game and others don’t? If there is any fatigue, I’d target the value of the conference finals rather than the playoff. And I suspect this is part of the problem in that there isn’t a committment to AQ, and no consistent regard for ranking and placement by the committee in an attempt to make all these other games “matter,” even if the committee has kinda betrayed this.

This game can’t get better, more appealing, or attractive because of bowl alliances nobody alive can understand why it still matters, while the system maintains this “Does it matter? Wait and see!” mystique. We’ve lost meaningful rivalries for this ridiculous structure. It deserves the criticism and disconnect it is causing itself.

I’ll take FCS any time now. Even with the drop in quality, the season progresses with its own purpose and tempo, but a purpose nevertheless. Where you can maybe lose a game and not have to feel like that flub has to keep you waiting with cameras in a room finding out the same time we all do if it mattered or not. Heck...when did cfb turn into MTV?

IMO, the lesson of FCS is that playoffs don't matter to public appeal much. FCS has this elaborate inclusive playoff system where everyone has a "win on the field path" to the title, and yet the overwhelming body of sports fans could care less. It's the same as it ever was.

Meanwhile, big time college football, for all its perceived flaws, is as well-paid as ever.

(Yesterday 10:10 AM)f1do Wrote:  

(01-08-2021 09:58 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  ...
About BYU - Notre Dame. IIRC, about 10 years ago, they signed a deal to play each other six times before 2020. But to my recollection, they have only played twice since then, the last time in 2013, so I'm not sure what happened with that deal. Maybe it was somehow superseded by ND's scheduling deal with the ACC.

I do know that just last year, when BYU signed a new TV deal with ESPN, a BYU official said Notre Dame still owed them a game (not four) to be played, a home game for BYU. But I don't know what's up with that either.

Here's the deal on that BYU-Notre Dame football series:
https://fbschedules.com/byu-agrees-6-yea...otre-dame/
In 2010, the schools agreed to what essentially is 2 2-for-1 series when BYU first went independent--2 games in South Bend, 1 game in Provo. BYU played the first 2 road games in South Bend in 2012 and 2013.

In 2014, Notre Dame entered into their ACC scheduling agreement and as a result had to cancel several games to accommodate the new commitments. By January 2016, BYU's AD announced that as part of this change, ND approached BYU about cancelling the 2nd 2-for-1 deal which BYU agreed to do. https://fbschedules.com/future-byu-notre...-one-game/
Here's his quote:
“I would say that the second two-for-one series is off the table. We do definitely need to clear up the first contract. Notre Dame had a schedule agreement with the ACC and it was a great opportunity for them. To think that they joined a conference out of football was a big thing. And so for them to do that changed things and that can happen for us. So I would really be hypocritical to think that I’d hold them to the fire for doing something that’s really good for them. But we’ve played them twice out there, and they need to return this game. But the second series of three games, I understand that.”

So the original 6-game deal is now 3 games, with the 2 in South Bend having happened in 2012/2013. ND still owes 1 game from that original intact series. At that time, they said for sure the outstanding game would not happen prior to 2020 due to other schedule commitments, but BYU would be patient waiting for the return game. Some have speculated that eventually ND would buy out the last game since it still isn't on future schedules, but that is where things are now.

Notre Dame at BYU is a good game for everyone to play. I don't see why Notre Dame can't find an OOC spot to play at BYU in the next couple of years. That should happen.

Not that what I think has any influence, LOL.

(Yesterday 10:18 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-13-2021 03:59 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(01-13-2021 09:44 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I suspect 8 teams will be viewed as just "piling it higher and deeper", with not much value-added from a TV view.

Well, isn’t this self-induced when some teams get in because of a thirteenth game and others don’t? If there is any fatigue, I’d target the value of the conference finals rather than the playoff. And I suspect this is part of the problem in that there isn’t a committment to AQ, and no consistent regard for ranking and placement by the committee in an attempt to make all these other games “matter,” even if the committee has kinda betrayed this.

This game can’t get better, more appealing, or attractive because of bowl alliances nobody alive can understand why it still matters, while the system maintains this “Does it matter? Wait and see!” mystique. We’ve lost meaningful rivalries for this ridiculous structure. It deserves the criticism and disconnect it is causing itself.

I’ll take FCS any time now. Even with the drop in quality, the season progresses with its own purpose and tempo, but a purpose nevertheless. Where you can maybe lose a game and not have to feel like that flub has to keep you waiting with cameras in a room finding out the same time we all do if it mattered or not. Heck...when did cfb turn into MTV?

IMO, the lesson of FCS is that playoffs don't matter to public appeal much. FCS has this elaborate inclusive playoff system where everyone has a "win on the field path" to the title, and yet the overwhelming body of sports fans could care less. It's the same as it ever was.

Meanwhile, big time college football, for all its perceived flaws, is as well-paid as ever.

There is a very very big flaw in your argument- the initial draw is so absurdly different.

I would argue that the lack of appeal for FCS is that it's a bunch of really small fanbase schools that everyone goes in realizing is a classification down- not the postseason model.

- Less talent both in upside and scholarship limit.

- Less direct ties to fans. For instance other than maybe Montana or NDSU how many state flagships are there and how many actually have a strong cultural tie to the state where folks pull for them & actively follow them because it's state U? Not many.

- Less awareness of teams in general. How many teams can the average person hear and know who they are? If I talk to someone on the street how many have seen a single game of Wofford, Austin Peay, Nicholls State, etc not involving FBS buy games or the FCS playoff when nothing else is on? The number of people who know about Boise State dwarfs that combined number in all likelihood.

The lack of attention is likely due to the nature of the league the playoff is attached to and it's own draw- not unlike how the Sun Belt has similar divisions, footprint, and postseason title game to the SEC but doesn't draw flies compared to them. It's not the format driving that... it's the programs being nowhere near the draw.

(Yesterday 10:33 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(Yesterday 10:18 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-13-2021 03:59 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(01-13-2021 09:44 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I suspect 8 teams will be viewed as just "piling it higher and deeper", with not much value-added from a TV view.

Well, isn’t this self-induced when some teams get in because of a thirteenth game and others don’t? If there is any fatigue, I’d target the value of the conference finals rather than the playoff. And I suspect this is part of the problem in that there isn’t a committment to AQ, and no consistent regard for ranking and placement by the committee in an attempt to make all these other games “matter,” even if the committee has kinda betrayed this.

This game can’t get better, more appealing, or attractive because of bowl alliances nobody alive can understand why it still matters, while the system maintains this “Does it matter? Wait and see!” mystique. We’ve lost meaningful rivalries for this ridiculous structure. It deserves the criticism and disconnect it is causing itself.

I’ll take FCS any time now. Even with the drop in quality, the season progresses with its own purpose and tempo, but a purpose nevertheless. Where you can maybe lose a game and not have to feel like that flub has to keep you waiting with cameras in a room finding out the same time we all do if it mattered or not. Heck...when did cfb turn into MTV?

IMO, the lesson of FCS is that playoffs don't matter to public appeal much. FCS has this elaborate inclusive playoff system where everyone has a "win on the field path" to the title, and yet the overwhelming body of sports fans could care less. It's the same as it ever was.

Meanwhile, big time college football, for all its perceived flaws, is as well-paid as ever.

There is a very very big flaw in your argument- the initial draw is so absurdly different.

Well, IMO playoffs haven't helped FCS much. FCS is pretty much where it was before playoffs. Adopting playoffs in 1978, and the subsequent expansion of the playoffs over the years, hasn't done much if anything for the appeal of FCS. And lots of other NCAA sports have elaborate playoffs and of them, only college hoops is really big time.

So I'm not sure it would do anything for FBS either. FBS has had many systems over the years, but it's base popularity has pretty much been the same. FBS has basically the same public profile and popularity (quite high) now as it did in the 1970s.

IOW's, I don't think playoff systems seem to drive interest in college athletics. They just aren't a big factor. Now for FBS, we have seen systems like the BCS and CFP bring in more money from advertisers and networks. If they think an elaborate playoff is worth more financially, we'll probably get one. But I don't think this will result in increases in base measures of CFB popularity, like attendance, TV ratings, merchandise sales, donations, etc.

(Yesterday 01:44 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(Yesterday 10:33 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(Yesterday 10:18 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-13-2021 03:59 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(01-13-2021 09:44 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I suspect 8 teams will be viewed as just "piling it higher and deeper", with not much value-added from a TV view.

Well, isn’t this self-induced when some teams get in because of a thirteenth game and others don’t? If there is any fatigue, I’d target the value of the conference finals rather than the playoff. And I suspect this is part of the problem in that there isn’t a committment to AQ, and no consistent regard for ranking and placement by the committee in an attempt to make all these other games “matter,” even if the committee has kinda betrayed this.

This game can’t get better, more appealing, or attractive because of bowl alliances nobody alive can understand why it still matters, while the system maintains this “Does it matter? Wait and see!” mystique. We’ve lost meaningful rivalries for this ridiculous structure. It deserves the criticism and disconnect it is causing itself.

I’ll take FCS any time now. Even with the drop in quality, the season progresses with its own purpose and tempo, but a purpose nevertheless. Where you can maybe lose a game and not have to feel like that flub has to keep you waiting with cameras in a room finding out the same time we all do if it mattered or not. Heck...when did cfb turn into MTV?

IMO, the lesson of FCS is that playoffs don't matter to public appeal much. FCS has this elaborate inclusive playoff system where everyone has a "win on the field path" to the title, and yet the overwhelming body of sports fans could care less. It's the same as it ever was.

Meanwhile, big time college football, for all its perceived flaws, is as well-paid as ever.

There is a very very big flaw in your argument- the initial draw is so absurdly different.

Well, IMO playoffs haven't helped FCS much. FCS is pretty much where it was before playoffs. Adopting playoffs in 1978, and the subsequent expansion of the playoffs over the years, hasn't done much if anything for the appeal of FCS. And lots of other NCAA sports have elaborate playoffs and of them, only college hoops is really big time.

So I'm not sure it would do anything for FBS either. FBS has had many systems over the years, but it's base popularity has pretty much been the same. FBS has basically the same public profile and popularity (quite high) now as it did in the 1970s.

IOW's, I don't think playoff systems seem to drive interest in college athletics. They just aren't a big factor. Now for FBS, we have seen systems like the BCS and CFP bring in more money from advertisers and networks. If they think an elaborate playoff is worth more financially, we'll probably get one. But I don't think this will result in increases in base measures of CFB popularity, like attendance, TV ratings, merchandise sales, donations, etc.

There are problems with FCS and its structure, so I'm not attempting to sugar-coat those issues. When those games occur (post-Thanksgiving and up through finals), where they occur (on campus regardless of location), frequency (imagine you're a fan of SoCon school and then have to follow your team to Fargo, and then up to Bethlehem, PA about a week later?), etc.. How feasible is that, especially, again, when these games occur? And is the field simply too big? AQs aren't that many, but the at-large pool is sizable, even with byes. Money is probably made only through the networks; it's not sitting in the bleachers.

IMO, this is a known issue and one FBS expanded playoff critics have held against that call/demand, and, they aren't wrong.

But, FBS isn't a transparent operation. Conference champions don't mean playoff qualifiers like they do in other levels. There is a lot of money moving underneath to keep the bowl system partially intact when keeping this playoff "structure." And the largest, most popular programs are along for that ride with the bowls, so there isn't necessarily support to "change" the structure. The weekly reliance on personal polling and now this special committee that determines what is or isn't eligible for inclusion? I don't disagree that FCS isn't free from criticism, but, that model's problems shouldn't project against FBS where it has never run. Saying that model won't work there isn't fair. It's simply unproven. FBS can try it for a contracted cycle, and then dump it if it wants. It's embarrassing, imo, that they resist even that so hard.

(Yesterday 01:44 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(Yesterday 10:33 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(Yesterday 10:18 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-13-2021 03:59 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(01-13-2021 09:44 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I suspect 8 teams will be viewed as just "piling it higher and deeper", with not much value-added from a TV view.

Well, isn’t this self-induced when some teams get in because of a thirteenth game and others don’t? If there is any fatigue, I’d target the value of the conference finals rather than the playoff. And I suspect this is part of the problem in that there isn’t a committment to AQ, and no consistent regard for ranking and placement by the committee in an attempt to make all these other games “matter,” even if the committee has kinda betrayed this.

This game can’t get better, more appealing, or attractive because of bowl alliances nobody alive can understand why it still matters, while the system maintains this “Does it matter? Wait and see!” mystique. We’ve lost meaningful rivalries for this ridiculous structure. It deserves the criticism and disconnect it is causing itself.

I’ll take FCS any time now. Even with the drop in quality, the season progresses with its own purpose and tempo, but a purpose nevertheless. Where you can maybe lose a game and not have to feel like that flub has to keep you waiting with cameras in a room finding out the same time we all do if it mattered or not. Heck...when did cfb turn into MTV?

IMO, the lesson of FCS is that playoffs don't matter to public appeal much. FCS has this elaborate inclusive playoff system where everyone has a "win on the field path" to the title, and yet the overwhelming body of sports fans could care less. It's the same as it ever was.

Meanwhile, big time college football, for all its perceived flaws, is as well-paid as ever.

There is a very very big flaw in your argument- the initial draw is so absurdly different.

Well, IMO playoffs haven't helped FCS much. FCS is pretty much where it was before playoffs. Adopting playoffs in 1978, and the subsequent expansion of the playoffs over the years, hasn't done much if anything for the appeal of FCS. And lots of other NCAA sports have elaborate playoffs and of them, only college hoops is really big time.

So I'm not sure it would do anything for FBS either. FBS has had many systems over the years, but it's base popularity has pretty much been the same. FBS has basically the same public profile and popularity (quite high) now as it did in the 1970s.

IOW's, I don't think playoff systems seem to drive interest in college athletics. They just aren't a big factor. Now for FBS, we have seen systems like the BCS and CFP bring in more money from advertisers and networks. If they think an elaborate playoff is worth more financially, we'll probably get one. But I don't think this will result in increases in base measures of CFB popularity, like attendance, TV ratings, merchandise sales, donations, etc.

The key here is expanding from 4 to 8 would increase the late season stakes for another 10 or so programs per year elevating interest in games both televised and locally. It's hard for it not to- if the Pac 12 title game was for a playoff bid this year we could expect a higher viewership than the 2.3 it had this year.

Every season they've had realistic playoff/national title chances has been the only times that game cleared above a 3.0.

https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2019/12...-utah-abc/



We see a similar trend with the Big Ten title game:
Years where a team competing can win and get in: 5.45
Years they don't have any path: 4.2

The Big 12 title game was down 3.36 from what it averaged in the prior three seasons when playoff bids were on the line.


Expansion will keep more parts of the country invested longer and with actual stakes in games that currently don't have them it's likely to be a good winner for TV.

(Yesterday 03:56 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(Yesterday 01:44 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(Yesterday 10:33 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(Yesterday 10:18 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-13-2021 03:59 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  Well, isn’t this self-induced when some teams get in because of a thirteenth game and others don’t? If there is any fatigue, I’d target the value of the conference finals rather than the playoff. And I suspect this is part of the problem in that there isn’t a committment to AQ, and no consistent regard for ranking and placement by the committee in an attempt to make all these other games “matter,” even if the committee has kinda betrayed this.

This game can’t get better, more appealing, or attractive because of bowl alliances nobody alive can understand why it still matters, while the system maintains this “Does it matter? Wait and see!” mystique. We’ve lost meaningful rivalries for this ridiculous structure. It deserves the criticism and disconnect it is causing itself.

I’ll take FCS any time now. Even with the drop in quality, the season progresses with its own purpose and tempo, but a purpose nevertheless. Where you can maybe lose a game and not have to feel like that flub has to keep you waiting with cameras in a room finding out the same time we all do if it mattered or not. Heck...when did cfb turn into MTV?

IMO, the lesson of FCS is that playoffs don't matter to public appeal much. FCS has this elaborate inclusive playoff system where everyone has a "win on the field path" to the title, and yet the overwhelming body of sports fans could care less. It's the same as it ever was.

Meanwhile, big time college football, for all its perceived flaws, is as well-paid as ever.

There is a very very big flaw in your argument- the initial draw is so absurdly different.

Well, IMO playoffs haven't helped FCS much. FCS is pretty much where it was before playoffs. Adopting playoffs in 1978, and the subsequent expansion of the playoffs over the years, hasn't done much if anything for the appeal of FCS. And lots of other NCAA sports have elaborate playoffs and of them, only college hoops is really big time.

So I'm not sure it would do anything for FBS either. FBS has had many systems over the years, but it's base popularity has pretty much been the same. FBS has basically the same public profile and popularity (quite high) now as it did in the 1970s.

IOW's, I don't think playoff systems seem to drive interest in college athletics. They just aren't a big factor. Now for FBS, we have seen systems like the BCS and CFP bring in more money from advertisers and networks. If they think an elaborate playoff is worth more financially, we'll probably get one. But I don't think this will result in increases in base measures of CFB popularity, like attendance, TV ratings, merchandise sales, donations, etc.

The key here is expanding from 4 to 8 would increase the late season stakes for another 10 or so programs per year elevating interest in games both televised and locally. It's hard for it not to- if the Pac 12 title game was for a playoff bid this year we could expect a higher viewership than the 2.3 it had this year.

Every season they've had realistic playoff/national title chances has been the only times that game cleared above a 3.0.

https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2019/12...-utah-abc/



We see a similar trend with the Big Ten title game:
Years where a team competing can win and get in: 5.45
Years they don't have any path: 4.2

The Big 12 title game was down 3.36 from what it averaged in the prior three seasons when playoff bids were on the line.


Expansion will keep more parts of the country invested longer and with actual stakes in games that currently don't have them it's likely to be a good winner for TV.

I appreciate the graphs, but IMO there's another possible explanation for the ratings - people generally tune in more to see better teams. If the PAC title game is two 9-3 teams there is likely to be less viewership than if one of those teams is 11-1, regardless of whether a CFP spot is on the line or not.

Plus, more interest at the top could mean less at the bottom. More playoffs might shrink the bowl field, so you get less interest in watching games among 5-5 teams. And even with an 8-team playoff, the bulk of most conference games from late October on are going to be between teams with no shot at the conference title and playoffs.

(Yesterday 07:13 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(Yesterday 03:56 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(Yesterday 01:44 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(Yesterday 10:33 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(Yesterday 10:18 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  IMO, the lesson of FCS is that playoffs don't matter to public appeal much. FCS has this elaborate inclusive playoff system where everyone has a "win on the field path" to the title, and yet the overwhelming body of sports fans could care less. It's the same as it ever was.

Meanwhile, big time college football, for all its perceived flaws, is as well-paid as ever.

There is a very very big flaw in your argument- the initial draw is so absurdly different.

Well, IMO playoffs haven't helped FCS much. FCS is pretty much where it was before playoffs. Adopting playoffs in 1978, and the subsequent expansion of the playoffs over the years, hasn't done much if anything for the appeal of FCS. And lots of other NCAA sports have elaborate playoffs and of them, only college hoops is really big time.

So I'm not sure it would do anything for FBS either. FBS has had many systems over the years, but it's base popularity has pretty much been the same. FBS has basically the same public profile and popularity (quite high) now as it did in the 1970s.

IOW's, I don't think playoff systems seem to drive interest in college athletics. They just aren't a big factor. Now for FBS, we have seen systems like the BCS and CFP bring in more money from advertisers and networks. If they think an elaborate playoff is worth more financially, we'll probably get one. But I don't think this will result in increases in base measures of CFB popularity, like attendance, TV ratings, merchandise sales, donations, etc.

The key here is expanding from 4 to 8 would increase the late season stakes for another 10 or so programs per year elevating interest in games both televised and locally. It's hard for it not to- if the Pac 12 title game was for a playoff bid this year we could expect a higher viewership than the 2.3 it had this year.

Every season they've had realistic playoff/national title chances has been the only times that game cleared above a 3.0.

https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2019/12...-utah-abc/



We see a similar trend with the Big Ten title game:
Years where a team competing can win and get in: 5.45
Years they don't have any path: 4.2

The Big 12 title game was down 3.36 from what it averaged in the prior three seasons when playoff bids were on the line.


Expansion will keep more parts of the country invested longer and with actual stakes in games that currently don't have them it's likely to be a good winner for TV.

I appreciate the graphs, but IMO there's another possible explanation for the ratings - people generally tune in more to see better teams. If the PAC title game is two 9-3 teams there is likely to be less viewership than if one of those teams is 11-1, regardless of whether a CFP spot is on the line or not.

Plus, more interest at the top could mean less at the bottom. More playoffs might shrink the bowl field, so you get less interest in watching games among 5-5 teams. And even with an 8-team playoff, the bulk of most conference games from late October on are going to be between teams with no shot at the conference title and playoffs.

Casual viewers are drawn in by late-season games that have stakes, i.e., playoff implications.

16.5 million people watched a Week 17 NFL game between two bad teams with losing records, Washington and Philadelphia, because Washington was in the playoffs with a win and out with a loss. Take the stakes away from that game, and maybe half the audience tunes out (or, the NFL replaces that game in prime time with a game that had playoff implications).

Give a playoff spot to each P5 CCG winner, and the ratings for those games will go way up. Whether that ratings benefit is enough to make ESPN shell out a lot more money for an 8-team playoff is a question only ESPN can answer.

(Yesterday 07:13 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(Yesterday 03:56 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(Yesterday 01:44 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(Yesterday 10:33 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(Yesterday 10:18 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  IMO, the lesson of FCS is that playoffs don't matter to public appeal much. FCS has this elaborate inclusive playoff system where everyone has a "win on the field path" to the title, and yet the overwhelming body of sports fans could care less. It's the same as it ever was.

Meanwhile, big time college football, for all its perceived flaws, is as well-paid as ever.

There is a very very big flaw in your argument- the initial draw is so absurdly different.

Well, IMO playoffs haven't helped FCS much. FCS is pretty much where it was before playoffs. Adopting playoffs in 1978, and the subsequent expansion of the playoffs over the years, hasn't done much if anything for the appeal of FCS. And lots of other NCAA sports have elaborate playoffs and of them, only college hoops is really big time.

So I'm not sure it would do anything for FBS either. FBS has had many systems over the years, but it's base popularity has pretty much been the same. FBS has basically the same public profile and popularity (quite high) now as it did in the 1970s.

IOW's, I don't think playoff systems seem to drive interest in college athletics. They just aren't a big factor. Now for FBS, we have seen systems like the BCS and CFP bring in more money from advertisers and networks. If they think an elaborate playoff is worth more financially, we'll probably get one. But I don't think this will result in increases in base measures of CFB popularity, like attendance, TV ratings, merchandise sales, donations, etc.

The key here is expanding from 4 to 8 would increase the late season stakes for another 10 or so programs per year elevating interest in games both televised and locally. It's hard for it not to- if the Pac 12 title game was for a playoff bid this year we could expect a higher viewership than the 2.3 it had this year.

Every season they've had realistic playoff/national title chances has been the only times that game cleared above a 3.0.

https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2019/12...-utah-abc/



We see a similar trend with the Big Ten title game:
Years where a team competing can win and get in: 5.45
Years they don't have any path: 4.2

The Big 12 title game was down 3.36 from what it averaged in the prior three seasons when playoff bids were on the line.


Expansion will keep more parts of the country invested longer and with actual stakes in games that currently don't have them it's likely to be a good winner for TV.

I appreciate the graphs, but IMO there's another possible explanation for the ratings - people generally tune in more to see better teams. If the PAC title game is two 9-3 teams there is likely to be less viewership than if one of those teams is 11-1, regardless of whether a CFP spot is on the line or not.

Plus, more interest at the top could mean less at the bottom. More playoffs might shrink the bowl field, so you get less interest in watching games among 5-5 teams. And even with an 8-team playoff, the bulk of most conference games from late October on are going to be between teams with no shot at the conference title and playoffs.

The records tend to be at least decent- it’s the fact a title path is there.

Also bigger rated games are where the networks make their money. Tv ratings for football are basically a hockey stick chart

(Yesterday 07:34 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(Yesterday 07:13 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(Yesterday 03:56 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(Yesterday 01:44 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(Yesterday 10:33 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  There is a very very big flaw in your argument- the initial draw is so absurdly different.

Well, IMO playoffs haven't helped FCS much. FCS is pretty much where it was before playoffs. Adopting playoffs in 1978, and the subsequent expansion of the playoffs over the years, hasn't done much if anything for the appeal of FCS. And lots of other NCAA sports have elaborate playoffs and of them, only college hoops is really big time.

So I'm not sure it would do anything for FBS either. FBS has had many systems over the years, but it's base popularity has pretty much been the same. FBS has basically the same public profile and popularity (quite high) now as it did in the 1970s.

IOW's, I don't think playoff systems seem to drive interest in college athletics. They just aren't a big factor. Now for FBS, we have seen systems like the BCS and CFP bring in more money from advertisers and networks. If they think an elaborate playoff is worth more financially, we'll probably get one. But I don't think this will result in increases in base measures of CFB popularity, like attendance, TV ratings, merchandise sales, donations, etc.

The key here is expanding from 4 to 8 would increase the late season stakes for another 10 or so programs per year elevating interest in games both televised and locally. It's hard for it not to- if the Pac 12 title game was for a playoff bid this year we could expect a higher viewership than the 2.3 it had this year.

Every season they've had realistic playoff/national title chances has been the only times that game cleared above a 3.0.

https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2019/12...-utah-abc/



We see a similar trend with the Big Ten title game:
Years where a team competing can win and get in: 5.45
Years they don't have any path: 4.2

The Big 12 title game was down 3.36 from what it averaged in the prior three seasons when playoff bids were on the line.


Expansion will keep more parts of the country invested longer and with actual stakes in games that currently don't have them it's likely to be a good winner for TV.

I appreciate the graphs, but IMO there's another possible explanation for the ratings - people generally tune in more to see better teams. If the PAC title game is two 9-3 teams there is likely to be less viewership than if one of those teams is 11-1, regardless of whether a CFP spot is on the line or not.

Plus, more interest at the top could mean less at the bottom. More playoffs might shrink the bowl field, so you get less interest in watching games among 5-5 teams. And even with an 8-team playoff, the bulk of most conference games from late October on are going to be between teams with no shot at the conference title and playoffs.

Casual viewers are drawn in by late-season games that have stakes, i.e., playoff implications.

16.5 million people watched a Week 17 NFL game between two bad teams with losing records, Washington and Philadelphia, because Washington was in the playoffs with a win and out with a loss. Take the stakes away from that game, and maybe half the audience tunes out (or, the NFL replaces that game in prime time with a game that had playoff implications).

Give a playoff spot to each P5 CCG winner, and the ratings for those games will go way up. Whether that ratings benefit is enough to make ESPN shell out a lot more money for an 8-team playoff is a question only ESPN can answer.

That's the NFL. All NFL franchises have a brand value within a relatively narrow range. College football is not the NFL. Just look at the ratings graph the other guy posted - a difference in ratings of 3.4 compared to 2.8 depending on a playoff implication, or in my estimation, a difference in record.

The networks will of course make their own determinations. But just sitting here, I don't see it.

I think it is the playoff implications thing. I followed the OSU/OU/Alabama/Clemson games most weeks because I wanted to see if they got upset or if they showed NC-caliber dominance.

Now... would I have followed Cincy-Tulsa if there was a playoff bid on the line? Maybe not. The Washington Football Team had a greater chance of defeating Tampa Bay than Cincy would Alabama. While I would follow the Alabama-Cincy game, it would again be mostly to root for the unlikely upset.

The current lack of parity may diminish, in time, with a playoff... but that would not be the case Year 1. There have even been arguments that the current format encourages talent concentration in 3-4 schools. What would be the effect of an 8-team playoff? Opinions vary; I think auto-bids give more teams a chance to "luck" in, whereas Alabama, Ohio State, et al don't need to win their conference to make the playoff.

(Yesterday 09:54 PM)Crayton Wrote:  I think it is the playoff implications thing. I followed the OSU/OU/Alabama/Clemson games most weeks because I wanted to see if they got upset or if they showed NC-caliber dominance.

Now... would I have followed Cincy-Tulsa if there was a playoff bid on the line? Maybe not. The Washington Football Team had a greater chance of defeating Tampa Bay than Cincy would Alabama. While I would follow the Alabama-Cincy game, it would again be mostly to root for the unlikely upset.

The current lack of parity may diminish, in time, with a playoff... but that would not be the case Year 1. There have even been arguments that the current format encourages talent concentration in 3-4 schools. What would be the effect of an 8-team playoff? Opinions vary; I think auto-bids give more teams a chance to "luck" in, whereas Alabama, Ohio State, et al don't need to win their conference to make the playoff.

We're all speculating here, of course. My deep-gut feeling is that an 8-team playoff would fundamentally change college football, and that would be a bad thing. IMO, it would make it like the NFL, and to me, CFB thrives because it is not the NFL. If it becomes the NFL, then it's just minor-league football at that point, and nobody watches minor-league anything at a mass level. The four-team CFP is distinctive from the NFL precisely because the teams are chosen and not automatically included based on conferences and the like.

You may say that college hoops is big-time, and it has a playoff. And that's true. But, it doesn't have a playoff like the NBA, which has a playoff structure based on best-of-X series, not a single-elimination tournament. The single elimination tournament makes college hoops distinctive and thus interesting despite the presence of a superior pro hoops league.