Looking at percentages only, the SEC total participation in the "big bowls" increased as the rules and system changed. The B1G, ACC, XII, and PAC saw fluctuations but were fairly steady. Looking at the BCS championship games and CFP semifinals, SEC participation has skyrocketed. B1G participation also went up dramatically. The XII plummeted. The PAC went down but not as much as the XII. The ACC saw a big dip but came back a little bit stronger.

To be clear, I am not saying that the changes caused the SEC (and B1G to a lesser extent) to have increased participation. I am also not saying the SEC isn't the best conference. I am saying there was a massive shift that occurred nearly immediately upon the changes occurring. I wonder, based upon the questions below, what benefits/detriments conferences went through because of the changes to the rules and system in place which had a long-term effect on money, perception, recruiting, and what we have today.

My questions are:
1) Who (specifically by name) raised the flag on the old BCS rules and system?
2) Who (specifically by name) proposed/introduced the new BCS rules and system?
3) Who (specifically by name) proposed/introduced the CFP rules and system?

Any other questions that have been or should be asked and answered?

--------------------------------

Looking at the BCS and CFP championships, playoffs, and bowls, it is clear the SEC is #1 and the B1G is #2. Then there is everyone else. Let's look at the numbers by conference:

BCS (4 Games: 1998-2005)

Total Game Participants
13 - B1G
11 - SEC, XII
10 - PAC
8 - ACC, Big East
2 - Notre Dame
1 - Non-Power

Championship Game Participants
5 - XII
3 - ACC, Big East
2 - PAC, SEC
1 - B1G
0 - Non-Power, Notre Dame

Non-Championship Game Participants
12 - B1G
9 - SEC
8 - PAC
6 - XII
5 - ACC, Big East
2 - Notre Dame
1 - Non-Power

/// BCS modifies formula for 2004 season ///
/// BCS shifts from 4 games to 5 games for 2006 season ///

BCS (5 Games: 2006-2013)

Total Game Participants
16 - SEC
15 - B1G
11 - PAC, XII
10 - ACC
8 - Big East
7 - Non-Power
2 - Notre Dame

Championship Game Participants
9 - SEC
2 - B1G, XII
1 - ACC, Notre Dame, PAC
0 - Big East, Non-Power

Non-Championship Game Participants
13 - B1G
10 - PAC
9 - ACC, XII
8 - Big East
7 - Non-Power, SEC
1 - Notre Dame

NY6 (6 Games - excluding NCG: 2014 - 2022)

Total Game Participants
27 - SEC
24 - B1G
16 - ACC, XII
9 - Non-Power
3 - Notre Dame
13 - PAC

CFP Participants
11 - SEC
8 - ACC, B1G
5 - XII
2 - PAC
1 - Notre Dame, Non-Power

Non-CFP Participants
16 - B1G, SEC
11 - PAC, XII
8 - ACC, Non-Power
2 - Notre Dame

--------------------------------

Let's look at the percentage of BCS/NY6 bowl participants, by conference, in each of the below time frames:

1998-2005, 8 BCS Participants (Old BCS Ranking System)
20.31% - B1G
17.19% - SEC, XII
15.63% - PAC
12.50% - ACC, Big East
3.13% - Notre Dame
1.56% - Non-Power

2004-2013, 8/10 BCS Participants (New BCS Ranking System)
18.75% - B1G, SEC
14.58% - XII
13.54% - PAC
12.50% - ACC
10.42% - Big East
8.33% - Non-Power
3.13% - Notre Dame

2006-2013, 10 BCS Participants (New BCS Ranking System)
20.00% - SEC
18.75% - B1G
13.75% - PAC, XII
12.50% - ACC
10.00% - Big East
8.75% - Non-Power
2.50% - Notre Dame

2014-2022, 12 NY6 Participants
25.00% - SEC
22.22% - B1G
14.82% - ACC, XII
12.04% - PAC
8.33% - Non-Power
2.78% - Notre Dame

--------------------------------

Let's look at the percentage of BCS championship game and CFP semifinal participants, by conference, in each of the below time frames:

1998-2005, 8 BCS Participants (Old BCS Ranking System)
31.25% - XII
18.75% - ACC, Big East
12.50% - PAC, SEC
6.25% - B1G
0.00% - Non-Power, Notre Dame

2004-2013, 8/10 BCS Participants (New BCS Ranking System)
45.00% - SEC
20.00% - XII
15.00% - PAC
10.00% - B1G
5.00% - ACC, Notre Dame
0.00% - Big East, Non-Power

2006-2013, 10 BCS Participants (New BCS Ranking System)
56.25% - SEC
12.50% - B1G, XII
6.25% - ACC, Notre Dame, PAC
0.00% - Big East, Non-Power

2014-2022, 12 NY6 Participants
30.56% - SEC
22.22% - ACC, B1G
13.89% - XII
5.56% - PAC
2.78% - Non-Power, Notre Dame

--------------------------------

Total Participation Changes by Percentage: BCS (1998-2005), BCS (2004-2013), BCS (2006-2013), CFP (2014-2022)

SEC 17.19% > 18.75% > 20.00% > 25.00%
B1G 20.31% > 18.75% > 18.75% > 22.22%
ACC 12.50% > 12.50% > 12.50% > 14.82%
XII 17.19% > 14.58% > 13.75% > 14.82%
PAC 15.63% > 13.54% > 13.75% > 12.04%
Big East 12.50% > 10.42% > 10.00% > N/A
Notre Dame 3.13% > 3.13% > 2.50% > 2.78%
Non-Power 1.56% > 8.33% > 8.75% > 8.33%

--------------------------------

Total BCS Championship / CFP Semifinal Participation Changes by Percentage: BCS (1998-2005), BCS (2004-2013), BCS (2006-2013), CFP (2014-2022)

SEC 12.50% > 45.00% > 56.25% > 30.56%
B1G 6.25% > 10.00% > 12.50% > 22.22%
ACC 18.75% > 5.00% > 6.25% > 22.22%
XII 31.25% > 20.00% > 12.50% > 13.89%
PAC 12.50% > 15.00% > 6.25% > 5.56%
Big East 18.75% > 0.00% > 0.00% > N/A
Notre Dame 0.00% > 5.00% > 6.25% > 2.78%
Non-Power 0.00% > 0.00% > 0.00% > 2.78%

--------------------------------

Wow, tons of info here!

Thanks for the research and for compiling all of this info. It's definitely interesting seeing all of the data.

I’m probably going to take heat from the SEC crowd but I think a big factor was the media hype that the SEC was getting:

CBS: the SEC was their only major property and they hyped the exploits of the SEC
ESPN/ABC: despite being the rights holder of of several leagues, they treated the SEC like their darling—constantly touting SEC speed and SEC talent. Even the Big 10 alums employed by ESPN were singing the SEC’s praises.

NBC: all they had was the ND contract and obviously they promoted them.
FOX: they didn’t start broadcasting regular season CFB until late in the BCS and weren’t really a factor.

Since networks became motivated to promote the entities that they have under contract, journalistic integrity has gone out the window. There is no truly impartial reporting when you’ve got skin in the game. The hype became a self fulfilling prophesy.

You had some other factors at play too. Lots of other recent contenders were in a slump:

Miami—other programs co-opted their outlaw image and there were some years where they were facing sanctions
Florida St—Bowden was losing his edge as he aged
Penn St—see Florida St
Michigan—the Appalachian St game had a lasting impact as they struggled to find the right coach
USC—they’ve never been quite the same since the Reggie Bush sanctions
Nebraska—partial qualifiers were their bread and butter
ND—Tyrone Whittingham and Charlie Weiss

(07-19-2023 06:26 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’m probably going to take heat from the SEC crowd but I think a big factor was the media hype that the SEC was getting:

CBS: the SEC was their only major property and they hyped the exploits of the SEC
ESPN/ABC: despite being the rights holder of of several leagues, they treated the SEC like their darling—constantly touting SEC speed and SEC talent. Even the Big 10 alums employed by ESPN were singing the SEC’s praises.

NBC: all they had was the ND contract and obviously they promoted them.
FOX: they didn’t start broadcasting regular season CFB until late in the BCS and weren’t really a factor.

Since networks became motivated to promote the entities that they have under contract, journalistic integrity has gone out the window. There is no truly impartial reporting when you’ve got skin in the game. The hype became a self fulfilling prophesy.

You had some other factors at play too. Lots of other recent contenders were in a slump:

Miami—other programs co-opted their outlaw image and there were some years where they were facing sanctions
Florida St—Bowden was losing his edge as he aged
Penn St—see Florida St
Michigan—the Appalachian St game had a lasting impact as they struggled to find the right coach
USC—they’ve never been quite the same since the Reggie Bush sanctions
Nebraska—partial qualifiers were their bread and butter
ND—Tyrone Whittingham and Charlie Weiss

Hype is big. The XII, ACC, and Big East had the best participation in championships in the old BCS system. Then it just died!

Nice work.

To me, the most interesting set of numbers is the comparison of overall BCS participation over the time periods. BCS, because IMO what happened under the CFP was just an elaboration of patterns established under the BCS. And championship game participation is less interesting because IMO that is more about unique teams not so much the conference. For example, Clemson may have the best team while the ACC is not very good overall.

And when I look at those comparisons, what stands out to me, and IMO what answers the question about the motivation for the changes is .... the huge increase in participation by non-power teams. We see that before 2005, non-power participation was about 1.6%. After 2005, it rises to over 8%, a five-fold increase, and basically stays at that level through all the later changes, the addition of a separate title game in 2006 and the transition to the CFP in 2014.

And this comports with what I remember - circa 2004, there was much heat in Congress over lack of non-AQ participation in the BCS, so changes were made to boost that, and boost it it did.

So IMO that is the major change. I also think this was a motivation for the 2006 change (a motivation, not the main one, which IMO was $$$), a separate title game, because in effect the 2004 change meant the AQ conferences were losing a BCS spot, so the title game allowed them to boost the number of overall slots from 8 to 10.

And, during the BCS era, I don't see much change regarding the B1G and SEC. Under the pre-2005 regime, the B1G was around 20%, the SEC around 17%, not much different IMO. Under the 2004-2013 regime they equalize at 18.75%, then under 2006-2013 the SEC moves to 20% and the B1G is at 18.5%. Basically a small movement between 17% and 20% during the BCS era, with the SEC and B1G switching places within a small window.

Of course, during the CFP era, the SEC and B1G explode even more, especially the SEC, to 25%. That IMO just reflects the dominance the SEC had established by the time the BCS ended.

Referring to champ-level participation, in the BCS title game and the CFP playoffs we do see a massive swing, whereby the SEC had few participants before 2006, and a huge number after. IMO that was caused by the influx of great coaching. In the mid-2000s, you had the two best coaches since Bear Bryant, Saban (re-join) and Urban, join the SEC.

Just MO.

(07-19-2023 12:31 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  Looking at percentages only, the SEC total participation in the "big bowls" increased as the rules and system changed. The B1G, ACC, XII, and PAC saw fluctuations but were fairly steady. Looking at the BCS championship games and CFP semifinals, SEC participation has skyrocketed. B1G participation also went up dramatically. The XII plummeted. The PAC went down but not as much as the XII. The ACC saw a big dip but came back a little bit stronger.

To be clear, I am not saying that the changes caused the SEC (and B1G to a lesser extent) to have increased participation. I am also not saying the SEC isn't the best conference. I am saying there was a massive shift that occurred nearly immediately upon the changes occurring. I wonder, based upon the questions below, what benefits/detriments conferences went through because of the changes to the rules and system in place which had a long-term effect on money, perception, recruiting, and what we have today.

My questions are:
1) Who (specifically by name) raised the flag on the old BCS rules and system?
2) Who (specifically by name) proposed/introduced the new BCS rules and system?
3) Who (specifically by name) proposed/introduced the CFP rules and system?

Any other questions that have been or should be asked and answered?

--------------------------------

Looking at the BCS and CFP championships, playoffs, and bowls, it is clear the SEC is #1 and the B1G is #2. Then there is everyone else. Let's look at the numbers by conference:

BCS (4 Games: 1998-2005)

Total Game Participants
13 - B1G
11 - SEC, XII
10 - PAC
8 - ACC, Big East
2 - Notre Dame
1 - Non-Power

Championship Game Participants
5 - XII
3 - ACC, Big East
2 - PAC, SEC
1 - B1G
0 - Non-Power, Notre Dame

Non-Championship Game Participants
12 - B1G
9 - SEC
8 - PAC
6 - XII
5 - ACC, Big East
2 - Notre Dame
1 - Non-Power

/// BCS modifies formula for 2004 season ///
/// BCS shifts from 4 games to 5 games for 2006 season ///

BCS (5 Games: 2006-2013)

Total Game Participants
16 - SEC
15 - B1G
11 - PAC, XII
10 - ACC
8 - Big East
7 - Non-Power
2 - Notre Dame

Championship Game Participants
9 - SEC
2 - B1G, XII
1 - ACC, Notre Dame, PAC
0 - Big East, Non-Power

Non-Championship Game Participants
13 - B1G
10 - PAC
9 - ACC, XII
8 - Big East
7 - Non-Power, SEC
1 - Notre Dame

NY6 (6 Games - excluding NCG: 2014 - 2022)

Total Game Participants
27 - SEC
24 - B1G
16 - ACC, XII
9 - Non-Power
3 - Notre Dame
13 - PAC

CFP Participants
11 - SEC
8 - ACC, B1G
5 - XII
2 - PAC
1 - Notre Dame, Non-Power

Non-CFP Participants
16 - B1G, SEC
11 - PAC, XII
8 - ACC, Non-Power
2 - Notre Dame

--------------------------------

Let's look at the percentage of BCS/NY6 bowl participants, by conference, in each of the below time frames:

1998-2005, 8 BCS Participants (Old BCS Ranking System)
20.31% - B1G
17.19% - SEC, XII
15.63% - PAC
12.50% - ACC, Big East
3.13% - Notre Dame
1.56% - Non-Power

2004-2013, 8/10 BCS Participants (New BCS Ranking System)
18.75% - B1G, SEC
14.58% - XII
13.54% - PAC
12.50% - ACC
10.42% - Big East
8.33% - Non-Power
3.13% - Notre Dame

2006-2013, 10 BCS Participants (New BCS Ranking System)
20.00% - SEC
18.75% - B1G
13.75% - PAC, XII
12.50% - ACC
10.00% - Big East
8.75% - Non-Power
2.50% - Notre Dame

2014-2022, 12 NY6 Participants
25.00% - SEC
22.22% - B1G
14.82% - ACC, XII
12.04% - PAC
8.33% - Non-Power
2.78% - Notre Dame

--------------------------------

Let's look at the percentage of BCS championship game and CFP semifinal participants, by conference, in each of the below time frames:

1998-2005, 8 BCS Participants (Old BCS Ranking System)
31.25% - XII
18.75% - ACC, Big East
12.50% - PAC, SEC
6.25% - B1G
0.00% - Non-Power, Notre Dame

2004-2013, 8/10 BCS Participants (New BCS Ranking System)
45.00% - SEC
20.00% - XII
15.00% - PAC
10.00% - B1G
5.00% - ACC, Notre Dame
0.00% - Big East, Non-Power

2006-2013, 10 BCS Participants (New BCS Ranking System)
56.25% - SEC
12.50% - B1G, XII
6.25% - ACC, Notre Dame, PAC
0.00% - Big East, Non-Power

2014-2022, 12 NY6 Participants
30.56% - SEC
22.22% - ACC, B1G
13.89% - XII
5.56% - PAC
2.78% - Non-Power, Notre Dame

--------------------------------

Total Participation Changes by Percentage: BCS (1998-2005), BCS (2004-2013), BCS (2006-2013), CFP (2014-2022)

SEC 17.19% > 18.75% > 20.00% > 25.00%
B1G 20.31% > 18.75% > 18.75% > 22.22%
ACC 12.50% > 12.50% > 12.50% > 14.82%
XII 17.19% > 14.58% > 13.75% > 14.82%
PAC 15.63% > 13.54% > 13.75% > 12.04%
Big East 12.50% > 10.42% > 10.00% > N/A
Notre Dame 3.13% > 3.13% > 2.50% > 2.78%
Non-Power 1.56% > 8.33% > 8.75% > 8.33%

--------------------------------

Total BCS Championship / CFP Semifinal Participation Changes by Percentage: BCS (1998-2005), BCS (2004-2013), BCS (2006-2013), CFP (2014-2022)

SEC 12.50% > 45.00% > 56.25% > 30.56%
B1G 6.25% > 10.00% > 12.50% > 22.22%
ACC 18.75% > 5.00% > 6.25% > 22.22%
XII 31.25% > 20.00% > 12.50% > 13.89%
PAC 12.50% > 15.00% > 6.25% > 5.56%
Big East 18.75% > 0.00% > 0.00% > N/A
Notre Dame 0.00% > 5.00% > 6.25% > 2.78%
Non-Power 0.00% > 0.00% > 0.00% > 2.78%

--------------------------------

There are several factors at play, but there are a few major factors on both the beginning & end of the BCS era:

1) The BCS got started because bowls like the Rose Bowl often prevented the top two teams from playing one another due to either a team being locked out of the game or being locked in due to conference agreements. As a result, you had multiple teams being voted as the national champions each year. Once the BCS took over, there was a definitive title game, but...then 2003-04 happened. LSU won the title, yet USC got the AP nod, & thus the BCS system failed, requiring it to be reworked moving forward.

2) Teams like TCU & Boise St kept getting left out of the BCS title game due to lack of BCS tie-ins, despite arguably having a good enough team to take one of those spots. To make matters worse, you had close calls with in-conference rematches, ultimately culminating in the 2012 LSU-Alabama BCS title game. With enough controversy brewing, the CFP came knocking like the grim reaper, & the BCS was thrown to the wolves after 2014.

3) The biggest contributor to the SEC's rise in the second part of the BCS system was a perfect storm both inside & outside the conference. Inside, the conference has dominated the recruiting rankings for awhile now. After Urban got the party started, Saban came in & frankly made the conference & FBS his lounge in a way we haven't seen in a long time prior to UGA the last couple of seasons. If you could beat him or keep it close, you probably were going to win against anyone. Then, outside the conference, you had FSU & USC both have long hiatuses after their longtime coaches left, & Miami bottomed up in their new conference. Add to all of it that the media just views the SEC as a whole as playing on a different level, & the BCS & CFP committees seem to agree.

One of the bigger observations I see in the data is if you look at the first BCS period the ACC and BE both had 12.50% of the participants. That combines for 25%.

In the most recent era the ACC only had 14.82%. Consider that most of the original BE football conference now plays in the ACC (Syracuse, Pitt, VT, Miami, BC) that is a huge reduction in participation.

PAC's decline hasn't been that bad yet but they just lost USC/UCLA.

XII has also beeen on a decline since the 90s. They've lost 6 of their top schools; Texas, OU, TAMU, Mizzou, Nebraska, Colorado. Replaced by WVU, TCU, UC, UH, BYU and Central Florida.

Changes to the BCS happened because of the 2003 season. Oklahoma got destroyed in their title game vs Kansas St, yet finished 1st in the BCS ratings, even though they were a fairly distant 3rd in the polls. USC who was #1 got left out.

(07-20-2023 10:52 AM)stever20 Wrote:  Changes to the BCS happened because of the 2003 season. Oklahoma got destroyed in their title game vs Kansas St, yet finished 1st in the BCS ratings, even though they were a fairly distant 3rd in the polls. USC who was #1 got left out.

I understand the rationale that was provided. It just seems short-sighted to overhaul a system for one obscure data point (however significant.)

For additional information, by school:

BCS NCG / CFP Semifinals
10 - Alabama
8 - Ohio St, Oklahoma
6 - Clemson
5 - Florida St
4 - LSU
3 - Georgia, Notre Dame
2 - Auburn, Florida, Miami, Michigan, Oregon, Texas, USC
1 - Cincinnati, Michigan St, Nebraska, TCU, Tennessee, Virginia Tech, Washington

Non-BCS NCG / CFP Semifinals
11 - Ohio St
8 - Florida, USC, Wisconsin
7 - Michigan, Oklahoma
6 - Florida St, Georgia, Oregon, Penn St, Stanford
5 - Notre Dame, Virginia Tech
4 - Alabama, Baylor, Utah
3 - Auburn, Boise St, Central Florida, Cincinnati, Clemson, Iowa, Kansas St, LSU, Miami, Michigan St, Mississippi, Oklahoma St, TCU, Texas, Washington, West Virginia
2 - Georgia Tech, Illinois, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Tennessee, Texas A&M
1 - Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Houston, Iowa St, Kansas, Maryland, Memphis, Mississippi St, Nebraska, North Carolina, Northern Illinois, Oregon St, Purdue, Syracuse, Tulane, UCLA, Virginia, Wake Forest, Washington St, Western Michigan

-------------------------------

Every school which has participated in a BCS NCG or CFP Semifinal has also appeared in a non-BCS NCG / CFP Semifinal. Here are those schools in reverse appearances in non-BCS NCG / CFP Semifinals:
1 - Nebraska
2 - Tennessee
3 - Auburn, Cincinnati, Clemson, LSU, Miami, Michigan St, TCU, Texas, Washington
4 - Alabama
5 - Notre Dame, Virginia Tech
6 - Florida St, Georgia, Oregon
7 - Michigan, Oklahoma
8 - Florida, USC
11 - Ohio St

These are the schools who have appeared in Non-BCS NCG / CFP Semifinals without an appearance in a Non-BCS NCG / CFP Semifinals (in order of appearances):
8 - Wisconsin
6 - Penn St, Stanford
4 - Baylor, Utah
3 - Boise St, Central Florida, Iowa, Kansas St, Mississippi, Oklahoma St, West Virginia
2 - Georgia Tech, Illinois, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Texas A&M
1 - Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Houston, Iowa St, Kansas, Maryland, Memphis, Mississippi St, North Carolina, Northern Illinois, Oregon St, Purdue, Syracuse, Tulane, UCLA, Virginia, Wake Forest, Washington St, Western Michigan

It was also about this time that protections from the officials for the BCS cash cows went to another level. Games involving highly ranked teams weren't worth watching. They still aren't for the most part.

I wonder if the Big Ten signing with FOX has caused ESPN to become more SEC biased. ESPN still broadcast Big Ten games up to last season but they hadn't aired Michigan-Ohio State since FOX started their contract and I don't think it's a coincidence that they've ramped up their SEC bias since then, even more since the "Big Nooner"s started. Now in the first five years of the CFP non SEC teams won three of five years (one by Ohio State!) but the SEC has now won four straight with Alabama only having won once.

We know this year ESPN will get more SEC biased and come 2024 when they can air games on ABC it will be more biased.

(07-20-2023 04:35 PM)schmolik Wrote:  I wonder if the Big Ten signing with FOX has caused ESPN to become more SEC biased. ESPN still broadcast Big Ten games up to last season but they hadn't aired Michigan-Ohio State since FOX started their contract and I don't think it's a coincidence that they've ramped up their SEC bias since then, even more since the "Big Nooner"s started. Now in the first five years of the CFP non SEC teams won three of five years (one by Ohio State!) but the SEC has now won four straight with Alabama only having won once.

We know this year ESPN will get more SEC biased and come 2024 when they can air games on ABC it will be more biased.

SEC did not have the brand that it does now 30 years ago as the elite FB conference.

I definitely thing the ESPN machinery tilted toward elitism and the all mighty dollar has had an effect of shaping that perception.

SEC was still the best FB conference prior to that but it was not nationally known to all sports fans. CFB football fans from the south knew the score.

(07-20-2023 05:22 PM)Garden_KC Wrote:  

(07-20-2023 04:35 PM)schmolik Wrote:  I wonder if the Big Ten signing with FOX has caused ESPN to become more SEC biased. ESPN still broadcast Big Ten games up to last season but they hadn't aired Michigan-Ohio State since FOX started their contract and I don't think it's a coincidence that they've ramped up their SEC bias since then, even more since the "Big Nooner"s started. Now in the first five years of the CFP non SEC teams won three of five years (one by Ohio State!) but the SEC has now won four straight with Alabama only having won once.

We know this year ESPN will get more SEC biased and come 2024 when they can air games on ABC it will be more biased.

SEC did not have the brand that it does now 30 years ago as the elite FB conference.

I definitely thing the ESPN machinery tilted toward elitism and the all mighty dollar has had an effect of shaping that perception.

SEC was still the best FB conference prior to that but it was not nationally known to all sports fans. CFB football fans from the south knew the score.

It became known when the B1G and PAC weren't able to hide their champs in the Rose Bowl, anymore. The media like their markets too much to ruin it.

(07-20-2023 05:32 PM)Porcine Wrote:  

(07-20-2023 05:22 PM)Garden_KC Wrote:  

(07-20-2023 04:35 PM)schmolik Wrote:  I wonder if the Big Ten signing with FOX has caused ESPN to become more SEC biased. ESPN still broadcast Big Ten games up to last season but they hadn't aired Michigan-Ohio State since FOX started their contract and I don't think it's a coincidence that they've ramped up their SEC bias since then, even more since the "Big Nooner"s started. Now in the first five years of the CFP non SEC teams won three of five years (one by Ohio State!) but the SEC has now won four straight with Alabama only having won once.

We know this year ESPN will get more SEC biased and come 2024 when they can air games on ABC it will be more biased.

SEC did not have the brand that it does now 30 years ago as the elite FB conference.

I definitely thing the ESPN machinery tilted toward elitism and the all mighty dollar has had an effect of shaping that perception.

SEC was still the best FB conference prior to that but it was not nationally known to all sports fans. CFB football fans from the south knew the score.

It became known when the B1G and PAC weren't able to hide their champs in the Rose Bowl, anymore. The media like their markets too much to ruin it.

This is one reason why in expansion theory the Big 10 doesn't want to just expand with the PAC 12 schools. If they did and the SEC expanded with just the ACC schools, or another Big 12 school, that dominance would become even more prominent and there would literally be no way to disguise it. The reality is that the preponderance of talent for football is in the Southeast and Southwest. That doesn't mean there are not good players elsewhere, there are. It just means there are sufficient numbers of them to make the PAC and Big 10 competitive even between their own conference members. In the Southeast and Southwest there are enough solid athletes to make conference play competitive. It has in the SEC, it has in the Big 12, and it does in the Southernmost ACC schools.

(07-20-2023 05:22 PM)Garden_KC Wrote:  SEC did not have the brand that it does now 30 years ago as the elite FB conference.

I definitely thing the ESPN machinery tilted toward elitism and the all mighty dollar has had an effect of shaping that perception.

SEC was still the best FB conference prior to that but it was not nationally known to all sports fans. CFB football fans from the south knew the score.

They did win seven consecutive BCS national championship games 2006-2012. Were there complaints of SEC bias back then? I remember a column about the Big Ten realizing FOX was an alternative and maybe now that's why Big Ten fans are waking up. CBS has always been SEC biased but they cover SEC games, they're supposed to. ESPN covers the SEC but ABC (their supposed largest viewership although at times ESPN games do outdraw ABC games) doesn't (at least not until next year) and the expectation is that they should be more neutral. Certainly you can argue that FOX should also respect the other conferences it has media deals with but if you look at TV ratings of the Big Ten vs. the Pac 12 or Big 12 (especially Michigan-Ohio State) I think it's perfectly reasonable for FOX to favor the Big Ten. Meanwhile the most watched regular season game on an ESPN network in 2022? Notre Dame-OHIO STATE and it wasn't even close.

This has probably been mentioned by now but the consolidation of the decision-making for the spots in the CFP & NY6 games has played a major role.

Were the old poles and computers perfect or even the right system? Hell no.

But the massive shift from 100s of voters and 6 computers making a decision to 13 people changed things dramatically. See the first year of the CFP (2014) for all the evidence you need.

It is undeniable that the SEC stepped up its game starting in the 2006 season, playing in nearly every national championship game since then.

But the smaller group of decision-makers has significantly helped SEC programs not named Alabama or Georgia (and most Big Ten programs) make more NY6 appearances than they deserve, thus helping to build their recruiting and overall strength of their programs and conferences.

Even with the advent of the expanded playoff, they really need to address the selections. It should probably be a balance of the AP Poll, Computers and Selection Committee. Maybe weight the committee to have 40% of the power?

(07-21-2023 09:11 AM)Metropolis777 Wrote:  This has probably been mentioned by now but the consolidation of the decision-making for the spots in the CFP & NY6 games has played a major role.

Were the old poles and computers perfect or even the right system? Hell no.

But the massive shift from 100s of voters and 6 computers making a decision to 13 people changed things dramatically. See the first year of the CFP (2014) for all the evidence you need.

It is undeniable that the SEC stepped up its game starting in the 2006 season, playing in nearly every national championship game since then.

But the smaller group of decision-makers has significantly helped SEC programs not named Alabama or Georgia (and most Big Ten programs) make more NY6 appearances than they deserve, thus helping to build their recruiting and overall strength of their programs and conferences.

Even with the advent of the expanded playoff, they really need to address the selections. It should probably be a balance of the AP Poll, Computers and Selection Committee. Maybe weight the committee to have 40% of the power?

Well, SEC teams not named UGA or ALA are 8-6 in NY6 games. The Big 12, PAC and ACC are all under .500. The B1G is 14-12.

So the other SEC teams have a better NY6 win % than any of the other conferences, even the B1G with Ohio State included.

So IMO, it is probably the case that SEC teams have been left out that should have been in. For example, last year LSU beat Alabama and Alabama crushed Kansas State in the NY6, but the rules said Kansas State had to be in.

And does anyone think Tulane could have beat LSU? LSU probably had 90% of the good players on their combined rosters.