(03-18-2019 01:03 PM)cubucks Wrote: Reading the article it states that maybe Dates are just as much a factor as actual teams playing?
Anyways, could it be a bit repetitive and fans losing interest with the same teams? Maybe, but, isn't a playoff supposed to feature the best teams?
As mentioned before, there are 4 teams in the playoff. That means 2 teams have a chance to knock off Clemson and Alabama and end this but it hasn't happened. I still watch though! Why? Because I'm a fan of college football period. Not a conference fanboy like so many, just college football.
Plus, when in college football have we had 2 actual dynasties playing out right before our eyes? That's pretty cool, right? I could really care less for Clemson or Alabama, but, its college football so I'm sold and I'm watching.
Yes the dates matter as to ratings.
Yes the casual viewers have Bama / Clemson fatigue.
Yes the best teams should be included. But that is horribly subjective isn't it?
We aren't moving to 8 playoff teams for games with even poorer ratings the 2nd weekend in December and because having two games has already led to traveling crowd fatigue we aren't moving to 3. And because as along as ESPN owns the most post season bowls they will be in opposition.
So in short the solution is not what people want to hear, but it is what I've been for since the CFP was announced, a 4 champs model. Does that mean that the PAC champion is better than an SEC or Big 10 #2? No. But it does mean they are the best competitor the PAC can muster. And in some years a particular conference can be brutal and what might be the overall champ could have 2 or 3 losses. Excluding someone's champion prevents fair comparisons sometimes. Including them means eyeballs from the West coast which means better ratings. Right now the ACC is a one team league. Nobody there is going to challenge Clemson anytime soon, so getting the Tigers in is currently not a problem. The burnout in the SEC is that even when Alabama has failed to win a division or conference title they are still in. Ditto for Ohio State in the Big 10. So fans at schools who did win their conference but didn't get in is beginning to wear on this format. Just ask Penn State folks.
So what needs to happen? We need to quit worrying about the damned OOC games and put our total emphasis on making winning your conference even more of a determining factor. And we need to reduce the P5 to a P4 even if that means larger per conference payouts from the media outlets to get there.
What does it do for the networks? It guarantees, as I pointed out years ago, that all 4 regions of the country stay involved at least through the semi-finals. It puts major emphasis on conference races throughout the season (which is also needed and is more profitable than Oregon flying across the country to play Auburn or vice versa). And it provides the players with a press free, pontificator free, committee free clear path to the championship. Win your division. Win your conference. Earn a shot at the title.
In spite of all of the red hot rocket aces we have around here coming up with complex, judgmental, scenarios that include merely expanding the selection from 4 subjective schools to 3 subjective schools and 5 AQ's doesn't cut it.
It adds the risk of injury, it calls upon fans to shell out more, it calls for more travel, it calls for less emphasis on bowls, and it would occur at the time of year most employers aren't going to let folks off.
Occam's Razor says move to a P4 and champs only format. It should have been done years ago.