Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Why is the College Football Playoff Losing Viewers... STUPID QUESTION!
Author Message
cubucks Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,158
Joined: Apr 2015
Reputation: 440
I Root For: tOSU/UNL/Ohio
Location: Athens, Ohio
Post: #21
RE: Why is the College Football Playoff Losing Viewers... STUPID QUESTION!
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.
03-18-2019 01:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,901
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #22
RE: Why is the College Football Playoff Losing Viewers... STUPID QUESTION!
(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.
(This post was last modified: 03-18-2019 02:21 PM by JRsec.)
03-18-2019 02:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
curtis0620 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,943
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 60
I Root For: Pitt
Location:
Post: #23
RE: Why is the College Football Playoff Losing Viewers... STUPID QUESTION!
If you're not going to have a real playoff, go back to just bowl games.
03-18-2019 02:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,335
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 1211
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #24
RE: Why is the College Football Playoff Losing Viewers... STUPID QUESTION!
(03-18-2019 02:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(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. 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.

The only problem I have with any of that is that I don't think you can get there from here. You can't force schools to realign in ways they don't want, and nobody is going to move just to "take one for the team".

Unless conferences like the SEC and B1G, which are currently "winning" conference alignment, are prepared to accept being on more or less equal footing with regard to media revenues, it's hard to see how a P4 is going to form. More likely, we would have a P2 and a p2 and a whole lot of schools left out of the game entirely.

I would have to be satisfied with the status quo, and just move to a model where very few OOC are played except for traditional regional rivalries (or rivalries like ND vs USC). Leave the interconference games to the post season as it was years ago. But even that may be difficult. If we went to 10 game conference schedules (which I would love to see), there would be no room for those rivalry games unless the schools are willing to forego the 7th home game they now enjoy. Would Georgia do that, or Florida?

One reason why there are so many different realignment scenarios out there is because there isn't one that addresses structural competitive imbalances. Without a czar empowered to move schools around against their will, nothing is going to change that. There will be no cooperative realignment to create an optimal solution. There will only be competitive realignment with far more losers than winners. Schools that want that should be careful what they wish for.
03-18-2019 02:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Stugray2 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,176
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 679
I Root For: tOSU SJSU Stan'
Location: South Bay Area CA
Post: #25
RE: Why is the College Football Playoff Losing Viewers... STUPID QUESTION!
(03-16-2019 07:31 PM)Big Ron Buckeye Wrote:  https://www.thecoli.com/threads/why-is-t...rs.697362/

Really stupid question here. Everyone is tired of watching Bama v Clemson. I won't watch a playoff without a B1G school in the field. If there are more people like me (and I'm sure there are) the left coast and the northern states haven't had a dog in the fight the last few years so why would they expect us to tune in.

A lot of truth in this. So long as the Playoff is dominated by only the Southeast, then 2/3rds of the country has zero rooting interest. The Playoffs need geographic distribution. Schools from the Midwest, Plains and West need to make the Championship game on a regular basis, not just the South.
03-18-2019 02:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
cubucks Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,158
Joined: Apr 2015
Reputation: 440
I Root For: tOSU/UNL/Ohio
Location: Athens, Ohio
Post: #26
RE: Why is the College Football Playoff Losing Viewers... STUPID QUESTION!
(03-18-2019 02:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(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.
Agree with winning your conference first.
When Florida plays Florida State more than they play their own conference peers, I see a real problem with this. Not picking on Florida or Florida State, there are many teams where this happens.
10 conference games and get rid of divisions could fix a lot of this. Makes for a true conference champ.
My 2 cents of what could be an easy fix from how I look at it.
03-18-2019 03:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CliftonAve Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 21,880
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 1171
I Root For: Jimmy Nippert
Location:
Post: #27
RE: Why is the College Football Playoff Losing Viewers... STUPID QUESTION!
(03-18-2019 02:56 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  
(03-16-2019 07:31 PM)Big Ron Buckeye Wrote:  https://www.thecoli.com/threads/why-is-t...rs.697362/

Really stupid question here. Everyone is tired of watching Bama v Clemson. I won't watch a playoff without a B1G school in the field. If there are more people like me (and I'm sure there are) the left coast and the northern states haven't had a dog in the fight the last few years so why would they expect us to tune in.

A lot of truth in this. So long as the Playoff is dominated by only the Southeast, then 2/3rds of the country has zero rooting interest. The Playoffs need geographic distribution. Schools from the Midwest, Plains and West need to make the Championship game on a regular basis, not just the South.

Of course. Not that I am advocating for a 64 team football playoff, but imagine if the NCAA Tournament just cut the championship off at Duke, UNC, Virginia and Gonzaga this year? Only a fraction of the number of people would be interested.

Need to move CFP to 8 with automatic bids to reflect regional diversity of the nation to capture a larger audience.
03-18-2019 03:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,901
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #28
RE: Why is the College Football Playoff Losing Viewers... STUPID QUESTION!
(03-18-2019 02:47 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(03-18-2019 02:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(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. 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.

The only problem I have with any of that is that I don't think you can get there from here. You can't force schools to realign in ways they don't want, and nobody is going to move just to "take one for the team".

Unless conferences like the SEC and B1G, which are currently "winning" conference alignment, are prepared to accept being on more or less equal footing with regard to media revenues, it's hard to see how a P4 is going to form. More likely, we would have a P2 and a p2 and a whole lot of schools left out of the game entirely.

I would have to be satisfied with the status quo, and just move to a model where very few OOC are played except for traditional regional rivalries (or rivalries like ND vs USC). Leave the interconference games to the post season as it was years ago. But even that may be difficult. If we went to 10 game conference schedules (which I would love to see), there would be no room for those rivalry games unless the schools are willing to forego the 7th home game they now enjoy. Would Georgia do that, or Florida?

One reason why there are so many different realignment scenarios out there is because there isn't one that addresses structural competitive imbalances. Without a czar empowered to move schools around against their will, nothing is going to change that. There will be no cooperative realignment to create an optimal solution. There will only be competitive realignment with far more losers than winners. Schools that want that should be careful what they wish for.

You are imposing factors I purposefully left out of the discussion.

For me a P4 doesn't mean 4 equal conferences of 16. It doesn't mean we have to include everyone from the Big 12 in the new P4. What it means is we move to a structure of 4 conferences the champions of which will annually play for a title.

Market forces take care of needing a czar and natural selection works from there. Is it cruel? No. It's business and that's what all of these programs are. Will it mean equitable revenue? No, nor should it. If UNC doesn't want to invest in football at a rate to be competitive that's their business, and not the problem of the SEC or Big 10 to address.

If the Big 12 were to be parsed it is not inconceivable that value would be found in their top 5 schools for some conferences. Texas and Oklahoma are no brainers for everyone. Kansas would augment some conferences and not do much for others. Iowa State is in the bottom 5 of the present 65 and too remote from the PAC. Yeah they would have problems. Baylor has made itself a social poison. Somebody will take T.C.U. for the markets. West Virginia in spite of past feelings would be a solid economic addition to the ACC. Texas probably covers for Tech. Oklahoma may not be able to cover for OSU. And Kansas State would have their issues as well.

But in the end nothing would significantly alter the PAC, ACC, Big 10 or SEC and market wise if the SEC covers Texas it doesn't impact the ratings business a bit.

Tough? Yes. Practical? Yes. Workable? Yes.
03-18-2019 03:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,335
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 1211
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #29
RE: Why is the College Football Playoff Losing Viewers... STUPID QUESTION!
(03-18-2019 02:25 PM)curtis0620 Wrote:  If you're not going to have a real playoff, go back to just bowl games.

I would like nothing more, but the toothpaste is already out of that tube. I wouldn't have any problem with eliminating the CFP semifinals, and replacing them with conference semifinals. Then select the two "best" teams from among the conference champions by whatever metric you want to use and let them have it out in prime time after the traditional NY bowl games are played. Or better yet, just have the bowls work the way they did before the BCS.

Who cares if we call that "national championship" mythical? It worked just fine for decades. It might leave some money on the table compared with the current model, but the schools for whom that matters really don't need the money anyway. I'd be willing to bet that the SEC teams wouldn't lose much money if they added UT and OU to their lineup.
(This post was last modified: 03-18-2019 03:49 PM by ken d.)
03-18-2019 03:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DavidSt Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,011
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 732
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #30
RE: Why is the College Football Playoff Losing Viewers... STUPID QUESTION!
Instead of using Bowl sites for quarter finals and semi-finals? Let the games played at the home site, or neutral site in the area for the fans to travel?

Clemson
Alabama
Notre Dame
Oklahoma
UCF
Ohio State
Washington
Fresno State or Georgia


#1 Alabama home vs #8 Washington
#2 Clermson vs #7 Fresno State/Georgia
#3 Notre Dame vs #6 Ohio State
#4 Oklahoma vs UCF

Winner of #1 vs #8 takes on winner of #4 vs #5
#2 vs #7 winner takes on winner of #3 vs #6 winner

Lets say Alabama and UCF face each other in the semis and Ohio State faces Clemson? Alabama and Clemson are home teams.
Than the championship game would be the bowl game that would switch between the 5 major bowl sites.
Championship game could be UCF knocks off Alabama and Clemson knocks off Ohio State? You would have a Cinderella team of UCF in football like Butler, Gonzaga and Villanova in men's basketball.
03-18-2019 03:12 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kaplony Offline
Palmetto State Deplorable

Posts: 25,393
Joined: Apr 2013
I Root For: Newberry
Location: SC
Post: #31
RE: Why is the College Football Playoff Losing Viewers... STUPID QUESTION!
(03-18-2019 02:56 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The Playoffs need geographic distribution. Schools from the Midwest, Plains and West need to make the Championship game on a regular basis, not just the South.

There's been teams from every single region you listed in the playoffs. They are a combined 3-8 with the three wins all coming in the first year of the playoff. Since then the overwhelming majority of the games haven't been close.
03-18-2019 03:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.