Bowl games & TV ratings

Donate To GopherHole
Jike Spingleton

Jike Spingleton

Traveling Champ
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
6,509
Reaction score
72
Points
48
I understand the average fan's frustration at the lack of a college football playoff, but missing from the oft-cited reasons to stick with bowl games (travel, time constraints, student-athlete concerns) is this: bowl games do very well in TV ratings.

http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/01/12/bowl-game-audiences-grow-on-abc-espn-and-espn2/38602

Of course, people will say that a playoff will provide much larger numbers. And they will, for those seven games or so. There's no way the Emerald Bowl (!) draws 7.5+ million viewers in the middle of a playoff.

It all comes down to money, and right now, the bowl system is doing very well.
 

A bowl/playoff hybrid makes some sense: four teams play in two rotating bowls and the winners play for the BCS a week or two later. Frankly, I'm happy with the two-team playoff we have now - definitely don't want eight or sixteen teams as in lower divisions. No matter how many teams participate, the next several on any list will complain they were unfairly left out - as true for sixteen as eight or four. Plus I like the bowls and always have...
 

Great Plains Gopher said:
A bowl/playoff hybrid makes some sense: four teams play in two rotating bowls and the winners play for the BCS a week or two later. Frankly, I'm happy with the two-team playoff we have now - definitely don't want eight or sixteen teams as in lower divisions. No matter how many teams participate, the next several on any list will complain they were unfairly left out - as true for sixteen as eight or four. Plus I like the bowls and always have...
Click to expand...

With all due respect, I think the "no matter how many teams participate, someone will be upset they didn't get in" argument is very week. Yes, of course that is true. But you honestly can't say that debating who the 16th team in a 16-team tournament is the same as debating who should be the second team in a the NC like it is now. A "bubble team" in a 16-team tourney will have several losses, meaning the team could have done more to get themselves in. However, how it is now, as many as 3 or 4 teams can go undefeated and not get a chance to play for the NC.
 

GophersInIowa said:
With all due respect, I think the "no matter how many teams participate, someone will be upset they didn't get in" argument is very week. Yes, of course that is true. But you honestly can't say that debating who the 16th team in a 16-team tournament is the same as debating who should be the second team in a the NC like it is now. A "bubble team" in a 16-team tourney will have several losses, meaning the team could have done more to get themselves in. However, how it is now, as many as 3 or 4 teams can go undefeated and not get a chance to play for the NC.
Click to expand...

+1

There are bubble teams for the NCAA basketball tourney every year. A lot of them have very good reasons to be very pissed for not getting selected to play in the tournament. It is rare or maybe NEVER that any of the bubble teams being left out argue that they just lost a real chance at a national championship.

A 16 team tourney would be the same way for football. Every year there would be deserving teams left out but overall everyone could live with that a lot easier than having an undefeated or one loss power left out because they didn't have enough style points to be placed in the NC game.
 

I prefer an 8 team tournament, where only the conference champions participate. The top 8 conference champions go to the tournament, the bottom three are eliminated. It's small enough to still leave plenty of room for the bowls. One of the common objections to a tournament is that it would devalue the regular season. This tournament, however, would enhance the regular season, as only conference champions could participate. The opening round would be at the higher-seeded team's field, so teams who had already clinched the championship (in conferences that had no championship game) would have no incentive to pull their starters, as this could cost them home field.

It would leave out three conference champions, but even so, all a team from the lower-tier conferences has to do to have a chance at the playoffs is to beat out three of the other champions. That's a better shot at a national championship than they would get under the BCS system.

Notre Dame is the sticking point though. My system doesn't factor them in. If they joined a conference, this would be resolved. It would be unfair if Notre Dame could get in by simply being ranked more highly than the #8 conference champion. But a tournament that left them out would never get supported. If I were in charge, I might compromise and let one independent (in principle, it could be Army or Navy) get in if they were more highly ranked than the #4 conference champion.
 


I like the 8 team idea but take the conference champ from the 6 BCS schools and 2 at-large teams. At least one at-large team must be a non BCS team.
 

According to Rittenbergs ESPN blog, the Insight Bowl had the lowest viewership of all 34 bowls (not surprising given that it was on the NFL Network).
 

one site

8 teams all go to the same bowl site, not any of the current 'name bowls',
play 2 games on Thurs and 2 on Fri and the championship on Sun, well conditioned teams will perform better even after a couple days rest

it's more like the banging in the dance, no time to recoup, and it gets away from the expense arguments but might not be as profitable as stringing it out over three weeks, but hey, 99% of these guys are students, should be in class, and 'will be going professional in something other than sports'...
 

I say 16 teams with conference champions and at large teams seeded (use the polls if you want). Play the first round (8 games) in November or early December at the home field of the higher seed (how much fun would those games be? Georgia AT Wisconsin, Penn State AT USC, etc. etc.). That leaves 8 teams to play in four BCS bowl games on New Year's Day... Sugar Bowl, Orange Bowl, Rose Bowl, and Fiesta Bowl. Now down to four teams to play off over the following 1.5 to 2 weeks for a real champion.

The rest of the crappy non-bcs bowls could be played as they always have with all but the 8 teams advancing to the BCS bowls. Brutt would still get to hold their Sun Bowl while the Rose Bowl and other BCS bowls would suddenly have the importance they deserve EVERY year.
 



idagopher said:
8 teams all go to the same bowl site, not any of the current 'name bowls',
play 2 games on Thurs and 2 on Fri and the championship on Sun, well conditioned teams will perform better even after a couple days rest

it's more like the banging in the dance, no time to recoup, and it gets away from the expense arguments but might not be as profitable as stringing it out over three weeks, but hey, 99% of these guys are students, should be in class, and 'will be going professional in something other than sports'...
Click to expand...

I can scarcely discern your argument through your barely-intelligible dialect, but if I am reading your post correctly, are you honestly advocating playing 2 football games in 3 days? With one day's rest?

I have seen some real doozies on this board over the last few years, but we may have a new frontrunner, ladies and gentlemen.
 

RodentRampage said:
I prefer an 8 team tournament, where only the conference champions participate. The top 8 conference champions go to the tournament, the bottom three are eliminated. It's small enough to still leave plenty of room for the bowls. One of the common objections to a tournament is that it would devalue the regular season. This tournament, however, would enhance the regular season, as only conference champions could participate. The opening round would be at the higher-seeded team's field, so teams who had already clinched the championship (in conferences that had no championship game) would have no incentive to pull their starters, as this could cost them home field.

It would leave out three conference champions, but even so, all a team from the lower-tier conferences has to do to have a chance at the playoffs is to beat out three of the other champions. That's a better shot at a national championship than they would get under the BCS system.

Notre Dame is the sticking point though. My system doesn't factor them in. If they joined a conference, this would be resolved. It would be unfair if Notre Dame could get in by simply being ranked more highly than the #8 conference champion. But a tournament that left them out would never get supported. If I were in charge, I might compromise and let one independent (in principle, it could be Army or Navy) get in if they were more highly ranked than the #4 conference champion.
Click to expand...

I am in favor of 8 teams over 16 as well. It pays some heed to the College Presidents claim that a play-off would be 'too hard on the student-athletes' as well as trying to keep the Bowls relevant. However, I have a couple issues with what you propose.

Not only does your system not factor Notre Dame in, but basing it entirely on Conference Championships would render the non-conference largely irrelevant. Does anyone really think Florida should have been left out of an 8-team play-off this year in favor of the Sunbelt or Mac champion? If Iowa goes 1-3 in the non-conference but goes 7-1 and beats Minnesota to win the Big 10 at 8-4, 7-1, should they get in over an 11-1, 7-1 Minnesota? My proposal would simply be to keep the BCS, let the top 8 teams in, with the exception that if there is a 'non-BCS' school ranked between 9-12 they get the 8th spot, thereby allowing for season when a Boise State or Troy goes undefeated but still can't crack the top 8. No exceptions for Notre Dame. If they crack the top 8, fine. If not, tough beans.

I can see the argument of such an arrangement potentially rendering this year's Florida-Alabama game or an OSU-Michigan game irrelevant. However, if the top 4 seeds get home games, I think that would be remedied. You might enter that game knowing you'll be in the top 8 no matter what. But it's unlikely you could be very confident you'd remain in the top 4 with a loss.

As for when it occurs: The quater-finals the first week-end in December at home sites of the higher seeds so as to not interfere with Finals. The conferences that play championship games have to move them up. It interferes with Thanksgiving tradional games then. Too bad, not my problem. The Semi-Finals at 2 of the current 4 BCS sites on January 2nd and 3rd. The other two host the 3rd place game and a pairing of two of the quarterfinal losers on New Year's Day. The National Championship our January 10th at the site of 1 of the two non-semifinal bowls (so as not to give 1 team an advantage.) All other Bowls proceed as normal.
 

This year proved that a four team playoff would solve absolutely nothing. In fact it would have made things much, much worse.
 

Schnauzer said:
I say 16 teams with conference champions and at large teams seeded (use the polls if you want). Play the first round (8 games) in November or early December at the home field of the higher seed (how much fun would those games be? Georgia AT Wisconsin, Penn State AT USC, etc. etc.). That leaves 8 teams to play in four BCS bowl games on New Year's Day... Sugar Bowl, Orange Bowl, Rose Bowl, and Fiesta Bowl. Now down to four teams to play off over the following 1.5 to 2 weeks for a real champion.

The rest of the crappy non-bcs bowls could be played as they always have with all but the 8 teams advancing to the BCS bowls. Brutt would still get to hold their Sun Bowl while the Rose Bowl and other BCS bowls would suddenly have the importance they deserve EVERY year.
Click to expand...

From what I've heard, the southern schools, SEC schools in particular would not be interested in any playoff proposal that doesn't "maintain the integrity of the existing bowl system". You can read this as, we want a play-off, but only if it keeps our teams playing very near their homes. I think you'd have a real challenge getting those schools to play away games.

I think the challenge of putting a playoff in place will persist for a long time to come. If I were a University President at say Baylor, why would I agree to a change? My team stands a better shot at getting a miracle Big XII Championship that gets us a memorable game in the Fiesta Bowl than winning the conference and advancing to a National Title game via a playoff. If I am the President at Baylor, I'm thinking that, in short, a Conf Title and a BCS loss is greater than a conference title and 2nd round playoff loss. Would anyone remember Northwestern's Rose Bowl year if they went out to LA and got stomped by SC in a first round game? Would anyone from Boise State care about the Oklahoma miracle if they went to Baton Rouge the next week and got rolled by LSU? From a fundraising standpoint, the present system would also seem a better fit. Given the real economics of todays system, I'd be that I'd get more fundraising milage from Northwestern's Rose Bowl season than the above mentioned loss in round 1. If I were a President of a non-power program, I would only vote for a playoff that provides me with a significant increase in earnings over the present system, the system reduces scholarships to a level low enough to allow my school to compete and if there is a set cap on spending on programs. I think a playoff in all its discussed forms today simply creates and builds a system where the very few blueblood programs thrive and the remaining programs simply drop in relevance and the ability to compete. I think fans clamoring for a playoff would be disappointed in the end to see the same teams over and over again. That would in turn open up further debate on how to expand the tournament further... I think a playoff is a tough sell, and I'm glad for it. The only change I would support would be the "Plus 1 format".
 



8 team playoff-6 BCS conference champs + 2 at large teams(1 must be non BCS, or some good chance of getting in).

1st round the week following regular season at higher seed home.

Semi finals between Christmas and New Years Day-neutral field

Champ game after NYs as it is now-neutral field

Keep the major bowl games on New Years Day. Rose, Sugar, Orange and Fiesta(?) with same match-ups.

This would mean Rose Bowl would pit B10 runner-up vs Pac 10 runner-up and so forth.
Still good match-up.

Best of both worlds?
 

station19 said:
8 team playoff-6 BCS conference champs + 2 at large teams(1 must be non BCS, or some good chance of getting in).

1st round the week following regular season at higher seed home.

Semi finals between Christmas and New Years Day-neutral field

Champ game after NYs as it is now-neutral field

Keep the major bowl games on New Years Day. Rose, Sugar, Orange and Fiesta(?) with same match-ups.

This would mean Rose Bowl would pit B10 runner-up vs Pac 10 runner-up and so forth.
Still good match-up.

Best of both worlds?
Click to expand...

This year such a plan would have left out Florida. And it would have included Boise State, TCU, Cincy and Georgia Tech (but not Iowa). Why should the SEC and Big Ten ever agree to such an arrangement?
 

Goldmember said:
This year such a plan would have left out Florida. And it would have included Boise State, TCU, Cincy and Georgia Tech (but not Iowa). Why should the SEC and Big Ten ever agree to such an arrangement?
Click to expand...

Actually Florida would be an at-large team in this scenario. You have a point about the other teams you mentioned but it is similar to the way the NCAA BB tournament started. Only the conference champ made the tournament. That is why when the Gophers had Lou Hudson and Archie Clark and were ranked as high as third nationally they didn't make the tournament because Michigan had Cazzie Russell and crew.

Every BCS team would have a chance to play their way in by winning their conference and NC games would be important for a possible at-large berth. This would also leave good match-ups for the major bowl games.

This year Iowa would probably have gone to the Rose Bowl instead of that STUPID BCS Bowl game for what 8th or 9th place?

Just my brainstorming thoughts.
 

I love the bowl games. The playoffs wouldn't make me watch them more, since I already watch as many as I can. When Minnesota gets to the top 5ish then I'll start worrying about +1's and what not. I just don't have a lot invested in whether team d,e or f should get a shot.
 

station19 said:
Actually Florida would be an at-large team in this scenario. You have a point about the other teams you mentioned but it is similar to the way the NCAA BB tournament started. Only the conference champ made the tournament. That is why when the Gophers had Lou Hudson and Archie Clark and were ranked as high as third nationally they didn't make the tournament because Michigan had Cazzie Russell and crew.

Every BCS team would have a chance to play their way in by winning their conference and NC games would be important for a possible at-large berth. This would also leave good match-ups for the major bowl games.

This year Iowa would probably have gone to the Rose Bowl instead of that STUPID BCS Bowl game for what 8th or 9th place?

Just my brainstorming thoughts.
Click to expand...

My tournament idea this year would include these teams (with today's AP rank)

Georgia Tech (13)
Ohio State (5)
Texas (2)
Cincinnati (8)
Oregon (11)
Alabama (1)
at-large Florida (3)
at-large TCU(6) or Boise St(4)...tough to leave one of them out

conference runners-up go to major bowl games
 

station19 said:
My tournament idea this year would include these teams (with today's AP rank)
...
at-large TCU(6) or Boise St(4)...tough to leave one of them out
Click to expand...

Wait! Seeding a hypothetical playoff based on post-seson AP rankings is totally cheating. :)

Here's the final BCS Standings. These would have to be the rankings that your playoff is based-on.

Boise State gets left-out of this 8-team playoff despite being undefeated and on a 43-game winning streak. And that's just the controversey from this year.

Here's how your system would have shook-out in 2008:
Big 12 = Oklahoma (12-1) #2
SEC = Florida (12-1) #2
ACC = Georgia Tech (9-3) #15
Big East= Cincinnati (11-2) #12
Pac Ten = USC (11-1) #5
Big Ten = Penn State (11-1) #8
At-Large 1 = Texas (11-1) #3
At-Large 2 = Alabama (12-1) #4

Left Out:
#6 Utah (12-0)
#7 Texas Tech (11-1)
#9 Boise State (12-0)
#12 Ball State (12-0)

Utah still gets screwed last year, so Orrin Hatch still has hearings. Ball State wants in.
Boise gets the shaft two years in a row. Texas Tech is looking at TCU right now wondering why the hell they are bothering playing in the Big 12. OSU and Georgia are awfully envious of Georgia Tech and Cincy's weak path the the playoffs.
 

The problem with linking the Bowls and restricting them to conferences is that the trend towards larger conferences would reverse and new conferences would emerge wanting a seat at the table as well. It the prize is on the nat'l championship the structure will evolve into one that creates the most opportunity for the most teams. Thus more conferences and smaller ones.

With football, I think you're going to have to make use of play in games and byes. It keeps the number of likely games any one team would have to play lower and still gives an opp for a smaller conference team to take a run at the title. I like the number twelve. But certainly any number can work. If you want to create an illusion of a large playoff you could make the conference championships a part of the format.

Mostly though you'd need a spot for conference champs, and at large. Making sure any team has a chance to make it in even if they're not ranked.
 

"Wait! Seeding a hypothetical playoff based on post-seson AP rankings is totally cheating.

Here's the final BCS Standings. These would have to be the rankings that your playoff is based-on."

There was no mention of seeding in my example. Those were just AP rankings from yesterday. A quick search I used for an example. Your rankings are better but they after the bowl games also.

If you tweak my format to both at-large teams must be non BCS teams then TCU and Boise would be included. Using your rankings 8 or the top 9 teams would be 'in'. The one team left out would be Florida, an obvious top 5 team but they did have a chance to win their conference.

Gotta start somewhere and they are not going to start with a 65 team field and they are not going to dump the bowls. Just some thoughts.
 



I was wondering about the Insight viewership, especially since originally reading this thread. I came across this article today and thought others would be interested. I have been a long time (occasional) reader of GH, because we pull for the local team in our house too. However, I didn't officially join or start posting until the bowl match-up.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom