ESPN Hemorrhaging

[Zubaz]

But weren't their top numbers all small Southern markets? Atlanta only had an 8 where as Birmingham was a 57.

I think you misrea Atlanta. They did a 48, not 8. Other bigger and / or non-southern markets: Nashville did a 28. Columbus 23. New Orleans 27. DFW 18. New York did a 10.2, which is HUGE considering that market.

Yeah the smaller markets will look bigger since 1) Smaller southern markets without an NFL team tend to be more in to college football, and 2) Smaller markets means higher market share for any one big event, but that number is a very big number any way you slice it.

 

[Gary's Shirtless Revenge]

But weren't their top numbers all small Southern markets? Atlanta only had an 8 where as Birmingham was a 57.

This is how you build a large audience for a big sporting event... You dominate the applicable locals, and drive viewership in large markets through marketing. The more compelling the matchup, the easier to market.

I think you have the ratings wrong though...

 

[ShreveFrog]

McElroy is a ESPN / SEC koolaid drinking spare as far as I’m concerned.

But in 2014, Kanell said on national tv, and I quote, "Are we really going to let a team (TCU) in the playoff that was in the Mountain West Conference just 3 years ago?"

And I agree with McElroy that expanding playoffs to 8 would weaken the conference championship games, and that they should be used as an extension of the playoffs.

I would add that expanding may only increase the chance that two teams from the same conference -- especially SEC -- would meet in the final. But really, so what if they did? If they're the best 2 teams.

 

[Wexahu]

But in 2014, Kanell said on national tv, and I quote, "Are we really going to let a team (TCU) in the playoff that was in the Mountain West Conference just 3 years ago?"

And I agree with McElroy that expanding playoffs to 8 would weaken the conference championship games, and that they should be used as an extension of the playoffs.

I would add that expanding may only increase the chance that two teams from the same conference -- especially SEC -- would meet in the final. But really, so what if they did? If they're the best 2 teams.

I agree with the point in the last paragraph. And to answer your question, a lot of people would care if this year was any indication. What we have now is a massive improvement on the old system and almost nobody is satisfied.

 

[cheese83]

This is how you build a large audience for a big sporting event... You dominate the applicable locals, and drive viewership in large markets through marketing. The more compelling the matchup, the easier to market.

I think you have the ratings wrong though...

Yes it appears I totally misread the number for Atlanta, not sure where I got that from. I guess my point was that out of the top cities minus Atlanta almost all of them were smaller cities and totally regional. When you have a game with two Southern teams like that and didn't have a West Coast or Midwest rep in the CFP that really hurts the viewer base.

http://espnmediazone.com/us/press-r...-delivers-massive-16-7-overnight-9-year-year/

But even with a 16.7 they couldn't even beat the NO/CAR wild card game (17.5) and barely beat Jax v Buf (15.15). That's with airing the game on every ESPN channel they have. I think if they would air it on ABC instead of ESPN the numbers may have been higher though since ESPN is a cable channel.

As so many of us agree college football is awesome, but the CFP could be so much more than a 4 team pick em. To be honest I was hoping the numbers would really suck so they would be forced to expand to a P5 conf champions + 3 at large bids for the playoff.

 

[Wexahu]

As so many of us agree college football is awesome, but the CFP could be so much more than a 4 team pick em. To be honest I was hoping the numbers would really suck so they would be forced to expand to a P5 conf champions + 3 at large bids for the playoff.

They really need to figure out a way to play the game on a Saturday. I get you have to accommodate the almighty TV gods, but Monday night is a pretty terrible time to air a college football game.

 

[Zubaz]

But even with a 16.7 they couldn't even beat the NO/CAR wild card game (17.5) and barely beat Jax v Buf (15.15). That's with airing the game on every ESPN channel they have. I think if they would air it on ABC instead of ESPN the numbers may have been higher though since ESPN is a cable channel.

College football never comes close to the NFL, for a few different reasons. First, it's nowhere near as popular, even with recent "ratings trouble" for the NFL. Even when it was on ABC, the highest BCS title game did 1/3 of what the Super Bowl does, and the NFL regularly trounces regular season NCAA games. I prefer college football personally, but there's nothing close to the NFL right now. Second, as you mention, NFL playoffs are always on broadcast television whereas ESPN moved the BCS / CFP to cable in 2010 (hence why our 2009 season Fiesta Bowl was on Fox, but the 2010 season Rose Bowl was on ESPN instead of ABC).

Of course they could get higher ratings if ESPN put the college football postseason on their ABC broadcast. It's not on ABC deliberately, because they want to use that property to drive subscriptions.

 

[cheese83]

They really need to figure out a way to play the game on a Saturday. I get you have to accommodate the almighty TV gods, but Monday night is a pretty terrible time to air a college football game.

Completely agree, but they have this belief that they want people to be at their homes which is why it's on Monday and the Super Bowl is on Sunday. Time to change. Plus they'll never go against the NFL during playoff weekend, they'll get killed.

 

[cheese83]

College football never comes close to the NFL, for a few different reasons. First, it's nowhere near as popular, even with recent "ratings trouble" for the NFL. Even when it was on ABC, the highest BCS title game did 1/3 of what the Super Bowl does, and the NFL regularly trounces regular season NCAA games. I prefer college football personally, but there's nothing close to the NFL right now. Second, as you mention, NFL playoffs are always on broadcast television whereas ESPN moved the BCS / CFP to cable in 2010 (hence why our 2009 season Fiesta Bowl was on Fox, but the 2010 season Rose Bowl was on ESPN instead of ABC).

Of course they could get higher ratings if ESPN put the college football postseason on their ABC broadcast. It's not on ABC deliberately, because they want to use that property to drive subscriptions.

You'd think the CFP final would be able to beat a Wild Card NFL game, think of all the giant stadiums that are filled every Saturday. Maybe there really is that big of a gap in fans. As for trying to drive up subscriptions to ESPN I think they're shooting themselves in the foot and would also get higher ad dollars if it was on ABC. Same company even if different divisions. I wonder what is going to happen once Disney releases their own streaming service if all ESPN/ABC sports events will also be included.

 

[Wexahu]

Completely agree, but they have this belief that they want people to be at their homes which is why it's on Monday and the Super Bowl is on Sunday. Time to change. Plus they'll never go against the NFL during playoff weekend, they'll get killed.

If it has to be a non-Friday weekday, then Thursday would be the best option. But I guess that's the night all the top-rated TV shows are on.

Airing a game that starts at 8:15 on the East coast that will probably end at midnight seems asinine.

 

[cdsfrog]

Gold standard in the past 20 years is the 2006 rose bowl. Scored a 21.7

Wildcard NFL games absolutely suck. I never watch any of them. Feels like those ratings are manipulated.

 

[Wexahu]

Gold standard in the past 20 years is the 2006 rose bowl. Scored a 21.7

Wildcard NFL games absolutely suck. I never watch any of them. Feels like those ratings are manipulated.

NFL games get less and less interesting to me every year. I don't know if it's just getting older being the main reason, but it just seems to me like every team is interchangeable anymore. The league is so sterile. I guess the Patriots sort of have some brand power with Belichik and Brady, but outside of them is there ANY team that is interesting?

Free agency has slowly and surely robbed teams of having any identity anymore. It's almost killed it for me.

 

[Dogfrog]

But in 2014, Kanell said on national tv, and I quote, "Are we really going to let a team (TCU) in the playoff that was in the Mountain West Conference just 3 years ago?"

And I agree with McElroy that expanding playoffs to 8 would weaken the conference championship games, and that they should be used as an extension of the playoffs.

I would add that expanding may only increase the chance that two teams from the same conference -- especially SEC -- would meet in the final. But really, so what if they did? If they're the best 2 teams.

But if you make ccg’s determine playoff participants it enhances ccg’s. Don’t give me the BS that then we wouldn’t have the best teams. According to who? Bill darning Hancock? Do it on the field, not in the back room.

 

[ShreveFrog]

I think we know who the top 4 teams are after the ccg's (which are usually exciting games). Use the ccg's as a de facto first round. (I know, a P5 champ gets left out. Life's rough.)

A ccg is less exciting if, say in the SEC, both those teams are going to an expanded playoff. So who cares about the result of the ccg?

And if you expand, you water down the playoffs with, say, a 3-loss Pac 12 team that'll get whipped. Or a barely top 10 G5.

I know, expanding may increase our chance of getting in if we don't win the Big 12. Or even if we do. But I think the system is fine.

 

[Mean Purple]

Once again, the First Team was a pathetic run of ESPN talking points today. I quickly learning all the other interesting morning drive shows on Sirius XM.

 

[Wexahu]

I think making CC games de facto playoff games is a terrible idea. Schedules are too imbalanced within the conferences for that game to mean any more than what it really is, an extra regular season game meant to make money. It helps the team that wins and hurts the team that loses, that's good enough.

The fact that non-conference games don't count toward conference standings also stands in the way of the CC games as playoff games structure.

Given that there are almost 130 teams and wildly unbalanced schedules, trying to come up with an 8-team playoff system that is all black and white and wouldn't be subjective to a "committee" or computers is not possible. So they should quit trying. If we want the best teams in a playoff but we want to expand it to 8 teams, just keep everything like it is and make it 8. If they want to have a rule that no league can have more than 2 teams, fine I guess, but IMO if three teams from the same league have among the 8 best resumes, they should all get in. It wouldn't happen all that often (and yes, I realize the SEC would've had 3 this year but it was an unusually top-heavy league).

 

[Dogfrog]

I think making CC games de facto playoff games is a terrible idea. Schedules are too imbalanced within the conferences for that game to mean any more than what it really is, an extra regular season game meant to make money. It helps the team that wins and hurts the team that loses, that's good enough.

The fact that non-conference games don't count toward conference standings also stands in the way of the CC games as playoff games structure.

Given that there are almost 130 teams and wildly unbalanced schedules, trying to come up with an 8-team playoff system that is all black and white and wouldn't be subjective to a "committee" or computers is not possible. So they should quit trying. If we want the best teams in a playoff but we want to expand it to 8 teams, just keep everything like it is and make it 8. If they want to have a rule that no league can have more than 2 teams, fine I guess, but IMO if three teams from the same league have among the 8 best resumes, they should all get in. It wouldn't happen all that often (and yes, I realize the SEC would've had 3 this year but it was an unusually top-heavy league).

You are too personally invested to be taken seriously. Thank gawd the completely random or otherwise ESPN invitational preseason games would have no bearing.

 

[ShreveFrog]

@Wexahu — But The ccg’s are pretty much de facto playoff games. Win and advance (probably). Lose and go home.

Expand and losers could still advance. Yawn.

 

[fwfrog]

College football never comes close to the NFL, for a few different reasons. First, it's nowhere near as popular, even with recent "ratings trouble" for the NFL. Even when it was on ABC, the highest BCS title game did 1/3 of what the Super Bowl does, and the NFL regularly trounces regular season NCAA games. I prefer college football personally, but there's nothing close to the NFL right now. Second, as you mention, NFL playoffs are always on broadcast television whereas ESPN moved the BCS / CFP to cable in 2010 (hence why our 2009 season Fiesta Bowl was on Fox, but the 2010 season Rose Bowl was on ESPN instead of ABC).

Of course they could get higher ratings if ESPN put the college football postseason on their ABC broadcast. It's not on ABC deliberately, because they want to use that property to drive subscriptions.

Are you saying that in a given week that more people attend pro games and view pro games than college games? I’ll bet that college beats them in both categories, hands down.

 

[HG73]

I think making CC games de facto playoff games is a terrible idea. Schedules are too imbalanced within the conferences for that game to mean any more than what it really is, an extra regular season game meant to make money. It helps the team that wins and hurts the team that loses, that's good enough.

The fact that non-conference games don't count toward conference standings also stands in the way of the CC games as playoff games structure.

Given that there are almost 130 teams and wildly unbalanced schedules, trying to come up with an 8-team playoff system that is all black and white and wouldn't be subjective to a "committee" or computers is not possible. So they should quit trying. If we want the best teams in a playoff but we want to expand it to 8 teams, just keep everything like it is and make it 8. If they want to have a rule that no league can have more than 2 teams, fine I guess, but IMO if three teams from the same league have among the 8 best resumes, they should all get in. It wouldn't happen all that often (and yes, I realize the SEC would've had 3 this year but it was an unusually top-heavy league).

CC games should be first round of the playoff. Otherwise, just let the committee pick the teams before the season starts. Win and in, no beauty contest.