Author
Topic: SOC 12/1-12/2 CCG Edition
(Read 63149 times)

Kris60 · « **Reply #476 on:** December 04, 2023, 04:54:31 PM »

Quote from: Mdot21 on December 04, 2023, 04:15:25 PM

it's all about tv ratings and the $$$$$ those ratings bring in. it's all this whore-ish sport has become honestly.

BAMA, Texas, and Michigan are probably 3 of the top 5 biggest tv draws along with Ohio State and ND. Would've been the TV execs wet dream if OSU or ND had been one of the 4 teams instead of Washington.

So, this is a really popular sentiment I see and hear all the time. The selection committee is made up of 13 really busy people who, as far as I know, are fairly well respected among their peers.

Is there a suggestion that ESPN executives are going into these meetings and saying, “Ok, here’s what we need…”. Because the suggestion is the whole thing is a sham. If it’s a sham these people are in on it or being bribed or something.

Why does Jim Grobe care about ESPN’s ratings? Or Kelly Whiteside? Or Will Shields? The committee has changed several times over the last few years. Was Barry Alvarez in on it when he was on the committee? Condoleeza Rice? No one ever out and out ever accuses these people of being crooked. It’s always nameless, faceless ESPN suits. But they couldn’t do it by themselves. The committee would have to be part of it.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #477 on:** December 04, 2023, 04:59:41 PM »

I don't think the ESPN ratings thing has an iota of influence in any of this.

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #478 on:** December 04, 2023, 05:00:59 PM »

Quote from: rolltidefan on December 04, 2023, 04:16:02 PM

conversely, bama proved opposite. schedule and played a tough, good ooc team, and wasn't punished for it.

Texas even more than that. If Texas had the exact same 12-1, B12 Champions, lost to Oklahoma situation but they had beaten Alabama A&M instead of the Tide, Texas would be out and FSU in.

ELA · « **Reply #479 on:** December 04, 2023, 05:07:31 PM »

Quote from: Kris60 on December 04, 2023, 04:54:31 PM

Is there a suggestion that ESPN executives are going into these meetings and saying, “Ok, here’s what we need…”. Because the suggestion is the whole thing is a sham. If it’s a sham these people are in on it or being bribed or something.

Going into the meetings? No

Talking to them beforehand? Absolutely, and its naive to think they are paying billions of dollars to have zero influence

utee94 · « **Reply #480 on:** December 04, 2023, 05:08:58 PM »

Quote from: medinabuckeye1 on December 04, 2023, 05:00:59 PM

Texas even more than that. If Texas had the exact same 12-1, B12 Champions, lost to Oklahoma situation but they had beaten Alabama A&M instead of the Tide, Texas would be out and FSU in.

Yup.

Texas this year, proves that scheduling a tough OOC is important and helpful.

FSU this year, proves that scheduling a tough OOC is irrelevant and unhelpful.

So, where does that leave us?

rolltidefan · « **Reply #481 on:** December 04, 2023, 05:09:49 PM »

Quote from: ELA on December 04, 2023, 04:27:23 PM

Ask Jimbo.

But sure, based on accomplishments. Based on fan base, no. Just like how Alabama, Texas and Michigan are still draws when they are down. It's not simply how good the program.

in 2014 bama/osu played in sugar bowl and fsu/oregon in rose. both were cfp semis. bama/osu drew 15.2 rating, oregon/fsu 14.8. not materially different, despite 1 game having 2 of top 5 all time and 'biggest' programs, while the other had top 10-15ish teams.

2015, fsu game bowl draws 3.7, despite not being cfp game and vs houston. bama, in playoff game, draws 9.6. significant difference, but more so about the cfp than teams.

2016 fsu, non cfp game, draws 6.2 (vs mich), bama in the cfp draws 10.7.

prior to cfp...

2013 fsu/au bcs title drew 14.8, bama/oklahoma drew 9.3

2012 fsu/n ill drew 6.1, bama/nd 15.1

these don't seem materially different. the individual differences are due to either the importance of the game (bcs title/cfp vs regular bcs bowl) and a couple of g5 opponents for fsu. the 1 time they had comparable bowls/opponents (2014), it was damn near identical.

edit for source:
https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-playoff-ratings-bcs-history/

utee94 · « **Reply #482 on:** December 04, 2023, 05:09:57 PM »

Quote from: ELA on December 04, 2023, 05:07:31 PM

Going into the meetings? No

Talking to them beforehand? Absolutely, and its naive to think they are paying billions of dollars to have zero influence

Yup.

ESPN owns the CFP. ESPN invested something like $3 BILLION in the first iteration of the CFP. And the Selection Committee serves no one other than the CFP.

There is no salary but the CFP pays for their travel to and from their meetings, pays for their hotels, pays for any other expenses, and pay for any other perks. So that means ESPN is paying the selection committee members for all of that.

I think it's naive to believe that ESPN is not attempting to exert influence. Are they doing so effectively? Dunno. Are they at least attempting to do so? Yeah, of course they are. They invested $3 BILLION into it.

MikeDeTiger · « **Reply #483 on:** December 04, 2023, 05:10:23 PM »

Quote from: utee94 on December 04, 2023, 05:08:58 PM

Yup.

Texas this year, proves that scheduling a tough OOC is important and helpful.

FSU this year, proves that scheduling a tough OOC is irrelevant and unhelpful.

So, where does that leave us?

It leaves me hoping we quit opening our seasons with FSU.

FearlessF · « **Reply #484 on:** December 04, 2023, 05:16:32 PM »

Quote from: utee94 on December 04, 2023, 05:08:58 PM

Yup.

Texas this year, proves that scheduling ~~a tough OOC~~ Bama is important and helpful.

FSU this year, proves that scheduling a tough OOC is irrelevant and unhelpful.

So, where does that leave us?

ELA · « **Reply #485 on:** December 04, 2023, 05:16:37 PM »

Quote from: utee94 on December 04, 2023, 05:08:58 PM

Yup.

Texas this year, proves that scheduling a tough OOC is important and helpful.

FSU this year, proves that scheduling a tough OOC is irrelevant and unhelpful.

So, where does that leave us?

Needing a 64 team bracket

utee94 · « **Reply #486 on:** December 04, 2023, 05:25:45 PM »

Quote from: rolltidefan on December 04, 2023, 05:09:49 PM

in 2014 bama/osu played in sugar bowl and fsu/oregon in rose. both were cfp semis. bama/osu drew 15.2 rating, oregon/fsu 14.8. not materially different, despite 1 game having 2 of top 5 all time and 'biggest' programs, while the other had top 10-15ish teams.

2015, fsu game bowl draws 3.7, despite not being cfp game and vs houston. bama, in playoff game, draws 9.6. significant difference, but more so about the cfp than teams.

2016 fsu, non cfp game, draws 6.2 (vs mich), bama in the cfp draws 10.7.

prior to cfp...

2013 fsu/au bcs title drew 14.8, bama/oklahoma drew 9.3

2012 fsu/n ill drew 6.1, bama/nd 15.1

these don't seem materially different. the individual differences are due to either the importance of the game (bcs title/cfp vs regular bcs bowl) and a couple of g5 opponents for fsu. the 1 time they had comparable bowls/opponents (2014), it was damn near identical.

edit for source:
https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-playoff-ratings-bcs-history/

You could also compare just this year's TV ratings for a common opponent.

So clearly Alabama is the bigger draw.

Oh, wait...

betarhoalphadelta · « **Reply #487 on:** December 04, 2023, 05:31:40 PM »

What I don't understand is how Michigan was the 1 seed in the CFP after the Zinter injury. I mean, if the CFP committee is taking key injuries into account.

The top 4 should have been reordered. Here's what the CFP probably should have done/said:

Bama: I mean, we *ALL* know it. Uhh, they have Saban. They beat #1 Georgia. Roll Tide!
Texas: I mean, they beat Bama! But they're behind Bama, b/c they haven't won a title since 2005. Flash in the pan.
Michigan: I mean, that key OL injury, and having to compete without knowing your opposing team's signs? Gotta downgrade based on that.
Washington: They might be good, but their games were on so late in the Eastern time zone that we didn't really watch any of them. We just checked the box scores on Sunday morning. So they're #4. Stupid West Coast football. They have to move to the Big Ten if they want anyone to watch them.

There. Much better.

Kris60 · « **Reply #488 on:** December 04, 2023, 05:36:27 PM »

Quote from: ELA on December 04, 2023, 05:07:31 PM

Going into the meetings? No

Talking to them beforehand? Absolutely, and its naive to think they are paying billions of dollars to have zero influence

I guess my question is do you think there is anything crooked going on? Are people in the room comprising their principles? Are they voting their conscience only to have an ESPN suit “Eh, we need to talk about this final 4.”

Because I think that is strongly suggested and believed by a lot of people.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #489 on:** December 04, 2023, 05:37:47 PM »

Not an iota of influence. The downside risk is enormous. The upside is minimal.

Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.

Topic: SOC 12/1-12/2 CCG Edition

Kris60

Re: SOC 12/1-12/2 CCG Edition

Cincydawg

Re: SOC 12/1-12/2 CCG Edition

medinabuckeye1

Re: SOC 12/1-12/2 CCG Edition

ELA

Re: SOC 12/1-12/2 CCG Edition

utee94

Re: SOC 12/1-12/2 CCG Edition

rolltidefan

Re: SOC 12/1-12/2 CCG Edition

utee94

Re: SOC 12/1-12/2 CCG Edition

MikeDeTiger

Re: SOC 12/1-12/2 CCG Edition

FearlessF

Re: SOC 12/1-12/2 CCG Edition

ELA

Re: SOC 12/1-12/2 CCG Edition

utee94

Re: SOC 12/1-12/2 CCG Edition

betarhoalphadelta

Re: SOC 12/1-12/2 CCG Edition

Kris60

Re: SOC 12/1-12/2 CCG Edition

Cincydawg

Re: SOC 12/1-12/2 CCG Edition