CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: ELA on July 02, 2018, 09:46:39 AM
-
| SYSTEMIC CHANGES |
|
|
|
|
|
| SYSTEM RULE CHANGES |
|
|
|
|
|
| GAME RULE CHANGES |
|
|
|
|
|
| GAME PLAY CHANGES |
|
|
|
|
-
I think it's going to be tough for anything to beat the end of the tv monopoly for me. So many of the later things in this poll probably never happen without that restriction being lifted
-
Hmmm, swing and a miss on the topic this year?
-
Per my other response, you need to spell out actually what we're voting on here.
What is the end of TV monopoly?
Are you proposing we expand to more bowl games? How? Does that mean we take more 5-7 or worse teams?
-
Per my other response, you need to spell out actually what we're voting on here.
What is the end of TV monopoly?
Are you proposing we expand to more bowl games? How? Does that mean we take more 5-7 or worse teams?
That's why I every year I do the setup post before the tourney starts.
https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?topic=4443.0
I'll wait til Monday and do a double poll. Maybe I'll skip weekends and do double Monday-Tuesday polls thrughout on here to keep participation high.
This is a sports related year, so I'm going with College Football changes. As per usual, there is no criteria. You can vote based on your favorite, the one you think was best for the sport (and within that pick your criteria, best for the health of the sport, best for sustaining the sport, best for growing the sport) or the one you think had the biggest impact. Whatever you want.
Per Usual, there will be 4 brackets. This one was not as clean as some others, but more or less, here is what I tried to fit them into:
1.) Systemic Changes - Not rules either on or off the field that changes how the game was played, but managed to have an impact on the nature of the port anyway
2.) System Rules - Off Field Rule changes that either impacted how to field a team, or what the finish line was
3.) Game Rules - On field game rule changes
4.) Game Play - either on field or off field changes that impacted the game on the field, that weren't based on rule changes but on game evolution
-
Still not sure what we're voting on?
So there was a TV monopoly prior? I mean, not just a default where ABC/ESPN, plus NBC [ND] and CBS [SEC], were the de facto monopoly because Fox Sports didn't exist and the leagues didn't have their own networks?
And by bowl game expansion, you're talking about when? Back in the days when there were only a handful of bowls to the current point where ~50% of teams make a bowl?
-
Still not sure what we're voting on?
So there was a TV monopoly prior? I mean, not just a default where ABC/ESPN, plus NBC [ND] and CBS [SEC], were the de facto monopoly because Fox Sports didn't exist and the leagues didn't have their own networks?
And by bowl game expansion, you're talking about when? Back in the days when there were only a handful of bowls to the current point where ~50% of teams make a bowl?
Sorry, I don't get what is confusing at this point.
Up until 1984 the NCAA controlled the TV rights until a Supreme Court ruling, allowing the teams/conferences to negotiate their own TV deals.
And yes, the continuous expansion of the number of bowl games.
-
Sorry, I don't get what is confusing at this point.
Up until 1984 the NCAA controlled the TV rights until a Supreme Court ruling, allowing the teams/conferences to negotiate their own TV deals.
Ahh. I was 6 years old. I thought football was "run around in circles and fall down". I wasn't up to speed on the Supreme Court rulings that year. :)
-
Ahh. I was 6 years old. I thought football was "run around in circles and fall down". I wasn't up to speed on the Supreme Court rulings that year. :)
I was born in 1984.
That's my bad though. I think some of the old farts around here have me thinking more things are common knowledge than actually are.
-
I studied that SCOTUS decision pretty hard core, both in undergrad and in law school. I think the topic in a contest setting does run the risk of being a little too esoteric. I'm of the view that most people just think we went from 3 networks and public television, to 57 channels (and nothings on) overnight, and suddenly college football was on everywhere.
I'm still willing and able to provide an honest answer. I think the onus can/should be on the participants to provide a 'case for' one choice over another. Of course that won't prevent lurkers from ignoring those posts and voting anyways, which is fine too.
-
I studied that SCOTUS decision pretty hard core, both in undergrad and in law school. I think the topic in a contest setting does run the risk of being a little too esoteric. I'm of the view that most people just think we went from 3 networks and public television, to 57 channels (and nothings on) overnight, and suddenly college football was on everywhere.
I'm still willing and able to provide an honest answer. I think the onus can/should be on the participants to provide a 'case for' one choice over another. Of course that won't prevent lurkers from ignoring those posts and voting anyways, which is fine too.
Hey, the more discussion the better!
-
I studied that SCOTUS decision pretty hard core, both in undergrad and in law school. I think the topic in a contest setting does run the risk of being a little too esoteric. I'm of the view that most people just think we went from 3 networks and public television, to 57 channels (and nothings on) overnight, and suddenly college football was on everywhere.
I'm still willing and able to provide an honest answer. I think the onus can/should be on the participants to provide a 'case for' one choice over another. Of course that won't prevent lurkers from ignoring those posts and voting anyways, which is fine too.
And I agree, there's a long road, and several things can be pointed to along the way. It's not like they just blew up the dam and there was college football everywhere, but nothing else is able to happen without that.
-
The thing (between these two) that fundamentally changed college football was the end of the monopoly. TV rights increased the amount of money in college football, which dramatically changed the game to what we have now. It dramatically changed college athletics, too (not just football).
-
The thing (between these two) that fundamentally changed college football was the end of the monopoly. TV rights increased the amount of money in college football, which dramatically changed the game to what we have now. It dramatically changed college athletics, too (not just football).
I would agree. It raised the general profile of college football. That raised profile created more demand for the sport in general, especially outside the "helmet teams" who barely got on TV before, and thus created more demand for postseason play from those teams.
-
This is a 1 vs 16 seed match up (and not the UVA/UMBC variety). The NCAA vs OU (and Georgia) case (1984) was really about who has the right to control content, and specifically the broadcast rights of said content. Old model, NCAA called the shots and determined how frequently a program could appear on TV, among other things. The point is, they controlled the content. Court found the NCAA violated Sherman Act (anti-trust) and programs, and conferences, and networks should be free to control how their content is to be distributed (TV, radio, on-line, whatever). The NCAA primary reason for limiting TV appearances was to protect attendance (something the NFL maintained as its reasons for the blackout rule, which has basically been ignored lately and is now extremely hard to trigger a local blackout, if at all).
Trivia: Who wrote the dissent? The aforementioned in a # thread (Byron Whizzer White), joined by Rehnquist.
Of course, the date of this case coincides with the proliferation of cable television, ESPN was about 4 years old, and there were a slew of regional sports networks out there wanting to broadcast live sports. Some of these 'new' bowl games started to pop up on Raycom, among others.
-
I understood the original meaning of the "end of the TV monopoly" but I can certainly understand why some would not. AAA is a bit of an anachronism within his own generation-- which means we old farts have taught him properly. ;)
What's difficult for ME, on this one, is that, at the time, I thought the end of the TV monopoly was a good thing. We got to see more college football, which was certainly good. Unfortunately it also kicked off a long chain of events that have ultimately resulted in the huge amounts of money ruining many things I loved about the sport. Not to mention the general overexposure just sort of wearing me out.
On the flipside, I see nothing particularly good about the expansion of the bowl games. I'd prefer we go back to far fewer bowl games, which is of course related to the point I made above.
So I'm fairly torn here.
-
Yeah, that's a point I hadn't considered.
I hate all the bowls, and my counter to the "How is more football bad? Just don't watch it" argument is that the proliferation of bowls devalues way more games than it adds, as does the randomness of bowl selection. Basically once you get to 6, sometimes 5 wins, you are going to a bowl, and how many you win beyond that may not really even impact how good of a bowl you go to. So what is my interest in watching, just for example, a game between 5-3 Oklahoma State and 5-3 Kansas State? You reduce the number of bowls, you make going to a bowl an actual reward, you increase the stakes of a great number of very good (but maybe not CFP impacting) games late in the year.
So to me the end of the TV monopoly seemed easy, but your point, that while it was a good thing in a vacuum, the things I dislike about the game are also a result of it, is well taken.