The Real Reason We're Talking Playoffs
The BCS is now talking about a four team playoff and even Jim Delany is in. This is sort of about declining attendance (but not really), sort of about declining viewership (indirectly) and 1000% about this graph from a Neilsen "State of the Media" report on sports.
First, basketball:
And then football:
Both the big basketball increase and big football decrease can be explained by external events. CBS finally realized it was the 18th century and split first-round games across four channels instead of forcing you to watch Local State U beat up on a 15 seed when Kansas (always Kansas) is suffering an incredible upset across the country. The BCS moved off broadcast to cable. But when paired with declining interest, the cavern between postseason formats screams "grit your teeth and do something literally everyone else wants."
BONUS: Nielsen lists the five most-watched games of the year:
1 vs 2 games, the Rose Bowl, the 3 vs 4 Fiesta, and random Michigan games not featuring awesome teams.
[HT: a message board!]
Disagree with EGD. To each their own, but I enjoyed pre-1998 college football post-season. I loved it actually. I definitely don't think it was "worse". What has happened too many times this past decade-plus, as far as bowl seeding and teams being left outside looking in, for reasons that only "computers" can explain, is the "worse"-case-scenario in my humble opinion.
And a question to EGD, and the many happy with the change from the Bowl Alliance/Bowl Coalition. You may very well prove bring up good points, but can you name a time in the 80's and 90's when the polls, those non-scientific and "non-real system" polls, actually got the National Champion wrong?! I'm asking off the top of my head, doing zero research and data digging, so I don't mean the question in a snarky way, but in a true discussion-based way. Split National Champs seemed odd I suppose, but I personally didn't have a problem splitting with Nebraska in 1997.
Totally agree. Loved the old bowl system. Loved the idea that a #4 or #6 team had the hope they could catapult themselves to a title if they won and everything went their way. Used to be that two to four games had some meaning and all had tradition. And they were all on New Years Day. It was the best day of football bar none. The BCS screwed everything up.
I know there is no going back so I am willing to embrace the future, but one of the things I loved about the old way is that it was not definitive. The endless discussion of who was better was part of the fun of college football.
February 29th, 2012 at 4:19 PM ^
It would be interesting to see, given the drops in revenue, what viewership has been doing. How is the BCS performing year after year in this timeframe? Has basketball viewership been increasing?
If theoretically, football has been decreasing, and basketball has been increasing, wouldn't that point to the "meaningful games" argument (the fact that more meaningful games on TV would cause viewership to rise)? If that's the case, it may point to weariness in the public with the current BCS system... If revenue and viewership keep declining, it may actually force the BCS to rethink their system (finally!)
I'm hoping that's the case, getting more fanbases into the NC discussion will only help make the postseason that much more exciting. But, let's hope that if this happens, the moneygrubbers don't mess it up (all neutral site games at sterile stadiums, 16 or 32 teams, etc)
February 29th, 2012 at 5:51 PM ^
One thing to point out is that March Madness is owned by NCAA. They rake in ridiculous amounts of money because the TV deals aren't through the conferences or teams. I'm not sure what the break down for how much a conference/team that makes it to various stages of the tourney are, but I assume it's nothing like the breakdown for bowls.
So while TV ad spend might be huge with a tourney, who would get the majority of that money? NCAA? Will the schools and conferences see as much of it as they would like?
Edit: Also, the networks that air March Madness are the ones who see the ad dollars. NCAA gets the money CBS pays for the rights to air it, which is a lot. But the question is how much would the rights increase with a playoff system? Would it be enough to make it worth it to the schools and conferences?
February 29th, 2012 at 6:20 PM ^
I'd recommend an eight-team playoff with the top five conference champions plus three at large teams. If a conference champion isn't in the top 12 of the rating system utilized, it would get dropped and replaced by additional at large team.
The quarter- and semi-final games get played at the higher rated teams's home stadiums. The final game is at a neutral site.
This system works well because:
1. It puts a very high value on the regular season PLUS the conference championship games. CCGs not only help in post-game seeding, but it may eliminate teams from the playoffs.
2. This system is inclusive enough so that most of the arguments about teams that should be in the playoff are minimized
3. It leaves enough quality games available to play in the major bowl games (Rose, Sugar, etc.).
4. It would increase fan interest in the same sense that the baseball wildcard lifted attention to the sport not only among the fans, but also later into the season for more teams.
The next question is seeding. Do the conference champions get the highest seeds with the at large teams filling in the 6 thru 8 seeds? Or do you put together another formula with the top three or four conference champions being the 1 thru 3 or 1 thru 4 seeds with the remaining conference champion(s) and at large teams filling in the remaining spots.
If we did this last year and gave the top four conference champions the highest seeds, then ACC champion Clemson would have been eliminated and Arkansas would have been the fourth at large team. The playoff would have been as follows:
#8 Boise State at #1 LSU
#5 Alabama at #4 Wisconsin
#7 Arkansas at #2 Oklahoma State
#6 Stanford at #3 Oregon
If they opted to seed the top three conferences 1 thru 3 with the remaining teams being placed accordingly, then we would have seen the following:
#8 Wisconsin at #1 LSU
#5 Stanford at #4 Alabama
#7 Boise State at #2 Oklahoma State
#6 Arkansas at #3 Oregon
If they opted to have the top three conferences among the 1 thru 4 seeds, then it'd go like this:
#8 Wisconsin at #1 LSU
#5 Stanford at #4 Oregon
#7 Boise State at #2 Alabama
#6 Arkansas at #3 Oklahoma State
Having three conference champions seeded among the top 4 teams ensures that at least one at large team with an exceptional record that didn't win a conference championship gets to host an opening game in the playoff.
At large teams have to be included in the playoff because of the two major independents--Notre Dame and Brigham Young. It also allows outstanding teams from the less highly rated conferences, i.e., Big East and C-USA/MWC, an opportunity to get into the playoff.
Teams that wouldn't have been in the playoff but would be available for the major bowls includes South Carolina, Kansas State, Michigan, Michigan State, Georgia, Baylor, Clemson and West Virginia. If USC was bowl eligible and has lost the Pac 12 championship game, they would have also been included in that list (if they had won, then Oregon would have been in this pool of teams).
many many times before.
Comments