OT NC Game Ratings/Thank you fellow boycotters

Submitted by FL_Steve on January 11th, 2012 at 12:37 AM

Thought I would share this on the board. We have to power and ability to let our voices be heard. In this case, it was achieved through silence. Thank you fellow boycotters!


Edit: In short, the ratings were down 8% from last years NC game

P.S. I know this is not that important, but decided to post it anyway given the amount of attention the last forum topic received



January 11th, 2012 at 12:42 AM ^

I think this is a result of two factors, both probably obvious:


1. The bowl season drags on wayyyyyyyy too long. By the time the NC game rolls around lots of people have moved on.


2. More obviously, the game didn't have a lot of draw for middle of the road fans outside of the southeast.


I don't think it had anything to do with a "boycott."

Mr Miggle

January 11th, 2012 at 10:37 AM ^

If we're comparing it to last year, I think there's a third point which has been overlooked here. Last year's matchup was between two high-powered offenses, one led by the season's biggest star. This year's game was between two defensive powerhouses. That's not as attractive to the casual fans. If the first ALA-LSU game had been 48-45 in OT rather than 9-6, I bet the rematch would have gotten better ratings.

Doc Brown

January 11th, 2012 at 6:34 AM ^

I watched the entire thing because only Neilsen households can impact the ratings for the game. Alas I am not a Neilsen household. I thought it was a great game. I would rather watch a bunch field goals than a PS3 like game with scores in the 60's.


January 11th, 2012 at 6:57 AM ^

We will not get what we want.  Can you imagine if they demand the only teams that make a 4 team playoff MUST win their Conference champiomship game?

This year we could have had Georgia vs UCLA in teh NC game. It is possible that Ga got lucky and beat LSU in the SEC game and UCLA could have got lucky and beat Oregon..I dont want the playoff to destroy the NCAA.

It will dilute the regular season, dispite what is said.  How can it not?  We have the best game on the planet.  No other game/ofrmate comes close.  NFL football is a joke, NCAA Basketball is fun to watch but has many issues.  The baeball/softball format works for those sports, the D2 and D3 has a playoff but no one cares.

I preferred the old format where we all had our bowl tie-ins.  The BCS does what it was designed to do.  It puts 1 vs 2.  Every single year, 1 plays 2.  What more can we ask?

The reason the ratings were down were two-fold.  Number 1, it was a rematch.  The only people that wanted the rematch according to ESPN was the South.  Most peoplewanted Okie St vs LSU.  I dont care if Bama won.  We all know that anyone could beat anyone on any given Saturday.

Once we add the +1 format, everyone will bitch.  Can you imagine.  Dicky V on the TV just like he does now.  I heard him last year say Utah (IIRC) got robbed because they did not get in.  Are you kidding me?  There are 65 teams, it should be 32.  If you cant get in the top 32 then you should just go home.

Can you see Lee Corso bitching about Oregon not getting in this year?  LSU, Bama, Okie St and Stanford would be the 4 teams, maybe Wisky.   But I can hear Corso saying Oregon got robbed.

I hope Devany holds to his principles and does NOT vote for a playoff.  We have the best team in the world as we are college football.  We have for 132 years.  We have the best rivalry ever.  We have 3 natural rivals.  Any Michigan fan should NOT want a playoff.  It will dilute our traditions. 

Bo hated the idea of a playoff.  Bo needs to step in and help us.




January 11th, 2012 at 8:14 AM ^

how can people actually be against having a playoff? you do realize that with a playoff you would get to watch more college football, right?

As for the Bo thing, who cares what Bo thought about playoffs.  I like Bo - he was a great coach, leader, and example of good character, but that doesn't mean that i have to agree with him on everything ever.


January 11th, 2012 at 8:49 AM ^

feels like arguing against this is much like arguing about evolution. If you don't get it, you never will and so there's no reason to try and change your mind. However, this is a blog so here I go.

1. The point that tournament nay sayers make most often is that it would dilute the regular season and that "every game won't count." There are over 100 teams in Div 1 (or whatever they call it today). Even if the playoff was 16 teams, you would not be able to lose more than 2 games and get in.  Even going 10-2 is difficult in any conference in any year. If you think college teams would throw games at the end of the year when everyone plays their rival, you're a moron. Michigan will never throw the OSU game, period.

2.  In a tournament setting, upsets happen. That's what makes it possible for lower tier teams to actually have a chance. The current system will never allow a small school into the big dance, and that in itself is a reason to change.

3. Every major sport in College has a tournament, including Div 2 and Div 3 football. It is the only way to determine a true champion, and Div 1 is the lone exception in hundreds of athletics.

4. Wassup with the "NFL is a joke" comment? Would you care to elaborate on that? I am a huge fan of both, and I just don't see your point.

5. Your point about everyone bitching will never change no matter the format. No matter what the system does, there will be unhappy people who think they deserve more than they get. That doesn't mean that a playoff system is bad. The fact that every team in the nation will want to leave no doubt supports the earlier point that it won't lessen the competitive spirit of teams around the country. If you go undefeated, you've got the best shot of making the tourney.

6. What does our rivalry games have to do with the post-season? Nothing. We will always play our rivals regardless of what happens after the regular season.


Mr Miggle

January 11th, 2012 at 1:36 PM ^

Even if the playoff was 16 teams, you would not be able to lose more than 2 games and get in.

4 of the top 16 teams in the BCS standings lost 3 games.

And who's talking about throwing games? That's just silly. The effect of an expanded playoff system on the regular season could have good and bad aspects. Good: late season matchups for teams trying to get in, like say PSU-NEB get more interesting.  Bad: big games like UO-Stanford, LSU-ALA, 2006 UM-OSU etc will have a lot less meaning and less interest outside those teams' own fanbases.


The current system will never allow a small school into the big dance, and that in itself is a reason to change.

The current system does give non-AQ schools a chance. Boise might have gotten in this year if they had gone undefeated. Boise has done a lot of crying, but they've scheduled a total of 7 teams from AQ conferences over the last 6 years. That's not the way to overcome the disparity in strength of schedule vs contenders from power conferences.


January 11th, 2012 at 9:00 AM ^

Just because a team wins a conference does not mean that they need to be included in the playoff. There can be rules put in place to prevent teams from getting in if they are outside the top 14 or something like that, preventing UCLA from getting in. If Georgia had won, they would have been in the top 5, and probably deserved to be in a playoff anyway. If you put rules in place to place a lower limit on the quality of teams, then you leave room for at-large teams like LSU, Bama, Stanford, and BSU that didn't win their conferences.

Using Dicky V as a voice of logic is like using Tressel as a voice of ethics. Utah has no shot at the title, even if they were let in. However, there is a lot of money and exposure to be made by making the tournament. You are going to get teams complaining about not making the tournament or specific bowl games or whatever in any format you have for that very reason. Look at MSU whining about not making a BCS game even though the conference splits bowl revenue evenly between the teams. All they cared about was the acknowledgement of one of their best teams in years.

Your scenario is based on 4 games, but I don't think I've seen a proposal for a 4-game playoff anywhere. Everything has been 6-16. Then again, you can't really complain that conference champion tie-ins would ruin the game, then pitch a proposal where two non-champions get into the playoff.

The problem with a +1, which will make people bitch from time to time, is that if you have 3 undefeated teams in 3 different bowls and all of them win definitively, then the +1 solves no issues. The only way to solve the issue in this case would be to have two of the teams play in a bowl, but that might break bowl tie-ins.


January 11th, 2012 at 9:05 AM ^

That's the issue 1 doesn't always play 2 at least not truly. The bcs generally picks two top 4ish teams at pseudo random then bills it as 1 vs 2. Unless there are two and only two undefeated teams and both from solid conferences, the idea of picking a legitimate 1 vs 2 match up is laughable.


January 11th, 2012 at 9:10 AM ^

look at a play-off.  There are others that would point out that besides determining a champion on the field with less of a beauty pageant voting feel might be:

1)  Taking money from current bowls and feeding that money into the college football or university sports system instead of into bowl organizations.

2)  Every other NCAA endeavor has a play-off, including the other football divisions.

My prognostication is that we will see a play-off down the road because of the money available and as time moves on the cash will be needed and wanted to support the entire university sports systems.




January 11th, 2012 at 7:36 AM ^

We don't need a full blown playoff.  If I wanted to watch the NFL then I would watch the NFL.  College football is great and always has been.  Why do people want keep changing it?  The only playoff that I would support would be a plus one game.   Alabama would have played Oklahoma State in the plus one game this year.  They need to move the bowl games up as well.  After the conference championship games there should only be two weeks off before all the bowl games begin.  Imagine if March Madness didn't begin for a month after the college basketball regular season ended.  Everyone would say that it was stupid.  Well it's stupid for football too.


January 11th, 2012 at 8:09 AM ^

the reason that bowl games take place so long after the season is that bowl games were initially intended to just be exhibition games for the teams - and really, that's all they are.

So, making the comparison to March Madness, the champion of which is recognized by the NCAA, to the college football bowl season is kind of a stretch.



January 11th, 2012 at 8:46 AM ^

Actually, with a +1, LSU would have played in the Sugar Bowl, probably against Stanford, while OSU would play either Bama or Michigan in the Fiesta Bowl. Basically, you'd have a de facto 4-team playoff in those two games and the +1, but you probably wouldn't see OSU Bama in the +1 game.


January 11th, 2012 at 8:58 AM ^

Alabama would have played Oklahoma State in the plus one game this year.

Probably not. The plus one would be the title game, and the BCS bowls would return back to normal.  This would leave LSU to play in the Sugar vs. an at large (probably WVU, in an effort to ensure an LSU appearance in the +1, which would limit the backlash). I suspect we would have seen Oklahoma State vs. Bama in the Fiesta, in what would have amounted to a play-off for the right to play LSU. That would have left Clemson vs. Stanford (probably) in the Orange.

The matchups are speculation, but what we would not have had is a LSU-Bama rematch in the bowl game.


January 11th, 2012 at 9:04 AM ^

but you DO NOT have any power in deciding TV ratings. Nielsen does this by sampling a very small amount of people and then extrapolating the results to fit the entire population of TV viewers.

Therefore, you (and all MGoBloggers) don't have any power to influence TV ratings, unless somebody is a Nielsen household.

Read more here:




January 11th, 2012 at 10:21 AM ^

Most of the bowl games had lower viewership this year, and ESPN is a big part of it.  I only got to watch the Okie State-Georgia game on Jan. 2 (12 hour drive to New Orleans), but for every ad they put in plugging the M-VT game, that was the very next day, they had at least 4 plugging the Al-LSU game. Throughout the bowl season, the value of the ads ESPN devoted to that one game had to be in the multiple millions of dollars.  But that's not the biggest problem.  The biggest problem was the constant bj ESPN analyst after analyst gave to the SEC in general, and especially Alabama and LSU.  I'm convinced some casual college football fans were turned off to the entire bowl season because of this, enough to be a factor in at least some (and I would argue a significant portion) of the 10% or so drop in the vieweship of most of the bowl games from last year. The way the analysts had it, watching any of the bowl games but one would be like tuning in to see a beauty pageant with past-their-prime, ugly, warty women with bad bleach jobs stomping around a stage while the analysts all talk about how beautiful the women in the one pageant at the end are.

As for the Al-LSU game, I'm sure active boycotters played some small role in the drop in viewership, but more could be explained by it being just a regional game, and casual fans just being turned off altogether--not actively making a point of skipping the game, but just being, meh, it's no big deal if I miss it.  And even the huge buildup and promotion of a single game if done too much and too regularly can reach a point that it turns people off to that game as well.