Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Yes

0 (0%)

No

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 0

Voting closed: October 22, 2020, 02:05:59 PM

[TrojanHorse]

I predict the Tigers will win the National Championship and Death Valley will be celebrating.


That was fun

[Espnthree]

CFP TV ratings are in and, no surprise, the trend continues; they were good but nowhere near what they would if they were played on New Year’s Day.
LSU/Oklahoma drew about 19 million viewers (for the first quarter and then went down) tOSU/Clemson had 21 million and an exciting conclusion.
The latter game set a record for a semi-final game designated as a NNYDgame (non New Year’s Day)
The combined audiences were approximately 40 million or 28 % lower than the 56 million who watched the first CFP on January 1, 2015.
On Jan 1 2018, the combined audiences were 47 million.

The current TV contracts run to 2026 which has the playoffs running on a 6 bowl/three year rotating schedule.
The only times the games are played on New Year’s are when they match up either Rose and Sugar Bowls.

Judging by the ratings it seems logical to push for a contract revision and move the CFP to the Rose and Sugar permanently. But the problem is the B1G and Pac12 get the 80$ million ESPN pays for broadcast rights in the non playoff years all to themselves.

Adding playoff teams does not make a lot of economic sense either.
The four preliminary games would be two weeks before the Holiday weekend and upsets could deaden the glow of possible Marquee Matchups.

[jbottle]

Hey, man, look, we don’t worry about the numbers, dadgum it we’ll be number 10 if we lose this year and y’all want to talk about l’il ol’ Clempson and it a bunch of bull crap, last time I checked we have to strap it and get on the Roy bus or I told ‘em if you don’t feel like putting your “all in” chip in the bucket, hey man, go back to the hotel and play x-box, man, galldambit...

[TrojanHorse]

Adding playoff teams does not make a lot of economic sense either.
The four preliminary games would be two weeks before the Holiday weekend and upsets could deaden the glow of possible Marquee Matchups.

I agree with you on this.   

I have heard a lot of the younger college football announcers arguing for expanded playoffs and frankly their arguments are less than stellar.  This morning...it was either Danny Kannel or Greg McIroy was arguing that the LSU Oklahoma game was a great argument for an expanded playoff.  His line of thinking was that Oklahoma would have been eliminated earlier and this semi-final would have been a better matchup.

How about... there were three teams this year that deserved a shot and it didn't matter who the 4th placeholder was?

[jbottle]

Unless there is a bye in the system, why should you have to play UGGA or ALA if they didn’t win their Conference, and yeah there are 3 teams that by the end of the year we’re better than everybody else, that same logic means probably 3 of 4 teams probably get smoked in a quarterfinal game, it’s bad tv, and you risk injuring the cream of the crop, and possibly render what they’ve done to that point meaningless.

[jbottle]

Like Tlaw and Higgins almost got concussed anyway, why should you further subject them or a Heisman winner to playing a semi-final “*” game??

The MacIlroy logic just means more teams get spiked in order to have a *true* #4:  dumb.

[jbottle]

Further, if I’m a top 10 pick and we play at 7 or 8 there’s no fucking way I risk throwing away $10 million dollars...

[kiidcarter8]

Ahhhhh, bollocks, Western Mich...

15-5, I think...

[Hairy Lime]

Adding playoff teams does not make a lot of economic sense either.
The four preliminary games would be two weeks before the Holiday weekend and upsets could deaden the glow of possible Marquee Matchups.

I agree with you on this.   

I have heard a lot of the younger college football announcers arguing for expanded playoffs and frankly their arguments are less than stellar.  This morning...it was either Danny Kannel or Greg McIroy was arguing that the LSU Oklahoma game was a great argument for an expanded playoff.  His line of thinking was that Oklahoma would have been eliminated earlier and this semi-final would have been a better matchup.

How about... there were three teams this year that deserved a shot and it didn't matter who the 4th placeholder was?

I think the official wisdom this year was right for once: there were three elite teams, everyone else was a clear step below. But you do not build an argument about playoffs on a single season. There have been years where there were good arguments for a fifth team not just to get in, but be a threat to win it all - the first year, for instance.

[Driver125]

Your perverse denial of ZeroState's tradition of dirty play is what is astonishing.

Did you know Ohio State was involved in the Kennedy killing? (Just John, not Bobby). No, it's true. You see JFK was an Ivey League kind of a guy, whereas OSU was keeping Harvard out of the No. 1 spot.....

[Hairy Lime]

Your perverse denial of ZeroState's tradition of dirty play is what is astonishing.

Did you know Ohio State was involved in the Kennedy killing? (Just John, not Bobby). No, it's true. You see JFK was an Ivey League kind of a guy, whereas OSU was keeping Harvard out of the No. 1 spot.....

The stupid, stupid man you are responding to has a feeble and syphlitic brain that can no longer recall the the "I got rolled by a guy in an OSU sweatshirt" line was a lie he told to get out of being charged with male prostitution for his conduct in a Jersey Turnpike restroom. His "brain" now believes it happened and as a result he has a permanent grudge against the OSU. I was going to say he had a permanent hard on for them, but that would be distasteful given the whole self-mutilation thing.

Ward got targeting because he lowered his head into contact. The right call, a stupid play that was more dangerous to himself than Lawrence. Only a fucked up stupid old fool with a stump where his dick should be would see that as evidence of a dirty team. But then, that is dj.

[Espnthree]

Adding playoff teams does not make a lot of economic sense either.
The four preliminary games would be two weeks before the Holiday weekend and upsets could deaden the glow of possible Marquee Matchups.

I agree with you on this.   

I have heard a lot of the younger college football announcers arguing for expanded playoffs and frankly their arguments are less than stellar.  This morning...it was either Danny Kannel or Greg McIroy was arguing that the LSU Oklahoma game was a great argument for an expanded playoff.  His line of thinking was that Oklahoma would have been eliminated earlier and this semi-final would have been a better matchup.

How about... there were three teams this year that deserved a shot and it didn't matter who the 4th placeholder was?

I think the official wisdom this year was right for once: there were three elite teams, everyone else was a clear step below. But you do not build an argument about playoffs on a single season. There have been years where there were good arguments for a fifth team not just to get in, but be a threat to win it all - the first year, for example.

Except playoff increases come in sets of four.

[Hairy Lime]

Adding playoff teams does not make a lot of economic sense either.
The four preliminary games would be two weeks before the Holiday weekend and upsets could deaden the glow of possible Marquee Matchups.

I agree with you on this.   

I have heard a lot of the younger college football announcers arguing for expanded playoffs and frankly their arguments are less than stellar.  This morning...it was either Danny Kannel or Greg McIroy was arguing that the LSU Oklahoma game was a great argument for an expanded playoff.  His line of thinking was that Oklahoma would have been eliminated earlier and this semi-final would have been a better matchup.

How about... there were three teams this year that deserved a shot and it didn't matter who the 4th placeholder was?

I think the official wisdom this year was right for once: there were three elite teams, everyone else was a clear step below. But you do not build an argument about playoffs on a single season. There have been years where there were good arguments for a fifth team not just to get in, but be a threat to win it all - the first year, for example.

Except playoff increases come in sets of four.

6 is doable. 3/6 and 4/5 play in games the week after.co ference championship games. Of course, except year 1 it is hard to come up with 6 teams with an honest shot at the crown. This year, ClemSIN v. Georgia, Oklahoma and Oregon.  Though I could see the Committee, with that extra spot, swapping Oklahoma and Georgia.

[Espnthree]

Adding playoff teams does not make a lot of economic sense either.
The four preliminary games would be two weeks before the Holiday weekend and upsets could deaden the glow of possible Marquee Matchups.

I agree with you on this.   

I have heard a lot of the younger college football announcers arguing for expanded playoffs and frankly their arguments are less than stellar.  This morning...it was either Danny Kannel or Greg McIroy was arguing that the LSU Oklahoma game was a great argument for an expanded playoff.  His line of thinking was that Oklahoma would have been eliminated earlier and this semi-final would have been a better matchup.

How about... there were three teams this year that deserved a shot and it didn't matter who the 4th placeholder was?

I think the official wisdom this year was right for once: there were three elite teams, everyone else was a clear step below. But you do not build an argument about playoffs on a single season. There have been years where there were good arguments for a fifth team not just to get in, but be a threat to win it all - the first year, for example.

Except playoff increases come in sets of four.
6 is doable.

No

It adds no economic benefits neither in TV money nor a suitable Bowl Game.
DOA

[Hairy Lime]

We've never played Clemson, toad. Go crawl back up the rectum your mother dropped you out of.