So were the ratings way down for last night?
- Thread starter HawkNole09
- Start date
Ratings were actually up almost 10% from last year. Not sure what the trend had been before that, but it is good for CFB to see growing ratings. Certainly helps justify the huge payouts in some conferences. And it was a very good game, though I personally didn't care to see two teams from the same conference.
These numbers are a bit misleading, given that ESPN began counting "out-of-home" viewership in their TV ratings in 2017, http://www.adweek.com/tv-video/espn...w-data-viewers-bars-gyms-and-more-171515/amp/
Analysts estimated a 19% ratings boost to CFB Live from this inclusion, and it stands to reason that an event like the CFB championship would benefit even more from it, http://www.adweek.com/tv-video/out-...ng-in-home-audiences-for-sports-and-news/amp/
Actual viewership may well have been Down quite a bit from last year.
A
anon_i8nzeu2gbf0ba
Guest
I know one college football fan who didn't watch it or follow it in any way, shape, or form. Why anyone who believes sports should be somewhat fair would have watched two SEC teams play is beyond me.
But I did enjoy watching a real college football dynasty win its 6th national title in 7 years: North Dakota State. And they did it the old fashioned way, by winning it against all comers in a true playoff. They didn't have it handed to them by a TV network or a selection committee.
But I did enjoy watching a real college football dynasty win its 6th national title in 7 years: North Dakota State. And they did it the old fashioned way, by winning it against all comers in a true playoff. They didn't have it handed to them by a TV network or a selection committee.
I agree with everything you said except TV network. So many people think ESPN has a huge say in the teams selected, but they don’t. That would be the selection committee. In fact, ESPN has more Big Ten alums working at the company than any other conference. The Big Ten had a chance to partner with ESPN on a network but the conference decided to go in a different direction.
Beating Clemson and Georgia is having it "handed to them"? Ok drama queen. You didn't deserve to see an incredible game like that. Keep letting your homer biases blind you. Best four teams got in. The games proved it. Ohio St lost 2 btw....
This. Also, I heard from a reliable source, the aliens in area 51 pick the four play-off teams.
Exactly. Which other teams were going to dominate Clemson and then beat Georgia in succession? Ohio State? Wisconsin? UCF?
As a sports fan, I am not sure how you don't watch that game. And if you didn't, your loss. It was a fantastic football game. From what I witnessed throughout bowl season, we just watched the 2 best teams go at it for all the marbles. And yes, blaming it on ESPN. Good grief some people need to grow up.
Okay drama queen, why don’t you try playing a bowl game in Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan or Pennsylvania? You guys from the SEC and PAC12 all stay home and sleep in your own beds whereas the BIG 10 has to travel. Is that an even playing field? I think not!
A
anon_i8nzeu2gbf0ba
Guest
If Ohio State had beaten Iowa, or even lost close, Alabama--a team that didn't win its division, didn't win its conference, didn't even play in its conference championship game--wouldn't have even been in the playoff.
And the sad fact remains that a committee put Alabama in...as a #4 seed. So Alabama got a bye and then won two games, so that makes a national champion out of a team that didn't even win its DIVISION?
OK, folks. If you say so, it must be true.
And the sad fact remains that a committee put Alabama in...as a #4 seed. So Alabama got a bye and then won two games, so that makes a national champion out of a team that didn't even win its DIVISION?
OK, folks. If you say so, it must be true.
If Ohio State had beaten Iowa, or even lost close, Alabama--a team that didn't win its division, didn't win its conference, didn't even play in its conference championship game--wouldn't have even been in the playoff.
And the sad fact remains that a committee put Alabama in...as a #4 seed. So Alabama got a bye and then won two games, so that makes a national champion out of a team that didn't even win its DIVISION?
OK, folks. If you say so, it must be true.
IF, IF, IF..... we could play what if’s all day long. IF Wisconsin beats OSU. IF Alabama beats Auburn. IF UCF played a SOS above 70. IF OSU beats OU at home. IF conference championships meant something towards the CFP. IF any of these IFs happened we wouldn’t still have this debate.
As for the bye. Alabama rested five weeks compared to the other three resting four weeks. They all found at the same time who and where they were playing. I don’t buy the whole bye excuse.
How you or anyone can still argue that Alabama is not the best team in the country is almost comical at this point.
If Ohio St played Mercer instead of Oklahoma, they’d be national champs right now. I firmly believe that.
Because they're not. Look at all the hatred you have for Bama btw.
You're like a Sith Lord who found out a Jedi murdered your puppy and stole your favorite light saber, you hate Bama so much in that post......
By bringing up facts? Yeah I’m in love with Alabama because they are clearly the best team in the country.
Save your SciFi for OT board nerd.
The main disagreement that people have about this is what the committee should be looking at in the first place: What appears to be the best four teams, or what teams appear to have the best resume.
The committee phrases it as, "The best four teams," and I think it's clear that 'Bama belonged in that category. The committee followed the rules they'd set down. However, Ohio State would have won on resume as they played a more difficult schedule, beat more top 25 teams, and won their conference.
I'm in the camp that think resume Should be more important. Would it have been a shame to leave out a more talented team? Yes, but basing it on talent, alone, devalues the regular season.
What if 'Bama had some early-season injuries and lost 2 games. Should they have been in, knowing that those players would be ready by the playoff? What if they'd lost 3 games? They'd still be one of the best and most talented teams. This is why the "Best 4 teams" approach is flawed from the start.
The committee phrases it as, "The best four teams," and I think it's clear that 'Bama belonged in that category. The committee followed the rules they'd set down. However, Ohio State would have won on resume as they played a more difficult schedule, beat more top 25 teams, and won their conference.
I'm in the camp that think resume Should be more important. Would it have been a shame to leave out a more talented team? Yes, but basing it on talent, alone, devalues the regular season.
What if 'Bama had some early-season injuries and lost 2 games. Should they have been in, knowing that those players would be ready by the playoff? What if they'd lost 3 games? They'd still be one of the best and most talented teams. This is why the "Best 4 teams" approach is flawed from the start.
Best 4 teams is too subjective. There were USC teams in the mid 2000's that lost some head shaker games and missed the national championship but were hands down the best team in the country. 2002 comes to mind as well. I'm with you on the resume argument and firmly believe two teams should never be in the playoff from the same conference.
I didn't watch the game and I am not saying that Alabama isn't the best team. I didn't watch because I did not care which team won. So I missed a close SEC game. I missed a lot of them during the season. I chose to use those three plus hours of my life doing something I enjoyed more. I got to bed earlier and slept well not knowing how the game turned out.
Yep. It's really weird that people who call themselves college football fans didn't watch the game. It was obviously two of, if not the best teams in the nation battling it out in a classic. Kinda reminds me of the people boycotting the NFL because a couple guys kneeled. Just very strange.
This...until the playoff goes to eight teams, we'll continue to have a bogus playoff system.If Ohio State had beaten Iowa, or even lost close, Alabama--a team that didn't win its division, didn't win its conference, didn't even play in its conference championship game--wouldn't have even been in the playoff.
And the sad fact remains that a committee put Alabama in...as a #4 seed. So Alabama got a bye and then won two games, so that makes a national champion out of a team that didn't even win its DIVISION?
OK, folks. If you say so, it must be true.
Alabama beat Clemson and Georgia on neutral sites. They deserved the national championship. The playoff committee is as diverse as can be on the schools the members represent and with multiple people who've been a part of football for numerous years it makes no sense there was bias. And I don't believe one of the members represented ESPN. I hope it's true that ratings were up, as it means good for the sport. Nor I would be surprised if they were up, Bama is like what the Yankees have been in the past, and what Lebron is today, you tune in because you love to watch them lose or you love to watch them win, I'm glad these national championship games have been entertaining.
The Alabama Crimson Tide's thrilling 26 to 23 overtime victory on Monday over the Georgia Bulldogs in the college football playoff's national championship game averaged 28.4 million viewers across its MegaCast production on ESPN, ESPN 2 and ESPNU, the network announced on Tuesday.
That's a 13% bump from last year's championship game, which was another last second nail-biter in which the Clemson Tigers beat Alabama for the title.
That's a 13% bump from last year's championship game, which was another last second nail-biter in which the Clemson Tigers beat Alabama for the title.
Exactly. That 2002 USC team likely could have beaten either Miami or OSU had they been in the championship. And with all of OSU's ugly wins that year, the pundits would have Loved to have kept them out of it. (A lot of them even threw Iowa's name into the mix as a better matchup.)
Thankfully, they didn't have that option. Neither USC nor Iowa had earned the right to be there. OSU had, and they went on to win it all.
This isn't ice skating; the games aren't won or lost based on judges with score cards. But that's the system they've created to choose the playoff contenders...only with less clearly-defined criteria.
Easy way to get to 8 teams and take care of every concern mentioned above, 2 teams from same conf, did not win conf. div let alone title etc..
4 x 16 team conferences, 2 div of 8 per each, first round of playoffs are the conference champ games, then you have a final 4 that is reseeded and we go from there.
This also gives tremendous meaning to the conf. championship games and is the only true win/win for everything mentioned above....
4 x 16 team conferences, 2 div of 8 per each, first round of playoffs are the conference champ games, then you have a final 4 that is reseeded and we go from there.
This also gives tremendous meaning to the conf. championship games and is the only true win/win for everything mentioned above....
I’m done being a fan of all college football.
It’s either Iowa, or I’m on to other things.
The question is not whether Alabama did enough to justify winning the tournament, it’s whether they should have been there in the first place with their lone quality win, losing late in the season, missing out on their CCG (which should count as a blowout loss IMO, because you can only guess as to the result).
And then they get a week to rest up while UGA and Aub pound out another game. So, not only is Bama one game more rested, but UGA one game more tired and dinged.
Alabama was one of the best teams, but look out for watered down schedules and blue bloods trying to get in on name and one loss records. Oklahoma vs Ohio State is not beneficial. Why set up for a 50% loss when you’ve already got to Maneuver through conference play.
It’s either Iowa, or I’m on to other things.
The question is not whether Alabama did enough to justify winning the tournament, it’s whether they should have been there in the first place with their lone quality win, losing late in the season, missing out on their CCG (which should count as a blowout loss IMO, because you can only guess as to the result).
And then they get a week to rest up while UGA and Aub pound out another game. So, not only is Bama one game more rested, but UGA one game more tired and dinged.
Alabama was one of the best teams, but look out for watered down schedules and blue bloods trying to get in on name and one loss records. Oklahoma vs Ohio State is not beneficial. Why set up for a 50% loss when you’ve already got to Maneuver through conference play.
