8 Teams is too much. A defense of the 4 team playoff

WayBackVazquez · Jan 8, 2015

Philip Jeff Frye said:
And even then, basketball errs on the side of being overly inclusive, with 64 teams, despite having that much larger sample size. People seem to like the tournament anyway. And the tournament still uses a one-and-done format that often results in the "better" team losing, and the "best" team in the country being somebody like last year's UConn team that was almost certainly not the "best" team in the country. I don't hear a lot of complaints about that.

People like ketchup on their french fries. People should like ketchup on their pancakes, too!

Seriously, this post makes it seem like you're not even trying to hear what people are saying. Tournaments are great. Tournaments are fun. Tournaments are a meritocracy. But tournaments are tournaments; not a season.

Nobody complains about UConn winning the tournament, because UConn won the tournament, and it is what it is. But some people actually do complain about how meaningless and overlooked the college basketball season has become.

Bosoxen · Jan 8, 2015

If only there were a way to find a happy medium.

Deathofthebambino · Jan 8, 2015

TomRicardo said:
Five? I have Penn St., USC, and Texas. TCU and West Virginia had one loss. I accidentally omitted it (it was a long list and I forgot about the vacated wins).

Huh? In 2009, the teams that went undefeated in the regular season were Alabama, Texas, TCU, Boise State and Big East champ, Cincinnati. Florida had one loss, in the SEC title game to Alabama. Texas got to play Alabama for the championship (even though Cincinnati was ranked higher by the computers), while the rest were on the outside looking in, including the Boise State team that went to the Fiesta and beat undefeated TCU. Cincinnati ended up playing in the Sugar Bowl against one loss, Florida and got spanked. If there has ever been a season that absolutely screams for a playoff that is more than four teams, that's the one.

And no one at all cares about the FCS regular season. I honestly don't give much of shit about NCAA basketball season. There isn't a single sport in America with a more interesting regular season week in and week out than College Football. Without fantasy football, the NFL would not even come close. Playoffs are great but they cheapen the regular season. The more inclusive they get the less important the regular season is.

Your whole let be decided on the field thing is bullshit. You will never have a round robin of every team. So you have to seed and figure out where they are going to play. Playoffs are just as much a crapshot as evaluating a season. The whole "who are we to decide" is idiotic. It is what has been done forever. It is beast that was created because people liked it. The fact is CBS, NBS, and ABC have zero desire to expand the playoffs because it would hurt the regular season ratings

What is this "No one cares about the FCS regular season or the NCAA regular season" bullshit and where does it come from? You may not care about it, and frankly, that's fine, but there are plenty of us, millions of us in fact, that watch and pay attention to them. Whether or not they "matter" as much when crowning a national champion might be a better argument for you to make, but I guess it's tough when you want to argue from a place only you care about. If you honestly believe that the regular season will be cheapened by expanding the college football playoff, or that less people will tune in, if there is an 8 team vs. a 4 team playoff, I have a bridge to sell you. It's not even remotely a concern for anyone who isn't looking for reasons to not have a playoff. Likewise, if you reduced the number of teams that made the playoffs in the FCS or the NCAA basketball tournament, I can guarantee there would be no more interest in the regular season than there is now. If I had time right now, I'm pretty sure I could find some evidence to prove that interest in the FCS as a whole, including the regular season, has increased since they went to the playoff system that they have now, not the other way around.

Come March, why are there so many arguments about where teams end up seeded in the basketball tournament? I mean, it must not matter. It's just the result of a meaningless regular season. Duke or Kentucky would have the same shot to win the championship this year as the 15 seed as they would as the 1 seed, right? Makes no difference, the regular season doesn't matter and nobody gives a shit, so just throw the 64 teams into a hat and pull them out and seed them that way.

I already acknowledged in my first post that you can't have a round robin in college football and that at some point, you do have to have a vote or a system to pick the playoff teams, but it is idiotic and arrogant to think that anyone can figure out who the only 4 teams are that "deserve" a shot to play for a title after 12 or so games. It's too small a sample. So, you expand the playoffs to account for that. It's been done forever and it's sucked forever, and that's why the times, they are a changing, and they will continue to change. After it was announced that there would be a four team playoff this season, how much did the regular season ratings fall because of it? I guarantee very little, but would bet none at all. I would wager the same thing if it went to 8 teams, and I would bet a lot of money that if it went to 16 teams, the money the networks would make on just those games would absolutely dwarf any potential losses they would see from the regular season not mattering (your words). It's not the networks fighting this battle, it's the bowl committees, but when the NCAA figures out a way to include them all and make them see the light (like they did this year with three of them), it'll happen, and as a fan of sports and seeing teams get a shot to play for a title, I can't wait. More importantly, I'm a fan of not seeing teams that have earned the right to play for a championship relegated to the East Bumfuck Bowl sponsored by Vagisil. You're so concerned about cheapening the regular season. Who cares about the regular season when the teams that perform the best end up playing in games in December and January that truly nobody gives a fuck about. That's what we have now.

MentalDisabldLst · Jan 8, 2015

I'm very glad DotB is arguing my point of view here, because he's much better at it than I am.

And thanks for the history lesson, Tom. I disagree with you, but you're making great posts.

Bosoxen · Jan 9, 2015

Small nitpick on your post, Death. The playoff only included two bowls this year, the Rose and the Sugar. The third game, the championship upcoming on Monday the 12th, has no bowl affiliation. Oh sure, it'll be played in the same stadium as the Cotton Bowl and every other game Jerry Jones can get his greedy paws on, but it's not bowl affiliated.

And actually, the semifinal game will be rotated around six bowls: Rose/Sugar (2014-2015), Orange/Cotton (2015-2016) and Fiesta/Peach (2016-2017). The championship game, if I remember correctly, will undergo a bidding process with any site eligible for hosting it, ala the Super Bowl.

For reference.

tims4wins · Jan 9, 2015

In theory, could that result in the NC game being played at Jerrah World every year?

Bosoxen · Jan 9, 2015

I don't think so. It's probably like the Super Bowl where they'll only circle back around after X number of years. I can't find anything regarding how much time will have to pass before the Death Star can host it again, but the schedule only goes so far as the 16-17 season, I imagine it's at least three years.

After 16-17, the site is listed as TBA:

http://www.fbschedules.com/ncaa/college-football-playoff-schedule.php

Infield Infidel · Jan 9, 2015

tims4wins said:
In theory, could that result in the NC game being played at Jerrah World every year?

A site can't host the NCG and a semi-final bowl game in the same season, so any season the Cotton Bowl is a semifinal bowl, it can't host the title game

2016 is in Glendale AZ, 2017 is in Tampa. Any stadium with 65,000 seats is eligible

WayBackVazquez · Jan 9, 2015

Deathofthebambino said:
After it was announced that there would be a four team playoff this season, how much did the regular season ratings fall because of it? I guarantee very little, but would bet none at all. I would wager the same thing if it went to 8 teams, and I would bet a lot of money that if it went to 16 teams, the money the networks would make on just those games would absolutely dwarf any potential losses they would see from the regular season not mattering (your words).

Well, the reports I've seen are that the TV figures are somewhat mixed, but live attendance dropped significantly. I'm certainly not going to argue causation, but you can't definitively say playoffs weren't a factor, either.

And, by the way, the same phenomenon has been observed with college basketball. I get that some people don't care about that, and view college sports as a national entertainment product, where television is more important then an event. That's not at all the way I look at college football.

Senator Donut · Jan 9, 2015

There has also been fairly weak demand for tickets to the final. Prices are below face value on the secondary market.

Infield Infidel · Jan 9, 2015

TV runs things now. Ratings up, attendance down http://espn.go.com/college-football/bowls14/story/_/id/12132615/bowl-ratings-attendance-first-year-college-football-playoff-era

While ratings are slightly up across the board for bowl games, attendance has dipped.
The 38 bowl games this season have drawn an average announced attendance of 43,285, down 9.2 percent from the average of 47,659 for the 34 bowls last season that led up to the BCS National Championship.
Those figures are skewed by the fact that all four new bowls that had their inaugural games this season drew fewer than 30,000 fans. But even if you throw those four games out of the mix, the average attendance for the remaining 34 bowls is 45,904, down 3.7 percent from last season.
Wright Waters, the executive director for the Football Bowl Association, notes that the attendance drops reflect regular-season trends. A CBSSports.com study showed that the average regular-season attendance for home games this year was 43,483, down 4 percent from last season and the lowest figure since 2000.
"It's not just a bowl problem," Waters said. "It's a college football problem that we've got to deal with."

Not sure their methodology, but the "since 2000" number might not be as telling because there are a lot more FBS schools since then, and a few of the new Group of 5 schools have lower attendance and/or smaller stadiums.

edit Okay, found the CBS story, http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/24891415/college-football-attendance-home-crowds-drop-to-lowest-in-14-years

Football Bowl Subdivision crowds for home games averaged 43,483 fans per game, down 4 percent from 2013 and the lowest since 42,631 in 2000, according to a CBSSports.com analysis of NCAA attendance data. This marked the sixth straight season crowds were below 46,000 since they peaked at 46,456 in 2008.
The data counts only home games and not neutral-site venues. Figures represent the announced crowd totals schools reported to the NCAA and not necessarily actual attendance.
This was the first year the NCAA counted attendance from six new FBS schools: Georgia Southern, Old Dominion, Charlotte, Appalachian State, Georgia State and Texas San Antonio. But even when removing those teams from the calculation, the average for returning FBS schools (44,544) would be the lowest since 2002.

it's a little closer but still misses a few newer schools: FIU, FAU, UMass, Texas St, and Western Kentucky joined FBS since 2006.

Conigliaro's Potential · Jan 9, 2015

TomRicardo said:
More people are going to watch an 8-5 Notre Dame play LSU on the Monday before New Years then Alabama replay Missouri a week or two after they played a championship game (probably during the week).

FWIW, there's no way a selection committee would pair two teams who recently played against each other in a playoff quarterfinal rematch - they'd rig the selection to make sure that doesn't happen, just as the March Madness selection committee rigs the draw to ensure teams from the same conference can't play against each other until the Elite Eight (unless more than eight teams from the same conference get bids, of course).

Deathofthebambino · Jan 9, 2015

WayBackVazquez said:
Well, the reports I've seen are that the TV figures are somewhat mixed, but live attendance dropped significantly. I'm certainly not going to argue causation, but you can't definitively say playoffs weren't a factor, either.

And, by the way, the same phenomenon has been observed with college basketball. I get that some people don't care about that, and view college sports as a national entertainment product, where television is more important then an event. That's not at all the way I look at college football

I went to a school that did not have a football program, so I'm not sure why I wouldn't look at college football (or any other sport) as anything other than a national entertainment product. It's exactly what it is for me, as I basically have no rooting interest in anything.

That said, I'm sure there are a million reasons why attendance might be down, but you don't have to listen to me when it comes to the playoffs not being the factor. If TV ratings are any indication, the playoffs not only didn't hurt the regular season, some folks who were against the playoffs seem to think it helped.

"There were many, myself included, who didn't get real warm for the playoff until it became apparent that we could find a way to embed it in the bowl environment," Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby said. "We wanted to make sure we weren't decimating a bowl environment that had kept the regular season strong so a lot of people had a lot of things to play for. Not only has the regular season not been weakened, I think the months of October and November have gotten even better than they were before."

More from that article, http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/24846237/college-football-regular-season-tv-ratings-arent-hurt-by-playoff

Ben-Hanan points to Nov. 8 as a day that showed the value of the playoff. In the BCS era, No. 1 Mississippi State's win over Tennessee-Martin and No. 2 Florida State's win over Virginia that day wouldn't have moved the needle for postseason implications.
In the playoff era, that day also featured these games that had postseason consequences: No. 12 Baylor vs. No. 15 Oklahoma; No. 9 Arizona State vs. No. 10 Notre Dame; No. 6 TCU vs. No. 7 Kansas State; No. 5 Alabama vs. No. 16 LSU; No. 14 Ohio State vs. No. 8 Michigan State; and No. 4 Oregon vs. No. 17 Utah.
"All day there was something with national relevance," Ben-Hanan said. "It's heaven. This is a golden age for college football fans, in my mind."

Across the country, TV executives and commissioners believe there's more buzz with a playoff. But very few of them see a correlation between the playoff and TV ratings.
SEC executive associate commissioner Mark Womack said the playoff hasn't had a significant impact on ratings, "but it certainly has not been a negative impact." CBS's highest-rated SEC game so far this season is Mississippi State-Alabama with a 6.4 rating. At this time last year, CBS had two games rated higher than that: Alabama-Texas A&M (8.6) and LSU-Alabama (6.9).
CBS ratings were up for this season until a 2.1 rating last week for the Ole Miss-Arkansas game. CBS vice president of programming Dan Weinberg sensed no dramatic impact in viewership based on the playoff.
"The SEC continues to be the highest quality in terms of field of play," Weinberg said. "That hasn't changed this year whether the playoff existed or not."
ACC commissioner John Swofford attributes higher ratings for ACC games more to five games against Notre Dame than playoff interest.
Bowlsby said the playoff has created heightened interest in regular-season games that essentially become elimination games. The ratings for the six playoff games and access bowls "will be extraordinary," he said.
Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott said anecdotally he thinks there's a connection between the playoff and what he calls "very strong" viewership for Pac-12 games.
"Frankly, as I expected, the playoff is taking college football to even another level in terms of popularity and interest given the fact there's more teams that have a chance to make it to the postseason," Scott said. "There's more storylines, more intrigue, and more at stake for more schools."
After the games are played, the narrative plays out every Tuesday night when the selection committee unveils its weekly rankings on ESPN.
"It's brilliant," Marshall athletic director Mike Hamrick said. "People sit around all week waiting for those rankings and I think that's good for college football. That weekly show is just the buildup to the national championship game."
The ratings for ESPN's playoff rankings show: 1.0 (Oct. 28 debut), 0.7 (Nov. 4), 0.9 (Nov. 11), 0.4 (Nov. 18) and 0.7 (Nov. 25). The Nov. 18 show aired on ESPN2 and opposite a Michigan State-Duke basketball game on ESPN.

It goes on and on, but you get the point. And then when you take all that into account, and then recognize that the two playoff games just broke the record for a cable television show with almost 30 million viewers each, I think it's pretty hard to argue anything other than a four team playoff has been a massive success this year, at least when it comes to television ratings. As we all know, college football is big fucking business, and the dollars are made via television ratings. What would the ratings have been like on network television? 50 million? 75 million?

First off the is a zero percent chance there will ever be a 16 team playoff. There is absolutely no way the NCAA will get away with having teams play a possible 17 game season (12 games plus conference championship and then 4 playoff games). 15 games is already pushing it with the break in the middle. Also no way the NFL give NCAA a weekend to play out these games. So that means they would have to be played during the week around and during finals (despite popular opinion these kids do go to college). So weekday games sucking the life out of big Saturday matches while other networks are doing midseason finales and the holiday season. There isn't a huge market there.

Also you think the Bowl Committees aren't the networks ... It is all the same. It is the sponsors. And the sponsors are going to drive this system else it is completely unsustainable. Have a gazillion game playoff does not help sponsors. More people are going to watch an 8-5 Notre Dame play LSU on the Monday before New Years then Alabama replay Missouri a week or two after they played a championship game (probably during the week). Bowls are more watchable then some football sweet sixteen. The Bowls were made because most people are off the week between Christmas and NYE.

There is no stopping this train now, and I'm glad for it. 8 teams is right around the corner. If it stops there, I won't have an issue with it, but it won't. North Dakota State is playing their 16th game this week in the FCS championship (If Sam Houston had beaten the, the championship game would have been the 17th game of the season for them) and I don't hear anyone screaming about the students there. Only 2 teams would have to play that many games, so let's not act like going to 16-17 games would have a massive effect on every college team in the country. Only 4 teams would play in the semi-final. 95% of the FBS would be done playing by their 13th game, just like now.

I have no idea how you can possibly make the argument that more people would watch an 8-5 Notre Dame play LSU than would watch an FBS quarterfinal game. 28 million people just tuned in to watch the semi-final on cable television. The highest rated cable television programs in the history of Earth. And a whole bunch of huge television markets had absolutely nobody close to them geographically playing in those games (hello Northeast). Sports fans love playoffs. Conversely, people are not tuning into the meaningless bowl games in anywhere near those numbers. Two teams that were pretty close to making the playoff, but instead played each other on New Year's eve, TCU/Ole Miss, only got 5 million viewers. Had they each won an extra game along the way and made the playoffs, 5x-6x as many people would have watched their bowl game than did this year, because the playoffs matter, and the Peach Bowl does not. The train is chugging along, the money is coming in, and as soon as they figure out how to spread the wealth to the last remaining holdouts against a playoff, it'll happen, and it's going to be fucking awesome when it does. March Madness is one of the best sporting events of the year, if not the best. I don't want a 64 team playoff for football, but if we can get that kind of excitement for a college basketball playoff where 90% of the country couldn't name 3 players in the entire tournament before it starts, the excitement for a college football playoff of 8 or 16 teams would be off the fucking charts.

Infield Infidel · Jan 9, 2015

The rub is that it reduces the amount of time between the season and the bowl games. This season, the 4 teams in the CFP have a little under 4 weeks until their bowls, that's the shortest turnaround before the bowls except for a few group of 5 finalists. Depending on the calendar, it's 25-31ish days between. Having a lot of time between the season and the bowls gives fans a lot of time to plan to travel, and usually more time = cheaper plane tickets.

Just like now, the top 8 teams would deserve spots in the New Year's bowls. This year the conference title games of the season were Dec. 6. In an 8 game set up, the quarters would have been Dec. 13, so that turnaround would be less than 3 weeks before the semifinal bowls.

if there were 16 teams, the quarters would be Dec. 20, less than 2 weeks before the semifinal bowls. Some round of 16 losers would have even a shorter break if their bowl game is before new years. Combine that with the fact that sometimes when a team loses its final game, it impacts their bowl attendance negatively. A shorter turnaround time would probably exacerbate that. Right now those teams are done in November, which leaves plenty of time to lick your wounds and plan for a bowl trip. For the quarterfinalists, imagine being a fan of a team that won and wanting to go to the semifinal bowl, and having to wait until 10 days before the game to buy plane tickets, book hotels, get vacation time, etc. Now imagine losing a quarterfinal and buying a plane ticket for a game across the country to see your team potentially lose again.

I think 3ish weeks is the shortest reasonable amount of time feasible between the season and the bowls, which means 8 teams is likely as big as it could go. (In my dream scenario, Thanksgiving would be a week earlier, making the season start a week earlier and leaving more time for some kind of playoff. I think Thanksgiving is too close to Christmas, especially years like this year.)

Deathofthebambino · Jan 10, 2015

I don't necessarily disagree with any of that. I just don't think it matters. Sure, it'd be nice if every game sold out and attendance was off the charts, but at the end of the day, an extra 5,000-10,000 butts in the seats is nickels and dimes when we're talking about 25 million plus folks watching on television. That's where the money is made, and that's ultimately what will determine how the playoffs shake out in the future.

DukeSox · Jan 12, 2015

So without the turnovers tonight, the #4 seed team would be winning the Championship in a blowout. And still might.

We're sure we want this committee making that call on who's #4 and who's #5?

Go 8 teams.

johnmd20 · Jan 13, 2015

I'm not sure how long it's going to take, but I think they will go to 8 teams at some point. Too much excitement and interest for this not to happen.

PaulinMyrBch · Jan 13, 2015

I'm going to take a piss on the "too much excitement" parade.

Let me first say I thought the semifinal day was one of the greatest football days in the history of college football. Two games, same day, new format, New Years Day, tons at stake, etc. Just a great day of football. Anticipation, buildup, everything was dead on. It was a must see TV day for a college football fan.

Last night was missing something and I'm not talking about the teams in the game. ESPN and the CFB planning higher ups missed something somewhere and I'm not sure what it was or if it can be fixed. I don't know if the game lag was too much (10 days?), or if sandwiched behind NFL Division games mattered, or if the pregame buzz for me got lost in the NFL schedule, game time being late, etc. But something was missing (for me at least). I didn't have that "National Championship game is tonight" feeling all day. It wasn't must watch TV and frankly I went to bed after 3 quarters and didn't have that "what happened" feeling when I woke up this morning.

Maybe its just me, but I thought the semifinal games had much more buzz. This game not so much and it should have been there. I've got no dog in the fight in any of the three games, but I was glued New Years day and last night just didn't create the energy for me.

I'm not sure 8 teams is going to make it better and I'll be curious to see if the ratings last night exceeded the New Years games ratings. I doubt it, but we'll see.

Infield Infidel · Jan 13, 2015

I completely agree with New Years being a great day for college football

I think the "it" was the NCG being on a monday night. The leagues don't want to compete with the NFL, which is understandable, but if there was any way to get this game on a Saturday it would be perfect.

DukeSox · Jan 13, 2015

PaulinMyrBch said:
I'm going to take a piss on the "too much excitement" parade.

Let me first say I thought the semifinal day was one of the greatest football days in the history of college football. Two games, same day, new format, New Years Day, tons at stake, etc. Just a great day of football. Anticipation, buildup, everything was dead on. It was a must see TV day for a college football fan.

Last night was missing something and I'm not talking about the teams in the game. ESPN and the CFB planning higher ups missed something somewhere and I'm not sure what it was or if it can be fixed. I don't know if the game lag was too much (10 days?), or if sandwiched behind NFL Division games mattered, or if the pregame buzz for me got lost in the NFL schedule, game time being late, etc. But something was missing (for me at least). I didn't have that "National Championship game is tonight" feeling all day. It wasn't must watch TV and frankly I went to bed after 3 quarters and didn't have that "what happened" feeling when I woke up this morning.

Maybe its just me, but I thought the semifinal games had much more buzz. This game not so much and it should have been there. I've got no dog in the fight in any of the three games, but I was glued New Years day and last night just didn't create the energy for me.

I'm not sure 8 teams is going to make it better and I'll be curious to see if the ratings last night exceeded the New Years games ratings. I doubt it, but we'll see.

The playoff games were new, never before.

There's been a championship game for years and years.

Strange is more exciting.

Bosoxen · Jan 13, 2015

I went completely the other way. Even though I couldn't care less about either team, I was glued to the tv last night and watched from start to finish, despite my usual bed time falling sometime in the middle of the second quarter - side note: holy shit, did that game take a long time. Contrast that with last year's game, which also involved teams I couldn't care less about and of which I never watched a single second. Why? Because last year's game involved two teams that followed the TRic model of "they look like champions", whereas this year's game involved two teams that settled it on the field.

I love college football and I was far, far more excited for yesterday's game than any other "championship" game in recent memory, not involving my team.

DukeSox · Jan 13, 2015

PaulinMyrBch said:
I'm not sure 8 teams is going to make it better and I'll be curious to see if the ratings last night exceeded the New Years games ratings. I doubt it, but we'll see.

It was a championship night on every level for not just Ohio State but ESPN as well. Monday night’s primetime inaugural College Football Playoff National Championshipgave the sports cablers its highest metered market result in its 35-year history and the best ever in cable history. The Buckeyes’ 42-20 win over Oregon delivered a 18.5 overnight rating for ESPN. That a 21% jump for the National Championship game over last year’s Florida State vs. Auburn in the BCS National Championship, which the CFPNP replaced. That 2014 game pulled in a 15.3 MM result for ESPN.

http://deadline.com/2015/01/ohio-state-espn-ratings-record-1201348915/

Yep, it'll be 8 teams before long.

Fred in Lynn · Jan 13, 2015

Are you not entertained?!

Entertainment is not the point of competition for those involved. The goal should be to provide the most reasonable, equitable system possible, one that maximizes the ability of teams to control their own fates while minimizing outside influences (like a group of people who have no skill specific to assessing football getting together to throw darts at a board). OSU more or less smashed both Alabama and Oregon (it was quite impressive), but a team from Texas that wears purple, was in the playoff until the committee was whimsically distracted by key jingling in the OSU-Wis rout, lost only one game (to a playoff-caliber team), and in its bowl game did its own smashing to a former #1 team from the best conference in the land wasn't there. So while the playoff was a positive step, it was a baby step that didn't solve the fair competition matters that existed before. It barely mitigated them. I'm not sure why I'm surprised by any of this. Those who run college football are guided primarily by money and self-interest. If competition were a primary goal of college athletics (silly me), they'd have solved it long ago.

tims4wins · Jan 13, 2015

The Monday night aspect of it did suck.

I hope they go to 8 teams so they can schedule the championship during the week off between the conference title games and the Super Bowl. That's when we need it.

PaulinMyrBch · Jan 13, 2015

DukeSox said:
http://deadline.com/2015/01/ohio-state-espn-ratings-record-1201348915/

Yep, it'll be 8 teams before long.

I seem to be in the minority. Who knows.

Whats odd is I manage to stay involved in the NCAA basketball final game more so than last night, and that includes the once per decade occasion that Duke makes it.

Disclaimer: Rounded up from 7.5 years, cleaner math.

DukeSox · Jan 13, 2015

PaulinMyrBch said:
I seem to be in the minority. Who knows.

Whats odd is I manage to stay involved in the NCAA basketball final game more so than last night, and that includes the once per decade occasion that Duke makes it.

Disclaimer: Rounded up from 7.5 years, cleaner math.

Yeah, because you were just intensely invested in 3 weeks of basketball leading up to the cap of the tournament - you'd feel obligated to watch it.

More support for 8 (or 16!?) team football playoff.

PaulinMyrBch · Jan 13, 2015

I think I support 8 actually. I just wish the schedule could be cleaner. One week breaks, but that's going to be tough with New Years Day moving around and not wanting to compete with NFL games.

And I applaud your ability to ignore my attempt at a troll. Well done. BTW, saw the Kennard kid play over the xmas holiday. He's legit.

Infield Infidel · Jan 13, 2015

I really hope they fix the scheduling next year before it's too late. They have the semis (Orange/Cotton) and Peach on Thursday Dec 31, and Rose/Sugar/Fiesta on Fri Jan 1. Yes, they scheduled the semis on the day before a three-day weekend. And it's week 17 for NFL so no pro games on Saturday. ESPN paid B1G/PAC/Big12/SEC a crapton for Rose and Sugar in a separate deal so they are keeping those games on Jan 1. The years Rose/Sugar don't host the semis, the semis are on Dec 31. It's weird. They should switch Orange/Cotton and Fiesta/Sugar next year.

Awesome Fossum · Jan 13, 2015

I would do an 11-team playoff. The five power conferences champs get byes, and the five non-power conference champs plus a wild card play on-campus, play-in games. One thing college basketball does right is that ANYONE can theoretically win the national championship.

snowmanny · Jan 13, 2015

I'm all for eight teams. There often are five or more teams with a legitimate argument that they are worthy of being ranked 1 or 2.

This year there were three teams everyone decided "deserved" to be in the top three:
Alabama (because they're Alabama) Florida State (maybe the fifth or tenth best team, but undefeated) and Oregon (very exciting to watch). On the other hand, there was no particular reason to keep out Ohio State, Baylor or TCU, and no particular way to decide between them, and the controversy was only around the four-seed.

I think it really helped the eight-team cause to have the number four team win.

Deathofthebambino · Jan 13, 2015

I'm already on record as saying I want 8 teams, but if they go to more, I'll be even happier with that. I just think 8 is enough that we should get everyone that really "deserves" the shot, whereas four is so clearly not enough that's it's comical.

I'm sure the scheduling stuff is going to work itself out over time. One thing folks can be certain of, it's that if there is a potential to get more viewers and more money by putting it at a different time and/or on a different day, the folks in charge will do that. This was such an unquestioned success for the NCAA and the networks that it's not going to take long for them to look at everything from every angle to figure out ways to make it even better, and more importantly, more profitable. On that note, I see the ESPN rankings up top and the new record that they broke, but does anyone know what the ratings were for ESPN2's telecast of the coaches who were round table discussing the game while it was live? I know myself and a good portion of the game thread probably spent more time watching that instead of the ESPN telecast, and it wouldn't surprise me if the ratings were actually even higher, maybe a lot higher, when they factor that into it as well.

Deathofthebambino · Jan 13, 2015

Actually, just found it on Bleacher Report, but can't link it. If you count ESPN's other networks, the rating goes up slightly from 18.5 to 18.9, which doesn't seem like much, but is still pretty huge numbers for a cable television show.

McBride11 · Jan 14, 2015

8 teams...

Rd1 - xmas day. Which is gonna draw more NBA or
football?

Rd2 - new years day. Same
Excitement as this year, teams have a week off between games. No classes etc. fans usually have time off to travel

Championship- sat of nfl conference champ weekend. Gives 3 weeks. Fans can arrange travel, kids can go home for a few days. Sat > monday nite esp when the game goes til 1130. And what the hell am I doing this Saturday? Itching to watch the nfl , need a football fix on saturday.

MentalDisabldLst · Jan 15, 2015

Nate Silver joins the debate with an analysis of how an expanded playoff would have shaken out, and who might best be considered deserving of a shot at the national title. Here's one of the money charts:

8 Teams is too much. A defense of the 4 team playoff

white knight against high school nookie

Bounced back

rusty cohlebone

rusty cohlebone

Drive Carefully

MentalDisabldLst

Guest

Bounced back

PN23's replacement

Bounced back

teaching korea american

white knight against high school nookie

post-Domer

teaching korea american

rusty cohlebone

Member

Drive Carefully

teaching korea american

Drive Carefully

absence hasn't made the heart grow fonder

mad dog

Don't touch his dog food

teaching korea american

absence hasn't made the heart grow fonder

Bounced back

absence hasn't made the heart grow fonder

Member

PN23's replacement

Don't touch his dog food

absence hasn't made the heart grow fonder

Don't touch his dog food

teaching korea american

Member

Member

Drive Carefully

Drive Carefully

Member

MentalDisabldLst

Guest