Title game lowest TV rating

CALigulabob

Joined: Sep 13, 2008

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

7:57a, 1/10/12

pingpong2

Joined: Nov 14, 2010

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to CALigulabob • 7:58a, 1/10/12

Hah, glad I couldn't contribute. I'm out of the country on business for the time being; sounds like I missed a fantastic game though :sarc:

HoopDreams

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to CALigulabob • 7:59a, 1/10/12

having the NC game a week after all the bowls is a bad idea. I liked having in right after new years...Jan 2 or 3rd

pingpong2

Joined: Nov 14, 2010

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to HoopDreams • 8:00a, 1/10/12

<blockquote><div class="name-said">HoopDreams;672971 said:</div><hr>having the NC game a week after all the bowls is a bad idea. I liked having in right after new years...Jan 2 or 3rd<hr></blockquote><br /><br />If it's another lame rematch of the boringest game of the year, I wish they never had it. Would rather watch a rerun of U$C/Stanfurd or UM/ND.

GinFizzBear

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to pingpong2 • 8:08a, 1/10/12

this is great! low ratings + Bama win is a little nudge to a 4-team playoff.<br /><br />I like the idea where pac12/big10 are always in the rose bowl, and the other highest 4 teams play in the semifinals. highest ranked 2 winners of those 3 games play in the title match.<br /><br />Also fine with an unseeded plus one, where 2 teams are picked out of all the bowl winners. Again with pac12/b10 in RB.

freshfunk

Joined: Sep 12, 2010

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to CALigulabob • 8:12a, 1/10/12

The gap is too big for the bowl games for CFB. <br />They need to cut the lower tier bowls and move everything up.

txwharfrat

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to freshfunk • 8:25a, 1/10/12

It was horribly painful to watch until about 3/4 of the way through the third quarter. Then, it became impressive to see the bama defense and the suspense of whether or not LSU would ever get over the 50-yard line...

BearsLair72

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to CALigulabob • 8:26a, 1/10/12

...I had hoped this would happen.Let them stew on that one for a while and see how fast we see another all-SEC from the South rematch again. <br /><br />Like I have said about JT and attendance...since this is a plutocracy now in America, we all vote with our dollars, which is of course why the poor never matter, except maybe to give needy kids a chance to join a football team as cannon fodder. <br /><br />:bravo

biely medved

Joined: Aug 16, 2009

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to CALigulabob • 8:27a, 1/10/12

"Television ratings for the 2010 World Series matched the lowest ever, with an 8.4 average rating and 14 share. The Giants beat the Rangers in five games."<br /><br />Reasons are numerous for low ratings. Who wanted to see good pitching and a one dimensional team? With football, besides time delay from season, ESPN over-hype and rematch, I think some of it is the video game, fantasy mentality that demands players flipping over defenders at the goal line to score. It is hard to appreciate a well coached, smart, fundamentally sound team dominating with scheme, mental toughness and physical superiority. That's boring. We want the Yankees, the Lakers, Hulk Hogan, etc. We want to see Arod fail spectacularly or hit a HR. Same with LaBron, Kobi, etc.

manus

Joined: Jan 11, 2010

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to biely medved • 8:30a, 1/10/12

CALigulabob

Joined: Sep 13, 2008

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to biely medved • 8:34a, 1/10/12

<blockquote><div class="name-said">biely medved;673015 said:</div><hr>"Television ratings for the 2010 World Series matched the lowest ever, with an 8.4 average rating and 14 share. The Giants beat the Rangers in five games."<br /><br />Reasons are numerous for low ratings. Who wanted to see good pitching and a one dimensional team? With football, besides time delay from season, ESPN over-hype and rematch, I think some of it is the video game, fantasy mentality that demands players flipping over defenders at the goal line to score. It is hard to appreciate a well coached, smart, fundamentally sound team dominating with scheme, mental toughness and physical superiority. That's boring. We want the Yankees, the Lakers, Hulk Hogan, etc. We want to see Arod fail spectacularly or hit a HR. Same with LaBron, Kobi, etc.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />pretty spot on<br /><br />But for alot of people I think it had more to do with BCS fatigue, regional affiliations and rematch disinterest. People pretty much excepted that fact that there was going to be good defense, but like you said, that isnt very exciting to the average fan

Cal_Fan2

Joined: Jul 26, 2008

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to CALigulabob • 8:50a, 1/10/12

CALigulabob

Joined: Sep 13, 2008

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to Cal_Fan2 • 9:03a, 1/10/12

<blockquote><div class="name-said">Cal_Fan2;673040 said:</div><hr>Rest assured though that every double wide in Bama and Louisiana had their multiple TV's with pirated cable tuned in...also, the only people who showed up to work today were the police, fire dept and hospital staff...everyone else called in sick with some type of alcohol or fried food poisoning.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />There is one major flaw in your assessment....what is this thing called "work" that you speak of?

elpbear

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to CALigulabob • 9:04a, 1/10/12

<blockquote><div class="name-said">CALigulabob;673051 said:</div><hr>There is one major flaw in your assessment....what is this thing called "work" that you speak of?<hr></blockquote>Hey, they have McDonalds and Burger King in LA and AL, too.

glb78

Joined: Sep 18, 2010

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to CALigulabob • 9:06a, 1/10/12

Funny, nobody that I have talked to had any desire to watch the game.. Good!

82gradDLSdad

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to glb78 • 9:26a, 1/10/12

In college football you have a month's worth of meaningless bowl games, 90% of which are pretty bad displays of football (ie. two average teams who haven't played in a month and are rusty). Most college football fans are just fed up and burned out by the end of the month and unless there is a compelling match up in the championship game no one cares.<br /><br />In March madness every game matters even the shitty ones between the 1 and 16 seeded teams. There is a steady build up of excitement to the championship game. By the end of the month even a bad match up in the championship game has had the time to build up its own drama. <br /><br />D1 football needs some sort of playoff. The bowl games are old and stale and this is coming from a guy who usually likes old and stale traditional stuff.

burritos

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to glb78 • 9:32a, 1/10/12

More people were paying attention to Ish's tweet than that yawner.

SoCalBear323

Joined: Jan 14, 2009

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to burritos • 9:53a, 1/10/12

ColoradoBear

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to CALigulabob • 9:58a, 1/10/12

It's not fair to compare pre and post network TV rating for the BCS game... And last year was the first year on ESPN. But yes it is doen since last year - Oregon v Auburn has more national appeal, while this year was much more regional (and a rematch). <br /><br /><blockquote><div class="name-said">GinFizzBear;672982 said:</div><hr>this is great! low ratings + Bama win is a little nudge to a 4-team playoff.<br /><br />I like the idea where pac12/big10 are always in the rose bowl, and the other highest 4 teams play in the semifinals. highest ranked 2 winners of those 3 games play in the title match.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />That specific proposal was not what was being pushed by the P12/BT earlier - They wanted the Rose to be Big v Pac all the time AND they'd give up a 1-4 team to the Semifinals and replace them with the next BT/PAc team.<br /><br />If they had to choose 2 from 3 games, we verry well could have had the same title game (would have been LSU v Stanford and OkSt v Bama) AND the P12/BT winner of the Rose would have been shut out since Oregon was #5 and Wisky #10. Of course Stanford was #4 so they still would have had a chance, but that plan is not particularly good for the BT/Pac since the lower seed in the Rose is locked in and will often not be near the top 5.

RealDrew2

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to ColoradoBear • 10:29a, 1/10/12

I think interconference and interregional matchups are what makes bowl games interesting. Had Ok St. played in the game, the rest of the country would have watched just to see if someone could put the SEC in its place.

CALigulabob

Joined: Sep 13, 2008

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

10:33a, 1/10/12

<blockquote><div class="name-said">CalReason;673150 said:</div><hr>all BCS bowls had really low ratings; hopefully people are catching on. And my indifference towards the NC game was not solely based on the fact that both teams are boring/offensively challenged, or that it rendered LSU's win @ Bama completely moot, it is the system itself that creates a billion dollar, month long glorified exhibition season. None of these teams are playing for anything. Most of them shouldn't be playing for anything. The only way it changes if fans like ourselves stop watching.<br /><br />The broadcasts are becoming so whorish. Musburger lathering up Richardson as a future pro to remind people this is the minors of the NFL with its future stars. No TDs in almost 8 full quarters.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />The highlight that might affect change is that the only game that had better ratings was the OSU Furd game. Maybe that'll help reinforce those in charge that providing good and legitimate matchups can actually be beneficial

Spazzy McGee

Joined: Sep 4, 2008

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

10:46a, 1/10/12

<blockquote><div class="name-said">CalReason;673150 said:</div><hr>all BCS bowls had really low ratings; hopefully people are catching on. And my indifference towards the NC game was not solely based on the fact that both teams are boring/offensively challenged, or that it rendered LSU's win @ Bama completely moot, it is the system itself that creates a billion dollar, month long glorified exhibition season. None of these teams are playing for anything. Most of them shouldn't be playing for anything. The only way it changes if fans like ourselves stop watching.<br /><br />The broadcasts are becoming so whorish. Musburger lathering up Richardson as a future pro to remind people this is the minors of the NFL with its future stars. No TDs in almost 8 full quarters.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />Yup, well said. Except the part about the broadcasts "becoming" whorish.

ColoradoBear

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to 82gradDLSdad • 11:25a, 1/10/12

<blockquote><div class="name-said">82gradDLSdad;673088 said:</div><hr>In college football you have a month's worth of meaningless bowl games, 90% of which are pretty bad displays of football (ie. two average teams who haven't played in a month and are rusty). Most college football fans are just fed up and burned out by the end of the month and unless there is a compelling match up in the championship game no one cares.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />On the other hand, the college basketball regular season is pretty meaningless. For some reason, despite the fact 68 teams get in, major colleges typically play 9 home conference games, then 9+ games at home against mostly wankers. It's pathetic actually. College basketball is plodding around for 14 weeks or so just to set up 3 good weeks on TV. <br /><br />Bowl season is so so, especially some of these lower bowls. But one great effect on the regular season is that there is usually incremental gain to EVERY win during the regular season - ie a better bowl. Some kind of hybrid bowl/small playoff system seems best to me. Obviously the specifics make or break that kind of plan. <br /><br />In the recent BCS format discussions, it's pretty obvious that the powers in the major conference are very keen on maintaining the importance regular season. <br /><br />Of course counter that with the now meaningless LSU-Bama game in November. Now what was the point of that only to watch boring football and reward the team that made MORE mistakes in he game because they obviously had talent?

sycasey

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to ColoradoBear • 11:31a, 1/10/12

<blockquote><div class="name-said">ColoradoBear1;673237 said:</div><hr>On the other hand, the college basketball regular season is pretty meaningless. For some reason, despite the fact 68 teams get in, major colleges typically play 9 home conference games, then 9+ games at home against mostly wankers. It's pathetic actually. College basketball is plodding around for 14 weeks or so just to set up 3 good weeks on TV.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />Yeah, but i'd argue that any feasible football playoff couldn't have so many teams as to make the regular season as meaningless as in basketball. Even the most expansive playoff system I've seen proposed (16 teams) would make it pretty tough to qualify with more than 2 losses (without winning your conference). The regular season would still carry that importance.

ColoradoBear

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to RealDrew2 • 11:32a, 1/10/12

<blockquote><div class="name-said">RealDrew2;673156 said:</div><hr>I think interconference and interregional matchups are what makes bowl games interesting. Had Ok St. played in the game, the rest of the country would have watched just to see if someone could put the SEC in its place.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />I agree that the interteagional matchups are what is great - but the bowl system is there to sell tickets, so the unfortunate thing for Pac 12 teams is that it will be hard to get any kind of interregional matchups without a system like the BCS (where the matchups are not hard wired like in the regular bowls). <br /><br />Not sure how to do it exactly, but it would be great to have a system that rewards major OOC matchups (could be home and home or neutral sites) as opposed to cupcakes.

ColoradoBear

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to sycasey • 11:45a, 1/10/12

<blockquote><div class="name-said">sycasey;673243 said:</div><hr>Yeah, but i'd argue that any feasible football playoff couldn't have so many teams as to make the regular season as meaningless as in basketball. Even the most expansive playoff system I've seen proposed (16 teams) would make it pretty tough to qualify with more than 2 losses (without winning your conference). The regular season would still carry that importance.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />I mostly agree, but consider the first bama-lsu game this year. hyped to no end. with a playoff of 16 teams, that game wouldn't matter - both teams know they are going to the postseason. Maybe that's a poor argument since, in this case, they would have a playoff bid in an 8 team and 4 team playoff too - but the sense of urgency in these games goes down as the playoffs get bigger - point being that LSU or bama likely could lose that game AND another and still lose ANOTHER game and get in with larger playoff formats.<br /><br />Lots of interesting side effect based on how one chooses to do a playoff. Say it's 4 teams, only conference champions - great for the conference season importance, but it would reduce OOC to exhibitions. Maybe that's good since there's no penalty for scheduling real OOC matchups.<br /><br />Or take BCS 1-4 - wow that's a tough pill for Oregon this year since they ran it up on the Furd, but lost to LSU, who happens to be #1 while the furd played SJSU that weekend. <br /><br />I guess what I would like most out of a playoff system is to get rid of this circular SEC logic where they are the best conference so they can't schedule hard teams OOC, but then in many years, they haven't beat anyone OOC so how does one know they are the best... (can't say that about LSU this year w/ wins over WVU and Oregon though). It's not always the SEC either - remember a couple of years ago when tOSU and Michigan were 'obviously' the two best teams?

KoreAmBear

Joined: Jul 24, 2008

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to CALigulabob • 12:12p, 1/10/12

Yah but Denver v. Pittsburgh got a rating of 31.6 in the fourth quarter. <br /><br />TeeEEEbow, Whooooaa-whoa.

mbBear

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to GinFizzBear • 12:55p, 1/10/12

i agree with you, but in one of the proposals there will be pressure for the top 4 teams to go to 2 of the games, and then the "plus 1." I am against anything that takes away the tradition of the Rose Bowl.

Tedhead03

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to ColoradoBear • 1:48p, 1/10/12

<blockquote><div class="name-said">ColoradoBear1;673116 said:</div><hr>It's not fair to compare pre and post network TV rating for the BCS game... <hr></blockquote><br /><br />I was looking for this. I can't believe neither of the linked articles mentions that a majority of the BCS Championship games had been on network television over the course of the 14 years. I realize a lot of people are on cable and/or have access to ESPN, but still.

CALigulabob

Joined: Sep 13, 2008

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to Tedhead03 • 2:03p, 1/10/12

<blockquote><div class="name-said">Tedhead03;673456 said:</div><hr>I was looking for this. I can't believe neither of the linked articles mentions that a majority of the BCS Championship games had been on network television over the course of the 14 years. I realize a lot of people are on cable and/or have access to ESPN, but still.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />It would be a legit argument but unfortunately, last years title game was on ESPN as well and did very well compared with network TV's previous TV ratings for the national championship

Phantomfan

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to biely medved • 2:06p, 1/10/12

<blockquote><div class="name-said">biely medved;673015 said:</div><hr>"Television ratings for the 2010 World Series matched the lowest ever, with an 8.4 average rating and 14 share. The Giants beat the Rangers in five games."<br /><br />Reasons are numerous for low ratings. Who wanted to see good pitching and a one dimensional team? With football, besides time delay from season, ESPN over-hype and rematch, I think some of it is the video game, fantasy mentality that demands players flipping over defenders at the goal line to score. It is hard to appreciate a well coached, smart, fundamentally sound team dominating with scheme, mental toughness and physical superiority. That's boring. We want the Yankees, the Lakers, Hulk Hogan, etc. We want to see Arod fail spectacularly or hit a HR. Same with LaBron, Kobi, etc.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />I agree, however:<br /><br />My issue with LSU and Bama is that their offenses looked incompetent (obviously LSU's last night). For example, I LOVE to watch a DB make a play. I hate to watch a WR drop a pass.<br /><br />I love to see a DE shed a block, I hate to watch a down lineman get into the backfield completely untouched.<br /><br />One is good defense, the other is bad football. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />For baseball, I guess the example would be claiming the pitching is great, when every time the batter hit the ball, he fell on his face in the dirt.

philly1121

Joined: Oct 19, 2008

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to Phantomfan • 4:35p, 1/10/12

It seems the way to go would be the way the Pac-12 and B1G are already moving to. Perhaps Larry Scott, great leader that he is (with the exception of the 2012 Cal football schedule) is already placing the P12 and B1G in the mix for the Rose Bowl every year. <br /><br />The format that seems to make the most sense is a 4-8 team playoff. The oldest bowls (Rose, Sugar, Orange, Cotton or Fiesta) would get the best regional matchup possible. So the Rose would get the traditional historical matchup which also makes sense regionally:<br /><br />Rose (Pac v. B1G)<br />Sugar (SEC v. Big 12)<br />Orange (Big East v. ACC)<br />Fiesta (Non-conference champion (highest seed) v. At-large (WAC, MWC, ConfUSA)<br /><br />Reduce the regular season to 11-12 games, including conference championship games. Then start the bowls two weeks after the end of the regular season. Play the above bowls on New Years Day like the old days; play the semi-finals of the highest seed in any bowl versus the lowest seed. Then have the championship game one week after. You're only extending the season by 2 weeks. <br /><br />To me, I think Larry Scott sees this and is setting the Pac-12 up for the traditional matchup. It makes sense from a regional standpoint and satisfies the purists like me.

82gradDLSdad

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to ColoradoBear • 8:39p, 1/10/12

<blockquote><div class="name-said">ColoradoBear1;673237 said:</div><hr>On the other hand, the college basketball regular season is pretty meaningless. For some reason, despite the fact 68 teams get in, major colleges typically play 9 home conference games, then 9+ games at home against mostly wankers. It's pathetic actually. College basketball is plodding around for 14 weeks or so just to set up 3 good weeks on TV. <br /><br />Bowl season is so so, especially some of these lower bowls. But one great effect on the regular season is that there is usually incremental gain to EVERY win during the regular season - ie a better bowl. Some kind of hybrid bowl/small playoff system seems best to me. Obviously the specifics make or break that kind of plan. <br /><br />In the recent BCS format discussions, it's pretty obvious that the powers in the major conference are very keen on maintaining the importance regular season. <br /><br />Of course counter that with the now meaningless LSU-Bama game in November. Now what was the point of that only to watch boring football and reward the team that made MORE mistakes in he game because they obviously had talent?<hr></blockquote><br /><br />You're exactly right. The fact that there is a voting system means that each regular season game counts. Of course this just means that with a playoff system involving league champs then league games would matter a great deal and the non-conference games would be meaningless. Maybe that would get good teams scheduling each other?