Versions of this story have been expressed on this forum for a while now but this is the first article I've seen calling out the natty champ game and providing quantitative evidence of what may be waning interest in college football. Do west coasters not care about east coast teams? Do east coast fans not travel to the west coast? What else is at play here to explain why ticket prices for the game are so low?
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
It's not rocket surgery. Bama's been in the title game nearly every year for 10 years straight. This exact matchup between Clemson and Bama has occurred 3/4 years. It's boring seeing the same teams play each other when its not your team.
Plus, if it is your team, why travel cross country for a been there done that in the past 3 years?
i don't know...if VT is in the national championship game, i am always going, no matter where it is.
yeah, not many ban wagon VT fans. Alabama fans though.... I mean EVERY fan of every OTHER team in the SEC is really a bama fan at heart. But they don't go to games. only chant SEC on social media when bama wins.
Agreed. You don't see too many 'fair weather' Tech fans. The football team's play doesn't afford us that luxury, lol.
Consider this scenario:
Are you really going to spend $2k to watch a rematch in person on the other side of the country by yourself? 95% of fans would say no.
Good points about the attending the playoff games as well...but I still think I would go. And I really hope we get the chance for you to prove me wrong ;-)
You my friend are in the 5%! I too hope you can prove me wrong.
And don't forget that really its the third "bowl game" in a row here ... SEC championship, semifinals, and championship game. There are only so many diehard fans with the jack to travel to all three. That has to be added into the calculation.
Also true. I think you can assume that the conference championship location is within reasonable distance from dense alumni locations (every SEC alumni know someone in Atlanta and/or can get there easily). I imagine attendance is pretty bad for non-championship playoff games, the exception being New Orleans because that place is awesome.
And if Bammer fan, will be there and do that in the next 5 years as well.........or so they think.
Theres a whole lot of evidence that suggests dynasties create ratings. I think Alabama's and Clemson's are good for college football. Warriors and Patriots have been good for their sports. What do you think the difference is?
For me, the difference is I am a Patriots fan (grew up just outside Boston), and I hate both clemson and alabama!! :-)
The Warriors and Patriots may be good for their sports, but both of those sports have profit sharing agreements across all teams, as well as player unions, drafts, and player salaries based on some combination of experience and merit. That's far different from college sports where the fan has to donate for their team to even have a chance.
How many years have the PAC-12 been represented in the playoff? I can only think of Washington one year. Heck the SEC had two teams in one year. I'm sure they are a little sour towards the cfb playoff.
Oregon lost the first CFP championship game.
Nice post. I really like this topic.
I think two conflicting issues have happened that in isolation seem positive but are in actual fact hurting the game.
1) Every school wants to be a D1 program. It seems like a great thing for the community and fanbase. The problem with this is that teams are regional and more D1 programs split the available fans into smaller regional fragments.
2) Inflexible conference schedules and bowl tie-ins. I know I am in the minority but I hate that teams MUST play such a long in-conference slate and I despise bowl tie-ins. Playing the same teams year in, year out is BORING AS FUCK. I remember the days when bowls would have match-ups with teams that never played before, teams from east and west playing each other. North and South. Midwest to all over. Now every bowl is looking for regional match-ups to try to get a sweet spot for fans that travel, but the problem is that they are often playing teams that they played recently. Casual fans grow tired of this I think, or at least I know my friends that are casual fans have.
Imagine if scheduling was more open and cross nation rivalries were born. Bama played USCw on the regular. Clemson played Oregon and so on. It would generate a lot more latent interest in a Bama v. Clemson game located on the West Coast. But fans are regionalized to an extreme now and have almost zero relationship to the teams playing.
my 2 cents
This is a really good take, especially point 2. As much as being in the Coastal might help Techs playoff chances over the next 5 years, I hate conference divisions and scheduling only one interesting OOC game per P5 team per year. Playing the coastal teams and BC every year is also a bore and makes schedules like 2019 almost unbearable to watch even if we can get to 9 or 10 wins. Sounds like what Fernley is saying is spread the love, not on more P5 teams but more crossover scheduling.
But I thought we liked playing teams like ECU 59 years in a row?
Nice post; really like point 2 as well.
They're the ones who broke our date and caused us to re-evaluate our relationship.
I should've added the "/s" just for you ;)
Those were also the days when bowl bids were sent, in early Oct, to teams like ND (because they travel well), only to have ND finish the regular season 6-4-1 and get blown out in the bowl.
ND finish the regular season 6-4-1 and get blown out in the bowl.
and this is different from now how?
They weren't 6-4-1, they didn't get a premium bowl invite in early Oct and they weren't in the NCG/wouldn't be anyone's NC had they won the bowl game. Teams get blown out in bowls. ND seems to like to do so on a regular basis, but ND isn't unique in getting blown out in CFP/NCG games.
They wouldn't be able to tie.
As late as the mid-Eighties, there were only 15 bowls.
I'll oppose this opinion.
First of all, I think CFP is by nature a regional sport, and I think that's a feature, not a bug. Geographic oddities and unique regional traditions make the sport fun. There's such a difference between schools in the deep south, versus Appalachia, versus the Midwest, versus the west coast cities, versus the rural west coast. It's evident everywhere - what people eat, drink, and wear to tailgates, what styles of play fans like, how football fits into fans' lives, etc. I love seeing this celebrated.
Secondly, and probably more importantly, I don't think it's practical to ask the average fan to keep up with 60+ power 5 teams, much less 128 FBS teams, especially when all of their games overlap during the regular season.
Honestly, I'm excited to watch this game. Two modern offenses, each with a dynamic QB and star players at every skill position, going against hard hitting defenses. I think the Tua vs. Lawrence battle is going to be exciting. The only problem is neither fan base wants to pay to travel to this game. If it's a good game, I have no doubt that the ratings will be excellent.
Good question
I don't think we have hit the peak, but football is def at an all time high right now. I think the lower ticket prices can be explained by four things:
1) The country is tired of seeing Alabama and Clemson
2) This year's game requires a lot more travel than usual AND it's not at a marquee stadium (and that I mean it's not at the Rose Bowl)
3) 4K TVs have finally hit that price point where most can jump in and buy one. If I'm a fan of either Bama or Clemson and I had been to either of the previous matchups then I'm more likely to drop a couple grand on a new home system that I can enjoy for a while than a one time experience that Ive already seen before.
4) I have to think the gov't shutdown is having an effect
If this were any other matchup I doubt we would see similar pricing trends on the tickets.
#3 is really interesting. I remember reading something a few years ago (too lazy to try to dig it up but I'm sure there's more than one article about it) where the game experiences are getting so well captured on TV that, when coupled with the costs of going to the game, have made it less appealing to attend. I know that nothing beats the tailgating and game experience first hand, but I can have a hell of a watch party with friends and family for a fraction of the cost of attending some of these games.
EDIT: Wow, re-reading this is like "no duh Captain Obvious". Oh well, I'm tired, I'm going to bed.
You could have stopped at #1.
But if the game were within easy driving distance of Clemson and Alabama, there would be plenty of demand.
Yup. If this game were in Atlanta I wouldn't be shocked to see this as the highest demand for tickets (and corresponding 2nd hand market value) in recent history.
TLDR version: Stale matchup, too far away from the teams in the game, and wrong night for casual fans.
It is the same matchup as 3/4 past years, but in San Francisco instead of Atlanta and on a Monday night. All those people in the southeast need to buy airline tickets and hotel rooms with 1 week's notice. It is a hard sell to get fans to invest that amount of time and money. If I'm a Bama fan (or even Clemson), just wait and catch next year's game at the Sugar Bowl. Odds are, your team will be there.
For a couple hundred bucks a ticket, me and the boy would drive up to the game from LA and watch it. But the game is on a Monday and as a football fan but not a fan of those team, I wouldn't take the time off.
Ticket sales would have been far better if Notre Dame or Oklahoma made it. The game would be a huge novelty to them. Like how I bailed on work to see the Caps win the Cup in Vegas along with about 5000 other Caps fans. But for Clemson and Bama, it is just another title game but inconveniently 3000 miles away.
I totally agree regarding the day of the week. Would love to see the championship game on Sat night.
Agree. Since the playoffs came about, the final is now a week out from New Year's day (minimum). Most people I know are fully back into work/school schedules by now and are not taking additional time off after a long holiday break in the middle of winter. Why not have the playoff games the Saturday before Christmas and the final on New Year's day? The current system will continue to put the final on a Monday night because the NFL playoffs startup with Saturday and Sunday games this time every year.
Part of the "deal" was to keep the big 6 bowl games filled as close to their normal time as possible. Meaning they would be played as close to NYE/NYD as possible. That keeps the host cities happy with what they've experienced for decades now. Moving it to before Christmas I'm sure would cause some disruptions to that norm, so they decided the playoff games would stay as close to put as possible.
I get that, but I think it just dilutes the interest by dragging it out this long. Heck most of the sports talking heads are focused on the NFL playoffs at this point, and the CFP is somewhat an afterthought.
The main issue with "simple" solutions like that is the rotating calendar. Days of the week change, but certain holidays are fixed.
What do you do when Christmas is on a Saturday? A two week break?
What about when Christmas Eve is a Saturday? First of all, the CFP already went up against New Year's Eve and lost. They certainly don't want to go up against Christmas. Second, if Christmas is a Sunday, the NFL moves most of their games to Christmas Eve . . . and then they claim New Year's Day, which pushes all of the college bowl games off of 1/1.
The issue remains that there are a lot of moving pieces that the bowls have to deal with: The calendar, holidays, academic schedules, TV schedules, NFL (which also affects venues).
Sorry, I didn't mean a hard date of Sat before Christmas. Certainly you have to account for all you mention. I just think the season should wrap on or about NYD, and the playoff games would need to be roughly a week before. I get that it can't be perfect every year, but what we have now is the final always a week out from the holidays and in conflict with the start of the NFL playoffs.
I think it just shows that the sport needs to be expanded. The constant hegemony of a few teams gets boring. Parity is way more interesting where there are a lot of good teams that can beat each other any day. This is one of the reasons we need to expand to 8. Also need more mid-early season big time nonconference matchups
I think the sport needs more of what you hit on in the end of your comment. Everybody wants to focus on the playoff. An 8 or 12 or 16 team playoff this year would have just been another week or two of blowouts. But, if we make every week of the season have more high quality matchups, we get great entertainment for longer.
I had a long post on r/cfb about the latent consequences of the playoff (I may dig it up later, I'm currently watching a movie), and how its now singular (media) focus has ruined the meaning of just about every other accomplishment for a large part of the viewing population. I don't necessarily think an expanded playoff will fix it, but I also don't think we could go back to how it was before.
I was working on a little writeup for TKP about How The College Football Playoff Ruined College Football For Me
It was partly related to your sentiment along with the idea that when I was a kid watching football on New years Day, I got so see the best players and the best teams from noon till midnight. It was super exciting, even with the ambiguity surrounding the true "best team"/"national champion."
Now we have a singular talking point all year long... Who is going to be in the 4 team playoff. Nothing else matters. No other team is remotely relevant. No other bowl games matter.
The one issue expanding to 8 is it wouldn't necessarily allow for more champions, it just means an Alabama or Clemson would be more likely to make the playoffs every single season despite 2 slip-ups and still have the most talented teams with a good chance to win it all. Carroll's USC teams had a 7 year stretch from 02-08 and Bowden's FSU teams had a 14 year run from 87-00 where they didn't lose more than 2 games, with an 8 team playoff they would have been there every year and people would have probably been complaining about not enough parity.
Depends on the chosen format. You could set it up such that an 8 team playoff would:
- include an auto bid for every P5 champ
- fill the remaining 3 spots with the top ranked teams
Other option: 12 team format
- every P5 and G5 champ gets in (10 total)
- 2 wild card / at large bids based on playoff rankings
- top 4 teams get a 1st round bye
Yeah I'd say put in the teams with the best record in their conference though. Some conference champs are like 8-5 and letting them in would just be dumb. Put in the 5 power conference champs, the top G5 team, then add 2 at large teams based on rankings (I'd say go back to the BCS rankings system).
This year that'd give us:
1 Alabama vs 8 Washington
2 Clemson vs 7 UCF
3 Notre Dame vs 6 OSU
4 OU vs 5 Georgia
Would suggest a listen to the latest podcast ain't played nobody. It doesn't refute all off the arguments that have been made by media regarding waning interest, but comes pretty close. They might as well have played this game at Alacatraz.
The real issues with ticket prices is that the game is being played somewhere that is on the opposite side of the country in a notoriously bad stadium in an area with bad parking and has a lot of traffic surrounding it. Flights are like $1,600 out of GSP (Greenville-Spartanburg) in SC, and over a grand out of a Charlotte or Atlanta. Then you have to find lodging and travel to Santa Clara.
The ticket prices for the previous three National Championships were through the roof. I know people who paid $1,500 for upper deck tickets in Tampa and 3-4 grand for prime seats.
There are other factors at play about whether we've reached peak college football that I have less certainty in discussing. I do think interest is much higher nationally in the SE compared to out west for a myriad of reasons (Cultural, Geography, population densities, professional sports teams, etc). Also worth wondering if there will be large scale changes to football in the coming years with escalating awareness/fear of CTE and long term health of the sport. However, I don't feel like I have proper knowledge to speak authoritatively on those things.
I think it's 90% the destination. I'd drive as far as Orlando or Tampa from VA for a bowl/ACC Championship to see Tech play but I'm not in a position to pay 1k+ for a flight to see the Hokies when I have a 70 inch 4K TV in my living room (especially if they had been to the natty as often as Clempson and Bama).
Going to the west coast for a game like this sort of makes it an event that is outside the realm of a long weekend which is a big deterrence.
I wont be watching because the isnt a coaches room.
My dad has a good friend that paid a lot pd money to go watch Clemson win it a couple years ago, same money lots of us would pay for VT if given the chance. But he's not going back this year, he saw his championship. And for Clemson fans it wasn't something that happened a lot. But now it's not a big deal. He's seen Clemson beat Bama.
I've been to 40 some college stadiums, I don't go to Blacksburg that often because ive been ther some that. But I had one year where I was at every away game. I have seen almost half of college football play in person. I want to see tech play new teams, I want different and interesting.
If you look at the last 30 years or so something like 22 different schools have won a natty. Of those only Colorado and Georgia Tech are what I would call non blue blood programs.
So basically 15% or so of D1 programs are likely to play for it/win and in all likelihood they will be a blue blood program.
I'm sure someone can do the math and get the actual numbers, but for me it's pretty clear which teams will always be in contention for a natty.
That's not to say VT and like schools can't catch lightening in a bottle or have a once in a generation player take them to heights unknown. It's just far more likely programs with deep pockets and blue blood backgrounds are always going to be in the championship game.
Just my two cents.
I think it might be 18, I did a quick count not writing anything down from this: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ncaa.com/news/football/article/college-...
If you go back fewer years, it seems to me to be getting worse. No parity.
This is why the bowls are so important, you arent going to win a national title so the bowl game is your championship. 36 out of 64 p5 schools claim championships (major polls only), only 21 can do so in the last 40 years, a couple only claim split championships which wouldn't happen now (again major polls only).
I think the biggest issue is how many bowls. We've diluted the meaning of bowl games. The liberty bowl used to be a good thing, now most fans would scoff at it.
Also the fact that ND has a football team isnt helping anyone.
Yup, and the last "first time winner" was in 1993 with F$U. Everyone since has been a repeat offender.
College football has always been different than the NFL and other sports leagues in that it's really the only one I can think of off the top of my head where not every team is guaranteed a spot at being the champion. When they switched to the playoff format, everyone thought that it was a great thing until bowl games not in the CFP or NY6 became seemingly meaningless, and every semifinal game hasn't exactly been a joy to watch.
I believe it is peaking right now because the CFP created an excitement from something we haven't seen before. Now that we've seen it play out, it really hasn't been that great. I don't think switching back to the BCS format will do any good. Sure we'll skip the semifinals which have been pretty boring up to this point, but non-BCS games will still seem meaningless because of the trend set since the CFP came into play.
My solution is to expand the playoff to 6 teams. I know it seems like I just went back on everything I just said about the playoff not being good because the games before the championship haven't been competitive, but remember how I said that college football is the only sport where not every team gets a chance to win it all. What if the five conference champions from power 5 conferences get a bid, and then the highest ranked G5 conference champion gets a bid? Then the playoff committee seeds them accordingly. 1 and 2 would both get byes with 1 playing the winner of 4 and 5, and 2 gets the winner of 3 and 6. The best team would still win the National Championship nearly every year, but there's always that little chance that there could be a Loyola Chicago or George Mason out there. I feel like that one G5 team would be enough to create excitement, and if someone like 7-5 Pitt had beaten 12-0 Clemson and gotten in, that would have also been interesting.
And yes, I know this doesn't accomodate for Notre Dame. They can either join a conference or go fuck themselves.
You're last statement is your best statement
Great post. I agree it would make the playoff far more interesting if we went ahead and did auto-bids for the P5. I know the opponents of that always point out that it leaves the possibility open for a 7-5 team to upset a "better" team and get in, then likely be boatraced by Bama in the first round. Well, pretty much everyone is getting boatraced by Bama right now.
The reality is, Clemson and Bama are funneling resources and money into their programs at a rate pretty much unparalleled elsewhere. There are a few other elite teams that have the money/recruiting and are close, but those two are truly at a different level right now.
It would make conference races and the playoff much more interesting if every P5 team had an honest shot and clear path to it from the onset of the season. Tie in your traditional bowls and have teams matched up to preserve conference traditions like the Rose Bowl. But give every team a path and keep things fresh. Clemson and Bama may likely still make it to the end, but the season and buildup to the playoff would be far more interesting.
I think you also have to include aTm and Texas. aTm just recently passed Texas as making more revenue off of athletics than any other school. I believe Texas is now second with Bama at 3rd.
I really like that idea.
But . . .
Pac-12 vs. Big Ten in Rose Bowl.
SEC vs. Big 12 in Sugar Bowl.
That leaves the ACC anchoring the Orange Bowl, and running the risk of routinely being paired up with the G5 champ.
FYI, The Orange Bowl current tie-ins...from wiki
Future games
The Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC) is locked into a 12-year deal[when?] with the Orange Bowl, so if the ACC champion qualifies for the playoffs in a year when the Orange Bowl is not a semifinal host, the next-highest ranked ACC team will play in the Orange Bowl. For the secondary tie-ins: The Southeastern Conference (SEC) and the Big Ten Conference are guaranteed three appearances each, and the University of Notre Dame can play in a maximum of two games, but is not guaranteed any appearances. The ACC team's opponent in a given year will be the highest-ranked available team from the SEC, Big Ten (this always excludes the SEC and Big Ten champions. If an SEC or Big Ten team – or teams – qualify for the College Football Playoff, the next available team would also be excluded from participating in the Orange Bowl due to contractual obligations with the Sugar and Rose Bowls, respectively), and Notre Dame, subject to these constraints. Also, should this highest-ranked team create a rematch with the ACC team, the Orange Bowl has the option of passing over that team for the next-highest ranked team among the Big Ten, SEC, and Notre Dame, again subject to the above contractual constraints. The College Football Playoff committee's rankings will be used to select the ACC's opponent. The other four will be College Football Playoff berths. ESPN holds the television rights for 12 years as well.
I am well aware of the current tie-ins. But in the hypothetical scenario that VTJ12 proposed (which I am assuming would have to go along with an 8-team playoff), the Orange Bowl wouldn't need to come up with a complex contract for a second opponent, because the opponent would need to be someone already in the playoff (which would only be the 2 wildcards and G5 champ at that point).
I would think in an 8-team playoff scenario, the Orange Bowl could match the ACC champ against a P5 at large team, ND if qualified, or G5 champ on a rotational basis. Perhaps there could also be stipulation in place that protects the OB from having a G5 champ two consecutive years, much how the current OB tie in states that they will select an SEC/B1G/ND team only so many times in a certain period. I think it would be pretty cool to have the ACC champ matched up against a variety of playoff opponents from around the country.
The sad reality is, college football is a 2 team sport nowadays with Alabama and Clemson distancing themselves from the field. If you're a team that actively competes with them, you're getting left behind. Even the mighty SEC really didn't put up much of a fight against Bama this year, with Tua pretty much sitting on the bench through most 4th quarters with the game in hand. So.... yeah, the average fan is getting turned away because its just not competitive anymore. Oh, yay we get to watch Clemson vs Alabama for the 3rd or 4th year in a row. Who gets the bragging rights this time until they get to meet again next year and the year after that? Its just stale and worn out. I can tell you personally that I really just don't care about the game and probably won't watch much if any of it. There's no long suffering fanbase looking for redemption in this. Its, will the spoiled brats who won it last year repeat, or will the spoiled brats who won it 2 years ago go 2 for 3. Either way, I really just don't care.
And really, thats me and the sport right now. I'm tired of the same teams winning year after year. Unless its VT, I really just don't watch anymore. Its like the NBA, when we all know the same teams will be there in the end it sucks the excitement out of the sport as a whole. It all just feels preordained from the start, so why bother caring. At least its like that to me.
I'll be honest, I watched less Bammer football this year than years past. When it's 28-0 in the first quarter, it's a boring game. I don't have enough mental bandwidth on a Saturday to dissect the playcalling of an $EC jugernaut; I'd rather watch a good close game. Thus, I prob watch more snaps of loluva than Bammer, simply in hopes of them collapsing.
On that note, this Bammer team may be one of the best college teams ever assembled. Closing nearly every game out by halftime, there hasn't bee a team out there touch them this year outside of the UGA game.
And when Alabama and Clemson do finally fall back to Earth, it's likely two other blue bloods will take their spot.
*cough* OSU *cough*
Same. If we ain't the best, and if our rivals ain't the best (I'd watch just to root against them), then I just don't care. It's not relevant to me personally, and that probably isn't going to change short of us becoming a "big dog." If you're still capable of getting excited about the two best teams, more power to you, this isn't me judging people for getting excited. I just don't share in it.
I'm pretty excited about the championship game this weekend. So who does everyone have? Eastern Washington or North Dakota State? Do you think NDSU (-14) is a little ridiculous or what?
Eastern Washington can put up some points. They dismantled a pretty good Maine defense in the semis.
Apparently 14 was right on. NDSU wins 38-24
Why on Monday night?
This I cannot fathom. What audience are they trying to attract with that?
None of my friends are having a watch party because we all have to go to work on Tuesday. We have lots of work to make up because of the strangely placed holidays that had the major days on Tuesday and so very interrupted work weeks.
Kids have school on Tuesday.
Just have the game on Saturday so we can meet with friends and prep and watch the game and not have to be up at 5 am the next day.
Seems very inconsiderate.
NFL has playoff games on Saturday and Sunday this weekend. Every TV exec knows you do not go head to head with the NFL, especially if it's the NFL playoffs.
It's a combination of calendar and NFL.
When the playoff was first set up, the semis were scheduled for either New Year's Eve or Day. So, the semis would have been played on a Monday this year if they hadn't changed the schedule to put them on a Saturday.
They could have gotten away with the championship being this weekend because it would have been a week since the semis. However, the championship is played in an NFL stadium, which may or may not be needed for an NFL playoff game, which may or may not be scheduled for Saturday. And the NFL has already claimed the primetime slot for Saturday. (And the way that the playoff schedule rotates, there's always a chance that ESPN might get the night game.) Of course, I've been saying that the NFL should have one Saturday game and three Sunday games for the playoffs.
The bigger issue is that the game is "scheduled" for 8 PM, but will likely not kickoff until at least 8:30, and then ESPN manages to drag the broadcast out to be at least four hours.
All of this "Never go head to head with the NFL" logic needs to change. ESPN doesn't show the NFL and I am more likely to watch the college football championship over an NFL wildcard game. The NFL is suffering the same fate as college football with attendance declining as a result of the in-home experience improving and the in-game experience feeling more and more like being in a casino where everything is designed to bleed another dollar out of you.
Try that experiment, then report the results.
Attendance has no bearing on revenue for the league; only for the team. The TV $$$ is where it's at, and you won't get more people to tune into a college game over an NFL playoff game. Especially when the casual fan will just assume Bammer will win yet another one.
Rando bar, Sat night, outside of Alabama or South Carolina, is NOT putting college football on if the NFL is on.
Try a Thursday night outside of the college market. 9 out of 10 times it's the NFL game. The playoffs make it even more likely.
March Madness kills the NBA because its interesting and there is always a chance the underdog wins. Make college football the same and I think they can go toe-to-toe with a non-local NFL game. Maybe I am out of touch, but I just don't imagine people in Pittsburgh having a much higher interest in a wildcard game between Chicago and Carolina as a national championship game between VT and Texas. I don't usually watch the Super Bowl unless someone is having a party and then I go for the party not the game.
March Madness brings a lot more (64 more) teams to the dance, which also includes a lot more smaller schools that either don't play football or aren't big-time. Edit* It also beings a greater opportunity for an upset. No matter which team wins Monday night, can you call it an upset? See: UMBC!!!!
Also, the random fan fills out a bracket. How many wives/girlfriends/co-workers fill out a bracket that you know? Compare that to the number from the same subset that can name all four playoff teams in fb this year.
Again, it's about the screens and bar revenue. You even say you go to the party...just like going to the bar for many people. And the bar is going to throw on the playoffs over college football 9 out of 10 times.
March Madness doesn't occur at the same time as the NBA playoffs, so this is not a good comparison for CFP vs NFL. Even if they were going on at the same time, each round of the NBA playoffs is a bunch long seven game series, not single playoff games like March Madness, the NFL, and the CFP.
You might be surprised then if you tune your TV to ESPN at 4:30 on Saturday.
I know ESPN/ABC are owned by the same entity, but does ESPN only show the playoffs? Every Sunday the games are on ABC & Fox
Oh yeah.... but again as a casual fan, if my team is not on, I don't watch Monday night football. Maybe I just don't grasp how committed NFL fans are, but I just don't care enough to piss 4 hours away watching Dallas vs Tampa and I would probably be surprised by the number of people in Buffalo that do watch every Monday night game regardless of who is playing.
You (and members of this site) may prefer college football, but the country as a whole does not. Let's take a look at the top viewed sporting events this year:
Notice how the most exciting national championship of all time had less viewers than five non-championship NFL playoff games? Those viewership numbers would be even lower if it was competing with the NFL.
I hate it just as much as you do, but the NFL is king.
While these numbers do confirm there is a lot of interest in NFL , there are still some points to pick out. This shows that people like a game where there are high stakes, which supports the championship over an early round game. Also as others have said the championship that year was a repeat of a game earlier in the year. The amount of overlap in fanbases is unknown. The Falcons-Eagles game and the Bama-UGa game could play at the same time and still draw 25+ million viewers. Either way, your point about going against the NFL being risky, still stands.
I think you're stretching...
An early round NFL game will take eyeballs away from the championship. Ratings for both games would likely be canabalized, with any non-blowout NFL game winning out.
This is incorrect. UGA beat Auburn in the SEC title game, not bama. Prior to the 2017 National Championship Bama and UGA had only played thrice in the last 10 years (2008, 2012, 2015).
There's a lot of overlap between Falcons and UGA fans. Obviously, these television contracts are agreed to years in advance, and we have no idea which teams would be playing in either event, but why risk it? There are less "I'm not going to watch on monday night" people than there are "I'd rather watch an NFL Playoff game" people. It's an obvious choice.
Good call on the SEC Champ game being Auburn that year, totally blanked on that. Also the example of overlap I more referring to NFL vs College fans rather than the specific matchups. Also good pull on thrice, totally underused these days.
I think mainly people are just tired of Bama vs Clemson
Disagree. If it's a good game, people will tune in. And if Clemson (or Bama) was playing a different team in the same location, ticket sales (from the repeat fanbase) would be just as low.
I didn't read the article, just saw the headline about nobody wanting to watch the game...you're right about ticket sales.
I personally, don't give a rats ass about monday nights game, it can be one for the ages, and I won't be tuning in.
I don't get the "people are tired of watching Clemson play Alabama" mantra.
I can't wait to see the game on Monday. The playoff did its job. We have a game featuring the two best teams in the country. What makes it even more exciting is this is probably the best version of a Nick Saban Tide team AND the best version of a Dabo Tiger team in a few years. It really should be a good game.
The NCAA tournament lets in 68 teams, but the last few years it's been a Villanova or UNC deal, sprinkled in with some Duke and Kansas. (Which I'm fine with... I just want to see the two best teams square off at the end of the day.)
I'm interested in seeing the ratings for this game. I'm strongly suspecting they will be the lowest CFP championship game yet.
This is so much unnecessary analysis, if the game is in tampa, atlanta, new orleans, miami then ticket prices are just in line with the last years. 2016 was also low because it was in phoenix if they showed that.
College football has become more about money and less about school spirit. The scheduling of bowls and big games to maximize the revenue over interest and attendance is backfiring. As some have said there are too many D1 teams and bowls for the average fan to find interesting. Why does the national championship game have to be the last game played? They could have scheduled this game Saturday Dec 29th. Moving all of the bowl games around to get the most of them on TV rather than scheduling them when it is convenient for people to travel and attend is why you see 3000 people at these games.
Someone said it in the thread about increasing competition, make the P5 its own tier, having more "D1" teams only spreads the talent thinner and lets the blue bloods separate themselves more. As was mentioned this would also concentrate the average fan into fewer regional teams which would likely increase attendance at the neutral site games. This of course comes to the detriment of all of the G5 teams, but they are already a lower tier, just unofficially.
And when would the semis have been played?
The previous Sat, Dec 22nd. Most conference championships are the first weekend of Dec, that gives almost 3 weeks of Bowl prep. The downside of this is Christmas will always limit the prep between semis and finals unless you push it out another weekend and have almost two weeks between, which either makes interest wane or gives the media two weeks to dissect every little thing about the game.
Could have the Semis kick off bowl season on the 15th (two weeks game prep) and the Championship be the 29th (almost two full weeks with Xmas in between)
And when are the players going to take their exams?
The ACC already allows teams to opt out of bowl games that occur before Christmas if they fall too close to exams. I think that happened with Wake and/or Duke this year.
When they are on campus doing bowl prep. It shouldn't be any different than when a team has to travel for game during the season except that its two games over 4 weeks instead of 1 per week. If players miss some practice for exam prep, so be it, they are there to get a degree after all.
Preferably before then
/s
I said it at the time the B1G signed their ridiculous TV deal that the money was unsustainable. That is where we have reached a peak. Americans are used to watching sports for "free" on TV. The super bowl is still "over the air" as well as the NBA finals ad many other marquee events. The idea that TV ad contributions for cable and niche conference viewing would profit or even grow is nonsense if you look at the numbers. The Pac 12- yes the entire conference is facing bankruptcy if they are not able to restructure their finances. Why? nobody cares or buys their network. The ACC deal is peanuts compared to the SEC and it's not because Florida is better at football right now than VT. the SEC deal was done in the fairy tale market that has now somewhat corrected itself.
I'm really interested in seeing how VR affects NCAA football. How long until people can buy the VR headset and some ESPN Virtual Reality Package and sit at home with great seats. I know they've already explored VR packages for basketball. If that becomes a technology that is working well and affordable in 10-15 years, I'm sure it'll affect attendance for big games. Could also increase overall exposure too for nonfans.
Two things I think the FCS does right to make their playoff work:
1. All the playoff games are regionally located because they are played at the home stadium of the higher ranked opponent. This is so easy. Give the Universities some ownership of this thing.
2. The Title Game, which used to be played in Nashville (I think) is in Frisco TX every single year. Just find a location, and lock in for the long haul for that game. People like knowing how to plan.
This article outlines in entertaining detail how "lousy" a location Levi's Stadium is for the game:
LOUSY
And this one lampoons why nobody cares:
Who Cares
Dammit, trying to view SB Nation articles on my work computer is like trying to navigate through LeSabre.
Honestly, they can fix all of this by actually getting rid of how the bowl season even works. The system I have heard floating around makes a lot of sense of makes the regular season mean something again.
1 Championship Game
2 Playoff Games
10 Bowl Games
TOP 24 teams go to post season games. No conference champion lock in which would open the door for better scheduling. Making the season super competitive fighting for one of bowl games.
The football season is watered down by terrible bowl games and too many bad teams. By the time the championship comes around no one cares anymore.
I lived through the days of only 24 teams going to bowl games. G5 gets royally screwed in that system. An 11 win team sits at home while a 7 win SEC team goes to a bowl.
No thank you. I'd prefer to have a sufficient number of bowls, that people complain that it's "too many". People don't have to watch them.