Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Pretty interesting article on the Bowl Ratings
Author Message
johnintx Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 152
Joined: Jan 2016
Reputation: 12
I Root For: Oklahoma
Location: Houston
Post: #21
RE: Pretty interesting article on the Bowl Ratings
(01-18-2018 04:58 PM)Policiious Wrote:  Outdrew 4 bowls with 2 P5 teams

Sun-NC ST-AZ St
Heart of Dallas- UT vs WVA
San Francisco- Purdue vs AZ
Holiday- Michigan St vs Washington St

Plus 2 others with P5vsG5
Military Bowl - Navy vs VA
Independence- FSU vs USM

Looks like the best bowl ratings are:
  • in games in early evening or evening time slots
  • in games broadcast on ESPN (except for the New Year's Day ND-LSU Citrus Bowl on ABC; and the Saturday Liberty Bowl, also on ABC)
  • in games after Christmas

Those early afternoon early weekday games (examples: Heart of Dallas, Independence) are killers. Sure, those ratings are probably better than ESPN daytime programming, but they pale compared to other bowls.

It also makes a case that ESPN is the default sports channel. People (and especially restaurants/bars) will flip automatically to ESPN to watch sports (in this case, bowls). They may not know who's playing before they switch to ESPN, but they know a game will be on during bowl week. The Sun Bowl is a day game on a broadcast network between two P5 teams. The Foster Farms and Holiday Bowls are weeknight games matching B1G and Pac 12 teams on Fox networks. However, with the saturation of bowls, generic neutral fans are programmed to look for bowls on ESPN. A fan has to remember or be told that there is another game on CBS or Fox.

Also, the pre-Christmas games generally got lower ratings than the games after Christmas.

If you're a mid-level bowl, and you want ratings, you want an evening slot after Christmas on ESPN. Likewise, if you're a G5 team starving for exposure, you want your bowl game in an evening slot after Christmas on ESPN.
(This post was last modified: 01-18-2018 07:47 PM by johnintx.)
01-18-2018 07:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
billybobby777 Offline
Fighting the cartel 5
*

Posts: 9,375
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 349
I Root For: ECU, Army
Location: Houston dont sleepon
Post: #22
RE: Pretty interesting article on the Bowl Ratings
(01-18-2018 07:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-18-2018 07:09 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-18-2018 06:59 PM)ColKurtz Wrote:  
(01-18-2018 02:12 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-18-2018 01:22 AM)ColKurtz Wrote:  Except, you know, that ACC teams were involved in the highest-rated non playoff bowl, the largest audience in a NY6 bowl, and 3 out of the next 4 most watched bowls that didn't have a SEC or B1G opponent.

What did that get you? They don't give out parting gifts like on game shows. The key words are, "that didn't have a SEC

or B1G opponent" and I hope you aren't counting Notre Dame here. Their football team isn't ACC. I didn't see what the Louisville vs Miss State drew. And that N.C. State game drew 3 million?

Im just pointing out you're wrong that "ACC other than Clemson in the offseason was nowhere to be found". The ACC will never match the TV ratings for the SEC or the B1G. Neither will the B12 or Pac12 for that matter. It's a competition for third place and always will be. Empirically, the ACC is doing just fine in that regard ...

Agreed. Both on the field and on TV, the ACC has never been a better football conference, and is doing fine.

With Miami, FSU, and Clemson, the ACC has three tier-one draws, and also a few second-tier draws, such as VT, Louisville, and North Carolina.

ACC football will never be ACC basketball but it is more than holding its own.

Except those numbers he listed don't jibe with the last two regular season games of the SEC which both drew over 13 million, nor do they coincide with the SEC's CFP numbers.

And on another note, while you are right that Slive's first ESPN deal wasn't stellar, the renewal with the SECN contract may prove to be fortuitous yet, especially if things continue to sag with millennials. We also have something we really didn't have in the first deal, better built in escalators.

If the Big 10 bet wrong on their 6 year deal it could wind up costing them a little bit.

And then we always have the right to renegotiate with additions. The real upside Quo is still in our gate and donations. The Big 10 will make 5 million dollars more than the SEC in T1 & T2 revenue for football & basketball this year Quo, but the SEC even with that deficit will average 12 million more per school than the Big 10 in gross total revenue. Let that sink in a bit.

And then there was the devaluation of the BTN last year as it dropped 150 million in value. I'll be interested to see if that was an anomaly when the reports come in around April of this year, or if it was a divestiture. It will also be interesting to see if FOX bids high for them in 5 years or if ESPN has the door open for them to step in.

The Big 10 will be fine, and so will the SEC. If the ACCN pays off at 70% of the SECN they'll pass the Big 12 and put distance between themselves and the PAC. That will be narrative changer if they can do that.

So by April we'll know a lot more about 2017. In April of 2020 when the ACCN figures are released we'll know a lot more.

And another thing to watch this year is how many NCAA tourney entrants the SEC gets. That could be several million more that we pick up. We've been having 3 or 4 make it in and so far this year we are projected to place 8 in the field.

You don’t have to fight against Quo in defense of the SEC, JRSEC. Quo is an SEC SEC conference fan. He agrees with you.
(This post was last modified: 01-18-2018 09:42 PM by billybobby777.)
01-18-2018 09:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,537
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 824
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #23
RE: Pretty interesting article on the Bowl Ratings
(01-18-2018 09:41 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(01-18-2018 07:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-18-2018 07:09 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-18-2018 06:59 PM)ColKurtz Wrote:  
(01-18-2018 02:12 AM)JRsec Wrote:  What did that get you? They don't give out parting gifts like on game shows. The key words are, "that didn't have a SEC

or B1G opponent" and I hope you aren't counting Notre Dame here. Their football team isn't ACC. I didn't see what the Louisville vs Miss State drew. And that N.C. State game drew 3 million?

Im just pointing out you're wrong that "ACC other than Clemson in the offseason was nowhere to be found". The ACC will never match the TV ratings for the SEC or the B1G. Neither will the B12 or Pac12 for that matter. It's a competition for third place and always will be. Empirically, the ACC is doing just fine in that regard ...

Agreed. Both on the field and on TV, the ACC has never been a better football conference, and is doing fine.

With Miami, FSU, and Clemson, the ACC has three tier-one draws, and also a few second-tier draws, such as VT, Louisville, and North Carolina.

ACC football will never be ACC basketball but it is more than holding its own.

Except those numbers he listed don't jibe with the last two regular season games of the SEC which both drew over 13 million, nor do they coincide with the SEC's CFP numbers.

And on another note, while you are right that Slive's first ESPN deal wasn't stellar, the renewal with the SECN contract may prove to be fortuitous yet, especially if things continue to sag with millennials. We also have something we really didn't have in the first deal, better built in escalators.

If the Big 10 bet wrong on their 6 year deal it could wind up costing them a little bit.

And then we always have the right to renegotiate with additions. The real upside Quo is still in our gate and donations. The Big 10 will make 5 million dollars more than the SEC in T1 & T2 revenue for football & basketball this year Quo, but the SEC even with that deficit will average 12 million more per school than the Big 10 in gross total revenue. Let that sink in a bit.

And then there was the devaluation of the BTN last year as it dropped 150 million in value. I'll be interested to see if that was an anomaly when the reports come in around April of this year, or if it was a divestiture. It will also be interesting to see if FOX bids high for them in 5 years or if ESPN has the door open for them to step in.

The Big 10 will be fine, and so will the SEC. If the ACCN pays off at 70% of the SECN they'll pass the Big 12 and put distance between themselves and the PAC. That will be narrative changer if they can do that.

So by April we'll know a lot more about 2017. In April of 2020 when the ACCN figures are released we'll know a lot more.

And another thing to watch this year is how many NCAA tourney entrants the SEC gets. That could be several million more that we pick up. We've been having 3 or 4 make it in and so far this year we are projected to place 8 in the field.

You don’t have to fight against Quo in defense of the SEC, JRSEC. Quo is an SEC SEC conference fan. He agrees with you.

You have Quo pegged incorrectly. He's not an SEC fan except for when the SEC proves his competition evaluation to be accurate. He's not a fan of the ACC but he sees the upside there. And he's not a fan of the Big 10, but he believes Delany to be the best commissioner and to have done the best for his conference, and with that I concur. He's a wishful South Florida fan, and reminisces about Georgetown hoops and their great years.

I wouldn't classify him as a fan boy of anyone's. He's just a guy who has his way of seeing things, isn't afraid to render an opinion ahead of time, nor afraid to remind his detractors of it when he's proven to be correct. He has a different take on things than I do.

But as I've stated before you shouldn't blame the SEC or Big 10 or ACC or PAC, or Big 12 for anything. It's the networks that have brutalized the G5 and they've done so for a reason germane to only them, ratings. They as a business are looking to maximize their ad revenue at every turn and they will favor those who can draw the largest number of eyeballs and distance themselves from those who do not.

The P5 are merely the beneficiary of their game. It's wasn't our game until they started moving schools around to blur geographical boundaries and to utilize games between teams from shared regions to pull in eyes from two conferences. That's their plan not ours.

I don't know where this ends. It might be 4 conferences, 3 conferences, or two leagues. It will just depend on what their vision is for the number of schools they want in an upper tier. Realignment now is shifting from product placement to the possible disassembling of a conference or two to essentially remove the product they don't want. It is why I called it a hostile takeover of essentially a disorganized and undervalued product. NCAA football was disorganized because conferences ran their own shows until OU/UGA vs the NCAA and TV rights became the property of conferences and therefore a commodity for the networks to organize and exploit. We are in golden handcuffs, but handcuffed nonetheless.

As to your deep seeded vitriol it is an appropriate response, but at the wrong target. When the G5 becomes their own entity the P5 will find those golden handcuffs will get tighter and tighter as we sell each G5 or FCS game for a small premium to the networks until there are only P5 games on the schedule. Then we will start having to rearrange our schedules even more to fill the available time slots that will NET yet another small premium. The reason change has been so slow with regards to scheduling is that our commissioners will sell each one of those concessions one at the time in order to try to maximize their effect.

The losers here will be the fans, the stale noisy game day experience that is required to look exciting for TV but which damages the actual experience of being there with friends and family. The players who are fast becoming the low overhead version of NFL Lite which is exactly what the Mouse is after. And the schools who are tossing their venerated traditions hand over fist in exchange for a buck. The whole experience is turning our schools and their administrations into whores. But then that's no big deal I suppose because our politician started turning corporate tricks 5 decades ago and it has only gotten worse since then.

So direct your ire at corporate America and yet another cherished part of Americana that they've raided for their own profit, when it once belonged to the people in a purer and more enjoyable way.

You call the P5 championship a fake one. It is. The G5 is not segregated by ability, but by audience participation. But then just like Disneyland, as Conway Twitty once sang, "It's only make believe!" So were supposed to appreciate the distraction from the real world while being taxed out the wazoo for paying another corporation (your cable provider) a fat monthly check for the experience.

People should just go fishing on Saturdays while the public lakes are still there. Those too are being purchase by corporations, or worse given to them so that the state can claim to have shed the expense from the state budget for keeping them up.

I'm just glad they haven't put me in one of Mellencamp's little pink houses!
01-18-2018 11:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
otown Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,827
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 45
I Root For: Florida
Location:
Post: #24
RE: Pretty interesting article on the Bowl Ratings
(01-17-2018 11:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-17-2018 09:44 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  Surprising the Citrus outdrew the Peach.

Didn't surprise me. The Peach was the relegation bowl, the G5 rep vs a 3-loss and utterly demoralized Auburn team. Turned out to be a fun game but who woulda guessed?

In contrast, the Citrus featured two top-brand blue-bloods, Notre Dame and LSU. That figured to draw more viewers.

Less to do with LSU and more to do with ND. LSU vs any blue blood outside of ND and the ratings are less. Secondly, they were ABC. By default, OTA always adds viewers over cable.
01-19-2018 11:16 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 25,877
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 589
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #25
RE: Pretty interesting article on the Bowl Ratings
(01-19-2018 11:16 AM)otown Wrote:  
(01-17-2018 11:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-17-2018 09:44 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  Surprising the Citrus outdrew the Peach.

Didn't surprise me. The Peach was the relegation bowl, the G5 rep vs a 3-loss and utterly demoralized Auburn team. Turned out to be a fun game but who woulda guessed?

In contrast, the Citrus featured two top-brand blue-bloods, Notre Dame and LSU. That figured to draw more viewers.

Less to do with LSU and more to do with ND. LSU vs any blue blood outside of ND and the ratings are less. Secondly, they were ABC. By default, OTA always adds viewers over cable.

Think the article made the note that the top 4 non NY6 had SEC teams. More relevant is one had Notre Dame and one had Michigan (S. Carolina is NOT a big draw). And I guess Kentucky fans watched UK-NW since they hadn't been to a bowl in a while. And maybe it was more Kentuckians-Louisville fans watching UL-Missisippi St. Both of those two were close games.
01-19-2018 11:28 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
otown Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,827
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 45
I Root For: Florida
Location:
Post: #26
RE: Pretty interesting article on the Bowl Ratings
(01-19-2018 11:28 AM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-19-2018 11:16 AM)otown Wrote:  
(01-17-2018 11:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-17-2018 09:44 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  Surprising the Citrus outdrew the Peach.

Didn't surprise me. The Peach was the relegation bowl, the G5 rep vs a 3-loss and utterly demoralized Auburn team. Turned out to be a fun game but who woulda guessed?

In contrast, the Citrus featured two top-brand blue-bloods, Notre Dame and LSU. That figured to draw more viewers.

Less to do with LSU and more to do with ND. LSU vs any blue blood outside of ND and the ratings are less. Secondly, they were ABC. By default, OTA always adds viewers over cable.

Think the article made the note that the top 4 non NY6 had SEC teams. More relevant is one had Notre Dame and one had Michigan (S. Carolina is NOT a big draw). And I guess Kentucky fans watched UK-NW since they hadn't been to a bowl in a while. And maybe it was more Kentuckians-Louisville fans watching UL-Missisippi St. Both of those two were close games.

I agree. Bowls rating seem to be holding strong. Who makes the money off the media with the bowls? Obviously the NY6/CFP have their own combined deal. What about the Citrus, Gator, Sun, even down to the Cure? Is it the bowl owner? I know Florida Citrus Sports runs the big one here in Orlando. Are they getting paid directly from ABC/ESPN?
01-19-2018 11:37 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 26,627
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 589
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #27
RE: Pretty interesting article on the Bowl Ratings
(01-18-2018 07:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-18-2018 07:09 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-18-2018 06:59 PM)ColKurtz Wrote:  
(01-18-2018 02:12 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-18-2018 01:22 AM)ColKurtz Wrote:  Except, you know, that ACC teams were involved in the highest-rated non playoff bowl, the largest audience in a NY6 bowl, and 3 out of the next 4 most watched bowls that didn't have a SEC or B1G opponent.

What did that get you? They don't give out parting gifts like on game shows. The key words are, "that didn't have a SEC

or B1G opponent" and I hope you aren't counting Notre Dame here. Their football team isn't ACC. I didn't see what the Louisville vs Miss State drew. And that N.C. State game drew 3 million?

Im just pointing out you're wrong that "ACC other than Clemson in the offseason was nowhere to be found". The ACC will never match the TV ratings for the SEC or the B1G. Neither will the B12 or Pac12 for that matter. It's a competition for third place and always will be. Empirically, the ACC is doing just fine in that regard ...

Agreed. Both on the field and on TV, the ACC has never been a better football conference, and is doing fine.

With Miami, FSU, and Clemson, the ACC has three tier-one draws, and also a few second-tier draws, such as VT, Louisville, and North Carolina.

ACC football will never be ACC basketball but it is more than holding its own.

Except those numbers he listed don't jibe with the last two regular season games of the SEC which both drew over 13 million, nor do they coincide with the SEC's CFP numbers.

To clarify, I wasn't saying that the ACC is the equal of the SEC in terms of football appeal, obviously it isn't. I was saying that the ACC is (a) doing better than it ever has, and (b) is doing fine compared to the other P5 "on average", so to speak. They aren't lagging behind the P5 group.

But the SEC isn't the average, the SEC is at the top of the heap.
01-19-2018 09:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 26,627
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 589
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #28
RE: Pretty interesting article on the Bowl Ratings
(01-18-2018 11:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-18-2018 09:41 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(01-18-2018 07:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-18-2018 07:09 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-18-2018 06:59 PM)ColKurtz Wrote:  Im just pointing out you're wrong that "ACC other than Clemson in the offseason was nowhere to be found". The ACC will never match the TV ratings for the SEC or the B1G. Neither will the B12 or Pac12 for that matter. It's a competition for third place and always will be. Empirically, the ACC is doing just fine in that regard ...

Agreed. Both on the field and on TV, the ACC has never been a better football conference, and is doing fine.

With Miami, FSU, and Clemson, the ACC has three tier-one draws, and also a few second-tier draws, such as VT, Louisville, and North Carolina.

ACC football will never be ACC basketball but it is more than holding its own.

Except those numbers he listed don't jibe with the last two regular season games of the SEC which both drew over 13 million, nor do they coincide with the SEC's CFP numbers.

And on another note, while you are right that Slive's first ESPN deal wasn't stellar, the renewal with the SECN contract may prove to be fortuitous yet, especially if things continue to sag with millennials. We also have something we really didn't have in the first deal, better built in escalators.

If the Big 10 bet wrong on their 6 year deal it could wind up costing them a little bit.

And then we always have the right to renegotiate with additions. The real upside Quo is still in our gate and donations. The Big 10 will make 5 million dollars more than the SEC in T1 & T2 revenue for football & basketball this year Quo, but the SEC even with that deficit will average 12 million more per school than the Big 10 in gross total revenue. Let that sink in a bit.

And then there was the devaluation of the BTN last year as it dropped 150 million in value. I'll be interested to see if that was an anomaly when the reports come in around April of this year, or if it was a divestiture. It will also be interesting to see if FOX bids high for them in 5 years or if ESPN has the door open for them to step in.

The Big 10 will be fine, and so will the SEC. If the ACCN pays off at 70% of the SECN they'll pass the Big 12 and put distance between themselves and the PAC. That will be narrative changer if they can do that.

So by April we'll know a lot more about 2017. In April of 2020 when the ACCN figures are released we'll know a lot more.

And another thing to watch this year is how many NCAA tourney entrants the SEC gets. That could be several million more that we pick up. We've been having 3 or 4 make it in and so far this year we are projected to place 8 in the field.

You don’t have to fight against Quo in defense of the SEC, JRSEC. Quo is an SEC SEC conference fan. He agrees with you.

You have Quo pegged incorrectly. He's not an SEC fan except for when the SEC proves his competition evaluation to be accurate. He's not a fan of the ACC but he sees the upside there. And he's not a fan of the Big 10, but he believes Delany to be the best commissioner and to have done the best for his conference, and with that I concur. He's a wishful South Florida fan, and reminisces about Georgetown hoops and their great years.

I wouldn't classify him as a fan boy of anyone's. He's just a guy who has his way of seeing things, isn't afraid to render an opinion ahead of time, nor afraid to remind his detractors of it when he's proven to be correct. He has a different take on things than I do.

Thanks. IMO, that's an accurate description of me, LOL.

I'd only add that I'm still very much a current Georgetown fan, and Patrick Ewing will always be my all-time favorite basketball player, college and pro, but ... I disagreed with hiring him as HC and think it will end badly for him and the program.

John Thompson, God Bless Him Always, hasn't been our coach for 19 years, but his long arm and looming shadow has controlled the program ever since, and it hasn't been for the good. We are way too incestuous, need to look outside the Thompson Family (in its extended sense of not just his son, but people who played for him and/or coached under him), New Blood to revive the program.

Do like Villanova did: Get someone local, who knows the terrain, maybe even with some GT connection, but isn't a "Thompson Man" through and through.

04-cheers
(This post was last modified: 01-19-2018 09:19 PM by quo vadis.)
01-19-2018 09:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Michael in Raleigh Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 930
Joined: Jul 2014
Reputation: 31
I Root For: App State
Location:
Post: #29
RE: Pretty interesting article on the Bowl Ratings
(01-19-2018 09:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-18-2018 11:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-18-2018 09:41 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(01-18-2018 07:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-18-2018 07:09 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Agreed. Both on the field and on TV, the ACC has never been a better football conference, and is doing fine.

With Miami, FSU, and Clemson, the ACC has three tier-one draws, and also a few second-tier draws, such as VT, Louisville, and North Carolina.

ACC football will never be ACC basketball but it is more than holding its own.

Except those numbers he listed don't jibe with the last two regular season games of the SEC which both drew over 13 million, nor do they coincide with the SEC's CFP numbers.

And on another note, while you are right that Slive's first ESPN deal wasn't stellar, the renewal with the SECN contract may prove to be fortuitous yet, especially if things continue to sag with millennials. We also have something we really didn't have in the first deal, better built in escalators.

If the Big 10 bet wrong on their 6 year deal it could wind up costing them a little bit.

And then we always have the right to renegotiate with additions. The real upside Quo is still in our gate and donations. The Big 10 will make 5 million dollars more than the SEC in T1 & T2 revenue for football & basketball this year Quo, but the SEC even with that deficit will average 12 million more per school than the Big 10 in gross total revenue. Let that sink in a bit.

And then there was the devaluation of the BTN last year as it dropped 150 million in value. I'll be interested to see if that was an anomaly when the reports come in around April of this year, or if it was a divestiture. It will also be interesting to see if FOX bids high for them in 5 years or if ESPN has the door open for them to step in.

The Big 10 will be fine, and so will the SEC. If the ACCN pays off at 70% of the SECN they'll pass the Big 12 and put distance between themselves and the PAC. That will be narrative changer if they can do that.

So by April we'll know a lot more about 2017. In April of 2020 when the ACCN figures are released we'll know a lot more.

And another thing to watch this year is how many NCAA tourney entrants the SEC gets. That could be several million more that we pick up. We've been having 3 or 4 make it in and so far this year we are projected to place 8 in the field.

You don’t have to fight against Quo in defense of the SEC, JRSEC. Quo is an SEC SEC conference fan. He agrees with you.

You have Quo pegged incorrectly. He's not an SEC fan except for when the SEC proves his competition evaluation to be accurate. He's not a fan of the ACC but he sees the upside there. And he's not a fan of the Big 10, but he believes Delany to be the best commissioner and to have done the best for his conference, and with that I concur. He's a wishful South Florida fan, and reminisces about Georgetown hoops and their great years.

I wouldn't classify him as a fan boy of anyone's. He's just a guy who has his way of seeing things, isn't afraid to render an opinion ahead of time, nor afraid to remind his detractors of it when he's proven to be correct. He has a different take on things than I do.

Thanks. IMO, that's an accurate description of me, LOL.

I'd only add that I'm still very much a current Georgetown fan, and Patrick Ewing will always be my all-time favorite basketball player, college and pro, but ... I disagreed with hiring him as HC and think it will end badly for him and the program.

John Thompson, God Bless Him Always, hasn't been our coach for 19 years, but his long arm and looming shadow has controlled the program ever since, and it hasn't been for the good. We are way too incestuous, need to look outside the Thompson Family (in its extended sense of not just his son, but people who played for him and/or coached under him), New Blood to revive the program.

Do like Villanova did: Get someone local, who knows the terrain, maybe even with some GT connection, but isn't a "Thompson Man" through and through.

04-cheers

Yeah, that Jay Wright kiddo's gonna make it in the real world.
01-19-2018 10:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 24,661
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 982
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #30
RE: Pretty interesting article on the Bowl Ratings
(01-18-2018 11:37 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-18-2018 11:19 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(01-18-2018 10:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-18-2018 10:29 AM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-17-2018 09:44 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  If anything, it shows bowls are going away anytime soon.

http://www.fbschedules.com/2018/01/which...ched-most/

Surprising the Citrus outdrew the Peach.
Interesting on value of regular season vs. bowls:

"...1. (1) Alabama at (6) Auburn – Saturday, Nov. 25 on CBS – 13.66 million viewers.
Overall, only three bowl games outdrew the top regular-season game in viewership – and those were all associated with the CFP bracket (the Sugar and Rose semi-finals and the National Championship game). In other words, no non-bracket bowl game attracted more viewers than did Alabama at Auburn in Week 13. And, rather than being literally the only game on TV, the Iron Bowl was one of 43 games played that Saturday.
Of the three teams mentioned twice in the top five of regular-season viewership, two drew in more viewers in their regular-season highs than during bowl season:
Ohio State had 9.468 million tune in to its Cotton Bowl appearance vs. USC. Compare that to the 10.15 million it drew at Michigan and the 12.92 it garnered in the Big Ten title game vs. Wisconsin.
Auburn had 8.377 million viewers watch its Peach Bowl appearance vs. UCF (the least viewed of the six rotating CFP bowl games). Compare that to the 13.47 million who tuned in for the SEC title game vs. Georgia and the 13.66 million who watched the Iron Bowl vs. Alabama...."

The author seems to think his numbers denigrate the bowls, but in fact they show how important they are. E.g., the discussion of Auburn makes the Peach look bad, but it was still the 3rd-highest rated game Auburn played all last year, and they draw good ratings. The Peach even beat out the first Auburn - Georgia game.

And for UCF, it surely was far and away their most-watched game. Heck, all the other games UCF played put together drew about 9.5 million viewers. The Peach did 8.3 million by itself.

The article shows what a BOON these bowl games are exposure-wise for the G5 teams. E.g., Troy's bowl game drew 1.3 million viewers, more than double the viewers for any other game, except for LSU vs Troy, and it even beat that game by 500k viewers.

These bowl games, even the rinky-dink ones, are nice exposure for the G5.

Exactly....look at these 2 bowls:
Armed Forces Bowl, Army vs San Diego St. 2 unranked non cartel schools. 3.5 million viewers.
Las Vegas Bowl: Boise St vs Oregon. Unranked schools, one a bad 7-5 PAC team the other a G5. 3.8 million viewers.
Those numbers are double some ranked cartel school matchups like #16 Michigan St vs #18 Washington St...1.3 million viewers.

Alright guys, this is exactly why we aren't moving to an expanded playoff. Because, if we did ESPN turns a dead time money winner, the bowl season, into an afterthought. You need quality also ran schools to play as the headliners in these bowls because without them there wouldn't be enough schools with just the bottom of the P conferences and the best of the G5 to keep them going. There is too much profit here for ESPN at a down time to let them go for the sake of 4 high dollar overhead playoff games.

Now toss in the fact that the school presidents don't want an expanded playoff, A.D.'s don't want it, the coaches don't want another week of work during the holiday season, especially the ones that might have to prepare for 3 huge games, and the players are already reticent to play in the postseason if they are high draft selections, and I think you can see now why nobody but sportswriters who need to stir readers even talk about it.

I disagree on this. Bowl season will,be just fine with an expanded playoff. Thats 4 games. We used have only a half dozen or so bowls. Now we have 40. The bowl ratings are doing just fine. As long as any random bowl game is only going against Big Bang reruns (or at best--one other bowl) the ratings are going to be fine.

What 4 more playoff games does is double the number of viewers with an extremely high interest in the playoff and doubles the amount of interest in the last weeks of the season because twice as many teams still have a shot at an 8 team field (as opposed to a 4 team field). It also more than doubles the number of HUGE viewer postseason games from 3 to 7.

Playoff expansion is a guaranteed money maker and its happening. The only question is when. Like you said yourself--the slow conversion of college football to NFL-Lite is underway. The CFP playoff expansion is just part of that experience. I have no idea who the winners and losers will be. Its possible the G5 will get kicked to curb---or they might bloom if they get a guaranteed seat at the table in an 8-team playoff. Who knows? Only time will tell.
(This post was last modified: 01-19-2018 11:11 PM by Attackcoog.)
01-19-2018 11:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 26,627
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 589
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #31
RE: Pretty interesting article on the Bowl Ratings
(01-19-2018 11:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-18-2018 11:37 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-18-2018 11:19 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(01-18-2018 10:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-18-2018 10:29 AM)bullet Wrote:  Interesting on value of regular season vs. bowls:

"...1. (1) Alabama at (6) Auburn – Saturday, Nov. 25 on CBS – 13.66 million viewers.
Overall, only three bowl games outdrew the top regular-season game in viewership – and those were all associated with the CFP bracket (the Sugar and Rose semi-finals and the National Championship game). In other words, no non-bracket bowl game attracted more viewers than did Alabama at Auburn in Week 13. And, rather than being literally the only game on TV, the Iron Bowl was one of 43 games played that Saturday.
Of the three teams mentioned twice in the top five of regular-season viewership, two drew in more viewers in their regular-season highs than during bowl season:
Ohio State had 9.468 million tune in to its Cotton Bowl appearance vs. USC. Compare that to the 10.15 million it drew at Michigan and the 12.92 it garnered in the Big Ten title game vs. Wisconsin.
Auburn had 8.377 million viewers watch its Peach Bowl appearance vs. UCF (the least viewed of the six rotating CFP bowl games). Compare that to the 13.47 million who tuned in for the SEC title game vs. Georgia and the 13.66 million who watched the Iron Bowl vs. Alabama...."

The author seems to think his numbers denigrate the bowls, but in fact they show how important they are. E.g., the discussion of Auburn makes the Peach look bad, but it was still the 3rd-highest rated game Auburn played all last year, and they draw good ratings. The Peach even beat out the first Auburn - Georgia game.

And for UCF, it surely was far and away their most-watched game. Heck, all the other games UCF played put together drew about 9.5 million viewers. The Peach did 8.3 million by itself.

The article shows what a BOON these bowl games are exposure-wise for the G5 teams. E.g., Troy's bowl game drew 1.3 million viewers, more than double the viewers for any other game, except for LSU vs Troy, and it even beat that game by 500k viewers.

These bowl games, even the rinky-dink ones, are nice exposure for the G5.

Exactly....look at these 2 bowls:
Armed Forces Bowl, Army vs San Diego St. 2 unranked non cartel schools. 3.5 million viewers.
Las Vegas Bowl: Boise St vs Oregon. Unranked schools, one a bad 7-5 PAC team the other a G5. 3.8 million viewers.
Those numbers are double some ranked cartel school matchups like #16 Michigan St vs #18 Washington St...1.3 million viewers.

Alright guys, this is exactly why we aren't moving to an expanded playoff. Because, if we did ESPN turns a dead time money winner, the bowl season, into an afterthought. You need quality also ran schools to play as the headliners in these bowls because without them there wouldn't be enough schools with just the bottom of the P conferences and the best of the G5 to keep them going. There is too much profit here for ESPN at a down time to let them go for the sake of 4 high dollar overhead playoff games.

Now toss in the fact that the school presidents don't want an expanded playoff, A.D.'s don't want it, the coaches don't want another week of work during the holiday season, especially the ones that might have to prepare for 3 huge games, and the players are already reticent to play in the postseason if they are high draft selections, and I think you can see now why nobody but sportswriters who need to stir readers even talk about it.

I disagree on this. Bowl season will,be just fine with an expanded playoff. Thats 4 games. We used have only a half dozen or so bowls. Now we have 40. The bowl ratings are doing just fine. As long as any random bowl game is only going against Big Bang reruns (or at best--one other bowl) the ratings are going to be fine.

What 4 more playoff games does is double the number of viewers with an extremely high interest in the playoff and doubles the amount of interest in the last weeks of the season because twice as many teams still have a shot at an 8 team field (as opposed to a 4 team field). It also more than doubles the number of HUGE viewer postseason games from 3 to 7.

Playoff expansion is a guaranteed money maker and its happening.

I agree that we are likely to expand to an 8-team playoff - seven long years from now.

But, I'm not sure if it will be the money-maker you think. The P5 conference title games are quasi-quarterfinals as it is - this year, it was obvious that the SEC CG and ACC CG winners would make the playoffs, and Oklahoma was in if they won the Big 12 title game and Wisconsin was in if they won the B1G title game.

A 4-team playoff doesn't cannibalize the conference title games - which the P5 covet because they keep all of that money themselves - but an expansion to 8 likely would.
01-20-2018 07:19 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 24,661
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 982
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #32
RE: Pretty interesting article on the Bowl Ratings
(01-20-2018 07:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-19-2018 11:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-18-2018 11:37 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-18-2018 11:19 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(01-18-2018 10:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  The author seems to think his numbers denigrate the bowls, but in fact they show how important they are. E.g., the discussion of Auburn makes the Peach look bad, but it was still the 3rd-highest rated game Auburn played all last year, and they draw good ratings. The Peach even beat out the first Auburn - Georgia game.

And for UCF, it surely was far and away their most-watched game. Heck, all the other games UCF played put together drew about 9.5 million viewers. The Peach did 8.3 million by itself.

The article shows what a BOON these bowl games are exposure-wise for the G5 teams. E.g., Troy's bowl game drew 1.3 million viewers, more than double the viewers for any other game, except for LSU vs Troy, and it even beat that game by 500k viewers.

These bowl games, even the rinky-dink ones, are nice exposure for the G5.

Exactly....look at these 2 bowls:
Armed Forces Bowl, Army vs San Diego St. 2 unranked non cartel schools. 3.5 million viewers.
Las Vegas Bowl: Boise St vs Oregon. Unranked schools, one a bad 7-5 PAC team the other a G5. 3.8 million viewers.
Those numbers are double some ranked cartel school matchups like #16 Michigan St vs #18 Washington St...1.3 million viewers.

Alright guys, this is exactly why we aren't moving to an expanded playoff. Because, if we did ESPN turns a dead time money winner, the bowl season, into an afterthought. You need quality also ran schools to play as the headliners in these bowls because without them there wouldn't be enough schools with just the bottom of the P conferences and the best of the G5 to keep them going. There is too much profit here for ESPN at a down time to let them go for the sake of 4 high dollar overhead playoff games.

Now toss in the fact that the school presidents don't want an expanded playoff, A.D.'s don't want it, the coaches don't want another week of work during the holiday season, especially the ones that might have to prepare for 3 huge games, and the players are already reticent to play in the postseason if they are high draft selections, and I think you can see now why nobody but sportswriters who need to stir readers even talk about it.

I disagree on this. Bowl season will,be just fine with an expanded playoff. Thats 4 games. We used have only a half dozen or so bowls. Now we have 40. The bowl ratings are doing just fine. As long as any random bowl game is only going against Big Bang reruns (or at best--one other bowl) the ratings are going to be fine.

What 4 more playoff games does is double the number of viewers with an extremely high interest in the playoff and doubles the amount of interest in the last weeks of the season because twice as many teams still have a shot at an 8 team field (as opposed to a 4 team field). It also more than doubles the number of HUGE viewer postseason games from 3 to 7.

Playoff expansion is a guaranteed money maker and its happening.

I agree that we are likely to expand to an 8-team playoff - seven long years from now.

But, I'm not sure if it will be the money-maker you think. The P5 conference title games are quasi-quarterfinals as it is - this year, it was obvious that the SEC CG and ACC CG winners would make the playoffs, and Oklahoma was in if they won the Big 12 title game and Wisconsin was in if they won the B1G title game.

A 4-team playoff doesn't cannibalize the conference title games - which the P5 covet because they keep all of that money themselves - but an expansion to 8 likely would.

If the P5 champs are AQ (my preferred 8 team format), interest in those P5 CCG games would not decrease. In fact, with that format the CCG’s would effectively represent a first round play in game for every conference (either directly for the P5 or indirectly for the G5). Those games would be more important than they are now (as the Pac12 and Big10 fans can easily understand this year).
(This post was last modified: 01-20-2018 11:53 AM by Attackcoog.)
01-20-2018 11:46 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jaredf29 Offline
Smiter of Trolls
*

Posts: 6,066
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 240
I Root For: UCF
Location: Nor Cal
Post: #33
RE: Pretty interesting article on the Bowl Ratings
(01-18-2018 02:04 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-18-2018 11:35 AM)Chappy Wrote:  
(01-17-2018 11:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-17-2018 09:44 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  Surprising the Citrus outdrew the Peach.

Didn't surprise me. The Peach was the relegation bowl, the G5 rep vs a 3-loss and utterly demoralized Auburn team. Turned out to be a fun game but who woulda guessed?

In contrast, the Citrus featured two top-brand blue-bloods, Notre Dame and LSU. That figured to draw more viewers.

Geez, Auburn sure looked to me like they were trying. I couldn't tell they were so demoralized.

Sure, you are in a game, you try. But "trying" involves a lot more than just in-game effort. It involves all the time spent, or not spent, putting forth effort in practice, paying attention in the film room, etc. preparing for the game.

Auburn was crushed after the SEC title game loss, and then to draw UCF in their bowl? The pits.

Seriously your obsession with UCF is on another level.
01-20-2018 01:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 25,877
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 589
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #34
RE: Pretty interesting article on the Bowl Ratings
(01-20-2018 07:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-19-2018 11:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-18-2018 11:37 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-18-2018 11:19 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(01-18-2018 10:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  The author seems to think his numbers denigrate the bowls, but in fact they show how important they are. E.g., the discussion of Auburn makes the Peach look bad, but it was still the 3rd-highest rated game Auburn played all last year, and they draw good ratings. The Peach even beat out the first Auburn - Georgia game.

And for UCF, it surely was far and away their most-watched game. Heck, all the other games UCF played put together drew about 9.5 million viewers. The Peach did 8.3 million by itself.

The article shows what a BOON these bowl games are exposure-wise for the G5 teams. E.g., Troy's bowl game drew 1.3 million viewers, more than double the viewers for any other game, except for LSU vs Troy, and it even beat that game by 500k viewers.

These bowl games, even the rinky-dink ones, are nice exposure for the G5.

Exactly....look at these 2 bowls:
Armed Forces Bowl, Army vs San Diego St. 2 unranked non cartel schools. 3.5 million viewers.
Las Vegas Bowl: Boise St vs Oregon. Unranked schools, one a bad 7-5 PAC team the other a G5. 3.8 million viewers.
Those numbers are double some ranked cartel school matchups like #16 Michigan St vs #18 Washington St...1.3 million viewers.

Alright guys, this is exactly why we aren't moving to an expanded playoff. Because, if we did ESPN turns a dead time money winner, the bowl season, into an afterthought. You need quality also ran schools to play as the headliners in these bowls because without them there wouldn't be enough schools with just the bottom of the P conferences and the best of the G5 to keep them going. There is too much profit here for ESPN at a down time to let them go for the sake of 4 high dollar overhead playoff games.

Now toss in the fact that the school presidents don't want an expanded playoff, A.D.'s don't want it, the coaches don't want another week of work during the holiday season, especially the ones that might have to prepare for 3 huge games, and the players are already reticent to play in the postseason if they are high draft selections, and I think you can see now why nobody but sportswriters who need to stir readers even talk about it.

I disagree on this. Bowl season will,be just fine with an expanded playoff. Thats 4 games. We used have only a half dozen or so bowls. Now we have 40. The bowl ratings are doing just fine. As long as any random bowl game is only going against Big Bang reruns (or at best--one other bowl) the ratings are going to be fine.

What 4 more playoff games does is double the number of viewers with an extremely high interest in the playoff and doubles the amount of interest in the last weeks of the season because twice as many teams still have a shot at an 8 team field (as opposed to a 4 team field). It also more than doubles the number of HUGE viewer postseason games from 3 to 7.

Playoff expansion is a guaranteed money maker and its happening.

I agree that we are likely to expand to an 8-team playoff - seven long years from now.

But, I'm not sure if it will be the money-maker you think. The P5 conference title games are quasi-quarterfinals as it is - this year, it was obvious that the SEC CG and ACC CG winners would make the playoffs, and Oklahoma was in if they won the Big 12 title game and Wisconsin was in if they won the B1G title game.

A 4-team playoff doesn't cannibalize the conference title games - which the P5 covet because they keep all of that money themselves - but an expansion to 8 likely would.

On the contrary. An expansion to 8 is a de facto expansion to 13. It makes the ccgs the first round of the playoffs and makes them more valuable. They may not necessarily be elimination games (but probably are-think how few ccg winners ended up in the top 8), but they do guarantee a spot in the quarterfinals.
01-20-2018 01:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
slhNavy91 Online
1st String
*

Posts: 1,493
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 151
I Root For: Navy
Location:
Post: #35
RE: Pretty interesting article on the Bowl Ratings
(01-18-2018 11:18 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-18-2018 11:08 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(01-18-2018 10:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-18-2018 10:29 AM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-17-2018 09:44 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  If anything, it shows bowls are going away anytime soon.

http://www.fbschedules.com/2018/01/which...ched-most/

Surprising the Citrus outdrew the Peach.
Interesting on value of regular season vs. bowls:

"...1. (1) Alabama at (6) Auburn – Saturday, Nov. 25 on CBS – 13.66 million viewers.
Overall, only three bowl games outdrew the top regular-season game in viewership – and those were all associated with the CFP bracket (the Sugar and Rose semi-finals and the National Championship game). In other words, no non-bracket bowl game attracted more viewers than did Alabama at Auburn in Week 13. And, rather than being literally the only game on TV, the Iron Bowl was one of 43 games played that Saturday.
Of the three teams mentioned twice in the top five of regular-season viewership, two drew in more viewers in their regular-season highs than during bowl season:
Ohio State had 9.468 million tune in to its Cotton Bowl appearance vs. USC. Compare that to the 10.15 million it drew at Michigan and the 12.92 it garnered in the Big Ten title game vs. Wisconsin.
Auburn had 8.377 million viewers watch its Peach Bowl appearance vs. UCF (the least viewed of the six rotating CFP bowl games). Compare that to the 13.47 million who tuned in for the SEC title game vs. Georgia and the 13.66 million who watched the Iron Bowl vs. Alabama...."

The author seems to think his numbers denigrate the bowls, but in fact they show how important they are. E.g., the discussion of Auburn makes the Peach look bad, but it was still the 3rd-highest rated game Auburn played all last year, and they draw good ratings. The Peach even beat out the first Auburn - Georgia game.

And for UCF, it surely was far and away their most-watched game. Heck, all the other games UCF played put together drew about 9.5 million viewers. The Peach did 8.3 million by itself.

The article shows what a BOON these bowl games are exposure-wise for the G5 teams. E.g., Troy's bowl game drew 1.3 million viewers, more than double the viewers for any other game, except for LSU vs Troy, and it even beat that game by 500k viewers.

These bowl games, even the rinky-dink ones, are nice exposure for the G5.

The past several years there have not been many schools who didn't have their best TV ratings of the year for their bowl game.
The exceptions have been the schools playing a midweek game during work hours, teams that lost a conference title game, and some quirks like Rice's game against TAMU when Johnny Out Of Football came back from his suspension.

Bowls are just a good stage to reach more people.

Yes, e.g., Boise State's bowl game tripled their viewers for any other game, and they are a pretty high profile brand that plays P5 teams in the regular season.

Typically, a G5 team will double or even triple its best audience for the year in their bowl game, no matter how rink-dink the bowl is, and even if it is G5 vs G5.

These bolded statements aren't really true for the American.

In 2017, bowl games were only 3 of the top 10 best-viewed games for the AAC. The Peach Bowl WASN'T the most viewed AAC game. And while that was UCF's most viewed game, two other UCF games were in that top 10 - Peach wasn't double. Memphis' bowl game was its most watched by only 53,000 viewers, and another Memphis game was within 200k viewers. Temple's bowl game beat out a regular season Temple game by 17,000 viewers. Four of the five non-bowl games I'm talking about for those three schools were conference controlled. Navy, Houston, and USF had solid bowl performance and all three had better viewership games in regular season.

2016 only two bowls are in the AAC's top-ten viewed games. Armed Forces Bowl is #10 on that list and #3 for Navy. Temple is the only school with bowl game being most watched...by only 50k. UCF, USF, Navy, Houston, Tulsa, and Memphis had bowl games with lower viewership than their other games.

2015, 8 AAC bowl games, ALL over a million viewers...and 18 non-bowl games. Houston's Peach Bowl led the way for bowls but was #3 overall for the AAC, and still wasn't "double" Houston's Black Friday game vs Navy. Navy's bowl was #4 for Navy, Temple's bowl was #3 for Temple, and USF's bowl was #3 for USF; four of those seven better games were conference controlled and three were intra-AAC.
01-20-2018 02:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 26,627
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 589
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #36
RE: Pretty interesting article on the Bowl Ratings
(01-20-2018 02:05 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  
(01-18-2018 11:18 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-18-2018 11:08 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(01-18-2018 10:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-18-2018 10:29 AM)bullet Wrote:  Interesting on value of regular season vs. bowls:

"...1. (1) Alabama at (6) Auburn – Saturday, Nov. 25 on CBS – 13.66 million viewers.
Overall, only three bowl games outdrew the top regular-season game in viewership – and those were all associated with the CFP bracket (the Sugar and Rose semi-finals and the National Championship game). In other words, no non-bracket bowl game attracted more viewers than did Alabama at Auburn in Week 13. And, rather than being literally the only game on TV, the Iron Bowl was one of 43 games played that Saturday.
Of the three teams mentioned twice in the top five of regular-season viewership, two drew in more viewers in their regular-season highs than during bowl season:
Ohio State had 9.468 million tune in to its Cotton Bowl appearance vs. USC. Compare that to the 10.15 million it drew at Michigan and the 12.92 it garnered in the Big Ten title game vs. Wisconsin.
Auburn had 8.377 million viewers watch its Peach Bowl appearance vs. UCF (the least viewed of the six rotating CFP bowl games). Compare that to the 13.47 million who tuned in for the SEC title game vs. Georgia and the 13.66 million who watched the Iron Bowl vs. Alabama...."

The author seems to think his numbers denigrate the bowls, but in fact they show how important they are. E.g., the discussion of Auburn makes the Peach look bad, but it was still the 3rd-highest rated game Auburn played all last year, and they draw good ratings. The Peach even beat out the first Auburn - Georgia game.

And for UCF, it surely was far and away their most-watched game. Heck, all the other games UCF played put together drew about 9.5 million viewers. The Peach did 8.3 million by itself.

The article shows what a BOON these bowl games are exposure-wise for the G5 teams. E.g., Troy's bowl game drew 1.3 million viewers, more than double the viewers for any other game, except for LSU vs Troy, and it even beat that game by 500k viewers.

These bowl games, even the rinky-dink ones, are nice exposure for the G5.

The past several years there have not been many schools who didn't have their best TV ratings of the year for their bowl game.
The exceptions have been the schools playing a midweek game during work hours, teams that lost a conference title game, and some quirks like Rice's game against TAMU when Johnny Out Of Football came back from his suspension.

Bowls are just a good stage to reach more people.

Yes, e.g., Boise State's bowl game tripled their viewers for any other game, and they are a pretty high profile brand that plays P5 teams in the regular season.

Typically, a G5 team will double or even triple its best audience for the year in their bowl game, no matter how rink-dink the bowl is, and even if it is G5 vs G5.

These bolded statements aren't really true for the American.

In 2017, bowl games were only 3 of the top 10 best-viewed games for the AAC. The Peach Bowl WASN'T the most viewed AAC game.

Stop right there: If you are counting Army - Navy as an "AAC game", well it's obviously not that so go back and recalibrate. Army-Navy is it's own thing, even has its own TV deal. Heck I bet 85% of everyone who tunes in has no idea what, if any, conferences they are members of.

If you were referring to some other AAC game that drew 8.4+ million fans and i've forgotten it, then i apologize. 07-coffee3

Also, about bowl games being watched vs regular season games: You say that in 2016 about six AAC teams had regular season games that topped their bowl game viewership. But, again, are those legit AAC games or piggybacks on big-name P5?

E.g., if USF's bowl game drew more viewers than all their AAC games, but less than USF vs FSU, and likewise if the one game Temple had that drew more was Temple vs Penn State, well obviously those ratings are due to the blue-chip P5 opponent, they aren't "AAC games" in any meaningful sense.

But again, if you are actually referencing real AAC games, like Temple vs UConn beating their bowl game, then again I apologize.
(This post was last modified: 01-20-2018 08:20 PM by quo vadis.)
01-20-2018 08:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
slhNavy91 Online
1st String
*

Posts: 1,493
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 151
I Root For: Navy
Location:
Post: #37
RE: Pretty interesting article on the Bowl Ratings
(01-20-2018 08:10 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-20-2018 02:05 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  
(01-18-2018 11:18 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-18-2018 11:08 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(01-18-2018 10:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  The author seems to think his numbers denigrate the bowls, but in fact they show how important they are. E.g., the discussion of Auburn makes the Peach look bad, but it was still the 3rd-highest rated game Auburn played all last year, and they draw good ratings. The Peach even beat out the first Auburn - Georgia game.

And for UCF, it surely was far and away their most-watched game. Heck, all the other games UCF played put together drew about 9.5 million viewers. The Peach did 8.3 million by itself.

The article shows what a BOON these bowl games are exposure-wise for the G5 teams. E.g., Troy's bowl game drew 1.3 million viewers, more than double the viewers for any other game, except for LSU vs Troy, and it even beat that game by 500k viewers.

These bowl games, even the rinky-dink ones, are nice exposure for the G5.

The past several years there have not been many schools who didn't have their best TV ratings of the year for their bowl game.
The exceptions have been the schools playing a midweek game during work hours, teams that lost a conference title game, and some quirks like Rice's game against TAMU when Johnny Out Of Football came back from his suspension.

Bowls are just a good stage to reach more people.

Yes, e.g., Boise State's bowl game tripled their viewers for any other game, and they are a pretty high profile brand that plays P5 teams in the regular season.

Typically, a G5 team will double or even triple its best audience for the year in their bowl game, no matter how rink-dink the bowl is, and even if it is G5 vs G5.

These bolded statements aren't really true for the American.

In 2017, bowl games were only 3 of the top 10 best-viewed games for the AAC. The Peach Bowl WASN'T the most viewed AAC game.

Stop right there: If you are counting Army - Navy as an "AAC game", well it's obviously not that so go back and recalibrate. Army-Navy is it's own thing, even has its own TV deal. Heck I bet 85% of everyone who tunes in has no idea what, if any, conferences they are members of.

If you were referring to some other AAC game that drew 8.4+ million fans and i've forgotten it, then i apologize. 07-coffee3

Also, about bowl games being watched vs regular season games: You say that in 2016 about six AAC teams had regular season games that topped their bowl game viewership. But, again, are those legit AAC games or piggybacks on big-name P5?

E.g., if USF's bowl game drew more viewers than all their AAC games, but less than USF vs FSU, and likewise if the one game Temple had that drew more was Temple vs Penn State, well obviously those ratings are due to the blue-chip P5 opponent, they aren't "AAC games" in any meaningful sense.

But again, if you are actually referencing real AAC games, like Temple vs UConn beating their bowl game, then again I apologize.

1. Actually READ my post and then respond to it. I go into how many of the better-than-bowl-rated games are conference controlled for '15 and '17. I acknowledge that Temple at Penn State is one thing and PennState at Temple is another and Temple in two AAC ccgs or UCF@Temple is yet another.

2. My having done that goes above and beyond what you and arkstfan were saying. You were talking about exposure and viewership. UCF's paycheck game at Michigan is still exposure. The perpetual ND series is good for Navy football recruiting and the Army-Navy game is a great commercial for the institution, period.
A. You started with "nice exposure for the G5" and I'm saying AWESOME for the "G4" but only good-not-great for the AAC
B. arkstfan said "Best TV ratings of the year for their bowl game," and that's where it doesn't matter that Army Navy doesn't get AAC any dollars. Or if you throw that out I got Navy ND and if you throw that out I STILL have Navy Houston or the AAC championship game. And it's not just Navy - I gave examples for SEVEN AAC schools.
C. You then doubled down on being wrong saying "double or even triple it's best audience for the year" and that is not true for any AAC bowl team. G4s maybe. But not my conference
You started talking about exposure and viewership, not whether the AAC team has inherent appeal or whether a certain rating will benefit in TV negotiations. To come back and split hairs that a game was or wasn't a "legit AAC game" is moving the goalposts.

3. Regarding 2016 since you asked. The only "piggyback" game of the six was UCF@ Michigan. Navy was the Army and ND games. Houston was Oklahoma at Houston. USF was their home game vs FSU - so AAC inventory in addition to being straight up exposure. Temple was the AAC championship and Memphis was Houston-Memphis on ABC on Black Friday.
Details for all three years, for AAC and G4s here:
http://csnbbs.com/thread-838636-post-150...id15000866

But mostly - actually read before replying.
(This post was last modified: 01-21-2018 09:48 AM by slhNavy91.)
01-20-2018 08:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 26,627
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 589
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #38
RE: Pretty interesting article on the Bowl Ratings
(01-20-2018 08:53 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  
(01-20-2018 08:10 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-20-2018 02:05 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  
(01-18-2018 11:18 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-18-2018 11:08 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  The past several years there have not been many schools who didn't have their best TV ratings of the year for their bowl game.
The exceptions have been the schools playing a midweek game during work hours, teams that lost a conference title game, and some quirks like Rice's game against TAMU when Johnny Out Of Football came back from his suspension.

Bowls are just a good stage to reach more people.

Yes, e.g., Boise State's bowl game tripled their viewers for any other game, and they are a pretty high profile brand that plays P5 teams in the regular season.

Typically, a G5 team will double or even triple its best audience for the year in their bowl game, no matter how rink-dink the bowl is, and even if it is G5 vs G5.

These bolded statements aren't really true for the American.

In 2017, bowl games were only 3 of the top 10 best-viewed games for the AAC. The Peach Bowl WASN'T the most viewed AAC game.

Stop right there: If you are counting Army - Navy as an "AAC game", well it's obviously not that so go back and recalibrate. Army-Navy is it's own thing, even has its own TV deal. Heck I bet 85% of everyone who tunes in has no idea what, if any, conferences they are members of.

If you were referring to some other AAC game that drew 8.4+ million fans and i've forgotten it, then i apologize. 07-coffee3

Also, about bowl games being watched vs regular season games: You say that in 2016 about six AAC teams had regular season games that topped their bowl game viewership. But, again, are those legit AAC games or piggybacks on big-name P5?

E.g., if USF's bowl game drew more viewers than all their AAC games, but less than USF vs FSU, and likewise if the one game Temple had that drew more was Temple vs Penn State, well obviously those ratings are due to the blue-chip P5 opponent, they aren't "AAC games" in any meaningful sense.

But again, if you are actually referencing real AAC games, like Temple vs UConn beating their bowl game, then again I apologize.

1. Actually READ my post and then respond to it. I go into how many of the better-than-bowl-rated games are conference controlled for '15 and '17. I acknowledge that Temple at Penn State is one thing and PennState at Temple is another and Temple in two AAC ccgs or UCF@Temple is yet another.

2. My having done that goes above and beyond what you and arkstfan were saying. You were talking about exposure and viewership. UCF's paycheck game at Michigan is still exposure. The perpetual ND series is good for Navy football recruiting and the Army-Navy game is a great commercial for the institution, period.
A. You started with "nice exposure for the G5" and I'm saying AWESOME for the "G4" but only good-not-great for the AAC
B. arkstfan said "Best TV ratings of the year for their bowl game," and that's where it doesn't matter that Army Navy doesn't get AAC any dollars. Or if you throw that out I got Navy ND and if you throw that out I STILL have Navy Houston or the AAC championship game. And it's not just Navy - I gave examples for SEVEN AAC schools.
C. You then doubled down on being wrong saying "double or even triple it's best audience for the year" and that is not true for any AAC bowl team. G4s maybe. But not my conference
You started talking about exposure and viewership, not whether the AAC team has inherent appeal or whether a certain rating will benefit in TV negotiations. To come back and split hairs that a game was or wasn't a "legit AAC game" is moving the goalposts.

3. Regarding 2016 since you asked. The only "piggyback" game of the six was UCF@ Michigan. Navy was the Army and ND games. Houston was Oklahoma at Houston. USF was their home game vs FSU - so AAC inventory in addition to being straight up exposure. Temple was the AAC championship and Memphis was Houston-Memphis on ABC on Black Friday.
Details for all three years, for AAC and G4s here:
http://csnbbs.com/thread-838636-post-150...id15000866

But mostly - actually read before replying.

That looks like an awful lot of verbiage to cop to what i asked - namely that the games you were referencing were either Army - Navy or games vs big-name P5, like Oklahoma, FSU, and Michigan, games which I explained shouldn't count -with the exception of Temple's AAC title game and Houston vs Memphis.

As for "actual reading", first, remember that this is a football forum. It's not anyone's job. Nobody is required to "read" your posts for every nitzy, pedantic, detail you put in them, such that when we overlook them you can shout "READ what i said"! When you start paying me to read your posts, then I'll be obligated to pay that kind of attention to their details, thanks.

Second, recall that in my prior post, I didn't single out the AAC. I said "Typically, a G5 team will double or even triple its best audience of the year ...".

Since typically means "in most cases", there was no reason for you to reply with AAC - specific examples, when I was talking about the G5 generally, the entire G5, and "typically" obviously leaves room for exceptions. Any and all AAC, or other G5 conference exceptions, were implied by my statement.

The only valid ground to contest what i said would be to look at the entirety of the G5, and if it is true that for entire population of G5, it is NOT typically the case that the bowl game doubles or triples their best regular audience, then I would stand corrected. But you didn't do that, you invoked just the AAC.

Once you did, taking the discussion out of the realm i was talking about, then it was entirely fair for me to dissect that claim by addressing whether the AAC teams were responsible for that exposure -that's not moving the goal post, it's just taking the analysis to a more detailed level, which is where you apparently wanted it to go when you took my "G5" comment and made it about the AAC.

So no, I am correct to note that it is misleading to mention Army-Navy, UCF - Michigan, etc. and compare them to bowl games. You were misleading and wrong to do so, so i properly rebuked you for that.

For some reason, you are a Navy fan with real loyalty to the AAC, weird, the only one i know of. So you bristled at that G5 statement, and hastened to reply that it isn't true of the AAC and you tied yourself in knots doing so. Too bad. 07-coffee3
(This post was last modified: 01-23-2018 09:49 AM by quo vadis.)
01-23-2018 09:47 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
billybobby777 Offline
Fighting the cartel 5
*

Posts: 9,375
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 349
I Root For: ECU, Army
Location: Houston dont sleepon
Post: #39
RE: Pretty interesting article on the Bowl Ratings
(01-23-2018 09:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-20-2018 08:53 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  
(01-20-2018 08:10 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-20-2018 02:05 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  
(01-18-2018 11:18 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Yes, e.g., Boise State's bowl game tripled their viewers for any other game, and they are a pretty high profile brand that plays P5 teams in the regular season.

Typically, a G5 team will double or even triple its best audience for the year in their bowl game, no matter how rink-dink the bowl is, and even if it is G5 vs G5.

These bolded statements aren't really true for the American.

In 2017, bowl games were only 3 of the top 10 best-viewed games for the AAC. The Peach Bowl WASN'T the most viewed AAC game.

Stop right there: If you are counting Army - Navy as an "AAC game", well it's obviously not that so go back and recalibrate. Army-Navy is it's own thing, even has its own TV deal. Heck I bet 85% of everyone who tunes in has no idea what, if any, conferences they are members of.

If you were referring to some other AAC game that drew 8.4+ million fans and i've forgotten it, then i apologize. 07-coffee3

Also, about bowl games being watched vs regular season games: You say that in 2016 about six AAC teams had regular season games that topped their bowl game viewership. But, again, are those legit AAC games or piggybacks on big-name P5?

E.g., if USF's bowl game drew more viewers than all their AAC games, but less than USF vs FSU, and likewise if the one game Temple had that drew more was Temple vs Penn State, well obviously those ratings are due to the blue-chip P5 opponent, they aren't "AAC games" in any meaningful sense.

But again, if you are actually referencing real AAC games, like Temple vs UConn beating their bowl game, then again I apologize.

1. Actually READ my post and then respond to it. I go into how many of the better-than-bowl-rated games are conference controlled for '15 and '17. I acknowledge that Temple at Penn State is one thing and PennState at Temple is another and Temple in two AAC ccgs or UCF@Temple is yet another.

2. My having done that goes above and beyond what you and arkstfan were saying. You were talking about exposure and viewership. UCF's paycheck game at Michigan is still exposure. The perpetual ND series is good for Navy football recruiting and the Army-Navy game is a great commercial for the institution, period.
A. You started with "nice exposure for the G5" and I'm saying AWESOME for the "G4" but only good-not-great for the AAC
B. arkstfan said "Best TV ratings of the year for their bowl game," and that's where it doesn't matter that Army Navy doesn't get AAC any dollars. Or if you throw that out I got Navy ND and if you throw that out I STILL have Navy Houston or the AAC championship game. And it's not just Navy - I gave examples for SEVEN AAC schools.
C. You then doubled down on being wrong saying "double or even triple it's best audience for the year" and that is not true for any AAC bowl team. G4s maybe. But not my conference
You started talking about exposure and viewership, not whether the AAC team has inherent appeal or whether a certain rating will benefit in TV negotiations. To come back and split hairs that a game was or wasn't a "legit AAC game" is moving the goalposts.

3. Regarding 2016 since you asked. The only "piggyback" game of the six was UCF@ Michigan. Navy was the Army and ND games. Houston was Oklahoma at Houston. USF was their home game vs FSU - so AAC inventory in addition to being straight up exposure. Temple was the AAC championship and Memphis was Houston-Memphis on ABC on Black Friday.
Details for all three years, for AAC and G4s here:
http://csnbbs.com/thread-838636-post-150...id15000866

But mostly - actually read before replying.

That looks like an awful lot of verbiage to cop to what i asked - namely that the games you were referencing were either Army - Navy or games vs big-name P5, like Oklahoma, FSU, and Michigan, games which I explained shouldn't count -with the exception of Temple's AAC title game and Houston vs Memphis.

As for "actual reading", first, remember that this is a football forum. It's not anyone's job. Nobody is required to "read" your posts for every nitzy, pedantic, detail you put in them, such that when we overlook them you can shout "READ what i said"! When you start paying me to read your posts, then I'll be obligated to pay that kind of attention to their details, thanks.

Second, recall that in my prior post, I didn't single out the AAC. I said "Typically, a G5 team will double or even triple its best audience of the year ...".

Since typically means "in most cases", there was no reason for you to reply with AAC - specific examples, when I was talking about the G5 generally, the entire G5, and "typically" obviously leaves room for exceptions. Any and all AAC, or other G5 conference exceptions, were implied by my statement.

The only valid ground to contest what i said would be to look at the entirety of the G5, and if it is true that for entire population of G5, it is NOT typically the case that the bowl game doubles or triples their best regular audience, then I would stand corrected. But you didn't do that, you invoked just the AAC.

Once you did, taking the discussion out of the realm i was talking about, then it was entirely fair for me to dissect that claim by addressing whether the AAC teams were responsible for that exposure -that's not moving the goal post, it's just taking the analysis to a more detailed level, which is where you apparently wanted it to go when you took my "G5" comment and made it about the AAC.

So no, I am correct to note that it is misleading to mention Army-Navy, UCF - Michigan, etc. and compare them to bowl games. You were misleading and wrong to do so, so i properly rebuked you for that.

For some reason, you are a Navy fan with real loyalty to the AAC, weird, the only one i know of. So you bristled at that G5 statement, and hastened to reply that it isn't true of the AAC and you tied yourself in knots doing so. Too bad. 07-coffee3

I was going to jump into this one but this caught my attention “For some reason, you are a Navy fan with a real loyalty to the AAC, weird, the only one I know of.” That’s exactly what I’ve always thought too. Never met any Navy fans like that either....but I have read a lot of AAC fans who write like that on this board every day.
01-25-2018 11:50 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
slhNavy91 Online
1st String
*

Posts: 1,493
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 151
I Root For: Navy
Location:
Post: #40
RE: Pretty interesting article on the Bowl Ratings
(01-25-2018 11:50 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(01-23-2018 09:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-20-2018 08:53 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  
(01-20-2018 08:10 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-20-2018 02:05 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  These bolded statements aren't really true for the American.

In 2017, bowl games were only 3 of the top 10 best-viewed games for the AAC. The Peach Bowl WASN'T the most viewed AAC game.

Stop right there: If you are counting Army - Navy as an "AAC game", well it's obviously not that so go back and recalibrate. Army-Navy is it's own thing, even has its own TV deal. Heck I bet 85% of everyone who tunes in has no idea what, if any, conferences they are members of.

If you were referring to some other AAC game that drew 8.4+ million fans and i've forgotten it, then i apologize. 07-coffee3

Also, about bowl games being watched vs regular season games: You say that in 2016 about six AAC teams had regular season games that topped their bowl game viewership. But, again, are those legit AAC games or piggybacks on big-name P5?

E.g., if USF's bowl game drew more viewers than all their AAC games, but less than USF vs FSU, and likewise if the one game Temple had that drew more was Temple vs Penn State, well obviously those ratings are due to the blue-chip P5 opponent, they aren't "AAC games" in any meaningful sense.

But again, if you are actually referencing real AAC games, like Temple vs UConn beating their bowl game, then again I apologize.

1. Actually READ my post and then respond to it. I go into how many of the better-than-bowl-rated games are conference controlled for '15 and '17. I acknowledge that Temple at Penn State is one thing and PennState at Temple is another and Temple in two AAC ccgs or UCF@Temple is yet another.

2. My having done that goes above and beyond what you and arkstfan were saying. You were talking about exposure and viewership. UCF's paycheck game at Michigan is still exposure. The perpetual ND series is good for Navy football recruiting and the Army-Navy game is a great commercial for the institution, period.
A. You started with "nice exposure for the G5" and I'm saying AWESOME for the "G4" but only good-not-great for the AAC
B. arkstfan said "Best TV ratings of the year for their bowl game," and that's where it doesn't matter that Army Navy doesn't get AAC any dollars. Or if you throw that out I got Navy ND and if you throw that out I STILL have Navy Houston or the AAC championship game. And it's not just Navy - I gave examples for SEVEN AAC schools.
C. You then doubled down on being wrong saying "double or even triple it's best audience for the year" and that is not true for any AAC bowl team. G4s maybe. But not my conference
You started talking about exposure and viewership, not whether the AAC team has inherent appeal or whether a certain rating will benefit in TV negotiations. To come back and split hairs that a game was or wasn't a "legit AAC game" is moving the goalposts.

3. Regarding 2016 since you asked. The only "piggyback" game of the six was UCF@ Michigan. Navy was the Army and ND games. Houston was Oklahoma at Houston. USF was their home game vs FSU - so AAC inventory in addition to being straight up exposure. Temple was the AAC championship and Memphis was Houston-Memphis on ABC on Black Friday.
Details for all three years, for AAC and G4s here:
http://csnbbs.com/thread-838636-post-150...id15000866

But mostly - actually read before replying.

That looks like an awful lot of verbiage to cop to what i asked - namely that the games you were referencing were either Army - Navy or games vs big-name P5, like Oklahoma, FSU, and Michigan, games which I explained shouldn't count -with the exception of Temple's AAC title game and Houston vs Memphis.

As for "actual reading", first, remember that this is a football forum. It's not anyone's job. Nobody is required to "read" your posts for every nitzy, pedantic, detail you put in them, such that when we overlook them you can shout "READ what i said"! When you start paying me to read your posts, then I'll be obligated to pay that kind of attention to their details, thanks.

Second, recall that in my prior post, I didn't single out the AAC. I said "Typically, a G5 team will double or even triple its best audience of the year ...".

Since typically means "in most cases", there was no reason for you to reply with AAC - specific examples, when I was talking about the G5 generally, the entire G5, and "typically" obviously leaves room for exceptions. Any and all AAC, or other G5 conference exceptions, were implied by my statement.

The only valid ground to contest what i said would be to look at the entirety of the G5, and if it is true that for entire population of G5, it is NOT typically the case that the bowl game doubles or triples their best regular audience, then I would stand corrected. But you didn't do that, you invoked just the AAC.

Once you did, taking the discussion out of the realm i was talking about, then it was entirely fair for me to dissect that claim by addressing whether the AAC teams were responsible for that exposure -that's not moving the goal post, it's just taking the analysis to a more detailed level, which is where you apparently wanted it to go when you took my "G5" comment and made it about the AAC.

So no, I am correct to note that it is misleading to mention Army-Navy, UCF - Michigan, etc. and compare them to bowl games. You were misleading and wrong to do so, so i properly rebuked you for that.

For some reason, you are a Navy fan with real loyalty to the AAC, weird, the only one i know of. So you bristled at that G5 statement, and hastened to reply that it isn't true of the AAC and you tied yourself in knots doing so. Too bad. 07-coffee3

I was going to jump into this one but this caught my attention “For some reason, you are a Navy fan with a real loyalty to the AAC, weird, the only one I know of.” That’s exactly what I’ve always thought too. Never met any Navy fans like that either....but I have read a lot of AAC fans who write like that on this board every day.

I don't know why you would find it weird. Pretty straightforward.

Big East was after Navy for YEARS before we said yes. Annual talks. Pretty much a standing invitation.

When Navy took the decision to forego 130+ years of independence in 2011-2012, it wasn't for a couple bucks here or a couple bucks there.
We had our own contract with CBSSN, and we were a tentpole property for them. We had Army-Navy. We had Navy-NotreDame. We had bowl deals out to 2016 (our first two bowls in the AAC were honoring pre-existing agreements). Continuing those bowl deals and scheduling as an independent were getting harder, but weren't yet impossible. So why join a conference that was alternately depicted as impossible for us to compete in or dying on the vine?

Navy finally said yes to the Big East with the strategic goal of being on the right side of the next tectonic shift in the college football landscape in 2024-2025. Hmmm, what else has that strategic goal?
Navy's reason for being an AAC member today is about 100% overlap with the reason for the AAC P6 campaign.

You say "loyalty," if you asked me I'd use words along the lines of "committed to the strategic goal."
01-25-2018 12:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2018 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.