(12-17-2018 02:54 PM)Native Georgian Wrote: (12-17-2018 02:03 PM)quo vadis Wrote: it's not just the CFP dinosaurs in the room that don't have UCF in the playoffs, nobody else - human or computer - does either.
And anyway, you just made what the kids will tolerate up. I bet they couldn't care less.
It's not that UCF's exclusion from the playoffs is actually "bothering" anybody outside of UCF's own fan base. But it does highlight the fact that that FBS-level college football is (compared to almost any other college/pro sport) uniquely beholden to the "dinosaurs" in deciding who gets invited to the party. So never mind "putting up with it" -- it's just another reason to tune out and not-care in the first place.
Remember, these threads juxtapose attendance and TV viewership as if they are oppositional. They might be, but they might not be.
E.g., imagine that a school's attendance at football games for a season would be 300,000 (about 43,000 a game for 7 home games) if there was no TV, and the school's total revenue from that attendance (tickets, concessions, parking, etc.) would be $14 million or about $2m per game.
Now, let's say that with a TV deal, the attendance falls to 270,000, a 10% decline, as many who would have come to a game decide to stay home and watch on TV. As a result, revenue from attendance falls by 10% as well, to $12.6m.
That sounds like a loss for the school, but if the TV contract pays them $4m a year, then the school actually is up $2.6 million over the no-TV, higher attendance situation.
So when talking about declining attendance due to TV, we have to figure in how they interact this way.