With title-game ticket prices plummeting 90%, should college football be worried?

[nutsnbolts]

Championship game will never be on Saturday, nfl isn’t budging. Friday is the worst night for tv viewership, while Monday is one of the top nights for tv viewership, hence why it’s monday

Agreed. But the original statement was about attendance at the game, or more directly, the ticket prices.
That’s part of the reason I didn’t make the day a bullet point, only a personal observation. Monday night tv viewership also makes sense because it is almost a continuation of Monday night football.

I haven’t attended a NC game and don’t know. Seems like the larger bowl games, especially on Jan 1, have figured out how to make them multi-day events for the fans. I’ve never checked what the game sites offer for fans going to the NC game. During the BCS era it was just part of that particular bowl games lead-up to the game.

 

[kingpin2010]

Agreed. But the original statement was about attendance at the game, or more directly, the ticket prices.
That’s part of the reason I didn’t make the day a bullet point, only a personal observation. Monday night tv viewership also makes sense because it is almost a continuation of Monday night football.

I haven’t attended a NC game and don’t know. Seems like the larger bowl games, especially on Jan 1, have figured out how to make them multi-day events for the fans. I’ve never checked what the game sites offer for fans going to the NC game. During the BCS era it was just part of that particular bowl games lead-up to the game.

That’s all almost directly due to it being in Santa Clara. The cheapest prices the last 2 years was 1,900 and 1,700, this year they’re under 200. Now the other factors such as matchup fatigue are also a small portion. Also consider the stadium is widely disliked, and they could only get less than half full for the Pac-12 title game

 

[nutsnbolts]

Debatable. If you're looking for the best team you can't put a rule that could exclude the 2nd best team in the country. Yes Georgia lost to Texas, but they probably should have beaten what many are saying is the best Alabama team Saban's ever had, because of the offense.

Read something the other day that #5 Ohio State from 2017 is the only team ranked #5 to win their NY6 Bowl Game. Every other year since the Playoff started, #5 has lost. It's definitely tough for these teams to get so close, only to be left out.

Debatable, yes.
If you prove you’re one of the best teams by winning your conference, you go. If you don’t win your conference, you don’t get invited. No free pass because of a person’s (people’s) opinion(s).
And yes, I was against tOSU getting invited instead of PSU when PSU won the B10.

 

[Taco MacArthur]

I haven’t attended a NC game and don’t know. Seems like the larger bowl games, especially on Jan 1, have figured out how to make them multi-day events for the fans. I’ve never checked what the game sites offer for fans going to the NC game. During the BCS era it was just part of that particular bowl games lead-up to the game.

I went last year, they put on a whole lot the weekend and day leading up to the game. I'm not sure if it was exclusive for Atlanta last year or not but they had a all the big convention halls near the stadium filled with college football HOF stuff, a wall of helmets from each FBS school, you could sit in front of a greenscreen and do a College Gameday segment, room with the evolution of championships and trophies for the BCS, CFP, Heisman, etc. For this year, here's a link.

https://www.49ers.com/news/free-eve...ollege-football-playoff-national-championship

 

[ronnie mund]

Really / If OSU or ND was in the Championship game tix prices would be going through the roof. Yeah lets keep all the Championship games in SEC territory, really good for the sport.

You must have missed the "etc.", meaning Dallas, LA, among others. Talk about obsessed with the SEC.

 

[adselder09]

Debatable, yes.
If you prove you’re one of the best teams by winning your conference, you go. If you don’t win your conference, you don’t get invited. No free pass because of a person’s (people’s) opinion(s).
And yes, I was against tOSU getting invited instead of PSU when PSU won the B10.

But even last year Alabama was beat by Auburn in Week 13. The Auburn loses to UGA and Bama sneaks in at #4 to win the whole thing. You can't exclude teams because of conference affiliation. You either take the best 4 or best 6, or you expand to 8 or 12, include the conference Champs and then several at-large bids.

 

[14Red]

I can't imagine not watching the championship game of any sport (major sports). Don't you want to see the best of the best? Most years (actually nearly all) my favorite teams aren't in the final.
It just kills me the disdain people in the midwest has for SEC football. They are the best conference, year in and year out, they send the most players to the NFL, year in and year out. You may not like Bama, but you have to respect the program.

 

[Yappi]

But even last year Alabama was beat by Auburn in Week 13. The Auburn loses to UGA and Bama sneaks in at #4 to win the whole thing. You can't exclude teams because of conference affiliation. You either take the best 4 or best 6, or you expand to 8 or 12, include the conference Champs and then several at-large bids.

I know that some will disagree with this but if Alabama wasn't included last year at #4, no one would be saying they were the best team last year.

The NCAA playoffs is circular logic. That is why I don't like saying that they are taking the "best" 4, 6, or 8 teams. They should be taking the most "deserving" and let the games decide who is the best team. That is why Notre Dame rightfully had a spot in the playoffs this year because they were the most deserving. It wasn't until they were blown out that we knew they weren't a top 4 team. Same can be said of Georgia after their last game.

 

[Stirred not Shaken]

Part of the problem is the Bowl system, too many fat cats making millions off the status quo to want to expand the play offs.

 

[kingpin2010]

I have no problem with the teams they’ve selected, and each of the 5 years they’ve made the correct choices. Even if you think Georgia was the 3rd or 4th best team, the results have to matter, and they lost by 20 to LSU along with having a chance against Bama and losing that as well.

 

[nutsnbolts]

I know that some will disagree with this but if Alabama wasn't included last year at #4, no one would be saying they were the best team last year.

The NCAA playoffs is circular logic. That is why I don't like saying that they are taking the "best" 4, 6, or 8 teams. They should be taking the most "deserving" and let the games decide who is the best team. That is why Notre Dame rightfully had a spot in the playoffs this year because they were the most deserving. It wasn't until they were blown out that we knew they weren't a top 4 team. Same can be said of Georgia after their last game.

Exactly. I wouldn’t even say tOSU was the best team of 2014. That they wrapped up the season with a nice win of tsun and then put together 3 incredible games in a row to win the first playoff NC is undeniable.

If the CFP committee is so smart why has #1 never won a playoff championship and #4 has won twice? Yes I realize there are other dynamics that come into play, like the underdog role.

 

[nutsnbolts]

I can't imagine not watching the championship game of any sport (major sports). Don't you want to see the best of the best? Most years (actually nearly all) my favorite teams aren't in the final.
It just kills me the disdain people in the midwest has for SEC football. They are the best conference, year in and year out, they send the most players to the NFL, year in and year out. You may not like Bama, but you have to respect the program.

In my case it’s no “disdain” of the SEC. I have a tremendous respect for both NS and DS.
I think the CFP committee is a joke, on several levels. Nobody under employment by any university should ever be involved. They don’t develop criteria to select teams and then rank them. They rank the teams and then make up some BS as to why.
I have a job that is far more important to me than staying up to watch far too many commercials and halftime garbage.

 

[Yappi]

If the CFP committee is so smart why has #1 never won a playoff championship and #4 has won twice? Yes I realize there are other dynamics that come into play, like the underdog role.

That is a great point. The committee has consistently proven they are not able to identify the best team.

Their job should be to get the 4 most deserving teams a shot to prove they are the best team. Let the games on the field determine the champion.

 

[Crusaders]

Overall, college football is obviously on the downslope of its popularity. The West Coast is quickly losing interest. The East Coast has really never cared that much but it seems to care even less (Rutgers moving to the Big Ten hasn't helped one iota). It's running primarily on the interest of the Midwest, South, and Texas.

Maybe the Big XII imploding would be the best thing if it results in a reorganization of the PAC and Big XII.

 

[ronnie mund]

That is a great point. The committee has consistently proven they are not able to identify the best team.

How could this even be proven? What "best teams" has the committee been unable to identify?

 

[Yappi]

How could this even be proven? What "best teams" has the committee been unable to identify?

From nutsnbolts post: If the CFP committee is so smart why has #1 never won a playoff championship and #4 has won twice?

They are 0-4 with their #1 seeds. Maybe it changes this year.

 

[Arrogate]

This site gets humorous when the Buckeyes miss the playoffs.


Let Vegas decide who makes it. Probably would be the fairest and most accurate way of doing it.

 

[Arrogate]

How could this even be proven? What "best teams" has the committee been unable to identify?

Are they here to select the 4 best teams or most deserving?

They select the most deserving IMO. So I am not sure how we can criticize them or their "rankings" of 1-4 when they are meant to select the most deserving teams.

 

[adselder09]

I know that some will disagree with this but if Alabama wasn't included last year at #4, no one would be saying they were the best team last year.

The NCAA playoffs is circular logic. That is why I don't like saying that they are taking the "best" 4, 6, or 8 teams. They should be taking the most "deserving" and let the games decide who is the best team. That is why Notre Dame rightfully had a spot in the playoffs this year because they were the most deserving. It wasn't until they were blown out that we knew they weren't a top 4 team. Same can be said of Georgia after their last game.

I don't disagree with any of that.

 

[irish_buffalo]

I have always said let Vegas decide rather than Condoleezza Rice.

Whoever they get on any committee will be biased. Not to mention, if you live outside of the Oklahoma market is all you see are offensive highlights of Kyler Murray. You do not see Oklahoma's awful defense. Committee members should be more in depth, but they are not. And everyone is biased whether they admit it or not.

Let Vegas decide odds on who the top 8 in the country are and have a tournament. Title games should always be played indoors IMO and someplace relatively warm. Best thing OHSAA did years ago was eliminate playing on grass past the first round. Duh.

Who decided to have a title game in January in San Fran? Awful weather on grass? And you have to pay a boatload to get there and stay (Bay Area? On a Monday? TV in my garage is much better.

 

[ronnie mund]

From nutsnbolts post: If the CFP committee is so smart why has #1 never won a playoff championship and #4 has won twice?

They are 0-4 with their #1 seeds. Maybe it changes this year.

You said that the committee's job is to select the most deserving teams, so based off of that we can assume that the teams are ranked by who is most deserving, not who is actually the best. By this logic it's not their job to select who the best team is, thus haven't actually gotten that wrong.

You're arguing from two different perspectives. You're arguing as if the committee selects the best teams but you're saying they are selecting the most deserving teams.

 

[Yappi]

Are they here to select the 4 best teams or most deserving?

I've said all along that their job should be to select the four most deserving (like Notre Dame this year). The "best" 4 is way too subjective. It is an impossible task.

The committee's inability to select the #1 teams accurately in all 4 years shows how subjective the ranking process is.

It would be nice if the committee would be a little more transparent as it does seem like their qualifications change from year to year.

 

[Yappi]

IMO, I would like to take all the subjectivity out of the playoffs:

* First 5 teams in would be from the power 5 conferences. Let the conferences decide who they want to send. No more conference championship games. They should have their own rule to determine which team it is but each conference can have different rules that they must abide by.

* Use a BCS like formula to fill the other three spots.

* Only two teams max from each conference.

* If a non-power 5 team is in the top 10, they would receive an automatic spot.

 

[Arrogate]

I've said all along that their job should be to select the four most deserving (like Notre Dame this year). The "best" 4 is way too subjective. It is an impossible task.

The committee's inability to select the #1 teams accurately in all 4 years shows how subjective the ranking process is.

It would be nice if the committee would be a little more transparent as it does seem like their qualifications change from year to year.

I cant believe I have to explain this so I will go slow


Their rankings arent who they think is the best, it is the most deserving. That means 1-4 isnt them saying they are the best in that order, just most deserving in that order. Therefore you cant criticize them bc they haven't gotten it "right" yet. Their job isnt to predict who will win based on 1-4 rankings. If that was their job your argument would have merit, however that isnt their intent or job.

Their job is to rank them based on most deserving, not who they think is the best. Most deserving and best arent the same thing as you said.

I think they are already choosing who the most deserving are. They arent coming out and saying we think so and so will win and this is how good they are in this order.

If they were choosing who was best Notre Dame probably doesnt get in and Georgia does. They are going by who is most deserving IMO.

 

[ronnie mund]

I cant believe I have to explain this so I will go slow


You said it yourself they are choosing the most deserving. So their rankings arent who they think is the best, the most deserving. That means 1-4 isnt them saying they are the best in that order, just most deserving in that order. Therefore you cant criticize them bc they haven't gotten it "right" yet. Their job isnt to predict who will win based on 1-4 rankings. If that was their job your argument would have merit, however that isnt their intent or job.

Their job is to rank them based on most deserving, not who they think is the best. Most deserving and best arent the same thing as you said. How you even try to criticize them for not picking the "right" winner while acknowledging that isnt what they are trying to do is rather funny.

Exactly. He's trying to have it both ways.

 

[Arrogate]

With that said they have put the most 4 deserving teams in which is apparently their job. If their job was to try and predict the winner I would criticize but they have don't their job and put the 4 most deserving in the playoff.

 

[Arrogate]

you said that the committee's job is to select the most deserving teams, so based off of that we can assume that the teams are ranked by who is most deserving, not who is actually the best. By this logic it's not their job to select who the best team is, thus haven't actually gotten that wrong.

You're arguing from two different perspectives. You're arguing as if the committee selects the best teams but you're saying they are selecting the most deserving teams.

+1 but I think he believes they are trying to pick the best 4 and not the most deserving. Where I think they are trying to pick the 4 most deserving. Their rankings arent who they think will win but who is most deserving.


Edit: went back and checked again and I am still unsure what he thinks the committee is doing

 

[Yappi]

+1 but I think he believes they are trying to pick the best 4 and not the most deserving. Where I think they are trying to pick the 4 most deserving. Their rankings arent who they think will win but who is most deserving.

Edit: went back and checked again and I am still unsure what he thinks the committee is doing

Kind of missed the whole point. The committee doesn't have a clear definition of how they select the teams. Herbstreit was arguing strongly that the committee got it wrong because Georgia is clearly one of the top 4 "best" teams. No where did he mention that they were "more deserving" but not as good as other teams. Whether you like him or not, Herbstreit is one of the best college FB analysts. If he doesn't understand what the committee is doing, I suspect you, nor ronnie, understand either.

So the challenge for both of you is to find where the committee says they will take a team they feel is more deserving over a team they say is better.

 

[cabezadecaballo]

So they complain about bad semifinal games that weren't close. Tv ratings were down for those games also.

Their solution is to add more games that won't be close. Sounds like a plan LOL

lol

 

[ronnie mund]

Kind of missed the whole point. The committee doesn't have a clear definition of how they select the teams. Herbstreit was arguing strongly that the committee got it wrong because Georgia is clearly one of the top 4 "best" teams. No where did he mention that they were "more deserving" but not as good as other teams. Whether you like him or not, Herbstreit is one of the best college FB analysts. If he doesn't understand what the committee is doing, I suspect you, nor ronnie, understand either.

So the challenge for both of you is to find where the committee says they will take a team they feel is more deserving over a team they say is better.

The argument revolves around this statement:

That is a great point. The committee has consistently proven they are not able to identify the best team.

I believe this is wrong because a.) if the committee's job is to identify the 4 best teams, it's to identify the 4 best teams and let them decide on the field, not to identify who the single best team is. Whether #1 or #4 wins is irrelevant. And b.) if their job is to identify the 4 most deserving teams, then it's irrelevant whether or not they can identify the best team(s).

That's why I think it's wrong to say they've consistently proven they aren't able to identify the best teams when you even said yourself no one knows what they are trying to accomplish.