menu
Logo
99+
Bobcat Attack Menu
Logo
99+
Ohio Football Topic
Topic: OT - Interesting Athletic Spending Research Tool
Page: 3 of 3
Ohio69
General User
O69
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 3,124
person
mail
Ohio69
mail
Posted: 12/28/2013 5:58 PM
settings_applications edit_note
JSF - OK - But just ask yourself this, if you had 100% control of Ohio University, would you diminish football? You are not alone on this board if you said yes.

OhioCatfan - you are talking about the current setup in the NCAA. I talking about a future with 70 schools leaving the current NCAA or changing the current NCAA setup.
JSF
General User
Member Since: 1/29/2005
Location: Houston, TX
Post Count: 6,580
mail
JSF
mail
Posted: 12/28/2013 6:49 PM
settings_applications edit_note
D.A. wrote:expand_more
I wouldn't mind seeing some anecdotal evidence that watch parties are higher for football than basketball. My gut tells me this is the opposite, but you know a lot more about this than me.


I'm inclined to believe football gets bigger watch parties with the exception of the NCAA tournament.



I actually have no idea if the average attendance for FB V BB watch parties show a difference, and I didn't claim they did.  I stated that attendance at athletics watch parties outnumber attendance at events that are not athletics watch parties, and that there are more opportunities to host OHIO FB watch parties on a national basis than BB


Thanks for the clarification.

69: Yes, but I'd seek out arguments for why it should be maintained. I'm not fully confident I'm right on this one.
Deciduous Forest Cat
General User
DFC
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: OH
Post Count: 4,559
person
mail
Deciduous Forest Cat
mail
Posted: 12/28/2013 9:46 PM
settings_applications edit_note
GoCats105 wrote:expand_more
[QUOTE=Ohio69]The future of football at this level is going to end soon anyway. The BCS guys are kicking us out. And soon in hoops as well. They'll bring in the Big East for hoops. And then it will be over.


However, schools like UC, UConn and others who have been left out in the cold will be left to wonder why they tried so damn hard to fit in, when in reality they were never invited to the party in the first place.


Nicely put.
D.A.
General User
DA
Member Since: 8/6/2010
Location: Georgetown, ME
Post Count: 1,198
person
mail
D.A.
mail
Posted: 12/28/2013 10:28 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Someone please fill in the blanks for me, because I am clearly missing something.  The new playoff system was ratified by 11 conference commissioners, and runs through 2025.  How is the FBS membership landscape going to be dramatically impacted over the next 11 years to exclude the non-former-BCS schools access to the playoff system without serious anti-trust regulation from the federal government?

http://www.ncaa.com/news/football/article/2013-04-23/college-football-playoff-set-replace-bowl-championship-series-2014

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8099187/ncaa-presidents-approve-four-team-college-football-playoff-beginning-2014
D.A.
General User
DA
Member Since: 8/6/2010
Location: Georgetown, ME
Post Count: 1,198
person
mail
D.A.
mail
Posted: 12/28/2013 11:38 PM
settings_applications edit_note
JSF wrote:expand_more
I wouldn't mind seeing some anecdotal evidence that watch parties are higher for football than basketball. My gut tells me this is the opposite, but you know a lot more about this than me.


I'm inclined to believe football gets bigger watch parties with the exception of the NCAA tournament.



I actually have no idea if the average attendance for FB V BB watch parties show a difference, and I didn't claim they did.  I stated that attendance at athletics watch parties outnumber attendance at events that are not athletics watch parties, and that there are more opportunities to host OHIO FB watch parties on a national basis than BB


I'm not fully confident I'm right on this one.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-21/is-the-nfl-more-hazardous-than-pro-wrestling-.html

I think your concerns around concussions are certainly valid, and if the WWE can take measures to reduce concussions, then football can follow a similar path.  They certainly are doing so through rules changes on tightly defining tackling/hitting practices, particularly in the pro game.

However, there have always been concussions in football, and there always will be.  Same holds true for wrestling, soccer, etc.  There used to be deaths in the early days of football, but rules changes eliminated them, and I don't believe anyone misses that aspect of the game.

The remaining question is: will the current product be fundamentally changed so as to make the product significantly different from its roots?  That is my problem with basketball at this point.  The game has changed so much since when I was a rabid Bobcat fan in my college days that I really have no interest in watching anything other than the Cats games.  This holds true for pro hoops also.

It remains to be seen if the new rules reducing physicality in football will drive fans away from the sport to the point that it will cease being America's number one sport, but as long as it continues to be a success at the turnstiles, pro and college football will continue to be a compelling product for those entities to offer.
Last Edited: 12/28/2013 11:42:59 PM by D.A.
mcbin
General User
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Columbus, OH
Post Count: 951
mail
mcbin
mail
Posted: 12/29/2013 12:15 AM
settings_applications edit_note
JSF wrote:expand_more
I wouldn't mind seeing some anecdotal evidence that watch parties are higher for football than basketball. My gut tells me this is the opposite, but you know a lot more about this than me.


I'm inclined to believe football gets bigger watch parties with the exception of the NCAA tournament.


I sort of feel I can vouch for this. I've hosted football game-watch parties that had large crowds (UB/Ohio game couple years back, overflow crowd at Winking Lizard-Crosswoods). Hoops regular season game watches didn't materialize if my memory serves. My opinion is that FB will outdraw hoops for a couple reasons.

1. FB games are fewer so they seem more important than a single hoops game.
2. FB games actually are on ESPN2/ESPNU, so they're actually available for bars to show more often/easily than hoops.
3. Hoops TV games more often than not seem to be home games as opposed to away games (greater than 50/50), so why have a game watch when the game is just 'down the road'...

On the other hand, the Georgetown game watch in CBUS was larger than the UB football game watch. Both were weeknight, and prime hours.
And to counter again, the Ohio bowl game this year, which was during work hours this year, and you'd have to take vacation or leave work early for - still had a strong crowd with a weakly advertised game watch this year. So it proves post season games will be well attended no matter which of hoops/FB.

Regardless, I think in CBUS, you could get a decent crowd for both hoops & FB if the time/locale/etc was right.

The only unfortunate part of this discussion is those that think we have to pick competition/success in either FB or BB. I don't see any reason we cannot be successful in both. It shouldn't be an either/or proposition.

ben
OhioCatFan
General User
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 15,699
mail
OhioCatFan
mail
Posted: 12/29/2013 12:54 AM
settings_applications edit_note
D.A. wrote:expand_more
Someone please fill in the blanks for me, because I am clearly missing something.  The new playoff system was ratified by 11 conference commissioners, and runs through 2025.  How is the FBS membership landscape going to be dramatically impacted over the next 11 years to exclude the non-former-BCS schools access to the playoff system without serious anti-trust regulation from the federal government?


Your answer: Chat on BCS schools' fan boards says so! 
D.A.
General User
DA
Member Since: 8/6/2010
Location: Georgetown, ME
Post Count: 1,198
person
mail
D.A.
mail
Posted: 12/29/2013 12:09 PM
settings_applications edit_note
mcbin wrote:expand_more
The only unfortunate part of this discussion is those that think we have to pick competition/success in either FB or BB. I don't see any reason we cannot be successful in both. It shouldn't be an either/or proposition.

ben

Word.

 
GoCats105
General User
GC105
Member Since: 1/31/2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Post Count: 7,823
person
mail
GoCats105
mail
Posted: 12/30/2013 12:02 PM
settings_applications edit_note
D.A. wrote:expand_more
Someone please fill in the blanks for me, because I am clearly missing something.  The new playoff system was ratified by 11 conference commissioners, and runs through 2025.  How is the FBS membership landscape going to be dramatically impacted over the next 11 years to exclude the non-former-BCS schools access to the playoff system without serious anti-trust regulation from the federal government?

http://www.ncaa.com/news/football/article/2013-04-23/college-football-playoff-set-replace-bowl-championship-series-2014

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8099187/ncaa-presidents-approve-four-team-college-football-playoff-beginning-2014


My guess is they agreed to this solely based on the fact that the higher ups (BCS) would promise them money games during the regular season if they do in fact break away. Someone is going to need to fill out their schedules, and Lord knows they don't like playing each other. It will basically be the same as them playing FCS schools now.

This four-team playoff gives basically no shot to a non-BCS school to win a national title, unless their non-conference schedule is absolutely loaded with tough road games against BCS schools and the conference is above average and they go undefeated. That's a lot of ifs. I have no true reason why the non-BCS presidents would agree to it other than that reasoning of guaranteed regular season games and continuance of secondary bowl games. Eventually, those bowls will realize how much money their losing and the non-BCS schools will most likely form their own playoff.
Last Edited: 12/30/2013 12:04:17 PM by GoCats105
JSF
General User
Member Since: 1/29/2005
Location: Houston, TX
Post Count: 6,580
mail
JSF
mail
Posted: 12/30/2013 3:18 PM
settings_applications edit_note
It's not in the self interest of lower conference commissioners to rattle the cages. They want to move up to the bigger leagues too and it helps them to go along to get along.
GoCats105
General User
GC105
Member Since: 1/31/2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Post Count: 7,823
person
mail
GoCats105
mail
Posted: 12/30/2013 4:21 PM
settings_applications edit_note
JSF wrote:expand_more
It's not in the self interest of lower conference commissioners to rattle the cages. They want to move up to the bigger leagues too and it helps them to go along to get along.


Not biting the hand that feeds them, pretty much. Agreed.
Monroe Slavin
General User
MS
Member Since: 12/21/2004
Location: Oxnard, CA
Post Count: 9,121
person
mail
Monroe Slavin
mail
Posted: 12/31/2013 5:39 PM
settings_applications edit_note
JUST WIN THE $*%& MAC CHAMPIONSHIP.
D.A.
General User
DA
Member Since: 8/6/2010
Location: Georgetown, ME
Post Count: 1,198
person
mail
D.A.
mail
Posted: 1/2/2014 1:31 PM
settings_applications edit_note
GoCats105 wrote:expand_more
Someone please fill in the blanks for me, because I am clearly missing something.  The new playoff system was ratified by 11 conference commissioners, and runs through 2025.  How is the FBS membership landscape going to be dramatically impacted over the next 11 years to exclude the non-former-BCS schools access to the playoff system without serious anti-trust regulation from the federal government?

http://www.ncaa.com/news/football/article/2013-04-23/college-football-playoff-set-replace-bowl-championship-series-2014

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8099187/ncaa-presidents-approve-four-team-college-football-playoff-beginning-2014


My guess is they agreed to this solely based on the fact that the higher ups (BCS) would promise them money games during the regular season if they do in fact break away. Someone is going to need to fill out their schedules, and Lord knows they don't like playing each other. It will basically be the same as them playing FCS schools now.

This four-team playoff gives basically no shot to a non-BCS school to win a national title, unless their non-conference schedule is absolutely loaded with tough road games against BCS schools and the conference is above average and they go undefeated. That's a lot of ifs. I have no true reason why the non-BCS presidents would agree to it other than that reasoning of guaranteed regular season games and continuance of secondary bowl games. Eventually, those bowls will realize how much money their losing and the non-BCS schools will most likely form their own playoff.

Although the new system does have a human element that would allow a non-AQ come consideration for inclusion in the plus one playoff by the selection committee.  Right now with the computer equations for strength of schedule tied to the polls, you are correct that it is currently mathematically impossible for a non-AQ to get into the top four in the polls.  They could not get their strength of schedule high enough to match an AQ schedule such as the SEC, who is playing half their conference games against top 25 teams.  At lease the new system still provides access for the five non-AQ to play in one of the big four bowls, provides more money, and at least in theory provides consideration for a playoff spot.

 
Showing Messages: 51 - 63 of 63
reply
vertical_align_top
vertical_align_center
vertical_align_bottom
add_comment
chevron_backward
MAC News Links



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)