TV ratings for CFP in the toilet

I think the biggest factor here is the NFL counter-programming. Goodell is going to salt the earth over the CFP for encroaching upon his territory.

Doing the CFP expansion without using the university's immense alumni network in congress to expand the NFL no-fly-zone on Friday and Saturdays through the end of January was yet another faux pas from these mental midgets running college athletics.

But I do think enthusiasm about these matchups, rather the lack of it, played a factor.

College playoff games on TNT is stupid.

Booger McFarland might have influenced the committee, but tv ratings definitely didn't.

quote:

---

Booger McFarland might have influenced the committee, but tv ratings definitely didn't

---

I think they want the ratings from conference championship games to continue. The playoff poses a problem where those games don't mean much. I think the committee thought leaving out SMU would further hurt the conference championships.

Problem is the conferences outside of the SEC are basically randomly generated now, so I don't think winning them means nearly as much. I'm not sure how many Arizona State fans are taking pride in their bragging rights over Central Florida and Cincinnati fans they will never encounter in person. In the SEC, pride is still there but the game only means seeding now, and there's an argument that getting to play a home tune up against the 12 seed is actually better than a bye.

But the establishment sees those conference championship games as big money makers, so they want them around. I think they thought that if you put SMU in, you preserve the conference championship games and you don't lose the CFP audience because nobody's going to ignore the first ever 12 team playoffs. Obviously, they were wrong. In the long run I still foresee teams sitting starters on conference championship weekend.

Dont know how the ratings are calculated, but several of the games were over at half time, and they probably lost a lot of viewers. Including me.

We all know they "did the right thing" by picking teams like Indiana and SMU.
But, they are ratings disaster type teams.
But, I'm a little surprised at the low number for TX and Clemson

quote:

---

We all know they "did the right thing" by picking teams like Indiana and SMU.

---

The right thing is picking teams with incredibly easy schedules who still managed to lose?

quote:

---

We all know they "did the right thing" by picking teams like Indiana and SMU

---

You and me and a whole lot of other people.

And I know one thing. Alabama-Penn State would have been MUCH higher than any 3.1.

quote:

---

Alabama-Penn State would have been MUCH higher than any 3.1.

---

Wouldn't have been on TNT, either.

Transparency is not the issue. Consistency in applying their rubric is the issue. Say what you will about the NCAA but they took criticism about the tournament selection process not being consistent and has done quite a bit to make it more knowable and consistent. I'll never be able to prove it but SMU got selected over Alabama for reasons other than football. SMU got the nod because to not give them a nod would crack the can on the CCG concept being ended (bad for broadcasters) and the ACC's death being expedited (bad for administrators on the outside looking in worried about the Big Ten-SEC duopoly reaching final form).

The core problem with the CFP now is they goofed it up with things that you could tongue-in-cheek call DEI for college athletics. As long as the goal is to diversify the field with inclusionary AQ bids for equity purposes, you're going to be damned with this product being subpar.