0 years
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
College Football News, Rumor & Humor
- Thread starter Darth Snow
- Start date
They are torn between wanting everyone to have that extra win to a) have better shot at the playoffs / bowl game and 2) losing out on money from their TV contract / ticket sales due to playing a ****e FCS school an extra time per year. (ESPN said they wouldn’t increase the contract if they stayed at 8 Conf games)
Kinda like Hayden Fry.
ESPN doesn't care about more than a few games each week. In fact, it's not in their interest to have a lot of high-ratings games on at the same time.
ESPN definitely wants a 9 game conference schedule. That's the entire issue right now. Sankey and the SEC are trying to squeeze more money out of ESPN and ESPN is saying no.
Also, the bottom half of the SEC is fighting it because they are worried it's going to get harder to go 6-6
It creates more matchups and better options for broadcast though. Isn’t this all about creating more and better content? This is just one fewer opportunity to see a Texas/LSU or Florida/Alabama matchup and instead replacing it with Texas/Abilene Christian and Florida/Charlotte.
When you really go through the scheduling and potential matchups, there aren't as many marquee games in a given week as you might think.
This obviously doesn't include UT and OU, but...
Week 5 - SEC
Week 6 - SEC
Week 7 - SEC
On average, probably 2 "ratings games" each week. Maybe UT and OU being in the mix add 1-2 more each week at the most? ESPN will have at least 3 ABC spots to fill each Saturday, 4 ESPN spots on Saturdays, 1 ESPN on Fridays, and probably 4 ESPN2 spots.
Of course they'll also be able to pick and choose from ACC and Big 12 inventory, but they need more SEC matchups.
I dunno. Other Vandy v anybody, and probably MIZZOU, all those games look pretty good.
I’m talking about true 4m+ viewer games (standard for top games in a given week). Maybe 1-2 of those each week during SEC play. They need UT and OU with an expanded conference schedule and deliberate scheduling
I thought we were talking about games more people would rather watch. Of course there’s only going to be 1-2 marquee match ups per week. But if you’re ESPN and you have a contract with a conference, wouldn’t you rather have Georgia v Kentucky than Furman v LSU on a week in, week out basis?
Yes. That’s exactly what I’m saying. The SEC needs to go to 9 conference games, especially with the addition of UT and OU. The point I was responding to was that ESPN doesn’t want more SEC vs SEC inventory because it starts to play against the other games. They need more marquee matchups.
The B1G’s new deal has Big Noon kickoff on FOX, CBS at 3:30 ET and then NBC in Prime time. They are trying to make sure there are at least 3 marquee, 4m+ viewer matchups every Saturday so the country stays tuned into B1G football all day, and it’s possible because they play 9 conference games. ESPN has to follow suit with the SEC on ABC and ESPN, which will require 9 conference games to produce enough marquee inventory.
What a worthless stat
Pretty ridiculous that the SEC only went with 8 conference games with 16 teams. That 3-6 format is perfect and assures that every team plays every other team home and away over a 4-year span. Hopefully they make the right decision and go to 9 after 2024.
“SEC after Pac-12 Dark”. Spread the games out.
I’m not gonna lie, as much as I want everyone playing by the same rules to make it “fair”, and more interesting for the fans, if I’m the SEC and I keep winning the natty, and keep having two teams in the playoffs, I see ABSOLUTELY NO reason to change anything.
Not to defend their decision for an 8-game conference schedule, but part of their thinking was exactly that. Plus they want to see how the first year of the 12-team playoff plays out with how much emphasis the committee puts on records vs. strength of schedule for at-large teams.
The SEC being worried about not getting the benefit of the doubt is hilariously ****ing stupid.
Exactly.
That extra game puts your playmakers at risk of injury. That’s what I took away from it.
They’re still playing 12 games. The risk of injury is mostly random and definitely not exclusive to conference games.
It's less when you are playing some FCS school or a Sun Belt bottom feeder and all of your first 2-3 guys at each position are out of the game well before halftime.
Maybe. Again, it’s mostly random and that’s definitely not the point of Peter Burns’ tweet
The point of probability is to factor in the random.
The chance of injury in 9 games is far higher than 8.
Far higher? Show your math!
Right, but they aren’t playing fewer games. You are assuming the randomness of injury is far greater in SEC games than OOC games.
Is there any evidence to suggest the Pac 12 or B1G have lost more man games to injury than the SEC or ACC because of their extra conference game?
I think the larger point is that having an extra game, possibly against a lower level program, leads to most SEC/ACC teams having a higher probability of winning one more game on average than the Pac and B1G, which leads to better records and higher rankings, which then feed into the hype of matchups and vaults the truly elite programs in those conferences to higher standing and perception among voters and CFP committee.
The success of most of the SEC is a self fulfilling prophecy
You are correct about the extra game against a lower level team padding records and pumping up rankings.
When you are on a football field you have a potential for injury be it against Georgia or Directional State College. I think the odds off getting hurt against top competition though is higher than against lower level competition and for a good part of the game having your starters and key reserves on the bench means those guys have a greatly reduced chance of injury. If somebody gets hurt in the 3rd quarter it is likely somebody down the depth chart who isn't going to be missed as you finish your schedule.
In fact almost like a bye week the SEC schools have normally built a lower level OOC opponent into their schedules late in the season. The top teams tend to use these games to give their top players a week off to heal up some bumps and bruises and come back healthier for the last couple games and potentially the CCG.
This is the opposite of what we have seen from the PAC12 which has frequently in recent years hurt itself by seeing ranked teams pick up late losses to lower ranked conference opponents and/or going into the CCG with key players hurt or worn out.
To be fair, I feel like CU injures more than our fair share of opponents’ starters, yet we are (were) FCS level.
I think youre right. Big games draw big audiences and big ad revenue. As the season wears on it becomes clearer who the big ratings draw will be and those games get moved around so they dont overlap each other. So yeah the more the merrier.
The ADs dont like it because they want body bag paycheck home games for money and fans.
Coaches dont like because they dont want a loss earlier.