Why are people so into playoffs?

It's 20.

Attendance is ~1/2 of regular season attendance.

Attendance is such a strawman argument. FBS games will make huge money through TV deals.

How many people were in the stands for some of the NCAA tourney games? Looked pretty sparse to me.

How many people attended the Liberty Bowl? :hsugh:
 
Attendance is such a strawman argument. FBS games will make huge money through TV deals.

How many people were in the stands for some of the NCAA tourney games? Looked pretty sparse to me.

How many people attended the Liberty Bowl? :hsugh:

How is it a strawman argument?

Someone has to buy the tickets.
 
and they force many overpriced crappy tickets on the schools anyway

Or just play all the games until the quarterfinals in the higher seeded school's home stadium. Those would all be virtually guaranteed sellouts.
 
Attendance is such a strawman argument. FBS games will make huge money through TV deals.

TV deals would wind up completely different than the basketball tournament because of the infrastructural differences on how basketball and football games are televised and the scheduling involved.

How many people were in the stands for some of the NCAA tourney games? Looked pretty sparse to me.
That's kind of the point, the way they manage to keep tourism as a factor is because they have four or more teams playing in a city at a given time.


How many people attended the Liberty Bowl? :hsugh:
51k tickets were sold, which is much more than the capacity of most arenas that tourney games are held in :dunno:

Or just play all the games until the quarterfinals in the higher seeded school's home stadium. Those would all be virtually guaranteed sellouts.

But then you lose the economic benefits associated with the tourism to the neutral bowl locations - so the money made would be much lower.

Plus, then you get people whining about how unfairly deterministic the playoff is for a one-off game at the home of the better ranked team (inevitably to be SEC, Pac 12, Big 10 or Big 12) given the advantage of being at home and not having to travel around exams.
 
I stand corrected, the NCAA can count on one person to watch their games. I'm sure Doritos would pay a fortune for that advertising time.

You can't credibly argue that it would be worth showing FIU v. Auburn as opposed to Auburn v. Oklahoma or Ohio State (8 team playoff) or even v. VT, Ok St., or Nevada.

That is, however, what you are arguing. The problem is that argument is completely blown to shit by the NCAA bowl ratings which conclusively prove that people (besides yourself) don't get a rat's ass about mediocre college football games.

Case in point, every bowl game but SEVEN last year drew a rating under 5. Twelve of them drew ratings under 2. Another nine drew a rating over 2, but under 3.

Compare that to games like the Rose Bowl, which involved TCU who is not a big draw. That game had a rating of 11.26. The Florida-Penn St. Outback Bowl that didn't even involve ranked teams put up a rating of 7.

Fans simple aren't interested in watching the champions from crap conferences play, unless those teams happen to be undefeated. The NCAA isn't going to dilute one of its biggest brands to bring you FIU in the first round of the football playoff - they'd much rather leave it open for the Notre Dame's and runners-up in major conferences.

So your theory is that ESPN broadcasts MAC and ConfUSA games because a Kent State cheerleader is blowing one of their producers? Not because enough Dorito eaters are watching the games?
 
No they don't. The games can be played in half-full stadiums and still be wildly financially successful.

I could have sworn I saw a news report after the all the bowls stating that "financial windfall" that people believe happens with bowl games did not happen this year due to economy.
 
Back
Top