U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > College Football
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Which of these reasons was the most important cause of lower ratings?
People are tired of Bama and Clemson. 11 47.83%
The game start time is too late for a worknight. 2 8.70%
The game should be played on a Saturday. 8 34.78%
The game wasn't close. 1 4.35%
Other reason (state in post below) 1 4.35%
Voters: 23. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-01-2019, 01:32 PM
 
9,423 posts, read 7,071,740 times
Reputation: 12183

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ClemVegas View Post
I think Bowden's teams had results that matched up with the recruiting. I don't think Clemson ever had a dominant O line during those years.

In my view the ACC was tougher back in the Bowden era. Maryland, BC, Va Tech, Wake, UVA had some of their best years during that time.

Well, VT and BC didn't join until '04 and '05 respectively. Bowden was out in '05.. So, honestly, he had some of his most consistent years with them in the ACC.

And, I agree about those two. They were good and they sustained. Maryland, Wake and UVA.. They had some good years, but then it ended pretty quickly. FSU, of course, was pretty dominant still.

It is a little strange.. Bowden had Dabo doing at least part of his recruiting. Now, at the QB position, I think you see the seeds of Dabo back in the 00's.. Woody Dantzler was probably the most prolific QB that Clemson had seen at the time.

Dantzler to Simmons to Whitehurst (Who had a hell of an NFL career, so far as length. Remember, this is the guy they called Clipboard Jesus), to Proctor, to Harper to Parker to Boyd to Watson to Bryant to Lawrence.. It all started with Woody, tho.


He wasn't an NFL QB.. He wasn't great.. But he was likely one of the best Clemson had seen.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-11-2019, 08:31 AM
 
Location: Kansas City MO
264 posts, read 225,845 times
Reputation: 465
I think all of these reasons are why ratings are down.

1. Monday night is stupid. Most people who are just general CFB fans will not stay up to watch this game to its conclusion. At the very least start it at 7:30 EST.

2. People ARE tired of AL and Clemson. Watch the ratings if Ohio State gets in the championship game. I'm sure it will set a record.

3. Why does it seem like these games are just " fit in" where there is no existing game? I'm sure if they just go head to head with the NFL, or threaten to, there can be some negotiation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2019, 05:11 PM
 
Location: Greenville SC 'Waterfall City'
7,582 posts, read 3,994,519 times
Reputation: 2906
https://www.tigernet.com/update/2019...-ratings-32266

This article indicates the ratings were good for the title game.

The ratings would increase with Ohio State given it is a massive school compared to Clemson with a huge alumni base, not because the average non-Ohio State fan cares more about OSU football than Clemson or Alabama.

OSU doesn't play a more exciting brand of football than Clemson or Alabama so I can't see any reason the casual fan would want to see OSU play vs the other teams.

OSU plays in a lot of big games every season and has played in two recent playoffs so there would be no novelty to it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2019, 08:27 AM
 
Location: Kansas City MO
264 posts, read 225,845 times
Reputation: 465
Quote:
OSU doesn't play a more exciting brand of football than Clemson or Alabama so I can't see any reason the casual fan would want to see OSU play vs the other teams
Keep in mind Ohio State threw for over 5000 yards and 50 touchdowns last year, and the architect of that offense is now the head coach, along with a new transfer 5 star QB that has been called a " generational talent".

I will give you one thing, hopefully the defense this year improves on its 357 points allowed stat from 2018, so that there can be more blowouts rather than close games against teams like Minnesota, Indiana and Maryland
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2019, 11:49 AM
 
Location: Greenville SC 'Waterfall City'
7,582 posts, read 3,994,519 times
Reputation: 2906
So you think the average college football fan who is not a fan of Ohio State or perhaps Big 10 football has a stronger desire to watch Ohio State play in title games than Clemson or Alabama?

Why would football fans be that attached to Ohio State or any university if they are not a dedicated fan of that university's program.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2019, 08:41 AM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
28,252 posts, read 26,220,119 times
Reputation: 11706
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weaubleau View Post
Keep in mind Ohio State threw for over 5000 yards and 50 touchdowns last year, and the architect of that offense is now the head coach, along with a new transfer 5 star QB that has been called a " generational talent".
That has to be the most overused phrase in college football recruiting. How can you have a "generational talent" come along every single year?

Lawrence *might* be as good as advertised since he did win a championship his freshman year, but even then, the jury is still out since he's only completed a third of his college career. I basically think people need to stop using that moniker until a player has actually proven himself to be a "generational" talent.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-24-2019, 06:12 PM
 
Location: Greenville SC 'Waterfall City'
7,582 posts, read 3,994,519 times
Reputation: 2906
A lot of Alabama fans said Clemson only won in 2016 bc of a once in a generation QB.

Then Clemson blew out Bama with a different QB 2 years later, even tho Tau was presented as generational QB.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2019, 02:20 PM
 
1,898 posts, read 2,948,812 times
Reputation: 1617
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClemVegas View Post
I think Bowden's teams had results that matched up with the recruiting. I don't think Clemson ever had a dominant O line during those years.

In my view the ACC was tougher back in the Bowden era. Maryland, BC, Va Tech, Wake, UVA had some of their best years during that time.

Its sad that BC has fallen off, VA Tech is not what it once was for sure, Miami is a joke, etc.... The ACC is not a bad conference by any stretch but its just never going to be a great conference in football at least.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2019, 02:48 PM
 
1,898 posts, read 2,948,812 times
Reputation: 1617
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClemVegas View Post
https://www.tigernet.com/update/2019...-ratings-32266

This article indicates the ratings were good for the title game.

The ratings would increase with Ohio State given it is a massive school compared to Clemson with a huge alumni base, not because the average non-Ohio State fan cares more about OSU football than Clemson or Alabama.

OSU doesn't play a more exciting brand of football than Clemson or Alabama so I can't see any reason the casual fan would want to see OSU play vs the other teams.

OSU plays in a lot of big games every season and has played in two recent playoffs so there would be no novelty to it.
An article from a Clemson publication saying the ratings for the Clemson game were not down in light of reality? Hmmmmm not saying they're wrong BUT.........

.....Here's a better article IMO

https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/col...f-ratings-bcs/

This past year 2018-19 saw the lowest rating for any of the so far five national title games. 2019 had more viewers than 2017 but the ratings were still a tick lower.

Why?

As others have mentioned I chalk it up to selectivity of the date. Playing the game on a Monday doesn't do anyone any justice. I get it they have to sort of work around the NFL in that regard but Monday is pretty weak. I think the story line has run its course IMO. Clemson's first run of it was a situation where a school and a team became a media darling because maybe they weren't suppose to be there. As good as Clemson is now it hasn't always been this way. Bama, Ohio State, Oklahoma, ND are all "blue bloods" who were good before this CFB playoff era. Now that Clemson has sustained such a high level of success the novelty of it has worn off I guess.

In each of the next 2 Clemson / Alabama national title the games the ratings have progressively gone down each time. If they meet for a 4th time unless they play on an appropriate night I expect the ratings to be down again.

The very first CFB playoff was such a huge success for a number of reasons

1. it was new
2. it was new
3. it was new

4. it involved traditional football schools - bama, osu, oregon, fsu
5. you had a geographic cross section of the country. SEC, Big Ten, Pac-12, ACC. Call me a fool but the people making these decisions would be better served financially to be geographically inclusive. I realize you can't force the PAC-12 to be good again but that west coast rating I'm sure was lacking.


The biggest change the playoff system can make to generate interest going forward IMO is to increase to an 8 team format. I realize that can not happen until the tv contracts run out in 2022 I believe BUT if you limit it to four and your have the same schools over and over again its gonna get old quick for viewers.

NCAA March Madness ratings second highest in 29 years - SportsPro Media

College football will never be able to do what March Madness is able to do for a good number of obvious reasons BUT expanding to 8 teams in the future would help.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2019, 07:35 PM
 
Location: Greenville SC 'Waterfall City'
7,582 posts, read 3,994,519 times
Reputation: 2906
The article was discussing the Nielsen numbers. The information wasn't generated by the Clemson affiliated website.

I'm not sure how you can make the case Oregon is a traditional football school but Clemson is not. Oregon has never won a national title.

Clemson won a national title in 1981 and has a larger stadium. It also has more conference titles than Oregon and FSU, and the most ACC titles of any team. Clemson's location is a much better recruiting area than Oregon.

I don't know how anybody can say Clemson wasn't supposed to be there in 2015 given they had Deshaun Watson at QB and a lot of other talented players.

A 8 team playoff would make the regular season pretty meaningless and increase probablity that players are hurt in early rounds.

They would really have to split hairs to decide which team to take as the 8 seed.

I would be ok with it increasing it to 6 with a bye for the top two teams. That way all power 5 conference teams could be represented with either ND or a group of 6 team.

I don't doubt the Big 10 and Pac 12 conferences being left out of the playoffs kept the ratings lower but a ton of people watched the game.

Last edited by ClemVegas; 07-01-2019 at 08:10 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > College Football
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top