I am willing to bet that tonight's game will draw the smallest TV audience in CFP history. Even the Iowa fans we tailgated with brought this up on NYD, no one outside of SEC country will bother to watch another UGA vs. Bama game. I will, but I am a college football fanatic and an SEC fan. Need new blood for sure, but right now, this looks like the old New York Yankees who won or were in the WS every year for decades.
What if they gave a CFP championship - and nobody came or watched?
- Thread starter Tskware
- Start date
That's a shame if so. It is not Alabama and UGA's fault the rest of college football cannot compete with the top of the SEC.
How did UGA & Bama do in ratings in January 2018 when they played?
If the playoff expands to 8 or 12 you are going to see this even more with all SEC national title games IMO. People need to get used to this.
How did UGA & Bama do in ratings in January 2018 when they played?
If the playoff expands to 8 or 12 you are going to see this even more with all SEC national title games IMO. People need to get used to this.
When I attended the national championship between these two teams in Atlanta four years ago, it was 90/10 Georgia fans. That was wild to me.
Anyway, last year's title game between Bama/OSU was the least watched championship game ever, I believe. These two teams having already played makes this game less interesting but I doubt the ratings are as bad as last year's.
Anyway, last year's title game between Bama/OSU was the least watched championship game ever, I believe. These two teams having already played makes this game less interesting but I doubt the ratings are as bad as last year's.
The goal of the championship is to pit the two best teams against each other. I don't think there is anyone besides UGA & Bama that can make that claim this year. Even if fan interest wanes a bit, they still accomplished their goal. Butt hurt folks from other conferences may not like it but this is a game where either team could win and it wouldn't be a shocker.
I get it...and it is old. But what do you want college football to do?
1. We could have seeded Michigan as 1 seed and CIncy as 4 seed...and then UGA/Bama would have played in Semis. But didn't this basically prove the seeds were done correctly as both games were solid wins for SEC teams? And UGA basically hammered Michigan in my opinion.
2. We can make a playoff of 8 to 16 teams and maybe that allows more teams to vie for it....but again it will most likely boil back down to SEC teams assuming they are bracketed in a way that they seed it where SEC teams are on opposite sides.
Do we really think Baylor, Michigan St, Ohio St, etc...were going to knock off the SEC teams? Maybe Ohio St but....
- Baylor and Oklahoma St looked like a run of the mill throw Big 12 team to throw it around with short throws all da ,read option finesse offense with crappy defense. Was that really going to knock off UGA, Bama, etc...?
- Michigan St was down 49 pts to Ohio St final 2 weeks of season....that is pretty much a joke to play that bad that late in year
- Notre Dame is the same slow ass team that can't run with any speed and SEC teams can match their physicality at LOS for the most part.
Until teams start basically poaching more talent away from SEC teams using the NIL as a means to do so. But with the new contract in place and that SEC teams (even UK) are attracting coaches from these conferences, paying crazy salaries along with NIL deals that are keeping SEC recruiting classes high...I just don't see that changing in the time being.
-
1. We could have seeded Michigan as 1 seed and CIncy as 4 seed...and then UGA/Bama would have played in Semis. But didn't this basically prove the seeds were done correctly as both games were solid wins for SEC teams? And UGA basically hammered Michigan in my opinion.
2. We can make a playoff of 8 to 16 teams and maybe that allows more teams to vie for it....but again it will most likely boil back down to SEC teams assuming they are bracketed in a way that they seed it where SEC teams are on opposite sides.
Do we really think Baylor, Michigan St, Ohio St, etc...were going to knock off the SEC teams? Maybe Ohio St but....
- Baylor and Oklahoma St looked like a run of the mill throw Big 12 team to throw it around with short throws all da ,read option finesse offense with crappy defense. Was that really going to knock off UGA, Bama, etc...?
- Michigan St was down 49 pts to Ohio St final 2 weeks of season....that is pretty much a joke to play that bad that late in year
- Notre Dame is the same slow ass team that can't run with any speed and SEC teams can match their physicality at LOS for the most part.
Until teams start basically poaching more talent away from SEC teams using the NIL as a means to do so. But with the new contract in place and that SEC teams (even UK) are attracting coaches from these conferences, paying crazy salaries along with NIL deals that are keeping SEC recruiting classes high...I just don't see that changing in the time being.
-
^
Agree with the above analysis. Besides Ohio State/Clemson, you could say that USC, Texas, Oklahoma, Miami Fl, Florida State, Michigan, Penn State, and Notre Dame (to name at least eight non SEC powers), should theoretically at least be able to put NC caliber teams on the field.
But we have been saying that for 10 or 15 years, in some cases, and it is same as it ever was. Any time a Pac 12 or B12 team gets in the playoffs, they get slaughtered. People scoff at UC, but they played Georgia and Alabama two years in a row, and did not give up 30 points in either game, so as you say, the seeding was as accurate this year as you could ask, no one else would have done any better.
But to me, the bottom line is that it is not good long term for college football to basically become a deep south only sport. Eventually will lose a lot of national popularity.
Agree with the above analysis. Besides Ohio State/Clemson, you could say that USC, Texas, Oklahoma, Miami Fl, Florida State, Michigan, Penn State, and Notre Dame (to name at least eight non SEC powers), should theoretically at least be able to put NC caliber teams on the field.
But we have been saying that for 10 or 15 years, in some cases, and it is same as it ever was. Any time a Pac 12 or B12 team gets in the playoffs, they get slaughtered. People scoff at UC, but they played Georgia and Alabama two years in a row, and did not give up 30 points in either game, so as you say, the seeding was as accurate this year as you could ask, no one else would have done any better.
But to me, the bottom line is that it is not good long term for college football to basically become a deep south only sport. Eventually will lose a lot of national popularity.
I agree that overall it's not great for the SEC, mainly Bama to be this dominant. However, this particular game should be some good football. That's honestly where my interest lie. To me, if it were a contest to just confirm how good Bama or UGA is, I wouldn't have as much interest in watching.
The big 10 and the south take their football seriously. If the west and East want in, then they need to take the proper steps to get involved. That’s what UK did by hiring Stoops and investing money into the program
I know I wish the champ game was the Monday after NYD. This draws the CFB season out too long for my tastes.
I expect USC to make a jump the next few years. Now, Riley better figure out that his teams need to play defense if he wants to truly compete for the NC. But, he should definitely have USC rising to the top of the Pac12 and, with their tradition, they will be considered any time they have 1 loss or less. Unless Riley figures out the defense side of the ball, not sure they'll fare any better in semis, though. A really strong USC vs. SEC/B10 power in the semis or championship game would definitely help getting the whole country interested.
And to add to the above, college football has been a southern sport (most popular region) for a while. Southern teams have dominated the landscape for a while as well if you go back to the first BCS title game.
98 TN, 99 FSU, 2001 Miami, 2003 LSU, 2005 Texas, 2006 FL, 2007 LSU, 2008 FL, 2009 Bama, 2010 AU, 2011 Bama, 2012 Bama, 2013 FSU, 2015 Bama, 2016 Clemson, 2017 Bama, 2018 Clemson, 2019 LSU, 2020 Bama and 2021 (UGA or Bama).
2000 Oklahoma (I guess they are midwest, but Texas is southern to me). 2002 OSU, 2004 USC, 2014 OSU
This has been pretty dominant with like 20/24 years with a southern champ.
98 TN, 99 FSU, 2001 Miami, 2003 LSU, 2005 Texas, 2006 FL, 2007 LSU, 2008 FL, 2009 Bama, 2010 AU, 2011 Bama, 2012 Bama, 2013 FSU, 2015 Bama, 2016 Clemson, 2017 Bama, 2018 Clemson, 2019 LSU, 2020 Bama and 2021 (UGA or Bama).
2000 Oklahoma (I guess they are midwest, but Texas is southern to me). 2002 OSU, 2004 USC, 2014 OSU
This has been pretty dominant with like 20/24 years with a southern champ.
Yeah...knowing Riley he'll have USC winning games 45 to 42...and then when he plays SEC teams it wil be USC 32 - SEC team 45+....about what he was at Oklahoma.
It's the same ole Big 12 stuff...
- Spread teams out
- Throw a ton of short stuff
- Shotgun running game between the tackles a bit
- Finesse offense...and finesse defense which get destroyed in games.
The only legit team during his time was that 2018 Baker Mayfield team that lost in Double OT to Georgia in the Rose Bowl CFP. The rest were the typical stuff every year.
Even that team had a huge first half lead and could not hold it and gave up 40+ points in the process even before OT
Lot of talent in Cali though, IIRC starting QB at Alabama, Ohio State and Utah are all from California. If UCLA and USC could just keep their players in state, would have a lot better team, hell just the players from LA and Orange County would have a lot better team. Brock Bowers of UGA is from Napa, CA, not exactly a hotbed of HS football I would not think, but he is a pure stud.
Point is, there are plenty of great players on the west coast to have great teams, the schools just have to make a commitment to field national class programs.
I think Riley at USC is about to change that a little. Great players want to play with other great player. Helton and Sark couldn't land enough of them to get the ball rolling.
Side issue, my daughter lives in the LA area, and you see UCLA gear all over the place as well as USC, and it is a huge school with all the resources in the world.
So how come UCLA can't ever get a top flight football team going? They have not been relevant nationally that I can remember since Troy Aikman was their QB.
Wasn't it Mora that had them knocking on the door for a season or two. I agree though, you would think they could produce a good team with the talent they have in that state. Care more about basketball with their administration? I seem to remember something about being hamstrung by the government when it comes to money for contracts?
That's wild as my time in SoCal didn't reflect that they cared about college sports as much. It's a pro city. I attended a UCLA basketball game in December years back and you'd think they were a mid-major with as many empty seats as there were.
If anyone tops Bama in the short term, it’ll be Texas A & M.
Clearly, like most big urban cities, LA is definitely a pro town. My other daughter lives in Denver, and I visited for Christmas, and Broncos gear, flags, ball caps, etc., outnumbered Univ of Colorado gear 10-1.
But . . . . even so, there are 40,000,000 people in California, I understand why Colorado struggles with 1/10 of the population, but no reason that the Cali schools should not be good in football, USC were national champs just 15 years ago, and almost pulled if off back to back.
They also have high school national powers there too- Mater Dei, Long Beach Poly, St. John Bosco, so it shouldn't be difficult.
It hasn't been the same since the Peter Carroll dynasty ended.
I have faith that Fischer sold his soul to the devil while at FSU. I hope and think Fischer will never win big again.
Yeah, years like two years ago where you got 2 loss UGA and Bama teams on the outside looking in, with 12 teams they will be in and they will be crushing lesser conference champions en route to, in that instance say a Bama vs LSU rematch for the title.
He’s recruiting at too high of a level and their home field advantage is strong, they just need the tea leaves to blow the right way and Jimbo could easily win one at A&M.
Most thought NIL was going to favor the urban schools, going into it.
The early returns are more like what I expected.
To see the negative effect of pro teams, consider the U of Houston. In the 50’s and 60’s they averaged 50K fans in attendance. Now and for most of fifty years, a fraction. And Houston is MASSIVE!!!
Last edited:
I stubbornly agree! I like TAMU, hated it when they hired Fischer, can't stand the guy. Being the father of two daughters, the stuff he did with Winston turns my stomach.
You have to wonder.
The last 4 recruiting classes were well ranked (16, 6, 6, 6), and they finish 8-4 ?!?!?
If you think Jimbo sold his soul to the Devil, look at the ‘19, ‘20, and ‘21 Rival’s ranking of their classes !!!!!!!
Last edited:
Until there is a way to steer talent to lesser schools vs. every year to the better schools...it's going to be hard to not have SEC repeat champs now and going forward....sort of like NFL has worst teams get top draft picks.
But that day isn't today and with kids more than happy willing to flock schools and share snaps/backfields with other top rated kids and SEC $$$ is pouring in like it is compared to Big 12, Pac 12 and ACC.....it ain't changing IMO.
Things won't change dramatically, but teams do have a once in a great while opportunity to move up the ladder if they fully embrace NIL quickly, which UK seems to be doing. The top have teams all have exceptional fan/booster support, so that support is just partially transitioning from being run directly through the school, to directly to the individual student athletes. A redistribution of wealth, if you will, though I suspect the pie is being enlarged now that fans/boosters can see their money being more directly effective at attracting and retaining talent.
That’s why it’s not nearly as impressive to win in college football as opposed to the NFL. In college, Saban gets whoever he wants, plays an easy schedule for 80% of the season, have incredible depth, have the most money, etc. In the NFL, you don’t just have your pick of the litter. You’re on an even playing field. You’ve got a salary cap.
For sure...his bailing out of NFL so fast pretty much shows he's not to the level of NFL greats. Same can be said for college basketball
The last UGA/Bama final was one of the most watched, maybe second most in the CFP era, if I recall correctly.
He also gets his best players 3 years and his good players 4 years...just to compare it even to college basketball. I much prefer the football method and getting your team to stay around, but that does help as well. He is the GOAT in college football to me, but I would agree Bill B in the NFL is way more impressive.
I think they have for us. UK jumped on the NIL thing relatively quickly, despite Mr. Moral running the the athletic dept., but there's been no seismic shift in the pecking order.
