Jump to content
Null

SEC Pods and Semifinal Play-In


RunInRed
 Share

Recommended Posts





6 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Ahhh I love when people have no real retort.

Bro you said that pac 12 is more entertaining the SEC, Why would I waste my time, spanky? BYU is running through that conference and you legitimately are arguing that. Yeah I will pass.

Edited by DAG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DAG said:

Bro you said that pac 12 is more entertaining the SEC, Why would I waste my time, spanky? BYU is running through that conference and you legitimately are arguing that. Yeah I will pass.

You apparently don't understand the difference between entertaining and quality.  Learn the difference.

What is more entertaining?  A conference race that will go to the final week with both divisions up in the air or one where both divisions are likely to be wrapped up by mid-November?

Much like college basketball is vastly more entertaining than the NBA despite being of decisively lower quality.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

You apparently don't understand the difference between entertaining and quality.  Learn the difference.

What is more entertaining?  A conference race that will go to the final week with both divisions up in the air or one where both divisions are likely to be wrapped up by mid-November?

Much like college basketball is vastly more entertaining than the NBA despite being of decisively lower quality.

Again, Why would I waste my time? You think just because a conference has poor quality of teams, without a chance to make the college football playoffs it is more entertaining ? it is a stupid ass argument. So you are telling me more people are going to tune In to any of the premier pac 12 games versus Auburn/UGA. Pick one and tell me which one is going to compare in viewership this week. Do you think ASU/Stanford is going to have more viewership than AU/UGA?

Edited by DAG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DAG said:

Again, Why would I waste my time? You think just because a conference has poor quality of teams, without a chance to make the college football playoffs it is more entertaining ? it is a stupid ass argument. So you are telling me more people are going to tune In to any of the premier pac 12 games versus Auburn/UGA. Pick one and tell me which one is going to compare in viewership this week. Do you think ASU/Stanford is going to have more viewership than AU/UGA?

Of course they won't.  But what do I find more entertaining: an AU/UGA game that isn't likely to be close or a Stanford/ASU game that probably goes to the 4th quarter?

That's an easy answer.

For some of us, there is football beyond the CFP.  Its fun.  As weird as it sounds, Vandy/UCONN last week was a blast to watch despite both teams being crap.

And if you're only concerned with teams that have a chance at the CFP for entertainment, why the hell would you watch another AU game this year after we drop our 2nd loss?

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Of course they won't.  But what do I find more entertaining: an AU/UGA game that isn't likely to be close or a Stanford/ASU game that probably goes to the 4th quarter?

That's an easy answer.

For some of us, there is football beyond the CFP.  Its fun.  As weird as it sounds, Vandy/UCONN last week was a blast to watch despite both teams being crap.

And if you're only concerned with teams that have a chance at the CFP for entertainment, why the hell would you watch another AU game this year after we drop our 2nd loss?

I didn't ask about YOU. You are one person. I am talking the general public.You just said since everyone knows who is going to win the sec the PAC 12 is more entertaining.

So why did last week the PAC 12 most "quality" team didn't get more viewership than three premier SEC games?

Edited by DAG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

why the hell would you watch another AU game this year after we drop our 2nd loss?

Bro, you are all over the place. I am talking conference vs conference to the general public. You said I need to learn the difference, but yet you haven't added data to support your points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DAG said:

I didn't ask about YOU. You are one person. I am talking the general public.You just said since everyone knows who is going to win the sec the PAC 12 is more entertaining.

So why did last week the PAC 12 most "quality" team didn't get more viewership than three premier SEC games?

See, now we're having two different conversations.  This entire time I've been saying that to me, it is more entertaining.

Pac 12 ratings will never hit SEC ratings.  That's just not gonna happen.  Doesn't mean the SEC is the be all, end all of college football entertainment.

And again I ask, if you, as you stated, are interested in games that affect the CFP, are you also gonna stop watching AU after we lose our 2nd game?

4-3 A&M vs 5-2 AU

You tuning into that because there are not any CFP or even conference title factors there.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DAG said:

So why did last week the PAC 12 most "quality" team didn't get more viewership than three premier SEC games?

Because PAC 12 people have other things to do besides watch college football and PAC 12 games are typically on after the vast majority of TV viewing households- which are overwhelmingly concentrated on the East Coast- are done watching football for the day. The population of the East Coast is double that of the West Coast. West Coast fans have complained about East Coast bias in the media for decades. They're right, but the disparity is such that there's literally nothing the media can do about it. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, McLoofus said:

Because PAC 12 people have other things to do besides watch college football and PAC 12 games are typically on after the vast majority of TV viewing households- which are overwhelmingly concentrated on the East Coast- are done watching football for the day. The population of the East Coast is double that of the West Coast. West Coast fans have complained about East Coast bias in the media for decades. They're right, but the disparity is such that there's literally nothing the media can do about it. 

 

Shhhh....don't ruin the narrative

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

See, now we're having two different conversations.  This entire time I've been saying that to me, it is more entertaining.

Pac 12 ratings will never hit SEC ratings.  That's just not gonna happen.  Doesn't mean the SEC is the be all, end all of college football entertainment.

And again I ask, if you, as you stated, are interested in games that affect the CFP, are you also gonna stop watching AU after we lose our 2nd game?

4-3 A&M vs 5-2 AU

You tuning into that because there are not any CFP or even conference title factors there.

WHAT?! My whole point was this ridiculous notion that so called alliance wouldn't want to play the SEC. They are still going to play the SEC for the simple fact, there is money there. Now you want to change the narrative. Show me some data man.

5 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Because PAC 12 people have other things to do besides watch college football and PAC 12 games are typically on after the vast majority of TV viewing households- which are overwhelmingly concentrated on the East Coast- are done watching football for the day. The population of the East Coast is double that of the West Coast. West Coast fans have complained about East Coast bias in the media for decades. They're right, but the disparity is such that there's literally nothing the media can do about it. 

 

I am not arguing that. I am arguing the idea that the pac 12 has more entertainment value. That is just not the case based on the data. For a singular individual maybe. But the data is not there. When USC was very quality, people tuned in. believe it or not. The Stanford and Oregon game was at 2:30 on national TV.

Edited by DAG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DAG said:

WHAT?! My whole point was this ridiculous notion that so called alliance wouldn't want to play the SEC. They are still going to play the SEC for the simple fact, there is money there. Now you want to change the narrative. Show me some data man.

See, here's the thing.  You're using a subjective term like entertaining vs an objective term like viewers or money.  If you had said "they know where the most viewers and money comes from", then there's literally zero debate.

But what some find entertaining is a vastly different concept.  For many folks, myself included, the Pac 12 race or even the Big 10 East is was more interesting this year.  That's OK.  Doesn't mean that they are getting more viewers.

You can't assume that just ratings automatically equals entertaining.  The State of the Union gets big ratings too.  Wouldn't call it fun to watch.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

See, here's the thing.  You're using a subjective term like entertaining vs an objective term like viewers or money.  If you had said "they know where the most viewers and money comes from", then there's literally zero debate.

But what some find entertaining is a vastly different concept.  For many folks, myself included, the Pac 12 race or even the Big 10 East is was more interesting this year.  That's OK.  Doesn't mean that they are getting more viewers.

You can't assume that just ratings automatically equals entertaining.  The State of the Union gets big ratings too.  Wouldn't call it fun to watch.

YOU WOULDN'T CALL IT FUN TO WATCH. That is what you don't get it.  You wanted to have a debate but you don't have any objective data to prove your point. I can absolutely assume that. I don't think millions of people would tune in to some they don't find leisure in watching. Come on man. You aren't making any sense.

Edited by DAG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

For many folks, myself included, the Pac 12 race or even the Big 10 East is was more interesting this year. 

Okay so where is the data? I didn't want to get into this with you but you open this door. You are whole argument has been " we know who is going to win." So why would people tune in to such a thing?

Edited by DAG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DAG said:

Okay so where is the data? I didn't want to get into this with you but you open this door.

You keep asking for data for what others find more interesting.  Its a really dumb hole you're digging.

My data is that the those races will likely go to the last weekend.  The SEC won't, thus making it less fun tk follow.  No one here is arguing with you that the SEC gets lower ratings. Its the highest TV rated league in CFB.  Literally inarguable.

But again, that doesn't make it the most entertaining or intersting for everyone.  Go to a bar in Chicago and it becomes damn hard to find an SEC game if the Big 10 is playing.  Speaking from experience on that one.

For myself and a lot of other folk, we'd rather follow those races more closely along with watching our teams.  The only thing I find interesting in the SEC as a league this year is if Kentucky can finally make the Sugar Bowl.

The door I opened was a personal opinion of finding the Pac 12 more entertaining this year.  You extrapolated it to some giant ass nationwide argument about ratings and such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Brad_ATX said:

You keep asking for data for what others find more interesting.  Its a really dumb hole you're digging.

My data is that the those races will likely go to the last weekend.  The SEC won't, thus making it less fun tk follow.  No one here is arguing with you that the SEC gets lower ratings. Its the highest TV rated league in CFB.  Literally inarguable.

But again, that doesn't make it the most entertaining or intersting for everyone.  Go to a bar in Chicago and it becomes damn hard to find an SEC game if the Big 10 is playing.  Speaking from experience on that one.

For myself and a lot of other folk, we'd rather follow those races more closely along with watching our teams.  The only thing I find interesting in the SEC as a league this year is if Kentucky can finally make the Sugar Bowl.

The door I opened was a personal opinion of finding the Pac 12 more entertaining this year.  You extrapolated it to some giant ass nationwide argument about ratings and such.

So nothing, okay cool. Let me know when you have objective data points. Not personal opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DAG said:

So nothing, okay cool. Let me know when you have objective data points. Not personal opinion.

Are you always this miserable?  JFC I said other leagues are more entertaining and you'd think I personally attacked your family.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Brad_ATX said:

Go to a bar in Chicago and it becomes damn hard to find an SEC game if the Big 10 is playing.

I literally live in Wisconsin . The Arkansas game was on tv right along Wisconsin and Michigan. Again, all assumptions. Literally no objectivity. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Brad_ATX said:

Are you always this miserable?  JFC I said other leagues are more entertaining and you'd think I personally attacked your family.

Now, you are mad. Don't get mad man. I didn't want this argument lol. if you prefer the pac 12, cool hahaha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DAG said:

I am arguing the idea that the pac 12 has more entertainment value. That is just not the case based on the data.

But that's the problem. You're trying to apply objective metrics to a purely subjective conversation.

That said, what the data shows is that teams on the coast that has twice as many people and whose games are broadcast when all of those people- and all the people on the other coast- are still awake.... get watched a lot more. It doesn't say the games are actually better.

Data also shows that people in the deep south don't have nearly as many teams and sports competing for their limited viewing time (degenerate gamblers like @Brad_ATX aside). Fans of southern schools barely even watch their own basketball teams. Fans on here constantly talk about how bad pro sports suck, which is patently ridiculous. (I don't know if you caught the sarcasm earlier when I talked about parity in the NFL.) It's not really a chicken or egg debate as to why people in the SEC take college football more seriously. People in California have the Lakers, 49ers, Dodgers, Warriors, Rams, Chargers, Angels, Clippers, Padres... Like, the historical flagship school of the conference has 9 (I think) major league franchise in the same city. So yeah, USC had to be really, really damned good to get a bunch of people who didn't grow up living and breathing college football to watch. Even in Wisconsin you've got the Bucs, Packers and Brewers. You've got two of the biggest stars in their respective sports of the last decade. Probably both hall of famers. You telling me the Badgers are capable of putting a product on the field that can compete with that, if someone had to make a choice? Most SEC fans don't really have to make that choice. People growing up in Alabama in the Bear Bryant years literally had nothing else going for them. 

Also, back to that time difference thing. Data shows that a ton of PAC 12 games don't kick off until the majority of Americans have already watched their teams play. So no, the majority of Americans aren't going to watch those games. As for that sports bar scenario in the midwest, the same thing applies. There are SEC games on the TVs because 1) there are a lot of TVs and 2) those games are actually being broadcast while sports bars in the midwest are at peak capacity. 

As for the SEC being "better", the whole point is that it doesn't matter without parity. And right now, there's very little of it. We're a top-heavy league dominated by two teams. Yawn. bama-UF might be the only truly entertaining game that bama plays all year, unless you're a bama fan. Hopefully we make the uga game entertaining tomorrow, but nobody thinks we have a chance. The ESPN crew didn't even think we could beat a trash ass LSU team. But you know what that game turned into? A low scoring PAC 12 game, 9:00 PM kickoff and everything. Arky v uga did better TV numbers, though. Was that a better game?

"But the SEC has more talent." True! And most of it is home grown. But why is it so easy for SEC schools to keep the talent at home? Distance is a big factor, but those TV ratings are also a factor here, too. Not only do the players want more eyes on their games, but the insane TV money that the SEC gets- which it actually did earn up until about 6-7 years ago- sure pays for a lot of nice facilities for recruiting. 

There are a TON of factors that go into the SEC doing big TV numbers. But the games being more entertaining to Brad aren't one of them. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

But the games being more entertaining to Brad aren't one of them

It was never just about Brad.  It is not about who is better or worse . It’s about who is tuning in.  My argument would be , if the pac 12 is far more interesting , why would it matter if the east coast teams games are done? It shouldn’t. So how can someone make that argument? This is strictly about entertainment . There were plenty of better games than the Auburn and LSU game. For instance is drake a better rapper than Kendrick Lamar? Iono. Is he more entertaining ? I think more people would say yes based on his numbers.  I really don’t know how you can argue that. There are just way too many blanket statements without any type of objective data. This guy literally just said he bet we wouldn’t find an sec game on in the Midwest (pure assumption). But I live in the Midwest and the Arkansas game was on right at camp bar right outside of the stadium.  The Stanford/ Oregon was legit an overtime game. I would argue that was a better game than both UGA and the Bama game? Was it more entertaining though ? 

 

Edited by DAG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

But that's the problem. You're trying to apply objective metrics to a purely subjective conversation.

That said, what the data shows is that teams on the coast that has twice as many people and whose games are broadcast when all of those people- and all the people on the other coast- are still awake.... get watched a lot more. It doesn't say the games are actually better.

Data also shows that people in the deep south don't have nearly as many teams and sports competing for their limited viewing time (degenerate gamblers like @Brad_ATX aside). Fans of southern schools barely even watch their own basketball teams. Fans on here constantly talk about how bad pro sports suck, which is patently ridiculous. (I don't know if you caught the sarcasm earlier when I talked about parity in the NFL.) It's not really a chicken or egg debate as to why people in the SEC take college football more seriously. People in California have the Lakers, 49ers, Dodgers, Warriors, Rams, Chargers, Angels, Clippers, Padres... Like, the historical flagship school of the conference has 9 (I think) major league franchise in the same city. So yeah, USC had to be really, really damned good to get a bunch of people who didn't grow up living and breathing college football to watch. Even in Wisconsin you've got the Bucs, Packers and Brewers. You've got two of the biggest stars in their respective sports of the last decade. Probably both hall of famers. You telling me the Badgers are capable of putting a product on the field that can compete with that, if someone had to make a choice? Most SEC fans don't really have to make that choice. People growing up in Alabama in the Bear Bryant years literally had nothing else going for them. 

Also, back to that time difference thing. Data shows that a ton of PAC 12 games don't kick off until the majority of Americans have already watched their teams play. So no, the majority of Americans aren't going to watch those games. As for that sports bar scenario in the midwest, the same thing applies. There are SEC games on the TVs because 1) there are a lot of TVs and 2) those games are actually being broadcast while sports bars in the midwest are at peak capacity. 

As for the SEC being "better", the whole point is that it doesn't matter without parity. And right now, there's very little of it. We're a top-heavy league dominated by two teams. Yawn. bama-UF might be the only truly entertaining game that bama plays all year, unless you're a bama fan. Hopefully we make the uga game entertaining tomorrow, but nobody thinks we have a chance. The ESPN crew didn't even think we could beat a trash ass LSU team. But you know what that game turned into? A low scoring PAC 12 game, 9:00 PM kickoff and everything. Arky v uga did better TV numbers, though. Was that a better game?

"But the SEC has more talent." True! And most of it is home grown. But why is it so easy for SEC schools to keep the talent at home? Distance is a big factor, but those TV ratings are also a factor here, too. Not only do the players want more eyes on their games, but the insane TV money that the SEC gets- which it actually did earn up until about 6-7 years ago- sure pays for a lot of nice facilities for recruiting. 

There are a TON of factors that go into the SEC doing big TV numbers. But the games being more entertaining to Brad aren't one of them. 

also I appreciate the argument mcloofus. Thanks for making some quality points.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, DAG said:

It was never just about Brad.  It is not about who is better or worse . It’s about who is tuning in.  My argument would be , if the pac 12 is far more interesting , why would it matter if the east coast teams games are done? It shouldn’t. So how can someone make that argument? This is strictly about entertainment . There were plenty of better games than the Auburn and LSU game. For instance is drake a better rapper than Kendrick Lamar? Iono. Is he more entertaining ? I think more people would say yes based on his numbers.  I really don’t know how you can argue that. There are just way too many blanket statements without any type of objective data. This guy literally just said he bet we wouldn’t find an sec game on in the Midwest (pure assumption). But I live in the Midwest and the Arkansas game was on right at camp bar right outside of the stadium.  The Stanford/ Oregon was legit an overtime game. I would argue that was a better game than both UGA and the Bama game? Was it more entertaining though ? 

 

LOL.  Not assumption.  Also used to live in the Midwest (Michigan).  Had to beg bars every week to get the Auburn game on.  Speaking from experience man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...