Bama fatique killing college football???

Deep Creek said:
First of all, I'm not so sure it is "Bama Fatigue" as much as it is the "Same old, same old" fatigue.

Not sure what can be done about it but if ratings fall (or flat), it is logical to assume the networks will offer less in the next round of negotiations. Attendance was falling prior to COVID so that is another issue. Decreasing revenue will get their attention fo sho. There are only a handful of schools that don't really have to worry about money.

I do think we will continue to see the "same old, same old" until more schools compete better in the recruiting arena. More widely dispersed talent instead of having most of it concentrated in a few schools could help competitive balance. Not sure if that would translate to more viewer interest or not. People seem to like dynasties.
Click to expand...

It will be interesting to see how the next round of negotiations go when current contracts start to expire. I could honestly see Disney abandoning ESPN in the near future. ( Jim Cramer: Disney Restructuring Is About Getting Rid Of ESPN ) If Disney decides to significantly cut ESPN's budget even further, there could be less bidding for live sports (especially with how many subscribers are choosing to cut the cord for streaming services that don't have ESPN). So either someone steps up to keep the competitive bidding alive, or the NCAA and/or conferences take accept less tv revenue for the foreseeable future.

I still think, even with lower viewership that the NFL will still get more and more money, but it will be interesting to see in college football can do that same thing. There still is A LOT of potential for profitability, so they could see the same or even higher bidding the next go around.
 
Belcherboy said:
With the transfer rule HIGHLY likely to change in the next few weeks, it will make it more difficult for the top programs to hold onto talent. In other words, they have a lot more to lose than other teams, when everyone is snipping at your unused/underused talent.

I'm sure they will steal their fair share of players from other programs though.
Click to expand...
Meh, for the current upper tier programs, I'm not sure it really has that much of an impact. So they may lose a few depth guys. But these programs are recruiting so far above everyone else. Losing around 5 depth guys spread out over an 85 man roster really isn't going to hurt. I can really only speak for Clemson who doesn't take transfer scholarship players. They lose about 5ish guys each season who are solid depth guys. The next man up has usually been just as or nearly successful. I'm assuming the other top teams (Bama, OSU, UGA, Okie) aren't really taking many transfers either. At the very least, they lose more than they take in.

The big thing is being able to keep your star qb recruits. IE, Justin Fields and UGA. With that said, the big schools will just be able to attract the star qbs when need be. IE, Justin Fields at OSU or Daniels at UGA or Hurts/Murray at Okie.

Bottom line: I think its a wash on whether or not the upper tiers will be impacted on talent due to the transfer rule.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Me
Belcherboy said:
With the transfer rule HIGHLY likely to change in the next few weeks, it will make it more difficult for the top programs to hold onto talent. In other words, they have a lot more to lose than other teams, when everyone is snipping at your unused/underused talent.

I'm sure they will steal their fair share of players from other programs though.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the Bamas of the world will maybe steal a QB or something here and there, but largely have the talent on roster that's as good or better than anyone transferring anyway. It's depth pieces that those teams might lose.

If you were a 4 star recruit still playing 2nd or 3rd string sophomore year, maybe you go somewhere else to start.
 
RubinRock said:
Meh, for the current upper tier programs, I'm not sure it really has that much of an impact. So they may lose a few depth guys. But these programs are recruiting so far above everyone else. Losing around 5 depth guys spread out over an 85 man roster really isn't going to hurt. I can really only speak for Clemson who doesn't take transfer scholarship players. They lose about 5ish guys each season who are solid depth guys. The next man up has usually been just as or nearly successful. I'm assuming the other top teams (Bama, OSU, UGA, Okie) aren't really taking many transfers either. At the very least, they lose more than they take in.

The big thing is being able to keep your star qb recruits. IE, Justin Fields and UGA. With that said, the big schools will just be able to attract the star qbs when need be. IE, Justin Fields at OSU or Daniels at UGA or Hurts/Murray at Okie.

Bottom line: I think its a wash on whether or not the upper tiers will be impacted on talent due to the transfer rule.
Click to expand...
The big programs will probably just have "flesh wounds" from it. The lower and middle tier teams can utilize to improve more, though, I think. OSU losing a backup 4 star sucks, but oh well... There's another one on the team. Indiana bringing in that 4 star is an immediate talent improvement.
 
Until you get the media vampires to feature more leagues and distribute TV money/eyeballs more evenly we're never getting out of this and I've been telling yall this shit for years now. :L
 
2020
*ALA-OSU: 18.65M
OSU-CLEM: 19.15M
ND-ALA: 18.89m

2019
*LSU-CLEM: 25.59M
CLEM-OSU: 21.15M
LSU-OU: 17.21M

2018
*CLEM-ALA: 25.28M
ALA-OU: 19.069M
CLEM-ND: 16.809M

2017
*ALA-UGA: 28.44M
UGA-OU: 26.913M
ALA-CLEM: 21.47M

2016
*CLEM-ALA: 25.266M
ALA-WASH: 19.344M
CLEM-OSU: 19.237M

2015
*ALA-CLEM: 26.182M
ALA-MSU: 18.552M
CLEM-OU: 15.64M

2014
*OSU-ORE: 34.15M
OSU-ALA: 28.27M
ORE-FSU: 28.16M

2013 BCS
*AUB-FSU: 26.06M

www.sportsmediawatch.com

College Football TV Ratings

College football TV ratings for the 2023 regular season, bowls, College Football Playoff and National Championship.
www.sportsmediawatch.com www.sportsmediawatch.com
 
huskers1217 said:
Click to expand...

Could also be that many felt that a team that didnt play a full slate of games was not going to be a match for a team that had played 12 games, and blown opponents out by a wide margin all season. I know many people who were college fans that didnt watch simply because they knew Bama was going to blow out tOSU, and that happened.

Wanna stop the fatigue? put teams on a field that can play at the level Bama plays most years.
 
Semi numbers looks about normal, maybe it's just Bama fatigue + the game was almost over by halftime
 
to some degree but at the same time having the years where they dont is enough of a break. so the Alabama Clemson trade off everyother year then LSU for a year helped make it not so tiresome seeing Alabama.
 
RubinRock said:
Meh, for the current upper tier programs, I'm not sure it really has that much of an impact. So they may lose a few depth guys. But these programs are recruiting so far above everyone else. Losing around 5 depth guys spread out over an 85 man roster really isn't going to hurt. I can really only speak for Clemson who doesn't take transfer scholarship players. They lose about 5ish guys each season who are solid depth guys. The next man up has usually been just as or nearly successful. I'm assuming the other top teams (Bama, OSU, UGA, Okie) aren't really taking many transfers either. At the very least, they lose more than they take in.

The big thing is being able to keep your star qb recruits. IE, Justin Fields and UGA. With that said, the big schools will just be able to attract the star qbs when need be. IE, Justin Fields at OSU or Daniels at UGA or Hurts/Murray at Okie.

Bottom line: I think its a wash on whether or not the upper tiers will be impacted on talent due to the transfer rule.
Click to expand...

The problem is that they could lose more than depth guys. If someone doesn't like the role the play, they can leave and play immediately. After losing a few underclassmen (the ones that replace the upperclassmen in later years), it could really hurt them at key positions.

IMO, forcing these teams to continuously recruit the players on their current team through the year is going to be a distraction that these top teams haven't had, and they have A LOT more top players to worry about than other schools.

What I could see happening, is that these top schools PREFER to get people to transfer from other schools because they can only transfer one time. This would likely insure they don't leave the program. So Bama, Clemson, OSU, etc would do their best to get a handful of top transfers every year.
 
gobucks0409 said:
The big programs will probably just have "flesh wounds" from it. The lower and middle tier teams can utilize to improve more, though, I think. OSU losing a backup 4 star sucks, but oh well... There's another one on the team. Indiana bringing in that 4 star is an immediate talent improvement.
Click to expand...
Even then, those middle and lower tier teams are going to have to bring in a lot of transfers for it to matter. Just looking at Miami this year, they brought in King at qb and the offense was noticeably better than last season. But they still had zero shot against Clemson.

The amount of transfers in college basketball has had a pretty big impact on parity, imo. But one or two guys in basketball can make a huge difference in a team. Whereas in football, obviously, a lot more guys on the field at once and on a roster. A couple of transfers just isn't going to have a huge impact most of the time. A middle tier team is going to have to hit on a lot of transfers (5-10 range) to make a noticeable impact to compete for an entire season and for a natty. There may be a team once in a blue moon that strikes gold with the portal and makes a run in the playoffs. But as for now, I think it'll be few and far between.

In the end, I just don't see the transfer rule really breaking up the top tier and causing more parity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Me
Belcherboy said:
The problem is that they could lose more than depth guys. If someone doesn't like the role the play, they can leave and play immediately. After losing a few underclassmen (the ones that replace the upperclassmen in later years), it could really hurt them at key positions.

IMO, forcing these teams to continuously recruit the players on their current team through the year is going to be a distraction that these top teams haven't had, and they have A LOT more top players to worry about than other schools.

What I could see happening, is that these top schools PREFER to get people to transfer from other schools because they can only transfer one time. This would likely insure they don't leave the program. So Bama, Clemson, OSU, etc would do their best to get a handful of top transfers every year.
Click to expand...
Again, meh. The top teams aren't going to lose starters and stars because they "don't like their role". If someone doesn't "like their role" its probably because they are depth pieces and want to start somewhere. Could there be a few exceptions? Sure. But not enough to change the parity landscape of cfb.
 
RubinRock said:
Even then, those middle and lower tier teams are going to have to bring in a lot of transfers for it to matter. Just looking at Miami this year, they brought in King at qb and the offense was noticeably better than last season. But they still had zero shot against Clemson.

The amount of transfers in college basketball has had a pretty big impact on parity, imo. But one or two guys in basketball can make a huge difference in a team. Whereas in football, obviously, a lot more guys on the field at once and on a roster. A couple of transfers just isn't going to have a huge impact most of the time. A middle tier team is going to have to hit on a lot of transfers (5-10 range) to make a noticeable impact to compete for an entire season and for a natty. There may be a team once in a blue moon that strikes gold with the portal and makes a run in the playoffs. But as for now, I think it'll be few and far between.

In the end, I just don't see the transfer rule really breaking up the top tier and causing more parity.
Click to expand...
Oh, I don't think they're going to break up the top tier. I do think that you could see some more isolated upsets, though.
 
duckboy33 said:
Only sometimes. Depends on when the NCAA grants a waiver and it seems like the NCAA flips on coin on whether to grant a waiver or not. There's no rhyme or reason to it.
Click to expand...
It depends on if they are transferring to one of the chosen programs or a stepchild program.
 
The problem isn’t just Alabama. It’s the playoffs almost always includes 3 of the following 4 teams, Alabama, Oklahoma, Clemson, and Ohio State. When it’s the same teams every year it becomes less eventful.
 
It will fluctuate eventually. i mean at some point Saban will retire. at some point some school will come up the way Clemson came up. it took Swinney 3 years just to make them a contender and 8 to make it. some of the other traditional powers will come back up like USC, Notre Dame or Michigan (yes it pains me to say it). and yes some schools that aren't traditional powers will make moves and get into the top spots. Oregon has had a couple shots can they get back? Can Iowa State sustain? Can Mack get UNC back to what it was last time he was there? Has Gundy plateaued?
 
Political activism and sports never mix well. Many have sworn sports off altogether now.

Plus were all platforms counted or just conventional tv?
 
  • Funny!
Reactions: Me
The answer is yes.

The solution is the death penalty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top