I appreciate the substantive response, even though I disagree. I am a data guy, as you saw in my post, and it appears you are, too. But we are both making a lot of assumptions. Neither of us really knows what will happen. I believe that there would be enough interest in the quarters that the numbers would be significantly higher than non-CFP NY6 games, and you don't. I am also not worried about the downstream bowls ... they are being made irrelevant by the current CFP, so I don't think that will be something that will come into the calculous.
Look at the quarter-finals in my example ... those are all teams that would draw eyeballs because (1) the fans of those teams and their conferences would watch more, and (2) a game that actually has meaning when the winner moves on is more interesting than just some bowl game that even the teams and their fans don't care about. Let's not forget that for the past many years, even fans of teams in those games really didn't care. Now they will and that is why the quarters will draw more like the semis.
As for the other bowl games, their value to ESPN is simply in their volume. They have so many, that they just need to make a little off each one and they are worth having. In an 8 team CFP the teams in those bowl games are not diluted as the ones likely to be in the NY6, as CFP games would be close to the same as those in the current setup. In the 12 team CFP, which is what I think will happen, the lower bowls would be hurt more as 4 teams that would be in the Outback, Citrus type bowls would not be available.
A couple other counterpoints:
- You seem to argue that adding 4 more teams won't increase eyeballs, or will be balanced out by lesser eyes in other bowls. That's kind of an odd zero sum game to me. You are acting like there is a set number of eyes, and that they can't expand. I contend that an expanded CFP will expand the interest in the playoff and therefore increase the number of eyes. See my final point below on this.
- You say there is a finite number of teams people want to see each year. I disagree. The fans of many teams, and fans in their conference would love to see more teams. Again, that's kind of an odd statement ... I get that we in SEC country are serious about our football - it does mean more - but there would a lot of interest in seeing other teams play.
- I thought I was pretty clear that any 8 team CFP would involve the NY6 bowls. And my home game schedule does not leave the NY6 out. My home game scenario is for a 12 team CFP and it has play-in round games at home fields, and then quarters in NY6 bowls. Every scenario I mentioned has the NY6 being as relevant as they possibly could. The only bowls that might be hurt by this are the 3 or 4 more minor games played on the 31st or the 1st (Citrus, Outback, etc.).
- You state: "Now factor in that your 2020 NY6/Playoff viewership was down 20 million from 2019, which was down 6 million from 2018. How much more am I willing to pay now when I don't know if that is going to continue." That's after you accused me of rigging numbers by using the Covide year. C'mon, we can't look at anything in 2020 to determine what will happen in the future.
- You state: "I am happy to entertain arguments, but if you throw a number out there that says you are just going to add 4 games and they are going to all get the same ratings as the semis and all the other bowls are just going to stay the same so you are going to just add 65 million viewers to the pot and a viewer is worth $7 to ESPN like that Buzzfan dummy then don't expect me to not say you are riding the short bus." You realize that your zero sum game concept seem just as absurd to me? The idea that an expanded CFP will not increase viewership overall just doesn't make sense to me.
Final point ... you are the only one arguing this strictly from a "what ESPN will pay" perspective. There are a number of other reasons why they need to do this, all of which will generate more revenue for everyone - it's not just about ESPN, the blinders you have on, IMO: (1) there is a groundswell of discontent with the idea that it's the same few teams over and over. Hell, that's what the OP was about. It's all over media, you are heating ADs, coaches, and conference chairs talking about it. (2) the current system is about as dumb as you could want (other than the 2 team BCS, and the pre-BCS MCN through polls) where you have 4 slots and 5 conferences and 1 well know independent. The idea that year in and year out certain conferences don't even have a shot to get in is just stupid. It doesn't matter that it means more in the SEC, or that the PAC are a bunch of commie pussies (I kid, I kid, kinda). 8 or 12 is just a better number, and expanding playoffs will keep a much larger number of teams in contention far longer into the season, and the CCGs will be more important. All that will increase total eyeballs and revenue. (3) 8 or 12 means you are going to have far better OOC games. This is already happening in a great way. The OOC schedules starting in the next couple of years are fantastic. This means the inventory of fantastic OOC games is going to increase many times over, which will also increase the popularity of the game and grow the total eyeballs. So, it's more than just what ESPN will pay, and what the smaller less significant bowls want, even though I acknowledge they are heavy players in all this.
Appreciate the substantive discussion ... we don't get that very often here any more.
