Tigers and Tide Pummel Their Way to the Title Game, Few Notice
January 1, 2016 7:12 PM   Subscribe

The college football bowl season has nearly reached its pinnacle, with the undefeated Clemson Tigers beating the Oklahoma Sooners 37-17 in the Orange Bowl and the Alabama Crimson Tide destroying the Michigan State Spartans 38-0 in the Cotton Bowl. Alabama and Clemson will travel all the way to Arizona for the championship game. Despite those two shellackings, the worst loser may have been ESPN, as ratings for the two semifinal games plunged by more than a third from last year.

There's a variety of reasons that last year's games may have been more compelling than this year's, but the main issue ratings-wise was that the College Football Playoff organization (i.e., the "Power 5" college athletic conferences) sought to establish December 31st as a "new tradition" for the CFP semifinals (last year's semifinal games were at the Rose Bowl and Sugar Bowl, which contractually play on January 1st).

ESPN offered to move the games to January 2nd, a Saturday with no NFL games to compete against, but the CFP really wanted December 31st. CFP Executive Director Bill Hancock said more than two years ago, "What it does is change the paradigm of what New Year's Eve is all about. If you're hosting a New Year's Eve party, you better have a bunch of televisions around." ESPN shrugged and dug in, going so far as cross-promoting the games on fellow Disney-owned properties such as Disney Jr. and ABC's General Hospital.

Viewers -- particularly the key 17-35 demographic -- apparently did not feel that the paradigm had been changed. Another factor was that the first game started at 4 p.m. EST (1 p.m. PST) on a day that is a legal holiday in only a few states, so a lot of people were still at work.

Next year, December 31st is a Saturday, and the year after that, the semifinals return to January 1st at the Rose Bowl and Sugar Bowl, so the "new tradition" won't further damage the games' ratings until 2018.

(The second-biggest loser of the bowl season may end up being Carly Fiorina, whose pandering tweet rooting for the Iowa Hawkeyes over her alma mater Stanford Cardinal in the Rose Bowl rapidly turned into a #carlycurse as the Cardinal smoked the Hawkeyes on the field and at halftime.)
posted by Etrigan (47 comments total) 4 users marked this as a favorite
 
On Monday, I have to remember to bring in a crisp $1 dollar bill for my office mate because my Spartans got clobbered by Alabama.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 7:25 PM on January 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


I work in Lansing and am noted as being one of those Wolverine people. Gonna be an awfully quiet day at my office on Monday.
posted by Etrigan at 7:30 PM on January 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


Yeah, I'm not a serious college football fan but just by being out in the world I'm usually aware that the big bowl games are happening. This year I had no idea until I looked at the morning paper -- oh, wait, they already started the playoffs? Some kind of major publicity malfunction has taken place.
posted by escabeche at 7:30 PM on January 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


I don't follow football at all, but I was at a bar that was showing the games and the collective eye rolling at the off-balance games was more exciting than the games themselves.
posted by Dip Flash at 7:37 PM on January 1, 2016


The best part of the Cotton Bowl blowout was seeing Derrick Henry stiff-arm Shilique Calhoun so hard his whole family got bruised. Roll Tide!
posted by BitterOldPunk at 7:46 PM on January 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


I have no doubt the unfortunate timing of December 31st being on a Thursday drove a large part of the decrease in viewership.

However, I have to wonder, how much is ESPN suffering due to cord-cutting/skinny TV packages? Despite the success of Star Wars, some analysts have downgraded Disney stock. That is how much of a liability ESPN is to Disney in the current competitive landscape.
posted by cynical pinnacle at 8:08 PM on January 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


Well, call me Deacon Blues...
posted by oneswellfoop at 8:10 PM on January 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


The second-biggest loser of the bowl season may end up being Carly Fiorina

The sports radio show that I listen to daily, on podcast from a state whose Republican primary isn't until after Super Tuesday, inexplicably runs a 30 second Carly Fiorina spot every. single. commercial. break. Who is she trying to reach with targeted ads and transparent appeals to sports demographics? Does her campaign somehow think that there's a vast pool of persuadable sports fans just waiting to vote for Carly Fiorina?
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:13 PM on January 1, 2016


Great post. I was really wondering what they were thinking. We stayed in and watched because my sweet wife and several friends are Tiger fans, but nobody in Peoria is going to skip NYE festivities to watch Clemson play Oklahoma, IMO.

Holyshit that General Hospital clip! Very subtle, ABC.
posted by ftm at 8:13 PM on January 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


At least the Fiesta Bowl was fun. My wife is a Notre Dame alumna, and I went to OSU, so it turned out as well as it could have for me. We win, but it was a good game, and the Irish played pretty well.

The other games all stunk. I have zero interest whatsoever in Houston, Free Seafood U., Ole Miss, or OK State, so I didn't even bother to watch the Peach or Sugar Bowls. The two playoff semifinals were depressing (RIP Sparty; even though you beat us, I still have a soft spot for you), and the Rose Bowl first half might have been the worst display of "football" I've ever seen, so I turned it off.

Even the Winter Classic failed to hold my interest.

The Holiday Bowl on Wednesday night was fun, if anybody bothered to stay up until 2am Eastern time.
posted by kevinbelt at 8:20 PM on January 1, 2016


The best part of the Cotton Bowl blowout was seeing Derrick Henry stiff-arm Shilique Calhoun so hard his whole family got bruised. Roll Tide!

Ha! That fall looked like one of those dramatically-faked stunt falls in a bad movie.
posted by not that girl at 8:31 PM on January 1, 2016


I follow football via the reactions of friends on Facebook who are watching MSU games, so I did figure out there was a game yesterday and, at some point, that MSU had lost it. I very much enjoyed the 13-minute recap at the ESPN link, especially when they explained why something was a good or bad play. "Look at how this guy never took his eyes off the quarterback!" on one of the interceptions, for instance. I don't understand football very well and I would happily watch more of that kind of thing.

Also I'm very glad to have seen that whatdayacallit, when that one guy intercepted the kick and then wove his way back to the endzone for a touchdown. I could watch that twenty times. I am not at all invested in MSU football, despite living near the campus, so I was able to happily marvel at the cool stuff the Alabama players were doing.
posted by not that girl at 8:35 PM on January 1, 2016


I will add, that as little aware as I am of football normally, when my friends started changing their profile pictures to Sparty, I asked my partner, "Is there a football game today? There's not usually football on New Year's Eve, is there?" So I am at least aware enough to know that this was a strange new thing.
posted by not that girl at 8:40 PM on January 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Trump also drew some lofty criticism.

(Some millionaire for Rubio did the stunt).
posted by phoque at 8:45 PM on January 1, 2016


However, I have to wonder, how much is ESPN suffering due to cord-cutting/skinny TV packages? Despite the success of Star Wars, some analysts have downgraded Disney stock. That is how much of a liability ESPN is to Disney in the current competitive landscape.

ESPN is the #4 streaming app on the net and HBO Now is #1 by revenue. Once Disney realizes they can charge $20/mo for stand alone ESPN it'll bounce back with a vengeance.
posted by Talez at 8:50 PM on January 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Count me among the new Stanford Marching Band fans.
posted by snwod at 9:07 PM on January 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Anyone at a NYE party of mine who asks that a TV be turned on so he can watch a college ball game risks being asked to leave.
posted by 1adam12 at 9:30 PM on January 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Honestly, I'm surprised anyone lets the Stanford band play on their field anymore. With their history, you know that if you let them on your field, you take your chances.
posted by azpenguin at 9:46 PM on January 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Once Disney realizes they can charge $20/mo for stand alone ESPN it'll bounce back with a vengeance.

The ESPN business model relies on them charging Comcast et all $4 for every cable subscriber. Part of the reason cords are cut is to avoid the ESPN tax. Funnily enough, you already can pay $20/mo for ESPN. The open question really, is if any ala-cart point along the curve maximizes Price*Sales in a way that exceeds or at least matches their largely compulsory regime.
posted by pwnguin at 9:53 PM on January 1, 2016


Goddammit, Carly, you have to ruin everything.

Practically every bowl game seems to be a blowout this year. I normally have bowl games on all week, because who doesn't want to watch the Sterling Cooper Asphalt Bowl, but after the third fourth blowout, I lost interest this year.

And when did ESPN get the rights to every single bowl game? You couldn't even catch the playoff games on OTA TV this year.
posted by dirigibleman at 12:49 AM on January 2, 2016


I'd probably still care for CFB if ESPN haven't shut down ESPN America a few years ago because of their tendency to overpay for content and then drop everything that isn't turning enough revenue. I still watched the playoffs last year, this time around, I really can't be arsed to even know who's on. Which is a shame - there was a perfectly fine sports channel on Europe that broadcasted every american sport without a deal in place (NASN), until ESPN decided to make a splash and buy it, just to close it down a few years later for much less.

NCAA's loss. Also ESPN, but that is a losing venture almost by default.
posted by lmfsilva at 12:55 AM on January 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


The open question really, is if any ala-cart point along the curve maximizes Price*Sales in a way that exceeds or at least matches their largely compulsory regime.

For the next time anyone wonders what microeconomics is about
posted by C.A.S. at 1:01 AM on January 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


I don't really expect games to get spoiled on Metafilter (there's no way to get college football in Japan that I'm aware of), but, well, honestly, I'd rather find out my beloved Spartans shat the bed that badly rather than attempt to watch the game tomorrow oblivious to the oncoming unending horror that awaited me. So, uh, thanks?
posted by Ghidorah at 5:00 AM on January 2, 2016


The ESPN business model relies on them charging Comcast et all $4 for every cable subscriber. Part of the reason cords are cut is to avoid the ESPN tax. Funnily enough, you already can pay $20/mo for ESPN. The open question really, is if any ala-cart point along the curve maximizes Price*Sales in a way that exceeds or at least matches their largely compulsory regime.

They are also being squeezed by competitor sports channels now - NBCSN and the respective major league sports networks are sucking up more of the regular coverage and also dipping into cable subscriber's pockets. The only thing keeping some limited games on broadcast TVs is probably the owners having to maintain at least some minimal connection to the broader community in order to extort stadium upgrades, tax breaks and political favors.

So it isn't just a simple Price*Sales calculation. It needs to factor in declining real incomes, increased competition within sports broadcasting and probably also increased entertainment options outside of sports as well. I think their current system is cannibalizing their future popularity. They will struggle to gain fans from people who cut their cables or go slim package. If you are a kid and your parents are not into sports then you probably aren't going to be either because you will barely get to see them.
posted by srboisvert at 5:37 AM on January 2, 2016


Tigers and Tide Pummel Their Way to the Title Game, Few Notice

Well, they were never going to schedule it for your convenience. I mean, you know the old saying, "tiger and tide wait for no man".
 
posted by Herodios at 5:38 AM on January 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


Since we're talking bowls, can someone explain why people are so angry with the Stanford band?
posted by Burgoo at 5:52 AM on January 2, 2016


Since we're talking bowls, can someone explain why people are so angry with the Stanford band?

Because they refuse to take themselves as seriously as bands with your standard-issue marching band uniforms and thoroughly choreographed routines and carefully sanctioned "craziness" (OMG THAT TUBA HAS A THING ON IT). The LSJUMB is basically a walking anarchy, as noted on their appropriately slapdash website:
The core of the Band is the Band staph, of which there are currently 27, plus the Tree and the five Dollies. Attendance by others is completely voluntary, so the number of people at any event varies, but for football games we scatter with 100 to 150 men. Or women.
That's right, 27 people in those clips were actual band members, and everyone else is just some rando who knows a dude in the band and has a skateboard or whatever.

Plus the cow. Even without actually making a joke, the LSJUMB has enough of a rep that having a cow on the field is high-grade trollery.
posted by Etrigan at 6:20 AM on January 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


This thread has introduced me to the Stanford Band. I can't believe I went this far in my life not knowing about them. They are amazing!
posted by chainsofreedom at 7:00 AM on January 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


As a fan of college football, the worst thing about the playoff games is that they were boring. If the games had featured matchups people were really interested in, they would have watched. I know that college football is super-parochial (I'm definitely an SEC snob, but I'm no fan of Saban's joyless brand of football), and I had very little interest in Clemson-Oklahoma. I thought MSU would make it interesting for a while, but I was wrong about that. The national championship game will be even less intriguing because I suspect it's going to be a blowout, and the Tigers won't be on the winning end of things. Stanford-Iowa was painful, the Hawkeyes are not a good football team. Michigan-Florida was a clunker. A very weak Tennessee absolutely destroyed Northwestern, who would even watch that game? I'm not a Big 10 guy and can't stand either tOSU or Notre Dame, so I skipped that one. There were bowl games featuring 5-7 teams (hi, Minnesota). My LSU Tigers beat up on Texas Tech, but the game was a huge mismatch talent-wise. This is the fundamental problem -- the bowl matchups this year seem particularly lopsided, and a lot of fans aren't going to watch massively one-sided games. Maybe the NCAA powers-that-be need to dial things back a bit, more of something good is not always better.
posted by wintermind at 7:08 AM on January 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


How do does the Stanford Band stack up against the tomfoolery of the Rice Marching Owl Band (aka the Rice MOB)?
posted by slkinsey at 7:24 AM on January 2, 2016


"And when did ESPN get the rights to every single bowl game?"

Many of the bowl games are wholly owned subsidiaries of ESPN. There are only a handful of "real" (i.e., organic) games - the New Years Six, the Holiday, the Sun, the Citrus, the Independence. Most games are literally created to fill time on ESPN.

There are two ways to look at this: First, yes, they're fake, and that feels icky. Second: every silly whocares.com Bowl takes away air time from Skip Bayless and Stephen A. Smith. I see things the latter way and say "more bowl games!"
posted by kevinbelt at 9:58 AM on January 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


I liked when the games that mattered were on New Year's Day. It was dumb to have them on New Year's Eve. Although I might feel differently if they weren't both blowouts.
posted by ob1quixote at 10:22 AM on January 2, 2016


They may have gotten terrible ratings, but they sure did try some innovative advertising. The fact they didn't garner the important daytime soap opera/college football crossover demographic was not due to inattention.
posted by mcstayinskool at 3:08 PM on January 2, 2016


snickerdoodle: amen. They've done some dickish things over the year. And it's also Stanford. There aren't that many places they can appropriately make fun of.
posted by persona au gratin at 5:45 PM on January 2, 2016


Yeah, this year they were boring. That happens. Last year, OSU* shocked everyone by beating Alabama first and then Oregon. The #4 ranked team, commonly cited as "does not belong here" won it all.

Sometimes, it ends up #1 vs. #2. That's why they play the games. Some times it's a walkover. Sometimes, they predict a walkover, and it doesn't happen.

That's why you play the games. Before, Alabama would have been handed the 2015 championship. Now? That year, they didn't even make the final. This year? They did, but they have to play the other tough team to win it all.

So, yeah, it's working. If a team is truly that good, they should walk to the championship, because there's no way to play a balanced season with 300+ teams in the league and a 12 game season.

Last year, the team that would have been handed the championship lost. That could happen this year if Clemson loses. This is *not* a bad thing!

*I am not a fan of an Ohio State University. Having said that, they earned that Championship as no other team has. So, well, O H I O!
posted by eriko at 6:59 PM on January 2, 2016


New Years Eve is a stupid day to have the big bowl games. I'm just glad I watched at home via a free trial of Sling TV, instead of paying $100 to attend a watch party/ NYE celebration at a local bar, given how badly my Spartans got pummeled. It was all fun and games until the last 10 min of the 2nd quarter, then it was just a bloodbath. God I hate Saban.
posted by caution live frogs at 7:41 AM on January 3, 2016


ESPN owes advertisers millions to make up for shitty New Year's Eve ratings. Hancock blames Star Wars.
posted by Etrigan at 4:14 PM on January 8, 2016


Etrigan: “Hancock blames Star Wars.”
Yeah, it couldn't be that people might, y'know, be busy on New Year's Eve afternoon either working or getting ready, and then want to watch coverage from Times Square while tying one on. It's like they don't even know any human beings.

Hey, CFP? I'll do Bill Hancock's job for half of whatever you're paying him.
posted by ob1quixote at 5:53 PM on January 8, 2016


It's like they don't even know any human beings.

Assuming for a minute that CFP isn't run by morons, just malevolent, why stick to a shitty plan that everyone knows is shitty? Why intentionally burn ESPN, and by extension, its advertising customers?
posted by pwnguin at 8:08 PM on January 8, 2016


I'm pretty sure it's because they said that the semi-finals would rotate among the "New Year's Six" bowl games but also the Rose Bowl and the Sugar Bowl said they'd only participate if they could always play on New Year's Day. Which means that most years the playoff games will be on New Year's Eve because that's how all the contracts fall out. It's a naked cash grab.
posted by ob1quixote at 12:47 AM on January 9, 2016


In any case, what I really meant by that "human beings" remark is that they appear so unconnected to human society that they had no idea that New Year's Eve games would be a bust.
posted by ob1quixote at 12:50 AM on January 9, 2016


Which means that most years the playoff games will be on New Year's Eve because that's how all the contracts fall out.

Rose and Sugar are the only bowls with contractual dates. ESPN offered/begged to move the games to Saturday, January 2nd this year -- a day with no NFL games or anything else, when people would be enjoying the middle of a three-day weekend -- but Hancock and whatever marketing idiot he was listening to refused to budge. When the games are back on Saturday next year at the Peach and Fiesta Bowls on December 31st, Hancock will crow about "See! We told you people would watch on New Year's Eve!" Either ESPN will go through the same pain two years later when they're on a fucking Monday of all things or they'll have forced Hancock out in favor of someone smart enough to put them on Saturday, December 29th.
posted by Etrigan at 5:47 AM on January 9, 2016


Well, that was a hell of a game.
posted by Etrigan at 7:16 AM on January 12, 2016 [1 favorite]


Word. There's a reason you never see anybody not cover from the hash to the sideline on kickoffs, and I guess Clemson learned their lesson. How did Saban induce Clemson into that terrible coverage? They must have used sorcery to make that play pay-off.
posted by ob1quixote at 2:22 PM on January 12, 2016


They had Clemson's shitty coverage scouted ahead of time, practiced it, and were so worried they were going to tip the tell that Lane Kiffin's job on that play was to remind the players on the sideline not to smile.
posted by Etrigan at 3:06 PM on January 12, 2016 [1 favorite]


I mean, I knew that was the real answer but the real real answer is so much more awesome than sorcery that if anything I have to grudgingly admire Saban both more and with a bigger grudge. Of course he had a track star lined up against a guy he knew was going to turn his back before the ball left the tee, but the kid has trouble catching the ball, so he coached him up special.
posted by ob1quixote at 7:13 PM on January 12, 2016


There was a good discussion on today's Hang Up And Listen about whether that was a brief moment of "It'll be fun!" poking out of Saban's cybernetic play-selection algorithm. They agreed that it was purely because he ran the numbers and figured that his defense wasn't able to stop Clemson regardless of where on the field they started, so he might as well go for the chance of stealing it at midfield.
posted by Etrigan at 7:18 PM on January 12, 2016


« Older "It is difficult to make predictions, especially...   |   215 Of The Best Longreads Of 2015 Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments