Short Corner
Footballguy
Nope. Just putting it out there that the most watched event on TV may not have been in the US.
Last edited by a moderator:
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Dan Patrick: NFL to add a Wildcard in each conference 2015 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter netnalp
- Start date
Long Ball Larry
Footballguy
B deep's point is still good, but for fun, here are some of the most internationally: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_watched_television_broadcasts
Claims that most worldwide figures are not that reliable, though.
Claims that most worldwide figures are not that reliable, though.
Short Corner
Footballguy
The Champion's League final dwarfs Super Bowl viewership every year. The ManU-RM game (round of 16) almost doubled the number of viewers that the SB had.
I assume you mean internationally? Who cares? The only tv ratings that matter to me are in the U.S. as that's where I live. I'm sure those over in Europe could give a rats #### about our TV ratings as well. Guess you'll be telling us hockey ratings are through the roof in Canada too.
Short Corner
Footballguy
I didn't make the claim that SB### was the most watched event in the history of TV. Just trying to keep things realistic. Try and keep up Skippy. You probably think Carl Lewis is the fastest man in the history of track and field too. Amirite?
MoveToSkypager
Footballguy
Short Corner
Footballguy
To be fair, the Uzbekis and the Canadians aren't falsely claiming that the Buzkashi and Hockey ratings are the highest in the history of television. Maybe they are making that claim and I am not aware of it. Have a link?
roadkill1292
Footballguy
All the major sports, in this country and overseas, are competing for billions of eyeballs on their products. The days of people only caring about what's happening on their particular patch are numbered.
fbelange
Footballguy
You are all ridiculous. Who cares about viewers? Leave that to the tv statisticians. ...they also might want to figure out what to do once the standard television as we know it will no longer exist in 15 years.. but that's another whole topic.
.... all I care about is the the NFL, and 14-team playoffs doesn't seem like the end of the world.
Last edited by a moderator:
MoveToSkypager
Footballguy
B-Deep
Footballguy
you pointing this out added a lot to the conversation
how will Japanese game show ratings impact nfl playoff expansion, in your opinion
MoveToSkypager
Footballguy
roadkill1292
Footballguy
You guys are real simpletons about this international stuff. Sorry to interrupt your football fapfest.
Short Corner
Footballguy
AMERICUH!!!!!roadkill1292 said:
#### YEAH!!
Short Corner
Footballguy
Feel free to go ahead and make a false absolute statement about it and I can point out how big of an idiot you are again.B-Deep said:
MoveToSkypager
Footballguy
OK. Why should I care about how well a soccer championship game does in TV broadcasting? I am not arguing, I want to learn.roadkill1292 said:
roadkill1292
Footballguy
Whenever a discussion veers to the topic of the NFL's awesome consumer power in this country, a little international perspective is a good thing. The globe is shrinking, like it or not, and it's healthy not to ignore everything that goes on "elsewhere." There's hardly any "elsewhere" left. We don't exist in a vacuum any more.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
No. 1 seeds that have won the NCAA Tourney
Arkansas (1994),
Connecticut (1999)
Duke (1992, 2001, 2010)
Florida (2007)
Georgetown (1984)
Indiana (1987)
Kansas (2008)
Kentucky (1996, 2012)
Maryland (2002)
Michigan St. (2000)
North Carolina (1982, 1993, 2005, 2009)
UCLA (1995)
UNLV (1990)
No. 2 seeds that have won the NCAA Tourney
Connecticut (2004)
Duke (1991)
Kentucky (1998)
Louisville (1980, 1986)
Michigan St. (1979)
No. 3 seeds that have won the NCAA Tourney
Connecticut (2011)
Florida (2006)
Indiana (1981)
Michigan (1989)
Syracuse (2003)
No. 4 seeds that have won the NCAA Tourney
Arizona (1997)
No. 5 seeds that have won the NCAA Tourney
N/A
No. 6 seeds that have won the NCAA Tourney
Kansas (1988)
North Carolina St. (1983)
No. 7 seeds that have won the NCAA Tourney
N/A
No. 8 seeds that have won the NCAA Tourney
Villanova (1985)
No. 9-16 seeds that have won the NCAA Tourney
N/A
Seems like the NCAA generally gets it right. Also by having the tourney it actually does lend some credence to the regular season, especially to the teams coming out of the "lesser" Conferences where a trip to the tourney is their reward for having a great season.
The early round upsets that you despise is what makes the tourney magical and fun - and in the end those cinderalla's end up losing eventually and the big boys are left to decide the champion.
Dentist
***Official FBG Dentist***
admittedly they do get a lot of #1 seeds into the final 4 and as the champion.
But look at the games that happen to get there... 1 vs. 16 nonsense... play in games that have no value.
And based on your graph no team lower than an 8 seed has won the tournament.. so we can pretty safely move it back to a 32 team tournament without denying ANYONE the opportunity to win the tournament and then do best of 3's and forgo the baloney.
MoveToSkypager
Footballguy
I understand your point, I think. I'm pretty sure the globe is not shrinking, but actually expanding though.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
You're denying teams from small conferences the chance to play in the tournament - which as I said is their reward for a great season. Some of those kids will get to say they played against Kansas, North Carolina, Kentucky, Syracuse for the rest of their lives. It's one of the good things about college sports imo.
Is there really anyone that doesn't like the first round of the NCAA tourney?
MoveToSkypager
Footballguy
Long Ball Larry
Footballguy
Of course not, but that doesn't make the NFL's ratings in this country irrelevant.
Short Corner
Footballguy
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
Dentist
***Official FBG Dentist***
It will make the NIT tournament significantly more meaningful.
A tournament shouldn't be about the things you are talking about.
A tournament should be designed to award the best team the title as often as is possible (no system is perfect, and nothing can fully account for injuries and stuff).
But here's the thing, the tournament still isn't about the things you are talking about - giving the little guy a chance... it's about money.
And for whatever reason all the fake college basketball fans that just fill out their bracket and show up in March to watch on TV get massive erections when a 14 seed beats a 3 seed because their 3 point shooter went 10/12 behind the line when he was crazy hot.
So the mass viewers find that kind of thing enjoyable, when in reality you've just denied a team that's worked very hard all year long to get a great seed in the tournament.. and for one, that 14 seed should be in the NIT, and for 2, it should be a best of 3 (at a minimum) because in any one basketball game anything can happen, and now you've compromised the tournament for all but the majority of viewers who prefer the upsets and carnage for the sake of their almighty bracket.
So the system won't change.. it'll get to 128 teams before they take my advice and do 16-32 teams. But make no mistake about it, it's not the best way to run a tournament, nor does it reward the best team as often as it should... but since Joe Bracket likes it and it draws viewers and money, that's the way it will be forever.
MoveToSkypager
Footballguy
I like the games at the surface, because I like watching college basketball. They'd be good for exhibition type games. I don't think the games should count towards determining the champ at the end of the year though, especially with a 1 game series.
CalBear
Footballguy
This is a value judgement. I personally don't think that's what tournaments are about at all. Tournaments are about putting the best teams into competition against each other, and seeing who comes out on top. They're about story lines and critical moments. Whether that team is the "best" by some subjective measure is really irrelevant. The long slog of the NBA and MLB playoffs are bad sport; too much irrelevant action, too many boring stretches of boring games.
If Butler's half-court shot went in against Duke, it would have been the greatest NCAA tournament ever.
John 14:6
Jesus is Lord!
Yeah,I understand how people can feel good for the little teams that pull upsets. but I feel bad for the higher seeds that also worked hard to get to that point, had a great season, and are finished because of one off night.
Short Corner
Footballguy
Sometimes those upsets occur because they actually played better on a particular night. You know, put in a good game plan and implemented it well thru practice, made fewer mistakes, exploited a flaw in the opponent and just executed better.
roadkill1292
Footballguy
Indeed, the NFL's iron grip on ratings/advertising dollars is nothing short of amazing, considering how potentially fragmented the sports advertising market could be in this country. They've sold us hook, line and sinker on a game that has 17 minutes of action during a 3-and-a-half hour broadcast and that nobody else even likes.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
No we didn't. They got a high seed in the tournament (3) but didn't hold up their end of the bargain.
And why are we denying the Sun Belt or the Mountain West Conference Champion, who pesumedly worked hard all season long as well their shot? Do we really know that the 8 place team in the ACC is better than the MAC champion, just because they have better name recognition?
Short Corner
Footballguy
It's closer to 7 than 17. Definitely under 10. Might change with more teams playing up tempo but it will never be over 10.
Long Ball Larry
Footballguy
Long Ball Larry
Footballguy
I thought it was 12.
WSJ said 11 a couple years ago: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748704281204575002852055561406
Last edited by a moderator:
Dentist
***Official FBG Dentist***
So if they can do it 2 out of 3 times, I'll accept they are a better team....
But, if
If the MLB had a 1 game tournament playoffs for a 162 game season it would be like taking a dump on the regular season and then lighting it on fire.
As it is... the 1 game wild card and 5 game 1st round is already a pretty firm face slap.
Same with the NBA... 82 regular season games and you want 1 game playoffs?
Dentist
***Official FBG Dentist***
i'd scrap the entire college B-ball system. It's stupid. Use the soccer concept.. Division I - best 32 teams Division I+ - next best 32 teams Division I++ - next best 32 teams.
You move up a division if you finish in the top 20%, you move down in a division if you finish in the bottom 20%
Those 32 teams each play each other 1 time, the top 8 make the championship tournament and they play best of 5's or 7's... whatever we can work out with the school schedules.
Then we'll really know who's best at all times... let's do the same with football but Best of 3's for obvious reasons.
The entire concept of conferences and there being 100+ teams in a league when half of them will never even consider competing for the top 25 is stupid.
Short Corner
Footballguy
You are comparing things that present different logistical problems.
With well over 100 teams, a 30 game season is going to do a less accurate job of determining who the top teams are than a league that with 30 teams and 160+ games or a 80+ games. Similarly, the NFL with 32 teams and 16 teams is less predictive than the other sports. For that reason alone, it makes sense to make the playoffs more inclusive. The size of the NCAA tournament and the physical nature of professional football pretty much rule out multi game encounters unless yo want to extend each season by a couple more months.
MLB, NHL, and NBA have enough games, and enough participants in the post season to ensure that the top teams are included, and the long series do what they can to reduce variance. The MLB one game wildcard actually puts more value on the regular season than the old one wc system. Teams are rewarded for winning the division and can't coast down the stretch just because they have the wc to fall back on.
CalBear
Footballguy
CalBear
Footballguy
College sports don't exist to let fans know who is best at all times. For that matter, neither do pro sports.
Dentist
***Official FBG Dentist***
well screw them then.
All i care about is a winner, a loser and who's the best... and make it as definitive as possible.
Chess has a definitive #1, Tennis has a definitive #1, the NBA has a definitive #1.
It's possible to do.
Otherwise let's at least build a computer program with some advanced metrics and at least run 10's of thousands of sims after seeing the regular season and use that to determine the champion.
CalBear
Footballguy
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
Dentist
***Official FBG Dentist***
