Potential TV Ratings Play No Role Whatsoever

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

Where did people say it wasn’t a massive money oriented business?

Still, all these posts later, no one can tell me why a committee member would vote differently based on what ESPN might want

And really, that says it all

Because they're hired by a business, the CFP, which gains the vast majority of their revenue from doing business with ESPN.

If you own a business and you sell your product EXCLUSIVELY to another business, you will make decisions which don't piss off your only buyer, that is, the source of all your income.

This ain't rocket science. CFP isn't going to piss off ESPN too much.

 

[Power_Sweep_Vol]

Because they're hired by a business, the CFP, which gains the vast majority of their revenue from doing business with ESPN.

If you own a business and you sell your product EXCLUSIVELY to another business, you will make decisions which don't piss off your only buyer, that is, the source of all your income.

This ain't rocket science. CFP isn't going to piss off ESPN too much.

ESPN won’t be “pissed off” in the least if SMU gets in over Bama, and even if they were hypothetically, INDIVIDUAL COMMITTEE MEMBERS are the people that make the decisions and have no stake in the outcome either way…they couldn’t care less what ESPN thinks because it doesn’t affect them one bit…the individuals make the call on rankings so no matter what the entity of college football incorporated wants, only committee members make the call.

Still no one can answer:

If committee member X chooses teams ESPN would want, the benefit to committee member x would be ________

If committee member X doesn’t choose teams ESPN would want, the negative consequence to committee member X would be _______

Seems like those blanks would be easy to fill in for you but no one has been able to yet. Could you be the first? Lol

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

ESPN won’t be “pissed off” in the least if SMU gets in over Bama, and even if they were hypothetically, INDIVIDUAL COMMITTEE MEMBERS are the people that make the decisions and have no stake in the outcome either way…they couldn’t care less what ESPN thinks because it doesn’t affect them one bit…the individuals make the call on rankings so no matter what the entity of college football incorporated wants, only committee members make the call.

Still no one can answer:

If committee member X chooses teams ESPN would want, the benefit to committee member x would be ________

If committee member X doesn’t choose teams ESPN would want, the negative consequence to committee member X would be _______

Seems like those blanks would be easy to fill in for you but no one has been able to yet. Could you be the first? Lol

1. Better standing in the industry. Not an outcast for choosing a team which causes CFP and ESPN to make less money. More job offers in the future.

2. Less standing in the industry. You're a rogue, a guy who won't "play the game" to maximize profits for the industry. Less job offers in the future.

 

[Power_Sweep_Vol]

1. Better standing in the industry. Not an outcast for choosing a team which causes CFP and ESPN to make less money. More job offers in the future.

2. Less standing in the industry. You're a rogue, a guy who won't "play the game" to maximize profits for the industry. Less job offers in the future.

OK, at least you took a stab...you're the only one that has tried. It's wrong, but the attempt is the key.

How would anyone have any idea how they voted? Are you aware of how any individual committee voted on the most recent rankings?

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

OK, at least you took a stab...you're the only one that has tried. It's wrong, but the attempt is the key.

How would anyone have any idea how they voted? Are you aware of how any individual committee voted on the most recent rankings?

They're not anonymous nor is there any indication the voting is anonymous.

I don't know because I'm not in the industry! I'm retired now but I knew people who had the reputation as "not a team guy" and "someone who isn't ready to play ball with people" and such when I worked.

If you think the committee members aren't networked and are "sworn to secrecy" about the negotiations for the rankings and seeding, you're not thinking like a person in a business. Go rogue and it gets around.

C'mon, you can't be as naive as you seem to be.

 

[Power_Sweep_Vol]

They're not anonymous nor is there any indication the voting is anonymous.

I don't know because I'm not in the industry! I'm retired now but I knew people who had the reputation as "not a team guy" and "someone who isn't ready to play ball with people" and such when I worked.

If you think the committee members aren't networked and are "sworn to secrecy" about the negotiations for the rankings and seeding, you're not thinking like a person in a business. Go rogue and it gets around.

C'mon, you can't be as naive as you seem to be.

Do you know how anyone voted? Do you really think that having SMU at 10 and Bama at 11 is "going rogue"? "what do you think about X? Well...I know this, couple years ago he was on that committee and he had SMU ahead of Alabama". Please tell me you aren't that dense. Sweet jesus that is nuts

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

Do you know how anyone voted? Do you really think that having SMU at 10 and Bama at 11 is "going rogue"? "what do you think about X? Well...I know this, couple years ago he was on that committee and he had SMU ahead of Alabama". Please tell me you aren't that dense. Sweet jesus that is nuts

I'm certain no one can convince you how business works.

Good day.

 

[Power_Sweep_Vol]

I'm certain no one can convince you how business works.

Good day.

you REALLY think that would blackball someone? Voting SMU ahead of Bama? The idea is laughable on its face.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

you REALLY think that would blackball someone? Voting SMU ahead of Bama? The idea is laughable on its face.

Please. Do yourself a favor and read a book like "The 7 habits of highly effective people." Pay particular attention to the "win-win" and (paraphasing because it's been a minute) the "look at the long game.... see the end when you start" chapters.

Please. Just read about how people interact effectively in businesses. Thanks.

Now, seriously, I'm done trying to convince you how the world works. Good luck with your vision of things, which you're entitled to as I am to mine.

 

[Power_Sweep_Vol]

Please. Do yourself a favor and read a book like "The 7 habits of highly effective people." Pay particular attention to the "win-win" and (paraphasing because it's been a minute) the "look at the long game.... see the end when you start" chapters.

Please. Just read about how people interact effectively in businesses. Thanks.

Now, seriously, I'm done trying to convince you how the world works. Good luck with your vision of things, which you're entitled to as I am to mine.

Have read it, suggested it for all my salespeople, great book. Just answer the question, do you think that having an unfavored team above a "favored" team, is akin to "going rogue", such that someone's prospects for future opportunities, would be impacted down the road? If you do then you aren't very smart, because again, this idea is just laughable. Do you really believe this, or is there just no argument left and you can't admit you're wrong?

"this guy wouldn't play ball ya know...I was on the committee with him and he had an ACC bubble team ahead of an SEC bubble team". That's the best you got? Hoo boy...

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

Have read it, suggested it for all my salespeople, great book. Just answer the question, do you think that having an unfavored team above a "favored" team, is akin to "going rogue", such that someone's prospects for future opportunities, would be impacted down the road? If you do then you aren't very smart, because again, this idea is just laughable. Do you really believe this, or is there just no argument left and you can't admit you're wrong?

"this guy wouldn't play ball ya know...I was on the committee with him and he had an ACC bubble team ahead of an SEC bubble team". That's the best you got? Hoo boy...

As I said, good luck with your view that people hired by a business to make decisions for that business that sells its results to essentially one other business won't take into account what that other business wants when it offers a product.

If you really were or are in sales, you'd know that to be the case. It's not nefarious nor outlandish.

It's win-win and looking at your career decisions when you're favored to be on a committee like the CFP ranking committee.

Oddly, it's obvious to everyone else in this thread. Step back, stop being so argumentative, reflect on your own experiences in needing to make a decision and present it to a buyer...... you make it as attractive as possible, bend as much as you can to continue to be among their favorite sellers.

Do you totally sell out? No. Do you bend and compromise? Yes. That's all. Bend the bubble just a little to accept a team that's going to bring more eyeballs for ESPN.

Corrupt the whole process? No. Just compromise. That is the essence of sales.

 

[Power_Sweep_Vol]

As I said, good luck with your view that people hired by a business to make decisions for that business that sells its results to essentially one other business won't take into account what that other business wants when it offers a product.

If you really were or are in sales, you'd know that to be the case. It's not nefarious nor outlandish.

It's win-win and looking at your career decisions when you're favored to be on a committee like the CFP ranking committee.

Oddly, it's obvious to everyone else in this thread. Step back, stop being so argumentative, reflect on your own experiences in needing to make a decision and present it to a buyer...... you make it as attractive as possible, bend as much as you can to continue to be among their favorite sellers.

Do you totally sell out? No. Do you bend and compromise? Yes. That's all. Bend the bubble just a little to accept a team that's going to bring more eyeballs for ESPN.

Corrupt the whole process? No. Just compromise. That is the essence of sales.

again....I am asking a simple question and you can give a simple answer...most people in this thread aren't that smart and so I don't care what dumb people think you're not one of them but can you just answer this? You keep non-responding which is tiresome.

Do you REALLY believe this is legit?

"this guy wouldn't play ball ya know...I was on the committee with him and he had an ACC bubble team ahead of an SEC bubble team".

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

again....I am asking a simple question and you can give a simple answer...most people in this thread aren't that smart and so I don't care what dumb people think you're not one of them but can you just answer this? You keep non-responding which is tiresome.

Do you REALLY believe this is legit?

"this guy wouldn't play ball ya know...I was on the committee with him and he had an ACC bubble team ahead of an SEC bubble team".

Look, you're insulting and arrogant. Insisting anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. You're entitled to your opinion, you're entitled to be an ass in public, you're entitled to think you're superior.

You're not entitled to insist people answer your questions.

I've discussed this as reasonably as possible with you from a businessman's perspective. Take it or leave it. I've told you how I see it.

There's zero reason for your arrogant attitude in this discussion. Warren Buffett would tell you: if you are the smartest guy in the room, you're in the wrong room.

You're unprepared to listen to anyone so it doesn't matter who answers you nor how.

 

[Power_Sweep_Vol]

Look, you're insulting and arrogant. Insisting anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. You're entitled to your opinion, you're entitled to be an ass in public, you're entitled to think you're superior.

You're not entitled to insist people answer your questions.

I've discussed this as reasonably as possible with you from a businessman's perspective. Take it or leave it. I've told you how I see it.

There's zero reason for your arrogant attitude in this discussion. Warren Buffett would tell you: if you are the smartest guy in the room, you're in the wrong room.

You're unprepared to listen to anyone so it doesn't matter who answers you nor how.

I'm just pointing out what your argument means in reality...it sounds like it isn't plausible because it isn't. And you've been insisting i am wrong for 3 pages. Get over yourself.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

I'm just pointing out what your argument means in reality...it sounds like it isn't plausible because it isn't. And you've been insisting i am wrong for 3 pages. Get over yourself.

You're obviously not used to a businessman's goodbye.

I tried, several responses ago, to state that we disagree and you were entitled to your opinion like I am to mine. You continued to insist that yours is the only valid opinion. That's false.

As a businessman, I always tried to leave a failed situation with a "well, we couldn't work it out this time, but there's always the future where we might agree and do business."

You're not in that category. A few people need to be told, as politely as possible, you're impossible to do business with because you're far to arrogant and self absorbed to work with.

That's your category. You think everyone else is dumb and you're smart. You're not willing to even be civil about it in the end. Good luck with that strategy but I'm not interested.

 

[Delmar]

Look, you're insulting and arrogant. Insisting anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. You're entitled to your opinion, you're entitled to be an ass in public, you're entitled to think you're superior.

You're not entitled to insist people answer your questions.

I've discussed this as reasonably as possible with you from a businessman's perspective. Take it or leave it. I've told you how I see it.

There's zero reason for your arrogant attitude in this discussion. Warren Buffett would tell you: if you are the smartest guy in the room, you're in the wrong room.

You're unprepared to listen to anyone so it doesn't matter who answers you nor how.

99% of the posters on this thread have disagreed with him and he still hasn’t gotten the message. That tells me all I need to know and I agree with you. It just isn’t worth the time to discuss it.

 

[FBtime]

Well if the committee was focused on ratings they definitely would have put Bama in over SMU

 

[KTrain]

I keep seeing this over and over and if you're someone who believes this you are misinformed. The committee deliberates each week and comes to a consensus about where all the teams should be ranked and puts the teams in order. No more no less. I mean, think about it, why the heck would Gary Pinkel care about what the TV ratings are? It makes no sense and really, it a dumb argument.

Would the broadcast partners care about TV ratings? Obviously, ESPN cares about this aspect but they have no seat at the table.

Please quit making this argument...it makes no sense. And if you disagree, just tell me why a committee member might care about ratings?

1 answer is they put the only truly closely matched teams UT/OSU on the prime highest ad$$$ time game. This is a money maker game and TV wanted more like this is why big changes are coming and maybe 16 teams.

 

[ntxVOL]

Well if the committee was focused on ratings they definitely would have put Bama in over SMU

This is true but the committee can't focus entirely on ratings. They have to maintain some semblance of fairness as well...it's a balancing act.

After leaving out FSU last year, they couldn't snub the ACC again. So, I don't think they had any other choice but to choose SMU over Bama.

 

[Delmar]

This is true but the committee can't focus entirely on ratings. They have to maintain some semblance of fairness as well...it's a balancing act.

After leaving out FSU last year, they couldn't snub the ACC again. So, I don't think they had any other choice but to choose SMU over Bama.

Agreed. Under normal conditions, you can bet that ratings come into play. (Saw a story that said 16 teams account for 65% of the revenue generated and the other story posted showed 8 of the top 10 to be from the SEC.) But the current deal is anything but normal. There were certain aspects that were agreed to in order to get everybody to the table and the committee was hamstrung by that agreement. No other way to explain an agreement that gives Boise and ASU byes. I also think they absolutely did not want to devalue the conference championship game and that overrode everything when it came to SMU.

Hard to get too excited since this deal only runs through next season. I am certain as I sit here that there will be changes for 2026.

 

[FBtime]

This is true but the committee can't focus entirely on ratings. They have to maintain some semblance of fairness as well...it's a balancing act.

After leaving out FSU last year, they couldn't snub the ACC again. So, I don't think they had any other choice but to choose SMU over Bama.

lol...come on man. You think they really thought about FSU last year in choosing SMU this year?? Everyone thought leaving FSU out last year was the right call. Don't think SMU being in had anything to do with FSU being left out last year.

 

[ntxVOL]

lol...come on man. You think they really thought about FSU last year in choosing SMU this year?? Everyone thought leaving FSU out last year was the right call. Don't think SMU being in had anything to do with FSU being left out last year.

A lot of factors for the committee to consider and you're wrong about how people felt about the FSU snub. The committee caught a lot of bad press from a lot of talking heads for a long time for that.

 

[BowlBrother85]

I keep seeing this over and over and if you're someone who believes this you are misinformed. The committee deliberates each week and comes to a consensus about where all the teams should be ranked and puts the teams in order. No more no less. I mean, think about it, why the heck would Gary Pinkel care about what the TV ratings are? It makes no sense and really, it a dumb argument.

Would the broadcast partners care about TV ratings? Obviously, ESPN cares about this aspect but they have no seat at the table.

Please quit making this argument...it makes no sense. And if you disagree, just tell me why a committee member might care about ratings?

The NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament Selection Committee cares about the public appeal and the intrigue of their matchups. Over the years, their various chairmen have even said as much. I'm not sure why the football playoff committee would be any different.

 

[Stoerner Fumbles]

I keep seeing this over and over and if you're someone who believes this you are misinformed. The committee deliberates each week and comes to a consensus about where all the teams should be ranked and puts the teams in order. No more no less. I mean, think about it, why the heck would Gary Pinkel care about what the TV ratings are? It makes no sense and really, it a dumb argument.

Would the broadcast partners care about TV ratings? Obviously, ESPN cares about this aspect but they have no seat at the table.

Please quit making this argument...it makes no sense. And if you disagree, just tell me why a committee member might care about ratings?

Why do you exist?

 

[OneVolNation]

This year, Michigan's 5.2 million viewers are good for 6th in TV ratings, and Alabama's 6.6 million viewers rank 3rd in TV ratings.
(They just happen to be facing each other in a bowl and that's a match made in ratings heaven.)
The other 4 of the top 5 in TV ratings made the playoff.