Baghdad Bill rides again.

Bill Hancock may blame the decline in the college football playoffs’ TV ratings at least partly on a “sophomore slump”, but the slump doesn’t extend to the most awesome part of the CFP.

There will again be six weeks of rankings during the season, the first on Nov. 1 and with the final poll coming out Dec. 4.

“That’s a good number,” said Hancock, noting the first ranking will be after the ninth week of the season and provide “plenty of games to evaluate.”

Hancock believes the CFP rankings have helped the regular season.

“I think we probably underestimated how much boost that would give to the regular season, as fans from around the country could now look around and see who they had to cheer for,” he said.

So you see, we were more excited about the chase to see which schools would be in the semi-finals than we were the semi-finals themselves.  Boy, don’t I feel foolish now for ever having thought the regular season risked being diminished by an extended postseason.

I wonder how long it takes for him to come up with some of the crap he says.


Filed under BCS/Playoffs, Blowing Smoke

17 responses to “Baghdad Bill rides again.

  1. How about the fact they are playing the games on New Year’s Eve rather than New Year’s Day?


    • Cosmic Dawg

      Nah, that couldn’t have anything to do with it.

      Personally I am still annoyed that some Star Chamber of famous people, some compromised and some with zero football cred, is choosing the playoff teams, even if they get it right.

      I find myself looking for excuses not to watch the playoffs.


      • I can’t stand the committee selection process. I watched the two playoff games and part of the championship game because I wanted to watch Alabama curb stomp an overmatched B1G team and to watch how well Deshaun Watson plays QB (and think about what might have been).


  2. Hancock gets it – fans are always more interested in The Process rather than the Product on the field. CFP fans all have an “inner” Saban.


  3. Macallanlover

    Hancock’s rabid defense of the BCS process costs him credibility but he is right about the current mini-playoff creating more excitement in CFB. You cannot deny the new involvement and interest of fans in games in other parts of the country due to the raised profile of the 4 team playoff. When we get the improvement of a spot for the 5 major conference champions, and at least one more for the next best qualified not in those conferences, it will be a system worthy of strong defense. As much as I would dislike the 2 byes required for a six team playoff, it is mandatory to include the 5 conference champions to validate it as a national championship.

    Hancock’s unwavering support is a mandate for the job, he has no choice but to defend the system until it is changed again by his boss/employer. I don’t blame him anymore than I do a lawyer defending a scummy criminal, or a PR guy spinning a story, you just have to realize being sincere isn’t a job requirement. I wouldn’t want those jobs personally but there are a lot of folks who do.


    • You cannot deny the new involvement and interest of fans in games in other parts of the country due to the raised profile of the 4 team playoff.

      Not being snarky here, Mac, but what’s your evidence for that? After all, that was some drop in the TV ratings for the semis.


      • Macallanlover

        My interpretation of that “increased interest” isn’t based on TV ratings for the semi games (didn’t even consider that, as several “non-process” factors involved there) but rather the amount of interest/research in programs that aren’t even in your favorite teams’ conference, or area. Total CFB nuts like me, and you, have always followed teams nationally, but interest in who gets the short straw, or who is “on the bubble” drives more fans now to watch games from other sections of the country.

        I have said many times that I listen to the college sports channel on satellite radio several hours each week. I notice many more informed conversations and debates by fans about schools they now have a new interest in directly because of the playoff. Sure, there was some under the BCS but this seems more intense, and over a longer period of time, with the expansion to four teams. I have not seen any actual data to support with facts but I am confident it is there. I feel more fans believe there is a better chance for their team, and it is more than just a doubling of two teams to four, imo. In the summer discussions there are, maybe, 30 programs who feel they have a legit shot. While that wanes over the next few weeks/months, it seems significantly more than it did in the BCS era and many of these fans stay engaged because of their earlier involvement. I don’t care for the six weeks of Committee voting and coverage, it does seem that sparks more interest than the convoluted polls and BCS computers formulas ever did.


        • Chi-town Dawg

          I understand what you’re saying Mac, but Hancock’s comments are directed specifically towards the TV ratings for the semi-final and championship games in the CFP, not the games played in the weeks leading up the CFP. Maybe TV ratings increase in the weeks after the rankings process begins, maybe they don’t, but there’s little doubt the rankings tanked big time last year and I find it hard to believe there’s any correlation to an extra week or two of the WWL weekly rankings show and higher viewing results for the CFP. The viewing results are more likely impacted by other factors that many people on this and other blogs have discussed to death. While I agree that he gets paid to espouse this bullshit, I have a hard time buying into his rational.


          • Macallanlover

            Yes, I was referring to the totality of the season’s interest, beginning in the summer. Bill is a good soldier.


    • sniffer

      Since we aren’t using facts, I don’t see any evidence that the playoffs have increased interest in college football. None. College football fans connect with programs, not win-loss records.


    • CB

      If you’re going to include all 5 conference champions then the conference championship games should be eliminated. That would never happen because they bring in a lot of money, but in actuality they are nothing but an arbitrary extra game, played between divisions and more often than not they include one participant that would have had not shot to make it into the game if they were a member of the other division.

      It would make a lot more sense to eliminate the ridicukous selection panel entirely and bring back the old BCS ranking system to select the top 6 or 8 teams that get into the playoff. 9 times out of ten a big five conference champion will be ranked in the top 6, but if they happen to not make it then they probably don’t deserve to be in the playoff anyway.


  4. Macallanlover

    Appreciate it is just an opinion but why would have to eliminate the conference championship games? They are the one CFB thing decided on the field and not subjective. I must be missing something in that rationale. And also, what is bad about a team earning their spot by winning their conference title game? Keeps teams focused and having something to play for both for them, and their fans. Works in all other NCAA sports.


  5. Nashville West

    Senator, don’t you mean “Baghdad Bob ?”