Some of the current bowls will be going away. FBS also added 8 or 9 new members recently, which will create more bowl eligible teams

(05-24-2013 09:28 PM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote:  The NCAA better not approve all these new bowls (Detroit, Orlando, LA, Little Rock, AAC/SoFLA) unless some bowls go away.

Well the Detroit Bowl or whatever it's presently being billed, is a recreation of the Little Caesars Bowl at a higher profile and payout for an ACC/B1G affiliation.

There is a tipping point for the number of bowl games. I think we may be past that already. Lots of teams are already reporting losses from bowl games. If you only get 1/10 (or less) of the revenue due to conference sharing and you have to pay $500,000 to go to the game (10,000 tickets @$50), you need a payout of $5,000,000 just to cover the cost of the tickets. Plus there is cost of transporting the team and school big-wigs. There are only 4 bowls that currently pay enough for a team to actually make any money.

Bowls want/need teams to bring fans. The bowl is going to pick a 6-6 Clemson over a 9-3 Duke every time. Clemson will bring 10-20k fans where Duke would struggle to bring 5k.

(05-25-2013 05:31 AM)IceJus10 Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 09:28 PM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote:  The NCAA better not approve all these new bowls (Detroit, Orlando, LA, Little Rock, AAC/SoFLA) unless some bowls go away.

Well the Detroit Bowl or whatever it's presently being billed, is a recreation of the Little Caesars Bowl at a higher profile and payout for an ACC/B1G affiliation.

No. It's a 2nd bowl in Detroit. The LCB is a separate entity than what the Detroit Lions Bowl would be. The LCB is talking about moving, possibly to Comerica Park [right next door to Ford Field] or to Little Rock, AR or possibly somewhere else.

I'd be happy if the P5 would quit accepting bowl bids for seasons that result in the coach being fired. Obviously 6-6 at Ole Miss is different from 6-6 at Georgia.

There is an argument that there are too many bowls, so that must mean that TV ratings are way down, except they aren't and more importantly for the TV people, a low tier bowl will draw a bigger viewing audience than a top quality regular season basketball game.

Attendance was down this year but two big problems impact attendance. Teams disappointed and fans asked to travel too far.

Right now assignment is pretty rigid. So Arkansas State ends up in the same venue as the year before, a date that requires kids to miss the first day back from Christmas break. So fewer drove the 7 hours. The opponent, Kent State, had a 14 hour drive.

Some flexibility would help the system.

Then you have schools that consider selection in certain bowls a bust. Invite Bama to the Liberty or Independence this year and see how many Tide fans consider a bowl at 6-6 a reward. Shoot Florida last I saw had sold half its Sugar allotment because they didn't hit expectation, Ole Miss posts that record and goes to the Sugar this year and it'll be a scalper's delight. As I mentioned who eagerly buys a ticket that generally starts at $40 to travel hours to watch their team play when the season resulted in the coach being fired?

Give the bowls more flexibility and many of the poor attended games draw better.

(05-24-2013 09:46 PM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  I don't see a problem with there being "too many" bowls. Not every team, or program, can challenge for the top on a consistent, or even periodic, basis.

Bowl games benefit the schools and players, plus bring revenue to cities, stadiums, and TV networks.

There ARE too many bowls and most of them suck. Teams should be rewarded with a bowl for a good season, not have a bowl built in for them when they are only mediocre.

Bowl games only benefit the schools by allowing for extra practices and letting coaches brag on the recruiting trail that they go to a bowl every year. Most schools actually loose money by going to a bowl. Take a look at the stands at these lower bowls and you see thousands of empty seats. The cities aren't benefitting from increased tourism.

The bowls mainly benefit ESPN, who owns a good number of the bottom made for tv bowls. They provide cheap live sports programing during what is otherwise a dead period.

(05-24-2013 09:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 08:41 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  Too many bowls...I understand the Go5 conferences are trying to make some cash too, but this is getting out of control. Unless some of the current bowls disappear, there won't be enough bowl eligible teams.

I know a few bowl eligible teams sat home last year (including one 9-3 school). FBS is jumping from 120 schools to 126 schools over the next few years, so there is every expectation that enough bowl eligible teams should be produced. Even if there are not--a waiver for a few teams could be issued to fill in for a bowl or two in a pinch.

Problem is, nobody wants to see garbage teams in garbage bowls. As soon as the "Cure Bowl" matching C-USA and the Sun Belt draws 15,000 fans and a .01 TV rating, which will happen the first year the bowl is played, that bowl will go out of business.

Many bowls that feature P5 teams struggle to earn their keep via ticket sales and TV ratings, these G5 bowls are almost surely DOA.

(05-24-2013 08:41 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  Too many bowls...I understand the Go5 conferences are trying to make some cash too, but this is getting out of control. Unless some of the current bowls disappear, there won't be enough bowl eligible teams.

Its not about the money for most of the GO5 teams its about the exposure and extra 15 practices. It is unfair that a 6-7 AQ team goes to a bowl and an 8 or 10 win non-AQ team sits at home.

MAC bowls have less than a 450K payout which on the average means the bowls leave the school between 50K+ to 150K-

(05-25-2013 12:27 PM)mikeinsec127 Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 09:46 PM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  I don't see a problem with there being "too many" bowls. Not every team, or program, can challenge for the top on a consistent, or even periodic, basis.

Bowl games benefit the schools and players, plus bring revenue to cities, stadiums, and TV networks.

There ARE too many bowls and most of them suck. Teams should be rewarded with a bowl for a good season, not have a bowl built in for them when they are only mediocre.

Bowl games only benefit the schools by allowing for extra practices and letting coaches brag on the recruiting trail that they go to a bowl every year. Most schools actually loose money by going to a bowl. Take a look at the stands at these lower bowls and you see thousands of empty seats. The cities aren't benefitting from increased tourism.

The bowls mainly benefit ESPN, who owns a good number of the bottom made for tv bowls. They provide cheap live sports programing during what is otherwise a dead period.

I agree with you, Mike. This parade of mediocre bowl games does nothing both promote more of the same BS they do with children today. Everybody gets a trophy, even if they're in last place. That only demeans the process, and forcing schools to include a negative earning to attend the bowl is demeaning to the school and its fans. Why should they be forced to subsidize those bowls and ESPiN?

(05-25-2013 02:31 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(05-25-2013 12:27 PM)mikeinsec127 Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 09:46 PM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  I don't see a problem with there being "too many" bowls. Not every team, or program, can challenge for the top on a consistent, or even periodic, basis.

Bowl games benefit the schools and players, plus bring revenue to cities, stadiums, and TV networks.

There ARE too many bowls and most of them suck. Teams should be rewarded with a bowl for a good season, not have a bowl built in for them when they are only mediocre.

Bowl games only benefit the schools by allowing for extra practices and letting coaches brag on the recruiting trail that they go to a bowl every year. Most schools actually loose money by going to a bowl. Take a look at the stands at these lower bowls and you see thousands of empty seats. The cities aren't benefitting from increased tourism.

The bowls mainly benefit ESPN, who owns a good number of the bottom made for tv bowls. They provide cheap live sports programing during what is otherwise a dead period.

I agree with you, Mike. This parade of mediocre bowl games does nothing both promote more of the same BS they do with children today. Everybody gets a trophy, even if they're in last place. That only demeans the process, and forcing schools to include a negative earning to attend the bowl is demeaning to the school and its fans. Why should they be forced to subsidize those bowls and ESPiN?

First, I like watching all those mediocre bowls. I usually see almost all of them. It's just a part of the holiday season for me. If you don't like them, watch the Winter X Games or somesuch instead and let ESPN decide if showing the crap bowls is worth it or not.

Second, most schools, and certainly no P5 schools, ever "lose money" on the bowl games. E.g., even if an LSU has a down year and ends up in the low-payout Independence Bowl, then spends $500,000 dragging their band and 100 administrators to that bowl game, and has to eat $100,000 in unsold tickets, the SEC is still going to cut them a check for about $3 million as their share of all the pooled SEC bowl money, meaning they actually came out $2.4 million ahead. That, plus the exposure and extra practices makes these bowls a great deal for schools, not a lousy one.

(05-25-2013 01:55 PM)HuskieJohn Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 08:41 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  Too many bowls...I understand the Go5 conferences are trying to make some cash too, but this is getting out of control. Unless some of the current bowls disappear, there won't be enough bowl eligible teams.

Its not about the money for most of the GO5 teams its about the exposure and extra 15 practices. It is unfair that a 6-7 AQ team goes to a bowl and an 8 or 10 win non-AQ team sits at home.

MAC bowls have less than a 450K payout which on the average means the bowls leave the school between 50K+ to 150K-

Again, most conferences pool their bowl money. So it is silly when a newspaper article reports that "school X played in a bowl with a $1m payout but spent $1.2 million on the bowl, and thus lost $200,000".

To know whether they lost money or not, we need to know how much money they got from the pooled conference bowl money, not the payout of the bowl they played in.

(05-25-2013 02:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-25-2013 01:55 PM)HuskieJohn Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 08:41 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  Too many bowls...I understand the Go5 conferences are trying to make some cash too, but this is getting out of control. Unless some of the current bowls disappear, there won't be enough bowl eligible teams.

Its not about the money for most of the GO5 teams its about the exposure and extra 15 practices. It is unfair that a 6-7 AQ team goes to a bowl and an 8 or 10 win non-AQ team sits at home.

MAC bowls have less than a 450K payout which on the average means the bowls leave the school between 50K+ to 150K-

Again, most conferences pool their bowl money. So it is silly when a newspaper article reports that "school X played in a bowl with a $1m payout but spent $1.2 million on the bowl, and thus lost $200,000".

To know whether they lost money or not, we need to know how much money they got from the pooled conference bowl money, not the payout of the bowl they played in.

Virtually every non-BCS bowl is a money loser. Heck, many schools even lose money on BCS bowls. The only reason the money balances at the conference level is because the BCS shared funds offsets the loses. Otherwise, on bowl payouts alone, the conferences would almost never break even with thier expenses. The ticket allotments and hotel occupancy requirements are ussually the back breakers for the schools when it comes to trying to break even. Sometimes, the payout isnt even real. In some cases much of it comes in the form of free tickets that are worth only a small portion of thier face value.

I'm not sure how it'll work in the new bowls but for most of the existing bowls they will be either eliminating or drastically reducing the guaranteed # of tickets schools have to buy so hopefully losing money on bowls will be a thing of the past.

(05-25-2013 02:48 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-25-2013 02:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-25-2013 01:55 PM)HuskieJohn Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 08:41 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  Too many bowls...I understand the Go5 conferences are trying to make some cash too, but this is getting out of control. Unless some of the current bowls disappear, there won't be enough bowl eligible teams.

Its not about the money for most of the GO5 teams its about the exposure and extra 15 practices. It is unfair that a 6-7 AQ team goes to a bowl and an 8 or 10 win non-AQ team sits at home.

MAC bowls have less than a 450K payout which on the average means the bowls leave the school between 50K+ to 150K-

Again, most conferences pool their bowl money. So it is silly when a newspaper article reports that "school X played in a bowl with a $1m payout but spent $1.2 million on the bowl, and thus lost $200,000".

To know whether they lost money or not, we need to know how much money they got from the pooled conference bowl money, not the payout of the bowl they played in.

Virtually every non-BCS bowl is a money loser. Heck, many schools even lose money on BCS bowls. The only reason the money balances at the conference level is because the BCS shared funds offsets the loses. Otherwise, on bowl payouts alone, the conferences would almost never break even with thier expenses. The ticket allotments and hotel occupancy requirements are ussually the back breakers for the schools when it comes to trying to break even. Sometimes, the payout isnt even real. In some cases much of it comes in the form of free tickets that are worth only a small portion of thier face value.

(05-25-2013 02:48 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Virtually every non-BCS bowl is a money loser. Heck, many schools even lose money on BCS bowls. The only reason the money balances at the conference level is because the BCS shared funds offsets the loses. Otherwise, on bowl payouts alone, the conferences would almost never break even with thier expenses. The ticket allotments and hotel occupancy requirements are ussually the back breakers for the schools when it comes to trying to break even. Sometimes, the payout isnt even real. In some cases much of it comes in the form of free tickets that are worth only a small portion of thier face value.

Here's a good article detailing how the SEC distributes bowl revenue. Basically, the net result is that just about every SEC bowl participant ends up netting about $2 million in bowl profit, whether they play in the BCS title game or the BBVA compass bowl:

http://www.govolsxtra.com/news/2010/dec/...-the-same/

(05-25-2013 12:46 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 09:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 08:41 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  Too many bowls...I understand the Go5 conferences are trying to make some cash too, but this is getting out of control. Unless some of the current bowls disappear, there won't be enough bowl eligible teams.

I know a few bowl eligible teams sat home last year (including one 9-3 school). FBS is jumping from 120 schools to 126 schools over the next few years, so there is every expectation that enough bowl eligible teams should be produced. Even if there are not--a waiver for a few teams could be issued to fill in for a bowl or two in a pinch.

Problem is, nobody wants to see garbage teams in garbage bowls. As soon as the "Cure Bowl" matching C-USA and the Sun Belt draws 15,000 fans and a .01 TV rating, which will happen the first year the bowl is played, that bowl will go out of business.

Many bowls that feature P5 teams struggle to earn their keep via ticket sales and TV ratings, these G5 bowls are almost surely DOA.

Why would it do worse than the New Orleans Bowl, which matches Sun Belt vs CUSA, or GoDaddy bowl with Sun Belt vs MAC?

Until ESPN figures out how to make the FCS and Division II and III playoffs into TV product, filling up some airtime in December, bottom-feeding bowls are going to exist.

(05-25-2013 02:57 PM)woomba Wrote:  I'm not sure how it'll work in the new bowls but for most of the existing bowls they will be either eliminating or drastically reducing the guaranteed # of tickets schools have to buy so hopefully losing money on bowls will be a thing of the past.

(05-25-2013 02:48 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-25-2013 02:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-25-2013 01:55 PM)HuskieJohn Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 08:41 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  Too many bowls...I understand the Go5 conferences are trying to make some cash too, but this is getting out of control. Unless some of the current bowls disappear, there won't be enough bowl eligible teams.

Its not about the money for most of the GO5 teams its about the exposure and extra 15 practices. It is unfair that a 6-7 AQ team goes to a bowl and an 8 or 10 win non-AQ team sits at home.

MAC bowls have less than a 450K payout which on the average means the bowls leave the school between 50K+ to 150K-

Again, most conferences pool their bowl money. So it is silly when a newspaper article reports that "school X played in a bowl with a $1m payout but spent $1.2 million on the bowl, and thus lost $200,000".

To know whether they lost money or not, we need to know how much money they got from the pooled conference bowl money, not the payout of the bowl they played in.

Virtually every non-BCS bowl is a money loser. Heck, many schools even lose money on BCS bowls. The only reason the money balances at the conference level is because the BCS shared funds offsets the loses. Otherwise, on bowl payouts alone, the conferences would almost never break even with thier expenses. The ticket allotments and hotel occupancy requirements are ussually the back breakers for the schools when it comes to trying to break even. Sometimes, the payout isnt even real. In some cases much of it comes in the form of free tickets that are worth only a small portion of thier face value.

I know NIU came out a little ahead at the bowl in Boise, basically because they didn't have the ticket requirements. GoDaddy might be the same way, not sure.

The only problem with saying there are too many bowls is that if they get rid of bowls, chances are it will just mean more GO5 schools get left home with good records while 6-6 P5 teams still go bowling.

(05-25-2013 07:35 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  The only problem with saying there are too many bowls is that if they get rid of bowls, chances are it will just mean more GO5 schools get left home with good records while 6-6 P5 teams still go bowling.

Bowl games are exhibitions, not merit-based rewards. They're games motivated by people (bowl hosts, sponsors, ESPN) who are trying to make money. That's all it is. It's not a playoff.

I don't like seeing 6-6 teams in bowls, if it were up to me there would be half as many bowls.

But the ratings when two 6-6 or 7-5 teams from top conferences play are more than good enough to keep ESPN happy -- http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2013/01/...he-charts/ -- so those games are here to stay.

(05-25-2013 08:00 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-25-2013 07:35 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  The only problem with saying there are too many bowls is that if they get rid of bowls, chances are it will just mean more GO5 schools get left home with good records while 6-6 P5 teams still go bowling.

Bowl games are exhibitions, not merit-based rewards. They're games motivated by people (bowl hosts, sponsors, ESPN) who are trying to make money. That's all it is. It's not a playoff.

I don't like seeing 6-6 teams in bowls, if it were up to me there would be half as many bowls.

But the ratings when two 6-6 or 7-5 teams from top conferences play are more than good enough to keep ESPN happy -- http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2013/01/...he-charts/ -- so those games are here to stay.

A couple of observations.

First, one of the most important advantages to bowl participation is the extra practice time that schools that earn a bid get. I think schools will fight hard to keep qualification at 6-6.

Second, the addition of up to 10 FCS schools to FBS from 2012 to 2015 should provide sufficient participants for up to 5 more bowls.

Third, losing money results from sending too many folks to a low paying game, or accepting an invitation to a bowl with an unreasonable ticket purchasing obligation. The former problem is really a school decision, sometimes driven by factors beyond balancing the budget on the trip. The latter can be addressed by playing more bowls in sensibly sized stadiums.

Fourth, FS1 will likely be looking to pick up a few bowls and should have the budget to do so.

Finally, bowls get very good tv ratings. Lower tier bowls generally get better ratings that regular season games for MLB, the NBA and many other sports. Don't look for any momentum to reduce the number of bowls.

(05-25-2013 07:11 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-25-2013 12:46 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 09:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 08:41 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  Too many bowls...I understand the Go5 conferences are trying to make some cash too, but this is getting out of control. Unless some of the current bowls disappear, there won't be enough bowl eligible teams.

I know a few bowl eligible teams sat home last year (including one 9-3 school). FBS is jumping from 120 schools to 126 schools over the next few years, so there is every expectation that enough bowl eligible teams should be produced. Even if there are not--a waiver for a few teams could be issued to fill in for a bowl or two in a pinch.

Problem is, nobody wants to see garbage teams in garbage bowls. As soon as the "Cure Bowl" matching C-USA and the Sun Belt draws 15,000 fans and a .01 TV rating, which will happen the first year the bowl is played, that bowl will go out of business.

Many bowls that feature P5 teams struggle to earn their keep via ticket sales and TV ratings, these G5 bowls are almost surely DOA.

Why would it do worse than the New Orleans Bowl, which matches Sun Belt vs CUSA, or GoDaddy bowl with Sun Belt vs MAC?

Until ESPN figures out how to make the FCS and Division II and III playoffs into TV product, filling up some airtime in December, bottom-feeding bowls are going to exist.

Yes, but don't these bottom feeders seem to go out of business pretty frequently?

(05-24-2013 10:05 PM)Wedge Wrote:  If they add too many more bowls, the NCAA will just start allowing conferences to slide 5-7 teams into bowl slots whenever necessary to fill the conference's contracted bowls. And once those 5-7 bowl teams are allowed, bowls might even sign up the 10th or 11th choice from a 14-team conference. That would allow teams like 2012 Tennessee (1-7 in SEC games, 5-7 overall) to go bowling.

6 & 7 UCLA went last year. They were the champ of their division last year with USC sitting on the sidelines for their infractions with Reggie Bush.