NCAA approves 3 year moratorium on new bowls

[I am I]

It's not for the players, it's not for the universities, it's not for the fans. It's for ESPN to make more money off of a live televised game that most fans will not watch anyway, but hey at least there will be some background noise for bars and resturaunts on an idle Tuesday.

And adding more bowls makes more boxl execs. Making more bowl execs makes more corruption etc etc.

I swore to myself not to reply to your posts anymore, but can you seriously not see the internal inconsistency in your own post here?

If it's only for ESPN, then ESPN would make no money on it and they would stop doing it. So, by the very fact that they profit off of it, we know it is indeed for the fans, who are the consumers in this case.

Just because you won't watch doesn't mean no one will watch.

As to the rest, if universities don't want to pay for bowl bonuses, write better contracts (i.e., linked to records) and/or contest the existing contracts. Poor administration decision are not a convincing reason to limit games.

Because like I said, if it's about "profitability" then a lot more than just the bowl games need to be cancelled.

ESPN is making a bunch of money off of it, what do you think I meant by ESPN is doing it for ESPN? What are you even talking about? ESPN isn't making bank off these extra bowls from the fans, they make it from the TV ratings and the advertising. You honestly think they are getting rich from the fans dedication? Lmao

What drives TV ratings?

This is becoming comical.

Trying to gift you the ability to see past your own ideals is impossible.
Say the 47th bowl on the schedule is played between 4-8 Wyoming and 5-7 Florida International. Sure, fans of both teams are going to watch. Thats. About. It. Plus if the game is on say ESPN2 at 3pm it will be airing for bars etc. to have on.

Where do you think the most money comes from in this scenario? Is it the fans of the teams watching on free TV or is it from the advertisers?

Exactly....
The only people seriously watching most of these bowls are the fans from these schools. However, they are still on in sports bars, restaurants...etc....which drives up some of the TV viewers that ESPN uses to sell advertising.

The advertiser doesn't give a flying rip if the school has 5 million fans or 5 thousand. If people are in public and the TV is on, they are going to see the ad even if they don't care about the game.

Also, I believe advertising for these games are in package deals. Let's say Bud Light wants to buy ads. They don't specify they want to be in the middle of the Wyoming Florida International game. They buy a package that gets them on for all games. ESPN would then go to them and say....hey....Now their's 47 games so your cost now is jumped to XYZ.

You're wrong on many accounts. How do you think they know it costs $3M to run a 30 sec ad during the super bowl? Because they buy those slots.

Also, I think you are grossly underestimating how many people there are in the United States that watch ESPN and other sports channels. There are millions and millions of eyes on the tube at any given moment. The advertisers pay to be on those channels.

For instance when my wife has some dumbass reality show, there are ads for tampons, baby products, make up lines and cleaning supplies. When I watch football games, there's ads for trucks, beer, shaving, and financial planning.

ESPN would rather air a college football game than some other meaningless re run or sport. Yes, the consumer pays for it because we buy the products on the tv. And we pay $$ for ESPN to be on our select cable plan. It's cost like $7 for ESPN to be on Comcast. It only costs like $1 for NATGEO to be on the cable programming. It all adds up, because YOU are not the only person in the world, there are millions and millions of people who watch, buy, gamble, etc on college football and every other of the 600 channels on TV.

ESPN wants the games

 

[Redux]

Why not?

Then what the hell is the point? Just add a 13th game to the regular season if more college football is the goal. If everyone goes bowling, really nobody does.

 

[cm husker]

Why not?

Then what the hell is the point? Just add a 13th game to the regular season if more college football is the goal. If everyone goes bowling, really nobody does.

The bolded made me roll my eyes. The "point" has already been explained.

For one thing, there are definitely different tiers of bowls. The upper tiers are almost completely unimpacted by how many games you have in the lower tiers.

For another, you can't really schedule that 13th game in an effective way before the season. It makes sense to have it scheduled after the season as a bowl.

I'm really having a hard time understanding why people don't want teams unrelated to them to get a bowl. How does that really hurt anyone? Perhaps we should eliminate the three point line from basketball too. It's destroying the "purity" of basketball.

The one bowl fix that I'd like to see is a consolidation of bowls over fewer days. I miss having the bulk of big bowls all fall on NY day. But, people were dying for their playoffs, and I understand the marketing strategy around spacing them out. Still, I always loved how you could devote an entire day to some great games.

 

[JJ Husker]

Hey, it's no hair off my a$$. I don't see the harm in too many bowl games. If an individual team isn't going to make enough money at it, and that is their determining factor, then I guess they can turn down the opportunity if they see fit. Sure many of the games are dogs but why should I care? I watch the top games, the 9ne Nebraska is in and many others if they have teams of interest to me. I don't give a rats a$$ about the rest of them. If they want to match up two teams flirting with .500 records, I really don't care. It's all about the money anyways. Schools have to be smart enough to not commit if the $$'s are going to be a problem for them.

 

[Redux]

You make me roll my eyes too, I explained my point and as usual you ignore any stance other than your own.

There is no tier system when looking at the bowls. There are bowls and the playoff, a casual viewer doesn't know the difference between the Peach Bowl and the Famous Idaho Potato Bowl.

Here is how you schedule a 13th game: Conference tie in agreements where you rank teams via conference standings. The 6th team in the Big Ten can play the 6th team in the ACC etc. Is it perfect? No, but it makes more sense than a university losing a million bucks going to the Poinsettia Bowl.

I'm pefectly happy for players in the lower tier programs getting bowls, has nothing to do with them. Doesn't effect me at all. Again, it just dillutes the whole bowl ideal.

Now, are you actually implying the playoff was a mistake?

 

[commando]

please no more bowls. i've seen enough dancing chickens already. I don't want to see what commercials would be run during the rocky mountain oyster bowl.

 

[Red Dead Redemption]

If everyone goes bowling, really nobody does.

 

[Redux]

Actually thought of that movie as an example, watched it the other day. Geeat film.

But it provides a truth. Bowls were once special, they aren't nearly as special anymore.

 

[Red Dead Redemption]

Actually thought of that movie as an example, watched it the other day. Geeat film.

But it provides a truth. Bowls were once special, they aren't nearly as special anymore.

I actually agree with this sentiment. The "traditional" bowl game has gone the way of white picket fences, phone booths, and blue USPS mailboxes.

The playoffs are good idea, but it comes with a price. We can't go back to bowl games meaning what they used to, so might as well accept it for what it is. It's all about the money now. Might as well grab a piece of the pie if you can. If somebody will pony up the money for a bowl game, let the teams go regardless of their record.

 

[Redux]

If we are gravitating toward everyone getting a bowl, the playoff needs to expand to at least 8 or 16. Then every 5-7 or worse team can have their glorious Tampax Bowl participation trophy and the top teams can actually be rewarded.

 

[Red Dead Redemption]

If we are gravitating toward everyone getting a bowl, the playoff needs to expand to at least 8 or 16. Then every 5-7 or worse team can have their glorious Tampax Bowl participation trophy and the top teams can actually be rewarded.

A bowl game where you pull the first string after a period so others can get in.

 

[Redux]

If we are gravitating toward everyone getting a bowl, the playoff needs to expand to at least 8 or 16. Then every 5-7 or worse team can have their glorious Tampax Bowl participation trophy and the top teams can actually be rewarded.

Yep. A bowl game is where you pull the first string so everyone can get in.

You are thinking of a blowout. In that case it should be the Depends Bowl.

 

[cm husker]

You make me roll my eyes too, I explained my point and as usual you ignore any stance other than your own.

There is no tier system when looking at the bowls. There are bowls and the playoff, a casual viewer doesn't know the difference between the Peach Bowl and the Famous Idaho Potato Bowl.

Here is how you schedule a 13th game: Conference tie in agreements where you rank teams via conference standings. The 6th team in the Big Ten can play the 6th team in the ACC etc. Is it perfect? No, but it makes more sense than a university losing a million bucks going to the Poinsettia Bowl.

I'm pefectly happy for players in the lower tier programs getting bowls, has nothing to do with them. Doesn't effect me at all. Again, it just dillutes the whole bowl ideal.

Now, are you actually implying the playoff was a mistake?

Again, I don't think that the net effect of bowls is lost money because they are getting a pay out from the overall point.

Anyway, I'm not ignoring your point. Just disagreeing with and pointing out flaws in it.

I think the playoff doesn't add much in the scheme of things, and certainly not much for players who now need to play 14/15 games a season.

When you have two undefeated P5 teams lose to a 2 loss team that got into the playoff, there will be plenty of controversy. It's why I don't think single game elimination playoffs are a great way to pick a champion. But I get it that it's what the fans (and ESPN) want, interests of student athletes be damned.

 

[cm husker]

If we are gravitating toward everyone getting a bowl, the playoff needs to expand to at least 8 or 16. Then every 5-7 or worse team can have their glorious Tampax Bowl participation trophy and the top teams can actually be rewarded.

Yikes. What a bizarre leap.

 

[Redux]

You are seriously using the argument that players have to play more games dur to the playoff AFTER you asked who more bowl games hurt? Well, I guess it hurts the player if you use that logic.

Were you a fan of the BCS??