No, it's just one of many problems the current bowl structure enables.Am I supposed to be mad about FAU losing money? Seems like their problem.
With overall conference payouts, the teams don't actually lose money even if their individual bowl payout appears to be a loss on paper. At least that's my understanding. But I'll need to verify.Am I supposed to be mad about FAU losing money? Seems like their problem.
Pretty sure the NCAA doesn't get much money from the bowls. There biggest money-maker is the TV rights for the NCAA basketball tournament. They may bet a little from the bowls but it's a pretty small amount.I agree with whoever said that this was designed to help the NCAA monetairly. Limiting the bowls increases the size of the piece of pie each team gets for each bowl. More bowls does not make the pie bigger. It's a supply and demand thing - if they can limit the number of new bowls for 3 years, they can drive up the price per bowl. Whether or not that benefits the team or the NCAA more, I'm not sure. My guess is that it benefits the NCAA but I don't know.
This is true. It's not a money thing, at least not directly. It may be a branding thing as much as anythingPretty sure the NCAA doesn't get much money from the bowls. There biggest money-maker is the TV rights for the NCAA basketball tournament. They may bet a little from the bowls but it's a pretty small amount.I agree with whoever said that this was designed to help the NCAA monetairly. Limiting the bowls increases the size of the piece of pie each team gets for each bowl. More bowls does not make the pie bigger. It's a supply and demand thing - if they can limit the number of new bowls for 3 years, they can drive up the price per bowl. Whether or not that benefits the team or the NCAA more, I'm not sure. My guess is that it benefits the NCAA but I don't know.
Can you seriously not see the internal inconsistency in your own post here?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.
You may be right about the licensing stuff.. I'm not sure. My understanding is that those fees went to the schools and that the NCAA didn't make money off of it. I've read stories similar to what Mavric cited, which indicated that NCAA basketball is where they make their nut (don't get me started on how that has screwed players over who could otherwise being the NBA making their own money).The reason anyone makes ridiculous amounts of money on collegiate sports is because they don't have to pay their talent. I don't know how the mechanism would work, but jesus 490,000 to run the cottonbowl?
And I disagree with the assertion that the NCAA doesn't profit off the bowls. While the basketball tournament is their money maker, advertisers still have to pay the ncaa to the the "officially licensed ..." for the bowl games. Limiting the number of games decreases the amount of advertising spots which artificially limits the supply and increases the demand - am I the only one that sees this?
Don't respond to me then. Way to break your promise to yourself....jerk.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?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.
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.
What drives TV ratings?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? LmaoI swore to myself not to reply to your posts anymore, but can you seriously not see the internal inconsistency in your own post here?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.
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.