(04-04-2015 10:56 AM)HeadsetGuy Wrote:  An angle that gets missed in all of this discussion...who wants (and needs) these bowl games?...Sports Networks need programming; especially live programming which is more lucrative to advertisers in this Tivo era...two 6-6 teams on Dec 19 will out draw 95% of any other programming on a channel that day...Fox and CBS are in chase mode of ESPN and when ASN and NBC start to fill out programming hours, there may be more games to come...the same argument could be said of pre-season MBB tourneys on TV, the CBI and CIT, spring football games televised and midnight madness coverage...if you think the days of 8-14 bowl games is better, TV$ says much different things

(04-04-2015 11:09 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 10:56 AM)HeadsetGuy Wrote:  An angle that gets missed in all of this discussion...who wants (and needs) these bowl games?...Sports Networks need programming; especially live programming which is more lucrative to advertisers in this Tivo era...two 6-6 teams on Dec 19 will out draw 95% of any other programming on a channel that day...Fox and CBS are in chase mode of ESPN and when ASN and NBC start to fill out programming hours, there may be more games to come...the same argument could be said of pre-season MBB tourneys on TV, the CBI and CIT, spring football games televised and midnight madness coverage...if you think the days of 8-14 bowl games is better, TV$ says much different things

so you are a proponent of saturation?

ummmmmkay, that's meaningful

it's always about dollars....

dollars doesn't equate to satisfactory viewing in my world....

I have no choice, but to roll with it....

....doesn't mean I have to like it....

(04-04-2015 11:09 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 10:56 AM)HeadsetGuy Wrote:  An angle that gets missed in all of this discussion...who wants (and needs) these bowl games?...Sports Networks need programming; especially live programming which is more lucrative to advertisers in this Tivo era...two 6-6 teams on Dec 19 will out draw 95% of any other programming on a channel that day...Fox and CBS are in chase mode of ESPN and when ASN and NBC start to fill out programming hours, there may be more games to come...the same argument could be said of pre-season MBB tourneys on TV, the CBI and CIT, spring football games televised and midnight madness coverage...if you think the days of 8-14 bowl games is better, TV$ says much different things

so you are a proponent of saturation?

ummmmmkay, that's meaningful

it's always about dollars....

dollars doesn't equate to satisfactory viewing in my world....

I have no choice, but to roll with it....

....doesn't mean I have to like it....

Quote:March Madness is huge, right? This year, the multiweek extravaganza has had its usual share of upsets, an exhilarated coach falling off his rolling chair after a victory and the presence of a dominant Kentucky team. Nearly 11.6 million brackets were submitted to ESPN.com’s annual contest. So what in college sports could be a bigger fan draw than the N.C.A.A. men’s basketball tournament?

How about a bunch of bowl games? Yes, college football bowl games — nearly all of which had no meaning other than providing athletes with a postseason experience.

It is an imperfect comparison: a tournament with a natural direction of 68 teams reduced to a final pairing versus a bowl system that only this year introduced a four-team playoff to decide a national champion — the only instance in the history of bowl games when a winner advanced to the next level.

So it is worth noting that none of the 38 bowl games carried by the ESPN empire last season had fewer viewers than the 1.1 million who tuned in for the inaugural Camellia Bowl from Montgomery, Ala., while nine early-round N.C.A.A. tournament matchups generated audiences below that figure — Texas Southern-Arizona, a TNT telecast, was ranked last at 501,000 — based on the available data from 40 of the 48 games played before Thursday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/27/sports/ncaabasketball/meaningless-bowls-eclipse-very-meaningful-basketball-games-at-least-in-viewership.html?_r=1

(04-04-2015 11:28 AM)USMSTUD Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 11:09 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 10:56 AM)HeadsetGuy Wrote:  An angle that gets missed in all of this discussion...who wants (and needs) these bowl games?...Sports Networks need programming; especially live programming which is more lucrative to advertisers in this Tivo era...two 6-6 teams on Dec 19 will out draw 95% of any other programming on a channel that day...Fox and CBS are in chase mode of ESPN and when ASN and NBC start to fill out programming hours, there may be more games to come...the same argument could be said of pre-season MBB tourneys on TV, the CBI and CIT, spring football games televised and midnight madness coverage...if you think the days of 8-14 bowl games is better, TV$ says much different things

so you are a proponent of saturation?

ummmmmkay, that's meaningful

it's always about dollars....

dollars doesn't equate to satisfactory viewing in my world....

I have no choice, but to roll with it....

....doesn't mean I have to like it....

The only people that like all these bowl games are TV networks, coaches that get bonuses for making a bowl, and fat cats on the bowl committee getting a check.

(04-04-2015 01:13 PM)CoachMaclid Wrote:  All bowl games set collective viewing records this year. Even though "people" complain about the increasing number of "meaningless" game, more people are watching than ever.

So really, what's the real harm here? Student athletes get an experience, local economies get a bounce, TV gets their live programming, more fans get an extra game, and no one is mistaking the Rose and Sugar Bowls for the GoDaddy or Miami Beach Bowl.

(04-04-2015 01:31 PM)Superanjario Wrote:  If you don't like them, don't watch them.

I love them. Glad there are more.

College football is already scarce. A few more bowl games won't change that.

If you worry about saturation, I buy it regarding the NFL (woefully overexposed), but I don't think college football is even close.

(04-04-2015 01:24 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 01:13 PM)CoachMaclid Wrote:  All bowl games set collective viewing records this year. Even though "people" complain about the increasing number of "meaningless" game, more people are watching than ever.

So really, what's the real harm here? Student athletes get an experience, local economies get a bounce, TV gets their live programming, more fans get an extra game, and no one is mistaking the Rose and Sugar Bowls for the GoDaddy or Miami Beach Bowl.

Short term, no problem. Long term may be big problem. Scarcity creates demand. Saturation kills it. It's shaping up to be to much of a good thing and eventually the fans will tire of meaningless games. Not just football, but all sports.

(04-04-2015 05:32 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 01:24 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 01:13 PM)CoachMaclid Wrote:  All bowl games set collective viewing records this year. Even though "people" complain about the increasing number of "meaningless" game, more people are watching than ever.

So really, what's the real harm here? Student athletes get an experience, local economies get a bounce, TV gets their live programming, more fans get an extra game, and no one is mistaking the Rose and Sugar Bowls for the GoDaddy or Miami Beach Bowl.

Short term, no problem. Long term may be big problem. Scarcity creates demand. Saturation kills it. It's shaping up to be to much of a good thing and eventually the fans will tire of meaningless games. Not just football, but all sports.

Actually the saturation is a good thing for the schools. Obviously, it allows them to make a bowl more often. But is also changes the dynamic. It used to be conferences were chasing the bowls and the bowls had all the power. Now, with so many bowls out there, the bowls now have to chase the conferences. That allows the conferences to negotiate more favorable terms for its members when they attend so fewer teams lose money on these trips.