One reason why I don't see the playoffs expanding past 4 teams any time soon. The Bowl system is a money maker.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...s-too-much

(05-09-2014 12:15 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  One reason why I don't see the playoffs expanding past 4 teams any time soon. The Bowl system is a money maker.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...s-too-much

Yes, but who gets the money? Other than the CFP Bowls, the teams don't make any money playing in bowls--they generally lose money. On the other hand, the bowls are slurping up the cash. As of today, the AAC owns the Miami Beaxh Bowl and CUSA owns the Bahamas Bowl. I think conference owned bowls will be the new wave.

There is little reason for the conference teams to be fleeced so the fat cats at the Hefty Bag Bowl can pocket a couple of million dollars. My guess is that the low value bowls will slowly die out as conferences replace them with owned-and-operated conference run bowls. The bowls committees that run the bowls are just middle men---relics of the past. The bowls need the conferences---but do the conferences really need the committees? The conferences run and plan championship games every year. These are basically bowls. The conferences can run their own bowls and create a much stronger stream of revenue. The existing G5 bowls are especially vulnerable to this tactic since they have little name value anyway--replaceing them with new conference owned bowls wouldn't be sacrificing much in terms of name value and tradition. It's not like losing the Rose Bowl...

(05-09-2014 03:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-09-2014 12:15 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  One reason why I don't see the playoffs expanding past 4 teams any time soon. The Bowl system is a money maker.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...s-too-much

Yes, but who gets the money? Other than the CFP Bowls, the teams don't make any money playing in bowls--they generally lose money. On the other hand, the bowls are slurping up the cash. As of today, the AAC owns the Miami Beaxh Bowl and CUSA owns the Bahamas Bowl. I think conference owned bowls will be the new wave.

There is little reason for the conference teams to be fleeced so the fat cats at the Hefty Bag Bowl can pocket a couple of million dollars. My guess is that the low value bowls will slowly die out as conferences replace them with owned-and-operated conference run bowls. The bowls committees that run the bowls are just middle men---relics of the past. The bowls need the conferences---but do the conferences really need the committees? The conferences run and plan championship games every year. These are basically bowls. The conferences can run their own bowls and create a much stronger stream of revenue. The existing G5 bowls are especially vulnerable to this tactic since they have little name value anyway--replaceing them with new conference owned bowls wouldn't be sacrificing much in terms of name value and tradition. It's not like losing the Rose Bowl...

I'm going to disagree even though I fully agree that the conference ownership model makes the best sense for a number of reasons, as long as the league can afford to put a permanent staff on the ground and work within the community to develop a volunteer base (remember most bowl overhead is held down by an extensive staff of volunteers).

I think the more likely model is already before us in the form of network or marketing group ownership and/or operating agreements.

ESPN, Fox, IMG, Gazelle have the expertise to pursue sponsors, put together ticket sales campaigns, and in the case of the first two, a guaranteed outlet for TV production.

(05-09-2014 04:07 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-09-2014 03:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-09-2014 12:15 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  One reason why I don't see the playoffs expanding past 4 teams any time soon. The Bowl system is a money maker.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...s-too-much

Yes, but who gets the money? Other than the CFP Bowls, the teams don't make any money playing in bowls--they generally lose money. On the other hand, the bowls are slurping up the cash. As of today, the AAC owns the Miami Beaxh Bowl and CUSA owns the Bahamas Bowl. I think conference owned bowls will be the new wave.

There is little reason for the conference teams to be fleeced so the fat cats at the Hefty Bag Bowl can pocket a couple of million dollars. My guess is that the low value bowls will slowly die out as conferences replace them with owned-and-operated conference run bowls. The bowls committees that run the bowls are just middle men---relics of the past. The bowls need the conferences---but do the conferences really need the committees? The conferences run and plan championship games every year. These are basically bowls. The conferences can run their own bowls and create a much stronger stream of revenue. The existing G5 bowls are especially vulnerable to this tactic since they have little name value anyway--replaceing them with new conference owned bowls wouldn't be sacrificing much in terms of name value and tradition. It's not like losing the Rose Bowl...

I'm going to disagree even though I fully agree that the conference ownership model makes the best sense for a number of reasons, as long as the league can afford to put a permanent staff on the ground and work within the community to develop a volunteer base (remember most bowl overhead is held down by an extensive staff of volunteers).

I think the more likely model is already before us in the form of network or marketing group ownership and/or operating agreements.

ESPN, Fox, IMG, Gazelle have the expertise to pursue sponsors, put together ticket sales campaigns, and in the case of the first two, a guaranteed outlet for TV production.

This is an opportunity for networks like NBC and Fox. Its strange to me that neither network appeared to be active in this area when all these bowl possibilities were floating around.

(05-09-2014 04:11 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-09-2014 04:07 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-09-2014 03:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-09-2014 12:15 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  One reason why I don't see the playoffs expanding past 4 teams any time soon. The Bowl system is a money maker.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...s-too-much

Yes, but who gets the money? Other than the CFP Bowls, the teams don't make any money playing in bowls--they generally lose money. On the other hand, the bowls are slurping up the cash. As of today, the AAC owns the Miami Beaxh Bowl and CUSA owns the Bahamas Bowl. I think conference owned bowls will be the new wave.

There is little reason for the conference teams to be fleeced so the fat cats at the Hefty Bag Bowl can pocket a couple of million dollars. My guess is that the low value bowls will slowly die out as conferences replace them with owned-and-operated conference run bowls. The bowls committees that run the bowls are just middle men---relics of the past. The bowls need the conferences---but do the conferences really need the committees? The conferences run and plan championship games every year. These are basically bowls. The conferences can run their own bowls and create a much stronger stream of revenue. The existing G5 bowls are especially vulnerable to this tactic since they have little name value anyway--replaceing them with new conference owned bowls wouldn't be sacrificing much in terms of name value and tradition. It's not like losing the Rose Bowl...

I'm going to disagree even though I fully agree that the conference ownership model makes the best sense for a number of reasons, as long as the league can afford to put a permanent staff on the ground and work within the community to develop a volunteer base (remember most bowl overhead is held down by an extensive staff of volunteers).

I think the more likely model is already before us in the form of network or marketing group ownership and/or operating agreements.

ESPN, Fox, IMG, Gazelle have the expertise to pursue sponsors, put together ticket sales campaigns, and in the case of the first two, a guaranteed outlet for TV production.

This is an opportunity for networks like NBC and Fox. Its strange to me that neither network appeared to be active in this area when all these bowl possibilities were floating around.

From the article
Fox COO Larry Jones famously pleaded with those FBA execs at last year's meeting. It was guerilla marketing at its best.

It also failed, at least for the near term.

(05-09-2014 12:15 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  One reason why I don't see the playoffs expanding past 4 teams any time soon. The Bowl system is a money maker.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...s-too-much

Faulty logic? The playoffs make more money than all the bowls combined, no?

(05-09-2014 04:32 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-09-2014 04:11 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-09-2014 04:07 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-09-2014 03:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-09-2014 12:15 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  One reason why I don't see the playoffs expanding past 4 teams any time soon. The Bowl system is a money maker.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...s-too-much

Yes, but who gets the money? Other than the CFP Bowls, the teams don't make any money playing in bowls--they generally lose money. On the other hand, the bowls are slurping up the cash. As of today, the AAC owns the Miami Beaxh Bowl and CUSA owns the Bahamas Bowl. I think conference owned bowls will be the new wave.

There is little reason for the conference teams to be fleeced so the fat cats at the Hefty Bag Bowl can pocket a couple of million dollars. My guess is that the low value bowls will slowly die out as conferences replace them with owned-and-operated conference run bowls. The bowls committees that run the bowls are just middle men---relics of the past. The bowls need the conferences---but do the conferences really need the committees? The conferences run and plan championship games every year. These are basically bowls. The conferences can run their own bowls and create a much stronger stream of revenue. The existing G5 bowls are especially vulnerable to this tactic since they have little name value anyway--replaceing them with new conference owned bowls wouldn't be sacrificing much in terms of name value and tradition. It's not like losing the Rose Bowl...

I'm going to disagree even though I fully agree that the conference ownership model makes the best sense for a number of reasons, as long as the league can afford to put a permanent staff on the ground and work within the community to develop a volunteer base (remember most bowl overhead is held down by an extensive staff of volunteers).

I think the more likely model is already before us in the form of network or marketing group ownership and/or operating agreements.

ESPN, Fox, IMG, Gazelle have the expertise to pursue sponsors, put together ticket sales campaigns, and in the case of the first two, a guaranteed outlet for TV production.

This is an opportunity for networks like NBC and Fox. Its strange to me that neither network appeared to be active in this area when all these bowl possibilities were floating around.

From the article
Fox COO Larry Jones famously pleaded with those FBA execs at last year's meeting. It was guerilla marketing at its best.

It also failed, at least for the near term.

Im talking about the 5 new bowls---none of which were at that meeting last year as they didn't exist. Hell, the Cure Bowl couldn't start this year because they don't have TV contract yet.

(05-09-2014 03:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The bowls need the conferences---but do the conferences really need the committees? The conferences run and plan championship games every year. These are basically bowls. The conferences can run their own bowls and create a much stronger stream of revenue. The existing G5 bowls are especially vulnerable to this tactic since they have little name value anyway--replaceing them with new conference owned bowls wouldn't be sacrificing much in terms of name value and tradition. It's not like losing the Rose Bowl...

The bowl committees are on borrowed time, but it doesn't look like the G5 conferences will be replacing them. ESPN Regional Television is already taking that role, and will probably continue to gradually expand their bottom-tier bowl inventory as individual bowls flounder.

AAC owns the MIami Beach Bowl, and CUSA owns the Bahamas Bowl, but CUSA handed over the HEart of Dallas Bowl. The new bowl at FIU is an ESPN-owned bowl, and the "Cure Bowl" seems to be starting up at the Citrus Bowl and not at UCF's stadium.

It makes sense to you, it makes sense to me. But if what you're saying were true, you'd have expected the AAC and CUSA to cut a deal to support each other's bowls, one at Houston Cougar Stadium, one at UCF and one at FIU. Maybe not those details, but something along those lines. That didn't happen, and nothing along those lines happened. The MAC and Sun Belt were talking about starting a bowl together, and instead we've got the MAC and Sun Belt playing in ESPN-owned bowls. That indicates there's a factor we're not considering.

(05-09-2014 06:49 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-09-2014 03:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The bowls need the conferences---but do the conferences really need the committees? The conferences run and plan championship games every year. These are basically bowls. The conferences can run their own bowls and create a much stronger stream of revenue. The existing G5 bowls are especially vulnerable to this tactic since they have little name value anyway--replaceing them with new conference owned bowls wouldn't be sacrificing much in terms of name value and tradition. It's not like losing the Rose Bowl...

The bowl committees are on borrowed time, but it doesn't look like the G5 conferences will be replacing them. ESPN Regional Television is already taking that role, and will probably continue to gradually expand their bottom-tier bowl inventory as individual bowls flounder.

AAC owns the MIami Beach Bowl, and CUSA owns the Bahamas Bowl, but CUSA handed over the HEart of Dallas Bowl. The new bowl at FIU is an ESPN-owned bowl, and the "Cure Bowl" seems to be starting up at the Citrus Bowl and not at UCF's stadium.

It makes sense to you, it makes sense to me. But if what you're saying were true, you'd have expected the AAC and CUSA to cut a deal to support each other's bowls, one at Houston Cougar Stadium, one at UCF and one at FIU. Maybe not those details, but something along those lines. That didn't happen, and nothing along those lines happened. The MAC and Sun Belt were talking about starting a bowl together, and instead we've got the MAC and Sun Belt playing in ESPN-owned bowls. That indicates there's a factor we're not considering.

Depends on the concept behind the bowl. The AAC's Miami Bowl was not designed to have a G5 opponent. So, the reason they didn't work with CUSA from the its inception was because they were looking to make it a AAC vs P5 bowl. Pretty sure that's still the goal. I think its possible---its just a matter of paying enough to attract the P5 opponent.

The issue I see moving from a 4 team playoff to one that has 8 teams is that all of the sudden that pushes the number of access bowls to at least 8 adding for example the Holiday Bowl and Capital One Bowl.

That is great if you are a G5 school because it gives you greater access to the playoff and an opportunity to play in the Holiday and Capital One Bowls that was not there before except for the MWC in the early days of the Holiday and the MAC in the early days of the Citrus Bowl.

From the P5 perspective it stinks because now you have 3 games to win a national championship AND you've just lost the Holiday Bowl and Citrus Bowl. You're giving away the crown jewel bowl games that have traditionally formed the foundation of your recruiting advantage over the G5 schools. This is the dilemma if you are a P5 commish, a growing open playoff erodes your unfair advantage.

(05-09-2014 06:49 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-09-2014 03:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The bowls need the conferences---but do the conferences really need the committees? The conferences run and plan championship games every year. These are basically bowls. The conferences can run their own bowls and create a much stronger stream of revenue. The existing G5 bowls are especially vulnerable to this tactic since they have little name value anyway--replaceing them with new conference owned bowls wouldn't be sacrificing much in terms of name value and tradition. It's not like losing the Rose Bowl...

The bowl committees are on borrowed time, but it doesn't look like the G5 conferences will be replacing them. ESPN Regional Television is already taking that role, and will probably continue to gradually expand their bottom-tier bowl inventory as individual bowls flounder.

AAC owns the MIami Beach Bowl, and CUSA owns the Bahamas Bowl, but CUSA handed over the HEart of Dallas Bowl. The new bowl at FIU is an ESPN-owned bowl, and the "Cure Bowl" seems to be starting up at the Citrus Bowl and not at UCF's stadium.

It makes sense to you, it makes sense to me. But if what you're saying were true, you'd have expected the AAC and CUSA to cut a deal to support each other's bowls, one at Houston Cougar Stadium, one at UCF and one at FIU. Maybe not those details, but something along those lines. That didn't happen, and nothing along those lines happened. The MAC and Sun Belt were talking about starting a bowl together, and instead we've got the MAC and Sun Belt playing in ESPN-owned bowls. That indicates there's a factor we're not considering.

If the conferences lose money by operating bowls, that's a net loss for the conferences that is effectively paid by the membership.

ESPN has money to burn and any money they lose from operating a bottom-tier bowl game is just a paper loss that gives them a tax writeoff against a small portion of their ginormous profits.

It is curious that Fox hasn't taken the hint and bankrolled a few bowls of their own for FS1. They're not going to establish FS1 as a viable competitor to ESPN by pinching pennies.

(05-09-2014 08:04 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-09-2014 06:49 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-09-2014 03:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The bowls need the conferences---but do the conferences really need the committees? The conferences run and plan championship games every year. These are basically bowls. The conferences can run their own bowls and create a much stronger stream of revenue. The existing G5 bowls are especially vulnerable to this tactic since they have little name value anyway--replaceing them with new conference owned bowls wouldn't be sacrificing much in terms of name value and tradition. It's not like losing the Rose Bowl...

The bowl committees are on borrowed time, but it doesn't look like the G5 conferences will be replacing them. ESPN Regional Television is already taking that role, and will probably continue to gradually expand their bottom-tier bowl inventory as individual bowls flounder.

AAC owns the MIami Beach Bowl, and CUSA owns the Bahamas Bowl, but CUSA handed over the HEart of Dallas Bowl. The new bowl at FIU is an ESPN-owned bowl, and the "Cure Bowl" seems to be starting up at the Citrus Bowl and not at UCF's stadium.

It makes sense to you, it makes sense to me. But if what you're saying were true, you'd have expected the AAC and CUSA to cut a deal to support each other's bowls, one at Houston Cougar Stadium, one at UCF and one at FIU. Maybe not those details, but something along those lines. That didn't happen, and nothing along those lines happened. The MAC and Sun Belt were talking about starting a bowl together, and instead we've got the MAC and Sun Belt playing in ESPN-owned bowls. That indicates there's a factor we're not considering.

If the conferences lose money by operating bowls, that's a net loss for the conferences that is effectively paid by the membership.

ESPN has money to burn and any money they lose from operating a bottom-tier bowl game is just a paper loss that gives them a tax writeoff against a small portion of their ginormous profits.

It is curious that Fox hasn't taken the hint and bankrolled a few bowls of their own for FS1. They're not going to establish FS1 as a viable competitor to ESPN by pinching pennies.

ESPN is in the business of marketing and selling. They control the marketing rights to the CFP.

I doubt they lose money on the bowls they own (maybe on a game or two in a given year) otherwise they wouldn't be so interested in owning more. A local operated bowl can't even get in the room to pitch many major companies. ESPN can walk in and build on existing relationships. The local owned bowl that might be looking for a $10,000 sponsorship is competing against ESPN offering that same package and might ask for $50,000 to have that package at 7 games.

The cash outlay while not massive is not insignificant. For a conference having an employee on the ground away from the league HQ supervised by remote boss who doesn't have the expertise in that field isn't ideal. ESPN is going to be remote management as well but they do have the expertise and the contacts.

Why isn't Fox all wrapped up in it? List the conferences who have sold their top tier rights to Fox. Pac-12, shared with ESPN and CUSA.

While the P5 probably don't have any real qualms about a Fox deal for a bowl, they stand in a different place than AAC, MWC, Sun Belt and MAC in dealing with ESPN and those are the leagues with the bowls they'd be most likely to break in with unless there was a really fat investment. Sun Belt and MAC know they can top a million viewers on ESPN and the ratings from our one sample year of FS1 make that an unlikely number for that sort of match-up.

A good friend is on the Independence Bowl committee and several years ago he was talking over their plan to move up a slot with the SEC. I told him they probably would lose out to Birmingham and detailed why. I replied, "ESPN owns the bowl, its in the home city of the SEC and most importantly, your competitor for that slot determines how much your TV rights are worth." Net result they lost the SEC (for a time) and got moved from ESPN to ESPN2.

(05-09-2014 11:08 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  The local owned bowl that might be looking for a $10,000 sponsorship is competing against ESPN offering that same package and might ask for $50,000 to have that package at 7 games.

True. ESPN has consolidated the Armed Forces Bowl and Heart of DAllas Bowl operations. IT wouldn't be much of a stretch to also package the Houston Bowl for a Texas-wide sponsor like Whataburger, who wouldn't benefit much from exposure in New MExico, Idaho, Vegas or Tampa, etc.

Quote:The cash outlay while not massive is not insignificant. For a conference having an employee on the ground away from the league HQ supervised by remote boss who doesn't have the expertise in that field isn't ideal. ESPN is going to be remote management as well but they do have the expertise and the contacts.

Eh, I'm not sure that's a big factor. The conferences already run basketball tournaments and all sort of other events, so they have the staff and the experience. (The point woman for the Bahamas Bowl is or was the deputy head honcho for the Battle for Atlantis--side note: has anyone mentioned passport problems for the Battle of Atlantis tournament?) If you've sold sponsorships for the Sun Belt basketball tournament in Wenatchee or Nashville or Galveston or Panama Beach or wherever, I expect you can sell sponsorships to the MAC-SBC Little Rock Bowl.

IF the conferences saw it as a strategic goal to control their bowls, they'd have made more moves to make it happen. Either they don't see it as important as some of us do on this board, or they do but taking on the World Wide Leader is a losing proposition. (Sure, Fox made their pitch to the FBA. That doesn't mean they'd be interested in G5 table-scraps bowls.)

(05-10-2014 06:53 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-09-2014 11:08 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  The local owned bowl that might be looking for a $10,000 sponsorship is competing against ESPN offering that same package and might ask for $50,000 to have that package at 7 games.

True. ESPN has consolidated the Armed Forces Bowl and Heart of DAllas Bowl operations. IT wouldn't be much of a stretch to also package the Houston Bowl for a Texas-wide sponsor like Whataburger, who wouldn't benefit much from exposure in New MExico, Idaho, Vegas or Tampa, etc.

Quote:The cash outlay while not massive is not insignificant. For a conference having an employee on the ground away from the league HQ supervised by remote boss who doesn't have the expertise in that field isn't ideal. ESPN is going to be remote management as well but they do have the expertise and the contacts.

Eh, I'm not sure that's a big factor. The conferences already run basketball tournaments and all sort of other events, so they have the staff and the experience. (The point woman for the Bahamas Bowl is or was the deputy head honcho for the Battle for Atlantis--side note: has anyone mentioned passport problems for the Battle of Atlantis tournament?) If you've sold sponsorships for the Sun Belt basketball tournament in Wenatchee or Nashville or Galveston or Panama Beach or wherever, I expect you can sell sponsorships to the MAC-SBC Little Rock Bowl.

IF the conferences saw it as a strategic goal to control their bowls, they'd have made more moves to make it happen. Either they don't see it as important as some of us do on this board, or they do but taking on the World Wide Leader is a losing proposition. (Sure, Fox made their pitch to the FBA. That doesn't mean they'd be interested in G5 table-scraps bowls.)

John, you can't really compare operating a conference tournament to a bowl game because they are run so differently.

Conference tournaments the teams sort of "parachute" into town and just play their games and generally have no more than one practice in the site city. The teams spend their time either at the team hotel, eating, in meetings or at the tournament venue.

Bowls are an entertainment events for fans and teams and maintain a year long presence.

The GoDaddy Bowl for example sponsors something like 8 different community events/activities in the period after the teams leave and until before the next two are announced. Golf tournaments, a sailing regatta, cheerleader competition, a writing contest, art contest, a lunch, etc. They bring the two coaches in for the local Touchdown Club well before the teams arrive.

Now admittedly GoDaddy operates more like say Cap One or Sugar in that regard than Birmingham or New Mexico who have year-round events but not at that scale, and you don't have to go that big but having been around a number of bowls (including one of the funniest season kickoff events listening to Terry Bradshaw in Shreveport in September) doing it this way garners a better event.

Once teams arrive it becomes a true mad house because if you want the players, coaches, AD's, and presidents eager to see their team return, you show them a great time.

You will host a fun event or two for the players. In New Mexico they do a Family Feud inspired game show pitting the two teams against each other, New Orleans does a bowling night that by all reports is a big hit with the players. Mobile does a Mardi Gras parade and tours of the battleship and museum. While normally done very low profile, all or nearly all bowls do a lunch, or tea, or some sort of excursion for the two sets of coaches wives. Then there will be a banquet/lunch or two to deal with. You also have to secure practice facilities for the two teams along with meeting space. Top that off with a couple pep rallies, battle of the bands, and maybe a parade. You are also working with each school's alumni association to help them set up their events.

That gives you a lot of stuff going and the bowls normally rely heavily on volunteers but if you want volunteers you have to cultivate them, that leads you to needing events several times over the year to get those volunteers.

The differing intensity level makes if very impractical to not have someone on the ground 365 days for a bowl, while a conference tournament is more like a traveling rock show or circus that may pay someone to do advance publicity ahead of time but doesn't need permanent boots on the ground.

You sort of made this point noting that Bahamas Bowl is bundling it's on ground presence with Battle of Atlantis.

As to passports and Bahamas, basketball will have an official traveling party of 25-35 who have months of advance notice. Football will have a traveling party of 125 to 200 with four to six weeks notice, there is quite obviously a distinction there. As I've noted in another thread, within the athletic community the word dealing with the International Bowl was that the MAC had few hassles and most centered on clearing an individual player with a past arrest record or dealing with bringing gear through customs. The MAC pushed its members to get passports in September and then each year just add newcomers. The Big East did not take that sort of proactive approach and ended up sweating it out late getting everyone ready as they dealt with expediting passports.

I should probably specify that I'm thinking in terms of the conferences running bowls in on-campus stadiums. Conferences running bowls in distant cities is a more chancy prospect. The basic idea was an AAC-CUSA deal where CUSA sends teams to play at Houston's stadium and at UCF"s stadium while the AAC sends a team to play in FIU's Boca Raton Bowl.

I'm not sure how much of the yearlong presence is really necessary, especially if it's an on-campus stadium. If 6 Houston Cougars home games can't keep UH and AAC football on the radar, I don't think the sort of events you describe are going to do the job either.

I think the host schools are pretty capable of running the bowl-week events, too.

(05-10-2014 07:47 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  John, you can't really compare operating a conference tournament to a bowl game because they are run so differently.

Maybe I'm shifting my position from the conferences to the schools. I guess it doesn't matter because the bottom line is it's not happening.

Quote:As I've noted in another thread, within the athletic community the word dealing with the International Bowl was that the MAC had few hassles and most centered on clearing an individual player with a past arrest record or dealing with bringing gear through customs. The MAC pushed its members to get passports in September and then each year just add newcomers. The Big East did not take that sort of proactive approach and ended up sweating it out late getting everyone ready as they dealt with expediting passports.

I'm sure that was Marinatto's fault, or maybe it was Seton Hall's fault.

(05-10-2014 11:39 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  I should probably specify that I'm thinking in terms of the conferences running bowls in on-campus stadiums. Conferences running bowls in distant cities is a more chancy prospect. The basic idea was an AAC-CUSA deal where CUSA sends teams to play at Houston's stadium and at UCF"s stadium while the AAC sends a team to play in FIU's Boca Raton Bowl.

I'm not sure how much of the yearlong presence is really necessary, especially if it's an on-campus stadium. If 6 Houston Cougars home games can't keep UH and AAC football on the radar, I don't think the sort of events you describe are going to do the job either.

I think the host schools are pretty capable of running the bowl-week events, too.

(05-10-2014 07:47 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  John, you can't really compare operating a conference tournament to a bowl game because they are run so differently.

Maybe I'm shifting my position from the conferences to the schools. I guess it doesn't matter because the bottom line is it's not happening.

Quote:As I've noted in another thread, within the athletic community the word dealing with the International Bowl was that the MAC had few hassles and most centered on clearing an individual player with a past arrest record or dealing with bringing gear through customs. The MAC pushed its members to get passports in September and then each year just add newcomers. The Big East did not take that sort of proactive approach and ended up sweating it out late getting everyone ready as they dealt with expediting passports.

I'm sure that was Marinatto's fault, or maybe it was Seton Hall's fault.

Just as a point of reference. ERT manages the Birmingham and Montgomery bowls. They have consolidated most operations working out of Birmingham but they do have a permanent person based in Montgomery year round.

University managed bowls would have a number of advantages in that they have the staff and volunteers in place and a nice database of potential sponsors. The downside would be a level of disappointment of not traveling somewhere for the game and the opposing league reluctant to see it turn into a home game. For example if UTSA had a bowl game, playing UTSA would a point of contention while playing UNT or Rice or UTEP wouldn't.

The other issue would be a conflict of interest issue. How hard would a school work tapping their database for money if only a fraction benefits them?

One thing I've thought could be a solution is moving away from the fixed date, fixed location model for the lower tier bowls taking 3rd and 4th, etc., place teams in the G5. Instead once the bowls grab their teams let the schools who are bowl eligible and not selected work out their own deals. For example Ball St might offer to host certain dates at Lucas Oil or Toledo or one the Michigan MAC's might offer certain dates at Ford Field and the AD's and commissioners start working their deals with TV and other schools. You might have Troy travel to play at Houston, Ohio might say no to AState in Jonesboro but agree to go to Little Rock, UConn might choose to go to Indy to play Ball State. Wheel and deal and make it happen.

The schools and the conferences will throw out a good number to get opponents and the host team and visitor share whatever is made past the guarantee to the visitor.

(05-10-2014 12:40 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  University managed bowls would have a number of advantages in that they have the staff and volunteers in place and a nice database of potential sponsors. The downside would be a level of disappointment of not traveling somewhere for the game and the opposing league reluctant to see it turn into a home game. For example if UTSA had a bowl game, playing UTSA would a point of contention while playing UNT or Rice or UTEP wouldn't.

Well, I figured that the conferences work that out as part of the agreement. 2 AAC bowls for 1 CUSA bowl seemed to match the pecking order.

Quote:The other issue would be a conflict of interest issue. How hard would a school work tapping their database for money if only a fraction benefits them?

Depends on the fraction. If I were serious about this, I'd look into how the Boise bowl works, and to a lesser extent the Hawaii Bowl. (Hawaii bowl usually hosts UH, so not a perfect match.)

Quote:One thing I've thought could be a solution is moving away from the fixed date, fixed location model for the lower tier bowls taking 3rd and 4th, etc., place teams in the G5. Instead once the bowls grab their teams let the schools who are bowl eligible and not selected work out their own deals. For example Ball St might offer to host certain dates at Lucas Oil or Toledo or one the Michigan MAC's might offer certain dates at Ford Field and the AD's and commissioners start working their deals with TV and other schools. You might have Troy travel to play at Houston, Ohio might say no to AState in Jonesboro but agree to go to Little Rock, UConn might choose to go to Indy to play Ball State. Wheel and deal and make it happen.

The schools and the conferences will throw out a good number to get opponents and the host team and visitor share whatever is made past the guarantee to the visitor.

Fun idea, but college administrators seem to prize predictability.

(05-10-2014 12:40 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-10-2014 11:39 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  I should probably specify that I'm thinking in terms of the conferences running bowls in on-campus stadiums. Conferences running bowls in distant cities is a more chancy prospect. The basic idea was an AAC-CUSA deal where CUSA sends teams to play at Houston's stadium and at UCF"s stadium while the AAC sends a team to play in FIU's Boca Raton Bowl.

I'm not sure how much of the yearlong presence is really necessary, especially if it's an on-campus stadium. If 6 Houston Cougars home games can't keep UH and AAC football on the radar, I don't think the sort of events you describe are going to do the job either.

I think the host schools are pretty capable of running the bowl-week events, too.

(05-10-2014 07:47 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  John, you can't really compare operating a conference tournament to a bowl game because they are run so differently.

Maybe I'm shifting my position from the conferences to the schools. I guess it doesn't matter because the bottom line is it's not happening.

Quote:As I've noted in another thread, within the athletic community the word dealing with the International Bowl was that the MAC had few hassles and most centered on clearing an individual player with a past arrest record or dealing with bringing gear through customs. The MAC pushed its members to get passports in September and then each year just add newcomers. The Big East did not take that sort of proactive approach and ended up sweating it out late getting everyone ready as they dealt with expediting passports.

I'm sure that was Marinatto's fault, or maybe it was Seton Hall's fault.

Just as a point of reference. ERT manages the Birmingham and Montgomery bowls. They have consolidated most operations working out of Birmingham but they do have a permanent person based in Montgomery year round.

University managed bowls would have a number of advantages in that they have the staff and volunteers in place and a nice database of potential sponsors. The downside would be a level of disappointment of not traveling somewhere for the game and the opposing league reluctant to see it turn into a home game. For example if UTSA had a bowl game, playing UTSA would a point of contention while playing UNT or Rice or UTEP wouldn't.

The other issue would be a conflict of interest issue. How hard would a school work tapping their database for money if only a fraction benefits them?

One thing I've thought could be a solution is moving away from the fixed date, fixed location model for the lower tier bowls taking 3rd and 4th, etc., place teams in the G5. Instead once the bowls grab their teams let the schools who are bowl eligible and not selected work out their own deals. For example Ball St might offer to host certain dates at Lucas Oil or Toledo or one the Michigan MAC's might offer certain dates at Ford Field and the AD's and commissioners start working their deals with TV and other schools. You might have Troy travel to play at Houston, Ohio might say no to AState in Jonesboro but agree to go to Little Rock, UConn might choose to go to Indy to play Ball State. Wheel and deal and make it happen.

The schools and the conferences will throw out a good number to get opponents and the host team and visitor share whatever is made past the guarantee to the visitor.

I don't think that would be a big deal. The New New Mexico Bowl, Boca Bowl, Potato Bowl, and Hawaii Bowl are all played in the home stadium of a school tied to the Bowl. You can add to that list with Armed Forces Bowl, the Military Bowl, the Cure Bowl, and the Poinsettia Bowl. If a conference is going to own a bowl---it may as well control the venue as well or you risk getting kicked out like in Detroit.

(05-10-2014 09:00 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-10-2014 12:40 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-10-2014 11:39 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  I should probably specify that I'm thinking in terms of the conferences running bowls in on-campus stadiums. Conferences running bowls in distant cities is a more chancy prospect. The basic idea was an AAC-CUSA deal where CUSA sends teams to play at Houston's stadium and at UCF"s stadium while the AAC sends a team to play in FIU's Boca Raton Bowl.

I'm not sure how much of the yearlong presence is really necessary, especially if it's an on-campus stadium. If 6 Houston Cougars home games can't keep UH and AAC football on the radar, I don't think the sort of events you describe are going to do the job either.

I think the host schools are pretty capable of running the bowl-week events, too.

(05-10-2014 07:47 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  John, you can't really compare operating a conference tournament to a bowl game because they are run so differently.

Maybe I'm shifting my position from the conferences to the schools. I guess it doesn't matter because the bottom line is it's not happening.

Quote:As I've noted in another thread, within the athletic community the word dealing with the International Bowl was that the MAC had few hassles and most centered on clearing an individual player with a past arrest record or dealing with bringing gear through customs. The MAC pushed its members to get passports in September and then each year just add newcomers. The Big East did not take that sort of proactive approach and ended up sweating it out late getting everyone ready as they dealt with expediting passports.

I'm sure that was Marinatto's fault, or maybe it was Seton Hall's fault.

Just as a point of reference. ERT manages the Birmingham and Montgomery bowls. They have consolidated most operations working out of Birmingham but they do have a permanent person based in Montgomery year round.

University managed bowls would have a number of advantages in that they have the staff and volunteers in place and a nice database of potential sponsors. The downside would be a level of disappointment of not traveling somewhere for the game and the opposing league reluctant to see it turn into a home game. For example if UTSA had a bowl game, playing UTSA would a point of contention while playing UNT or Rice or UTEP wouldn't.

The other issue would be a conflict of interest issue. How hard would a school work tapping their database for money if only a fraction benefits them?

One thing I've thought could be a solution is moving away from the fixed date, fixed location model for the lower tier bowls taking 3rd and 4th, etc., place teams in the G5. Instead once the bowls grab their teams let the schools who are bowl eligible and not selected work out their own deals. For example Ball St might offer to host certain dates at Lucas Oil or Toledo or one the Michigan MAC's might offer certain dates at Ford Field and the AD's and commissioners start working their deals with TV and other schools. You might have Troy travel to play at Houston, Ohio might say no to AState in Jonesboro but agree to go to Little Rock, UConn might choose to go to Indy to play Ball State. Wheel and deal and make it happen.

The schools and the conferences will throw out a good number to get opponents and the host team and visitor share whatever is made past the guarantee to the visitor.

I don't think that would be a big deal. The New New Mexico Bowl, Boca Bowl, Potato Bowl, and Hawaii Bowl are all played in the home stadium of a school tied to the Bowl. You can add to that list with Armed Forces Bowl, the Military Bowl, the Cure Bowl, and the Poinsettia Bowl. If a conference is going to own a bowl---it may as well control the venue as well or you risk getting kicked out like in Detroit.

Lobos have been in 2 of 8 New Mexico Bowls.
Broncos 4 of 17 Famous Tater Bowls
TCU 1 of 11 Armed Forces
SDSU 2 of 9 Poinsettia
Hawaii 6 of 12

I think most people concede Hawaii is going to be an attendance bust without the Warriors. In the case of Boise and TCU they seem to not be that crazy about staying home and SDSU has been in 2 of the 4 they were eligible for.

(05-09-2014 03:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-09-2014 12:15 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  One reason why I don't see the playoffs expanding past 4 teams any time soon. The Bowl system is a money maker.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...s-too-much

Yes, but who gets the money? Other than the CFP Bowls, the teams don't make any money playing in bowls--they generally lose money. On the other hand, the bowls are slurping up the cash. As of today, the AAC owns the Miami Beaxh Bowl and CUSA owns the Bahamas Bowl. I think conference owned bowls will be the new wave.

There is little reason for the conference teams to be fleeced so the fat cats at the Hefty Bag Bowl can pocket a couple of million dollars. My guess is that the low value bowls will slowly die out as conferences replace them with owned-and-operated conference run bowls. The bowls committees that run the bowls are just middle men---relics of the past. The bowls need the conferences---but do the conferences really need the committees? The conferences run and plan championship games every year. These are basically bowls. The conferences can run their own bowls and create a much stronger stream of revenue. The existing G5 bowls are especially vulnerable to this tactic since they have little name value anyway--replaceing them with new conference owned bowls wouldn't be sacrificing much in terms of name value and tradition. It's not like losing the Rose Bowl...

What you say is technically true, but grossly misleading. Teams don't make money from bowls because they are HEAVILY taxed by their conferences.