From the article:

"I'm not at all concerned about it," said Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby, whose league has a partnership with the Sugar Bowl. "They tend to be kind of dense documents. ... There's no negotiation going on, it's just a matter of committing it to writing."

Other sources contend there is much discussion and negotiation between the bowls and CFP in certain areas. Some of these bowls have decades-long traditions that extend beyond the playing field. If they felt like spending lavishly in a certain area, they spent lavishly. Ticket prices have become a significant discussion point, sources said.

In the CFP era, those bowl budgets will be tightly controlled. There will be more of a cookie-cutter look behind the scenes. One source described a game management that resembles a combined Final Four and Super Bowl. More sponsorships will be controlled by ESPN, which needs to get some of its money back.

"We don't have the revenue pieces we used to have," Fiesta Bowl official Duane Woods told the Arizona Republic in March. That month the bowl laid off two-thirds of its staff.

"It's a whole different landscape than in the past," Woods said.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...not-signed

Quote:"I'm not at all concerned about it," said Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby, whose league has a partnership with the Sugar Bowl.

Translation: I'm not at all concerned about it because the conferences and ESPN have the leverage.

Quote:"We don't have the revenue pieces we used to have," Fiesta Bowl official Duane Woods told the Arizona Republic in March.

Translation: "We used to be able to leech obscene amounts of money out of the schools, conferences, fans, etc., and now our leeching opportunities are more limited."

Boo f'in hoo for you.

(05-27-2014 11:15 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

Quote:"I'm not at all concerned about it," said Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby, whose league has a partnership with the Sugar Bowl.

Translation: I'm not at all concerned about it because the conferences and ESPN have the leverage.

Quote:"We don't have the revenue pieces we used to have," Fiesta Bowl official Duane Woods told the Arizona Republic in March.

Translation: "We used to be able to leech obscene amounts of money out of the schools, conferences, fans, etc., and now our leeching opportunities are more limited."

Boo f'in hoo for you.

Could not have said it better....

(05-27-2014 11:15 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

Quote:"I'm not at all concerned about it," said Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby, whose league has a partnership with the Sugar Bowl.

Translation: I'm not at all concerned about it because the conferences and ESPN have the leverage.

Quote:"We don't have the revenue pieces we used to have," Fiesta Bowl official Duane Woods told the Arizona Republic in March.

Translation: "We used to be able to leech obscene amounts of money out of the schools, conferences, fans, etc., and now our leeching opportunities are more limited."

Boo f'in hoo for you.

Amen.

The real story here isn't that the contracts haven't been signed, but that the Access/Host Bowl contracts are only for 6 years, with a look-in after 3 years. There's a reason the CFP rotation is only listed for the first three years. Now, that's not to mean that they are looking to expand, per se, but maybe after three years the Access Bowls - who had to give up conference ties to be included - will reevlauate their position and there may be room for them to pull out or make other demands (rotation, timeslot, etc.). I know there was pushback from at least one of them that wanted the G5 team no more than twice in the 6 year cycle. My guess was that the Cotton was the one who made that demand because if the current rotation repeats for the second three years, then they will be forced to have the G5 team twice in that cycle, but it could have been the Peach and Fiesta as well.

And while the Host Bowl contracts have an option for the following 6 years after the first 6, what happens if they decline that option? Do they go after three other bowls to fill the spot? Could the G5 spot go away? I could see there being a host of demands in that regard.

(05-27-2014 11:42 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  The real story here isn't that the contracts haven't been signed, but that the Access/Host Bowl contracts are only for 6 years, with a look-in after 3 years. There's a reason the CFP rotation is only listed for the first three years. Now, that's not to mean that they are looking to expand, per se, but maybe after three years the Access Bowls - who had to give up conference ties to be included - will reevlauate their position and there may be room for them to pull out or make other demands (rotation, timeslot, etc.). I know there was pushback from at least one of them that wanted the G5 team no more than twice in the 6 year cycle. My guess was that the Cotton was the one who made that demand because if the current rotation repeats for the second three years, then they will be forced to have the G5 team twice in that cycle, but it could have been the Peach and Fiesta as well.

And while the Host Bowl contracts have an option for the following 6 years after the first 6, what happens if they decline that option? Do they go after three other bowls to fill the spot? Could the G5 spot go away? I could see there being a host of demands in that regard.

Don't think the G5 spot would be gone but could see a higher stipulation for the G5 Spot...

(05-27-2014 11:48 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 11:42 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  The real story here isn't that the contracts haven't been signed, but that the Access/Host Bowl contracts are only for 6 years, with a look-in after 3 years. There's a reason the CFP rotation is only listed for the first three years. Now, that's not to mean that they are looking to expand, per se, but maybe after three years the Access Bowls - who had to give up conference ties to be included - will reevlauate their position and there may be room for them to pull out or make other demands (rotation, timeslot, etc.). I know there was pushback from at least one of them that wanted the G5 team no more than twice in the 6 year cycle. My guess was that the Cotton was the one who made that demand because if the current rotation repeats for the second three years, then they will be forced to have the G5 team twice in that cycle, but it could have been the Peach and Fiesta as well.

And while the Host Bowl contracts have an option for the following 6 years after the first 6, what happens if they decline that option? Do they go after three other bowls to fill the spot? Could the G5 spot go away? I could see there being a host of demands in that regard.

Don't think the G5 spot would be gone but could see a higher stipulation for the G5 Spot...

Like that they're in the top 12, which would essentially mean that the G5 spot is gone, given that the committee would be in control of those rankings. It could also be that because the G5 doesn't "travel well" that they might get a higher ticket allotment (the Liberty Bowl used to do this to CUSA).

(05-27-2014 11:55 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 11:48 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 11:42 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  The real story here isn't that the contracts haven't been signed, but that the Access/Host Bowl contracts are only for 6 years, with a look-in after 3 years. There's a reason the CFP rotation is only listed for the first three years. Now, that's not to mean that they are looking to expand, per se, but maybe after three years the Access Bowls - who had to give up conference ties to be included - will reevlauate their position and there may be room for them to pull out or make other demands (rotation, timeslot, etc.). I know there was pushback from at least one of them that wanted the G5 team no more than twice in the 6 year cycle. My guess was that the Cotton was the one who made that demand because if the current rotation repeats for the second three years, then they will be forced to have the G5 team twice in that cycle, but it could have been the Peach and Fiesta as well.

And while the Host Bowl contracts have an option for the following 6 years after the first 6, what happens if they decline that option? Do they go after three other bowls to fill the spot? Could the G5 spot go away? I could see there being a host of demands in that regard.

Don't think the G5 spot would be gone but could see a higher stipulation for the G5 Spot...

Like that they're in the top 12, which would essentially mean that the G5 spot is gone, given that the committee would be in control of those rankings. It could also be that because the G5 doesn't "travel well" that they might get a higher ticket allotment (the Liberty Bowl used to do this to CUSA).

It is a tough spot...if that happens the Champion of the AAC and MWC would need to either go undefeated or only have 1 loss...C-USA, Sunbelt and MAC really have no shot....

(05-27-2014 11:42 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  I know there was pushback from at least one of them that wanted the G5 team no more than twice in the 6 year cycle. My guess was that the Cotton was the one who made that demand because if the current rotation repeats for the second three years, then they will be forced to have the G5 team twice in that cycle, but it could have been the Peach and Fiesta as well.

This is another good example of the bowl committees thinking they have more leverage than they still have.

The Cotton, Peach, and Fiesta can't credibly threaten to withdraw any time in the near future. In the current setup, each will get a semifinal once every three years, and will likely get a matchup of the second-best teams in P5 leagues another year, and in the other year will get a 13-0 or 12-1 G5 team vs. the second-best team in a P5 conference. They would have to be delusional to think they can do better than that by taking their bowl out of the CFP.

Those are all pretty attractive matchups. If the bowls don't want them, then ESPN and the CFP could easily and profitably stage those games in large southern or western stadiums themselves without the bowl committees. If the CFP ever goes that way, Jerry Jones and a long line of other stadium operators will jump right up with offers to host those games.

(05-27-2014 11:55 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 11:48 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 11:42 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  The real story here isn't that the contracts haven't been signed, but that the Access/Host Bowl contracts are only for 6 years, with a look-in after 3 years. There's a reason the CFP rotation is only listed for the first three years. Now, that's not to mean that they are looking to expand, per se, but maybe after three years the Access Bowls - who had to give up conference ties to be included - will reevlauate their position and there may be room for them to pull out or make other demands (rotation, timeslot, etc.). I know there was pushback from at least one of them that wanted the G5 team no more than twice in the 6 year cycle. My guess was that the Cotton was the one who made that demand because if the current rotation repeats for the second three years, then they will be forced to have the G5 team twice in that cycle, but it could have been the Peach and Fiesta as well.

And while the Host Bowl contracts have an option for the following 6 years after the first 6, what happens if they decline that option? Do they go after three other bowls to fill the spot? Could the G5 spot go away? I could see there being a host of demands in that regard.

Don't think the G5 spot would be gone but could see a higher stipulation for the G5 Spot...

Like that they're in the top 12, which would essentially mean that the G5 spot is gone, given that the committee would be in control of those rankings. It could also be that because the G5 doesn't "travel well" that they might get a higher ticket allotment (the Liberty Bowl used to do this to CUSA).

No the 12 year deal guarantees the top G5 a slot. The question is whether they have to modify the line-up if the G5 champ struggles to sell tickets and fill hotels which has generally not been the case.

What isn't being said is most of these top bowls have a lot of locals who buy tickets (Sugar, Fiesta, Rose and I think Orange no longer accept wait list applications for local tickets). A huge number of these tickets go to the resale market. If they are consistently struggling to sell at a profit (which has been an issue even when a non-AQ sold its allotment), it could create a massive dent in local sales.

(05-27-2014 12:10 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 11:55 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 11:48 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 11:42 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  The real story here isn't that the contracts haven't been signed, but that the Access/Host Bowl contracts are only for 6 years, with a look-in after 3 years. There's a reason the CFP rotation is only listed for the first three years. Now, that's not to mean that they are looking to expand, per se, but maybe after three years the Access Bowls - who had to give up conference ties to be included - will reevlauate their position and there may be room for them to pull out or make other demands (rotation, timeslot, etc.). I know there was pushback from at least one of them that wanted the G5 team no more than twice in the 6 year cycle. My guess was that the Cotton was the one who made that demand because if the current rotation repeats for the second three years, then they will be forced to have the G5 team twice in that cycle, but it could have been the Peach and Fiesta as well.

And while the Host Bowl contracts have an option for the following 6 years after the first 6, what happens if they decline that option? Do they go after three other bowls to fill the spot? Could the G5 spot go away? I could see there being a host of demands in that regard.

Don't think the G5 spot would be gone but could see a higher stipulation for the G5 Spot...

Like that they're in the top 12, which would essentially mean that the G5 spot is gone, given that the committee would be in control of those rankings. It could also be that because the G5 doesn't "travel well" that they might get a higher ticket allotment (the Liberty Bowl used to do this to CUSA).

No the 12 year deal guarantees the top G5 a slot. The question is whether they have to modify the line-up if the G5 champ struggles to sell tickets and fill hotels which has generally not been the case.

What isn't being said is most of these top bowls have a lot of locals who buy tickets (Sugar, Fiesta, Rose and I think Orange no longer accept wait list applications for local tickets). A huge number of these tickets go to the resale market. If they are consistently struggling to sell at a profit (which has been an issue even when a non-AQ sold its allotment), it could create a massive dent in local sales.

I tend to believe that, but I also tend to believe that there could very well be made a case that the G5 spot gets conditions based on the "market forces" from the bowls. And there is empirical evidence to suggest that the G5 teams won't do well. Look at NIU's Orange Bowl from 2012-13, or UConn or UCF's Fiesta Bowls. There were ticket sales issues with all of those games, even with NIU busing in 3,000 students for free. The "separate but equal" Fiesta Bowl between TCU and Boise wasn't great for them either. That's not to say that there haven't been issues with P5 teams, but those glaring examples will be used against the G5, as will any other lapses in attendance/support at these future games over the next 3 years.

(05-27-2014 12:17 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 12:10 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 11:55 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 11:48 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 11:42 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  The real story here isn't that the contracts haven't been signed, but that the Access/Host Bowl contracts are only for 6 years, with a look-in after 3 years. There's a reason the CFP rotation is only listed for the first three years. Now, that's not to mean that they are looking to expand, per se, but maybe after three years the Access Bowls - who had to give up conference ties to be included - will reevlauate their position and there may be room for them to pull out or make other demands (rotation, timeslot, etc.). I know there was pushback from at least one of them that wanted the G5 team no more than twice in the 6 year cycle. My guess was that the Cotton was the one who made that demand because if the current rotation repeats for the second three years, then they will be forced to have the G5 team twice in that cycle, but it could have been the Peach and Fiesta as well.

And while the Host Bowl contracts have an option for the following 6 years after the first 6, what happens if they decline that option? Do they go after three other bowls to fill the spot? Could the G5 spot go away? I could see there being a host of demands in that regard.

Don't think the G5 spot would be gone but could see a higher stipulation for the G5 Spot...

Like that they're in the top 12, which would essentially mean that the G5 spot is gone, given that the committee would be in control of those rankings. It could also be that because the G5 doesn't "travel well" that they might get a higher ticket allotment (the Liberty Bowl used to do this to CUSA).

No the 12 year deal guarantees the top G5 a slot. The question is whether they have to modify the line-up if the G5 champ struggles to sell tickets and fill hotels which has generally not been the case.

What isn't being said is most of these top bowls have a lot of locals who buy tickets (Sugar, Fiesta, Rose and I think Orange no longer accept wait list applications for local tickets). A huge number of these tickets go to the resale market. If they are consistently struggling to sell at a profit (which has been an issue even when a non-AQ sold its allotment), it could create a massive dent in local sales.

I tend to believe that, but I also tend to believe that there could very well be made a case that the G5 spot gets conditions based on the "market forces" from the bowls. And there is empirical evidence to suggest that the G5 teams won't do well. Look at NIU's Orange Bowl from 2012-13, or UConn or UCF's Fiesta Bowls. There were ticket sales issues with all of those games, even with NIU busing in 3,000 students for free. The "separate but equal" Fiesta Bowl between TCU and Boise wasn't great for them either. That's not to say that there haven't been issues with P5 teams, but those glaring examples will be used against the G5, as will any other lapses in attendance/support at these future games over the next 3 years.

2009 Fiesta Bowl (Texas vs Ohio State)
Attendance: 72,047

2010 Fiesta Bowl (Boise State vs TCU)
Attendance: 73,227

(05-27-2014 12:53 PM)Planks Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 12:17 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 12:10 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 11:55 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 11:48 AM)Maize Wrote:  Don't think the G5 spot would be gone but could see a higher stipulation for the G5 Spot...

Like that they're in the top 12, which would essentially mean that the G5 spot is gone, given that the committee would be in control of those rankings. It could also be that because the G5 doesn't "travel well" that they might get a higher ticket allotment (the Liberty Bowl used to do this to CUSA).

No the 12 year deal guarantees the top G5 a slot. The question is whether they have to modify the line-up if the G5 champ struggles to sell tickets and fill hotels which has generally not been the case.

What isn't being said is most of these top bowls have a lot of locals who buy tickets (Sugar, Fiesta, Rose and I think Orange no longer accept wait list applications for local tickets). A huge number of these tickets go to the resale market. If they are consistently struggling to sell at a profit (which has been an issue even when a non-AQ sold its allotment), it could create a massive dent in local sales.

I tend to believe that, but I also tend to believe that there could very well be made a case that the G5 spot gets conditions based on the "market forces" from the bowls. And there is empirical evidence to suggest that the G5 teams won't do well. Look at NIU's Orange Bowl from 2012-13, or UConn or UCF's Fiesta Bowls. There were ticket sales issues with all of those games, even with NIU busing in 3,000 students for free. The "separate but equal" Fiesta Bowl between TCU and Boise wasn't great for them either. That's not to say that there haven't been issues with P5 teams, but those glaring examples will be used against the G5, as will any other lapses in attendance/support at these future games over the next 3 years.

2009 Fiesta Bowl (Texas vs Ohio State)
Attendance: 72,047

2010 Fiesta Bowl (Boise State vs TCU)
Attendance: 73,227

Any idea of the price difference on the secondary market? My recollection faded by time was that the secondary market opened pretty cheap on Boise v. TCU and rose as the game drew closer.

No memory of UT v. tOSU but I'd wager it opened high and declined after the bulk of demand was met.

(05-27-2014 12:53 PM)Planks Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 12:17 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 12:10 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 11:55 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 11:48 AM)Maize Wrote:  Don't think the G5 spot would be gone but could see a higher stipulation for the G5 Spot...

Like that they're in the top 12, which would essentially mean that the G5 spot is gone, given that the committee would be in control of those rankings. It could also be that because the G5 doesn't "travel well" that they might get a higher ticket allotment (the Liberty Bowl used to do this to CUSA).

No the 12 year deal guarantees the top G5 a slot. The question is whether they have to modify the line-up if the G5 champ struggles to sell tickets and fill hotels which has generally not been the case.

What isn't being said is most of these top bowls have a lot of locals who buy tickets (Sugar, Fiesta, Rose and I think Orange no longer accept wait list applications for local tickets). A huge number of these tickets go to the resale market. If they are consistently struggling to sell at a profit (which has been an issue even when a non-AQ sold its allotment), it could create a massive dent in local sales.

I tend to believe that, but I also tend to believe that there could very well be made a case that the G5 spot gets conditions based on the "market forces" from the bowls. And there is empirical evidence to suggest that the G5 teams won't do well. Look at NIU's Orange Bowl from 2012-13, or UConn or UCF's Fiesta Bowls. There were ticket sales issues with all of those games, even with NIU busing in 3,000 students for free. The "separate but equal" Fiesta Bowl between TCU and Boise wasn't great for them either. That's not to say that there haven't been issues with P5 teams, but those glaring examples will be used against the G5, as will any other lapses in attendance/support at these future games over the next 3 years.

2009 Fiesta Bowl (Texas vs Ohio State)
Attendance: 72,047

2010 Fiesta Bowl (Boise State vs TCU)
Attendance: 73,227

Thanks for that. I know the folks at the Fiesta Bowl had complained about the matchup as being one they did not prefer, though. I'm glad they were proven wrong. There are lots of evidence to reject the idea that only the elite teams are a draw. Unfortunately, it's those anecdotal evidences that are often incorrect that are too often used, and therefore stigma remain attached.

The thing is for the Fiesta- they didn't have to take TCU/Boise. They selected Boise over I know Iowa for sure and I think some others as well. So if they were complaining about the matchup- they only had themselves to blame.

(05-27-2014 01:39 PM)stever20 Wrote:  The thing is for the Fiesta- they didn't have to take TCU/Boise. They selected Boise over I know Iowa for sure and I think some others as well. So if they were complaining about the matchup- they only had themselves to blame.

The selection order that year:

BCS Title:

Bama vs Texas

Sugar - Replace Bama with UF
Fiesta- Replace Texas with TCU
Orange- At large Iowa
Fiesta- Boise over Cincy
Sugar- Must take Cincy

(05-27-2014 01:44 PM)S11 Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 01:39 PM)stever20 Wrote:  The thing is for the Fiesta- they didn't have to take TCU/Boise. They selected Boise over I know Iowa for sure and I think some others as well. So if they were complaining about the matchup- they only had themselves to blame.

The selection order that year:

BCS Title:

Bama vs Texas

Sugar - Replace Bama with UF
Fiesta- Replace Texas with TCU
Orange- At large Iowa
Fiesta- Boise over Cincy
Sugar- Must take Cincy

Fiesta didn't have to take TCU over Iowa. They had 1st choice of Cincy, TCU, Boise, Iowa, Va Tech, Penn St, and BYU. They could have taken Iowa or Penn St and then get one of TCU, Boise, Va Tech, or BYU as their opponent- depending on what the Orange did.

"We think it's a matchup that's credible," Fiesta Bowl CEO John Junker said. "If there was a glass ceiling, we think we've taken a chunk out of it."

The Horned Frogs and Broncos played in the Poinsettia Bowl last season. TCU won 17-16 to hand Boise State its only loss of the season.

This time, the so-called little guys will move their tussle to the big stage – and Junker said the Fiesta didn't mind staging a rematch, which he said got a thumbs-up from TV partner Fox.

"We're not the NFL," he said. "There's new players, new stories, new energy. These are two teams that have been atop the rankings all year long, and we're very excited for a chance to match them."

(05-27-2014 01:58 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 01:44 PM)S11 Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 01:39 PM)stever20 Wrote:  The thing is for the Fiesta- they didn't have to take TCU/Boise. They selected Boise over I know Iowa for sure and I think some others as well. So if they were complaining about the matchup- they only had themselves to blame.

The selection order that year:

BCS Title:

Bama vs Texas

Sugar - Replace Bama with UF
Fiesta- Replace Texas with TCU
Orange- At large Iowa
Fiesta- Boise over Cincy
Sugar- Must take Cincy

Fiesta didn't have to take TCU over Iowa. They had 1st choice of Cincy, TCU, Boise, Iowa, Va Tech, Penn St, and BYU. They could have taken Iowa or Penn St and then get one of TCU, Boise, Va Tech, or BYU as their opponent- depending on what the Orange did.

We aren't disagreeing. The fiesta voluntarily took TCU. I was simply saying that it was TCU, not BSU that was the first pick of the Fiesta.

(05-27-2014 10:59 AM)Maize Wrote:  From the article:

"We don't have the revenue pieces we used to have," Fiesta Bowl official Duane Woods told the Arizona Republic in March. That month the bowl laid off two-thirds of its staff.

"It's a whole different landscape than in the past," Woods said.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...not-signed

Says the man that should be lucky that the Fiesta Bowl still exist after the major scandal they had