... in Austin and Tucson. Per ESPN.com.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...bowl-games

https://twitter.com/McMurphyESPN/status/...7875306497
Proposed new bowls: Austin (AAC vs. C-USA), Tucson (MWC vs. C-USA), Orlando (AAC vs. SB), Little Rock (AAC vs. SB)

(04-01-2015 06:52 PM)Orange County Owl Wrote:  ... in Austin and Tucson.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...bowl-games

https://twitter.com/McMurphyESPN/status/...7875306497
Proposed new bowls: Austin (AAC vs. C-USA), Tucson (MWC vs. C-USA), Orlando (AAC vs. SB), Little Rock (AAC vs. SB)

9 AAC bowl bids (out of 12 teams). Do they think that's truly possible? Last year, that number would have included a 3-9 Tulane team as the last bowl team (actually Tulane was 8th last year but I added Navy in there to give them 12 teams).

The Austin bowl would be played either in UT's stadium or somewhere else in Austin, according to the story. What other facilities does that city have (outside of high school stadiums)??

The number of bowl games needs to be reduced, not expanded. I do think Austin is a great location for a bowl, though.

I'm sure that the idea is make sure that each 6 win team has a landing spot (still a 6 win minimum for eligibility) but agree that the AAC math sure seems a stretch.

Why should fewer teams go to bowls? Who exactly is harmed by letting every 6-6 (and 6-7) team into a bowl?

Sure, bowls are less prestigious as a whole than in the past. But if some group is willing to risk capital to try and make a profit, and players/coaches/alumni/fans of said schools get to enjoy one more game on the schedule, who exactly loses?

(04-01-2015 07:32 PM)Seventyniner Wrote:  Why should fewer teams go to bowls? Who exactly is harmed by letting every 6-6 (and 6-7) team into a bowl?

Sure, bowls are less prestigious as a whole than in the past. But if some group is willing to risk capital to try and make a profit, and players/coaches/alumni/fans of said schools get to enjoy one more game on the schedule, who exactly loses?

Who loses? The schools that are contractually obligated to purchase x number of tickets, in the vain hope of getting alums and supporters to buy them.

(04-01-2015 08:37 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  

(04-01-2015 07:32 PM)Seventyniner Wrote:  Why should fewer teams go to bowls? Who exactly is harmed by letting every 6-6 (and 6-7) team into a bowl?

Sure, bowls are less prestigious as a whole than in the past. But if some group is willing to risk capital to try and make a profit, and players/coaches/alumni/fans of said schools get to enjoy one more game on the schedule, who exactly loses?

Who loses? The schools that are contractually obligated to purchase x number of tickets, in the vain hope of getting alums and supporters to buy them.

Bowl invitations can be declined, and will be if considered not worthwhile. Market forces can limit the number of bowls, and one of those market forces is fan support. Bowls do go out of business sometimes.

Austin TV news tonight reported that the Austin proposal was Sun Belt vs. CUSA at Memorial Stadium.

What was it that JFK said, "Why does Rice play bowls at Texas"?

As I noted in another thread, last year, there were 5 G5 teams that qualified for bowls but weren't invited. And there were 3 others in the transitional category who had enough wins and actually could have gone bowling if there were openings. Seems like someone thinks there will be enough demand (I think there are a couple other schools thinking about moving up, too).

My only issue with more bowls is the we-are-so-awesome that seems to come with it, when in reality, the team was a splendidly mediocre 6-6. It's like comparing passing yards in a season between a QB that played 14 games and one that played 16 - much ado about nothing

The fact that your team makes a bowl game is not really any pat on the back for having a good season anymore. If all these games are approved, 2/3 of teams will make a bowl!

(04-02-2015 06:55 AM)AggieOwl01 Wrote:  The fact that your team makes a bowl game is not really any pat on the back for having a good season anymore. If all these games are approved, 2/3 of teams will make a bowl!

And greater shame will come to schools who fail to qualify for a Bowl.

(04-02-2015 06:58 AM)Tiki Owl Wrote:  

(04-02-2015 06:55 AM)AggieOwl01 Wrote:  The fact that your team makes a bowl game is not really any pat on the back for having a good season anymore. If all these games are approved, 2/3 of teams will make a bowl!

And greater shame will come to schools who fail to qualify for a Bowl.

Remember, had these rules been in place, the number of years that Rice would have qualified for a bowl between 1963 and 1992 is exactly 1 (1972, 5-5-1). That assumes that the standard would have been stated as a .500 record; if it were 6 wins, the number is of course zero.

That's basically 3 decades and 9 coaches (end of Neely, Hagan, Peterson, Conover, Rice, Alborn, Brown, Berndt, start of Goldsmith) worth of futility.

The New York Times pointed out that the worst rated bowl game last year (Camellia Bowl, 1.1 million viewers) out drew several of the games in the NCAA basketball tournament.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/27/sports....html?_r=0

Although I sometimes question whether the total athletic subsidy is worth the exposure/marketing value, it seems to me that the marginal cost of going to a bad bowl game is very low compared to the marginal exposure/marketing value.

(04-02-2015 08:36 AM)temchugh Wrote:  The New York Times pointed out that the worst rated bowl game last year (Camellia Bowl, 1.1 million viewers) out drew several of the games in the NCAA basketball tournament.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/27/sports....html?_r=0

Although I sometimes question whether the total athletic subsidy is worth the exposure/marketing value, it seems to me that the marginal cost of going to a bad bowl game is very low compared to the marginal exposure/marketing value.

You're also not factoring in the extra 3 - 4 weeks of sanctioned practice, which helps prepare the team for the following season. This is a HUGE deal.

(04-02-2015 08:40 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(04-02-2015 08:36 AM)temchugh Wrote:  The New York Times pointed out that the worst rated bowl game last year (Camellia Bowl, 1.1 million viewers) out drew several of the games in the NCAA basketball tournament.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/27/sports....html?_r=0

Although I sometimes question whether the total athletic subsidy is worth the exposure/marketing value, it seems to me that the marginal cost of going to a bad bowl game is very low compared to the marginal exposure/marketing value.

You're also not factoring in the extra 3 - 4 weeks of sanctioned practice, which helps prepare the team for the following season. This is a HUGE deal.

Yes, though at this point it's more like a way to further disadvantage the worst third than reward the best teams.

I'd like to see them change it to 7 wins. I used to be in the "who is it hurting" camp regarding too many bowls, but bowl teams shouldn't end the season with losing records...

They should have them in a high school stadium because that is probably how many fans will come.

(04-02-2015 08:52 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(04-02-2015 08:40 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(04-02-2015 08:36 AM)temchugh Wrote:  The New York Times pointed out that the worst rated bowl game last year (Camellia Bowl, 1.1 million viewers) out drew several of the games in the NCAA basketball tournament.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/27/sports....html?_r=0

Although I sometimes question whether the total athletic subsidy is worth the exposure/marketing value, it seems to me that the marginal cost of going to a bad bowl game is very low compared to the marginal exposure/marketing value.

You're also not factoring in the extra 3 - 4 weeks of sanctioned practice, which helps prepare the team for the following season. This is a HUGE deal.

Yes, though at this point it's more like a way to further disadvantage the worst third than reward the best teams.

I'd like to see them change it to 7 wins. I used to be in the "who is it hurting" camp regarding too many bowls, but bowl teams shouldn't end the season with losing records...

(04-01-2015 08:45 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(04-01-2015 08:37 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  

(04-01-2015 07:32 PM)Seventyniner Wrote:  Why should fewer teams go to bowls? Who exactly is harmed by letting every 6-6 (and 6-7) team into a bowl?

Sure, bowls are less prestigious as a whole than in the past. But if some group is willing to risk capital to try and make a profit, and players/coaches/alumni/fans of said schools get to enjoy one more game on the schedule, who exactly loses?

Who loses? The schools that are contractually obligated to purchase x number of tickets, in the vain hope of getting alums and supporters to buy them.

Bowl invitations can be declined, and will be if considered not worthwhile. Market forces can limit the number of bowls, and one of those market forces is fan support. Bowls do go out of business sometimes.

I can see both sides here. On one hand we would expect only well-run bowls to survive, and that has mostly happened. On the other hand, schools declining bowl berths is basically unheard of these days, almost regardless of the cost involved. Didn't UConn lose 8 figures on the Fiesta Bowl? I doubt they ever considered declining the bid.

(04-02-2015 10:15 AM)Seventyniner Wrote:  

(04-01-2015 08:45 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(04-01-2015 08:37 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  

(04-01-2015 07:32 PM)Seventyniner Wrote:  Why should fewer teams go to bowls? Who exactly is harmed by letting every 6-6 (and 6-7) team into a bowl?

Sure, bowls are less prestigious as a whole than in the past. But if some group is willing to risk capital to try and make a profit, and players/coaches/alumni/fans of said schools get to enjoy one more game on the schedule, who exactly loses?

Who loses? The schools that are contractually obligated to purchase x number of tickets, in the vain hope of getting alums and supporters to buy them.

Bowl invitations can be declined, and will be if considered not worthwhile. Market forces can limit the number of bowls, and one of those market forces is fan support. Bowls do go out of business sometimes.

I can see both sides here. On one hand we would expect only well-run bowls to survive, and that has mostly happened. On the other hand, schools declining bowl berths is basically unheard of these days, almost regardless of the cost involved. Didn't UConn lose 8 figures on the Fiesta Bowl? I doubt they ever considered declining the bid.

When was the last time anybody turned down a bowl bid. I think most schools look beyond just the cash flow to other benefits - TV exposure, publicity, extra practice time. etc. I certainly never hope to hear of rice turning down a bowl bid on financial grounds.