The big bowls tend to keep sponsors longer than small ones. Often Sponsors sign up with the plan of being there one or 2 years, to accomplish a short term goal. It means nothing good or bad when sponsors change at this level.

(04-05-2015 08:04 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  The big bowls tend to keep sponsors longer than small ones. Often Sponsors sign up with the plan of being there one or 2 years, to accomplish a short term goal. It means nothing good or bad when sponsors change at this level.

It may or may not mean anything, have to look case by case.

In this case, i think it means BitPay is struggling, and the SPB could be, too.

(04-05-2015 08:02 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-05-2015 12:09 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 11:04 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 09:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 08:36 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  It is fair to assume it is shaky since attendance and payouts are so low. Revenue obviously isn't high so it is probably scraping by.

But feel free to post evidence of financial success, if you have it.

The prima facie evidence that the bowl is shaky - its low attendance - is pretty compelling.

It is a bowl that was set up to have small attendance. Even if they fill it up it is under 30k. A lot of the newer small bowls are doing that, so they look better on TV. The bowl mainly gets its $$ from TV and sponsors. These bowls do have to run lean and mean, but that is how they are set up. The big advantage to that is they don't need huge sales per school requirements that cause schools to lose $$ on the bowl.

(04-04-2015 08:40 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 08:18 PM)Bull Wrote:  Wow you guys are dancing so fast you look like Fred Astaire.

So which is it, our bowls suck because we're playing cUSA and the SBC (Little rock and Austin threads)? Oh wait, we just upgraded one of our bowls with a P5 tie in? But now it sucks because it only get a 'low' ACC team?

The St. Pete bowl sucks because it's sponsor changed. Oh wait, lots of bowls change sponsors? Well then it just sucks because it's a low tier bowl in general? Even though it just upgraded it's opponent ?

You can't keep changing your story on every thread. (Well... actually I guess you can) So what's your metric, unless we become a bona fide Power conference, we suck? The louder they complain the better we're doing, which from where we started is pretty good actually... Nice try dude...

As usual, when the facts don't support your sunshine-AAC position, rather than bow to them you make snark comments about whoever posted them.

In this case, my 'story' hasn't changed a bit, and you can't point to where it has. But that doesn't bother you, since all you care to do is blithely make these claims and, cognitive dissonance between your sunshine beliefs and reality resolved, take your ball and go home.

Wow Quo, such vitriol from someone so intelligent.

Lets take a hard look at this post. Did you answer a single one of my 6 questions? Nope. Not a single answer.

Instead, this is what I got in response:

"Sunshine-laden AAC position" (this IS the American board... so surely we do seem a bit too positive for an admitted Big East fan).

To very legitimate questions, I got: "Snark", "Blithly", "cognitive dissonance", "Distance between my sunshine beliefs and reality" (that one is my favorite), and "take my ball and go home"

Very mature Quo!! And as usual, most of these posts are just insults and obfuscation, again and again, from the same 2-3 screen names. And this kind of anti-conference crap, on thread after thread, is what got you BANNED before. Yet you somehow mysteriously reappeared?

Nothing personal, but my last post on this thread. So you don't like the conference, Aresco, or our bowls? Well, we KNOW we're not a power conference, we're not happy about it, and we're working on it. Pretty well, actually. We don't need the constant reminders, usually way off topic for each thread. That's not sports discussion.

It's too bad this is allowed to happen on thread after thread... or is that the goal?

Happy Easter!

(04-05-2015 08:28 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(04-05-2015 08:02 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-05-2015 12:09 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 11:04 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 09:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

The prima facie evidence that the bowl is shaky - its low attendance - is pretty compelling.

It is a bowl that was set up to have small attendance. Even if they fill it up it is under 30k. A lot of the newer small bowls are doing that, so they look better on TV. The bowl mainly gets its $$ from TV and sponsors. These bowls do have to run lean and mean, but that is how they are set up. The big advantage to that is they don't need huge sales per school requirements that cause schools to lose $$ on the bowl.

Unless we see financial statememts, we don't know if the SPB is running mean and lean or not.

The St Pete Bowl because of its proximity to USF and UCF, as well as being in a nice place to visit in December, could if run correctly become a very successful bowl game. Unfortunately I don't see the city nor ESPN who owns the bowl doing much for it other than just being another TV event.

(04-04-2015 08:40 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 08:18 PM)Bull Wrote:  Wow you guys are dancing so fast you look like Fred Astaire.

So which is it, our bowls suck because we're playing cUSA and the SBC (Little rock and Austin threads)? Oh wait, we just upgraded one of our bowls with a P5 tie in? But now it sucks because it only get a 'low' ACC team?

The St. Pete bowl sucks because it's sponsor changed. Oh wait, lots of bowls change sponsors? Well then it just sucks because it's a low tier bowl in general? Even though it just upgraded it's opponent ?

You can't keep changing your story on every thread. (Well... actually I guess you can) So what's your metric, unless we become a bona fide Power conference, we suck? The louder they complain the better we're doing, which from where we started is pretty good actually... Nice try dude...

As usual, when the facts don't support your sunshine-AAC position, rather than bow to them you make snark comments about whoever posted them.

In this case, my 'story' hasn't changed a bit, and you can't point to where it has. But that doesn't bother you, since all you care to do is blithely make these claims and, cognitive dissonance between your sunshine beliefs and reality resolved, take your ball and go home.

Quo, it's clear you're not interested in addressing any points that contradict your view and would rather be 'right' than be factually correct. No one is thrilled about this bowl, yet you're arguing that people are. Focusing on the positives about the bowl, despite stating it's obvious status as a low teir bowl, isn't ignoring it's faults. You're being silly and childish.

(04-05-2015 08:45 AM)Bull Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 08:40 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 08:18 PM)Bull Wrote:  Wow you guys are dancing so fast you look like Fred Astaire.

So which is it, our bowls suck because we're playing cUSA and the SBC (Little rock and Austin threads)? Oh wait, we just upgraded one of our bowls with a P5 tie in? But now it sucks because it only get a 'low' ACC team?

The St. Pete bowl sucks because it's sponsor changed. Oh wait, lots of bowls change sponsors? Well then it just sucks because it's a low tier bowl in general? Even though it just upgraded it's opponent ?

You can't keep changing your story on every thread. (Well... actually I guess you can) So what's your metric, unless we become a bona fide Power conference, we suck? The louder they complain the better we're doing, which from where we started is pretty good actually... Nice try dude...

As usual, when the facts don't support your sunshine-AAC position, rather than bow to them you make snark comments about whoever posted them.

In this case, my 'story' hasn't changed a bit, and you can't point to where it has. But that doesn't bother you, since all you care to do is blithely make these claims and, cognitive dissonance between your sunshine beliefs and reality resolved, take your ball and go home.

Wow Quo, such vitriol from someone so intelligent.

Lets take a hard look at this post. Did you answer a single one of my 6 questions? Nope. Not a single answer.

Instead, this is what I got in response:

"Sunshine-laden AAC position" (this IS the American board... so surely we do seem a bit too positive for an admitted Big East fan).

To very legitimate questions, I got: "Snark", "Blithly", "cognitive dissonance", "Distance between my sunshine beliefs and reality" (that one is my favorite), and "take my ball and go home"

Very mature Quo!! And as usual, most of these posts are just insults and obfuscation, again and again, from the same 2-3 screen names. And this kind of anti-conference crap, on thread after thread, is what got you BANNED before. Yet you somehow mysteriously reappeared?

Nothing personal, but my last post on this thread. So you don't like the conference, Aresco, or our bowls? Well, we KNOW we're not a power conference, we're not happy about it, and we're working on it. Pretty well, actually. We don't need the constant reminders, usually way off topic for each thread. That's not sports discussion.

It's too bad this is allowed to happen on thread after thread... or is that the goal?

Happy Easter!

You mean these questions?

1) So which is it, our bowls suck because we're playing cUSA and the SBC (Little rock and Austin threads)?

I never said any of our bowls "sucks", just that they are low-end, bottom-feeder bowls. Doesn't mean they can't produce a good game and good times for those who attend. But AAC vs CUSA and SBC don't exactly scream "big time"!

2) Oh wait, we just upgraded one of our bowls with a P5 tie in?

The P5 "tie in" is for the 10th or 11th place ACC team, and for 2 of the 6 years of the bowl's current contract. Not exactly a strong "big time" P5 tie-in.

3) But now it sucks because it only get a 'low' ACC team?

The tie-in with the ACC is very weak. That speaks to the lowly status of the game.

4) The St. Pete bowl sucks because it's sponsor changed. Oh wait, lots of bowls change sponsors?

As explained, it's not a big deal when a major bowl changes sponsors, because we know the bowl is doing well. But when a bottom-rung bowl does, that very well could mean that the bowl is struggling, not just the sponsor.

5) Well then it just sucks because it's a low tier bowl in general?

It's a low-end bottom-feeder because It's a low-tier bowl with low payout and low attendance against low-level opponents and in a crappy stadium.

6) Even though it just upgraded it's opponent ?

See above. That "upgrade" is very weak.

Happy Easter to you too!

(04-05-2015 09:04 AM)Cubanbull Wrote:  The St Pete Bowl because of its proximity to USF and UCF, as well as being in a nice place to visit in December, could if run correctly become a very successful bowl game. Unfortunately I don't see the city nor ESPN who owns the bowl doing much for it other than just being another TV event.

Agreed. The entire Tampa Bay area is a fantastic place to spend some time around Christmas, and with just the Outback Bowl in the area, there is seemingly enough market "room" for a lower-level lead in bowl. But the location in the Rays baseball stadium is dreadful, and as you note ESPN doesn't seem to see any potential, they seem to be running it bottom-basement, and so it remains one of the worst bowls out there.

The bowl should be moved to RJS, just as the Rays should move from downtown St. Pete to Tampa or at least much closer to Hillsborough county, but the city of St. Pete still hasn't quite let go of the failed 1980s idea that they can create a downtown experience around sporting events.

Church of Scientology now looking at naming rights to the former BitCoin St Pete bowl.

(04-05-2015 10:31 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-05-2015 09:04 AM)Cubanbull Wrote:  The St Pete Bowl because of its proximity to USF and UCF, as well as being in a nice place to visit in December, could if run correctly become a very successful bowl game. Unfortunately I don't see the city nor ESPN who owns the bowl doing much for it other than just being another TV event.

Agreed. The entire Tampa Bay area is a fantastic place to spend some time around Christmas, and with just the Outback Bowl in the area, there is seemingly enough market "room" for a lower-level lead in bowl. But the location in the Rays baseball stadium is dreadful, and as you note ESPN doesn't seem to see any potential, they seem to be running it bottom-basement, and so it remains one of the worst bowls out there.

The bowl should be moved to RJS, just as the Rays should move from downtown St. Pete to Tampa or at least much closer to Hillsborough county, but the city of St. Pete still hasn't quite let go of the failed 1980s idea that they can create a downtown experience around sporting events.

When was the last time you went to downtown StPete?
The Rays will struggle with attendance even if they move to Tampa. The problem is that population is spread out, transportation is horrible so no one is going to fight traffic to attend games and the area is NOT a die hard sports area in fact no city in Florida is, too many transplants and retirees that still support other teams.

Was last in downtown St. Pete about a year ago at Christmas. Nice place, but not about sports.

Sure, even if the Rays move to Tampa they'll never be the Red Sox or Cardinals in terms of local support. But I bet they'd do significantly better than they currently do. Transplants aren't necessarily an obstacle - when the Bucs were good between 96-03 they sold out Tampa Stadium and RJS regularly for years. And the Dodgers draw massively in LA despite terrible public transportation, lots of transplants, and a sprawling metropolis.

St. Pete is just the worst location for a baseball team in the area, or a bowl game.

(04-05-2015 10:22 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-05-2015 08:45 AM)Bull Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 08:40 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 08:18 PM)Bull Wrote:  Wow you guys are dancing so fast you look like Fred Astaire.

So which is it, our bowls suck because we're playing cUSA and the SBC (Little rock and Austin threads)? Oh wait, we just upgraded one of our bowls with a P5 tie in? But now it sucks because it only get a 'low' ACC team?

The St. Pete bowl sucks because it's sponsor changed. Oh wait, lots of bowls change sponsors? Well then it just sucks because it's a low tier bowl in general? Even though it just upgraded it's opponent ?

You can't keep changing your story on every thread. (Well... actually I guess you can) So what's your metric, unless we become a bona fide Power conference, we suck? The louder they complain the better we're doing, which from where we started is pretty good actually... Nice try dude...

As usual, when the facts don't support your sunshine-AAC position, rather than bow to them you make snark comments about whoever posted them.

In this case, my 'story' hasn't changed a bit, and you can't point to where it has. But that doesn't bother you, since all you care to do is blithely make these claims and, cognitive dissonance between your sunshine beliefs and reality resolved, take your ball and go home.

Wow Quo, such vitriol from someone so intelligent.

Lets take a hard look at this post. Did you answer a single one of my 6 questions? Nope. Not a single answer.

Instead, this is what I got in response:

"Sunshine-laden AAC position" (this IS the American board... so surely we do seem a bit too positive for an admitted Big East fan).

To very legitimate questions, I got: "Snark", "Blithly", "cognitive dissonance", "Distance between my sunshine beliefs and reality" (that one is my favorite), and "take my ball and go home"

Very mature Quo!! And as usual, most of these posts are just insults and obfuscation, again and again, from the same 2-3 screen names. And this kind of anti-conference crap, on thread after thread, is what got you BANNED before. Yet you somehow mysteriously reappeared?

Nothing personal, but my last post on this thread. So you don't like the conference, Aresco, or our bowls? Well, we KNOW we're not a power conference, we're not happy about it, and we're working on it. Pretty well, actually. We don't need the constant reminders, usually way off topic for each thread. That's not sports discussion.

It's too bad this is allowed to happen on thread after thread... or is that the goal?

Happy Easter!

You mean these questions?

1) So which is it, our bowls suck because we're playing cUSA and the SBC (Little rock and Austin threads)?

I never said any of our bowls "sucks", just that they are low-end, bottom-feeder bowls. Doesn't mean they can't produce a good game and good times for those who attend. But AAC vs CUSA and SBC don't exactly scream "big time"!

Do you HONESTLY think we don't know this?? And so low-end and bottom feeder are compliments in your brain? Because they don't 'suck'? LOL

2) Oh wait, we just upgraded one of our bowls with a P5 tie in?

The P5 "tie in" is for the 10th or 11th place ACC team, and for 2 of the 6 years of the bowl's current contract. Not exactly a strong "big time" P5 tie-in.

"Not exactly strong" = your opinion. I didn't say strong, I said upgraded. Newsflash: We're not a power conference. But when they were talking about refusing to play G5, this was a pretty decent 'get'. Any of the other G5 conferences would love to have this game against the ACC.

3) But now it sucks because it only get a 'low' ACC team? The tie-in with the ACC is very weak. That speaks to the lowly status of the game.

"weak" and "lowly" more Quo adjectives put out there as Quo facts. But again, I never said it was strong. I understand what the bowl is, and I'm very happy it upgraded it's opponent.

4) The St. Pete bowl sucks because it's sponsor changed. Oh wait, lots of bowls change sponsors?

As explained, it's not a big deal when a major bowl changes sponsors, because we know the bowl is doing well. But when a bottom-rung bowl does, that very well could mean that the bowl is struggling, not just the sponsor.

Well as AC has explained, the bowl is not struggling. As I've explained, many 'lower' bowls switch sponsorships, as companies decide to spread their PR dollars elsewhere and target other demographics. Smart business actually. It "could be" struggling? Call us when you know something"

5) Well then it just sucks because it's a low tier bowl in general?

It's a low-end bottom-feeder because It's a low-tier bowl with low payout and low attendance against low-level opponents and in a crappy stadium.

And yet the ACC decided to pick it up. Look it isn't the super bowl, but we're not a P conference. Again, what do you expect? Do you honestly think we don't know what this bowl is? Who on this thread has said it's a major bowl?

6) Even though it just upgraded it's opponent ?


See above. That "upgrade" is very weak. Okay, thanks for giving us your 'opinion' for the x1000th time as if it's some kind of fact. What IS a fact is that the SPB upgraded it's opponent. For now, we'll take it.

Couldn't help myself decided to check in again... Thanks for the insightful and well supported responses. The bottom line is your standard for us is the level of the P5 conferences. TV dollars, bowls, whatever. Ridiculous, but par for the Quo course.

(04-05-2015 02:15 PM)Bull Wrote:  

(04-05-2015 10:22 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-05-2015 08:45 AM)Bull Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 08:40 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 08:18 PM)Bull Wrote:  Wow you guys are dancing so fast you look like Fred Astaire.

So which is it, our bowls suck because we're playing cUSA and the SBC (Little rock and Austin threads)? Oh wait, we just upgraded one of our bowls with a P5 tie in? But now it sucks because it only get a 'low' ACC team?

The St. Pete bowl sucks because it's sponsor changed. Oh wait, lots of bowls change sponsors? Well then it just sucks because it's a low tier bowl in general? Even though it just upgraded it's opponent ?

You can't keep changing your story on every thread. (Well... actually I guess you can) So what's your metric, unless we become a bona fide Power conference, we suck? The louder they complain the better we're doing, which from where we started is pretty good actually... Nice try dude...

As usual, when the facts don't support your sunshine-AAC position, rather than bow to them you make snark comments about whoever posted them.

In this case, my 'story' hasn't changed a bit, and you can't point to where it has. But that doesn't bother you, since all you care to do is blithely make these claims and, cognitive dissonance between your sunshine beliefs and reality resolved, take your ball and go home.

Wow Quo, such vitriol from someone so intelligent.

Lets take a hard look at this post. Did you answer a single one of my 6 questions? Nope. Not a single answer.

Instead, this is what I got in response:

"Sunshine-laden AAC position" (this IS the American board... so surely we do seem a bit too positive for an admitted Big East fan).

To very legitimate questions, I got: "Snark", "Blithly", "cognitive dissonance", "Distance between my sunshine beliefs and reality" (that one is my favorite), and "take my ball and go home"

Very mature Quo!! And as usual, most of these posts are just insults and obfuscation, again and again, from the same 2-3 screen names. And this kind of anti-conference crap, on thread after thread, is what got you BANNED before. Yet you somehow mysteriously reappeared?

Nothing personal, but my last post on this thread. So you don't like the conference, Aresco, or our bowls? Well, we KNOW we're not a power conference, we're not happy about it, and we're working on it. Pretty well, actually. We don't need the constant reminders, usually way off topic for each thread. That's not sports discussion.

It's too bad this is allowed to happen on thread after thread... or is that the goal?

Happy Easter!

You mean these questions?

1) So which is it, our bowls suck because we're playing cUSA and the SBC (Little rock and Austin threads)?

I never said any of our bowls "sucks", just that they are low-end, bottom-feeder bowls. Doesn't mean they can't produce a good game and good times for those who attend. But AAC vs CUSA and SBC don't exactly scream "big time"!

Do you HONESTLY think we don't know this?? And so low-end and bottom feeder are compliments in your brain? Because they don't 'suck'? LOL

Typical Bull hyperbole. I never said "low end" etc. were compliments. But they are different from saying the bowl "sucks", which implies no positive characteristics.

2) Oh wait, we just upgraded one of our bowls with a P5 tie in?

The P5 "tie in" is for the 10th or 11th place ACC team, and for 2 of the 6 years of the bowl's current contract. Not exactly a strong "big time" P5 tie-in.

"Not exactly strong" = your opinion. I didn't say strong, I said upgraded. Newsflash: We're not a power conference. But when they were talking about refusing to play G5, this was a pretty decent 'get'. Any of the other G5 conferences would love to have this game against the ACC.

IMO, getting the 10th or 11th ACC team two times in six years is hardly an upgrade worth talking about. You think it is? Good for you.

3) But now it sucks because it only get a 'low' ACC team? The tie-in with the ACC is very weak. That speaks to the lowly status of the game.

"weak" and "lowly" more Quo adjectives put out there as Quo facts. But again, I never said it was strong. I understand what the bowl is, and I'm very happy it upgraded it's opponent.

More Bull from Bull. I didn't claim them as facts. I think it is obvious that the SPB is a weak, lowly bowl, but it's not a fact like 2+2=4 is. Happier?

4) The St. Pete bowl sucks because it's sponsor changed. Oh wait, lots of bowls change sponsors?

As explained, it's not a big deal when a major bowl changes sponsors, because we know the bowl is doing well. But when a bottom-rung bowl does, that very well could mean that the bowl is struggling, not just the sponsor.

Well as AC has explained, the bowl is not struggling. As I've explained, many 'lower' bowls switch sponsorships, as companies decide to spread their PR dollars elsewhere and target other demographics. Smart business actually. It "could be" struggling? Call us when you know something"

AC did not "explain" that the bowl is not struggling. He asserted it isn't, but hasn't produced any facts to back it up. The only thing that could tell us the truth are the financial statements and neither he nor I has them.

And you were the one who made the definitive claim that because lots of other bowls, including lower ones, had changed sponsors, that there's nothing to worry about with the SPB. I corrected you, noting that with minor bowls, sponsor changes can indicate problems with the bowl. Not do - I'm not in the habit of making sweeping unsupported claims like you - but could.

5) Well then it just sucks because it's a low tier bowl in general?

It's a low-end bottom-feeder because It's a low-tier bowl with low payout and low attendance against low-level opponents and in a crappy stadium.

And yet the ACC decided to pick it up. Look it isn't the super bowl, but we're not a P conference. Again, what do you expect? Do you honestly think we don't know what this bowl is? Who on this thread has said it's a major bowl?

Yes, the ACC decided it was good enough for their 10th or 11th place teams two years in six. Whooppeee!

And you keep missing the point: I never said anyone claimed the SPB was a major bowl. If you go back, my first comment was just an attempt to temper your sweeping claim that because other bowls have changed sponsors, it's no big deal that the SPB is. Fact is, it COULD be a big deal, could mean the bowl is struggling. Not for sure, but worth considering.

6) Even though it just upgraded it's opponent ?


See above. That "upgrade" is very weak. Okay, thanks for giving us your 'opinion' for the x1000th time as if it's some kind of fact. What IS a fact is that the SPB upgraded it's opponent. For now, we'll take it.

I give opinions as opinions. Not as facts.

Couldn't help myself decided to check in again... Thanks for the insightful and well supported responses. The bottom line is your standard for us is the level of the P5 conferences. TV dollars, bowls, whatever. Ridiculous, but par for the Quo course.

Typical Bull from Bull. I have said nothing to claim that my standard for the SPB is at P5 level. I just tried to temper your typical Bull sunshiner claims that nothing could possibly be amiss with the SPB.

Quo, you're wrong in this argument and are just trying your best to obfuscate the obvious meaning of your posts. You're trying to split non-existent hairs and are arguing points no one is disagreeing with. Stop trying.

(04-05-2015 10:49 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  Church of Scientology now looking at naming rights to the former BitCoin St Pete bowl.

You're kidding, right?

(04-06-2015 08:08 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  Quo, you're wrong in this argument and are just trying your best to obfuscate the obvious meaning of your posts. You're trying to split non-existent hairs and are arguing points no one is disagreeing with. Stop trying.

If you have nothing to contribute to the discussion, why post?