(04-04-2015 01:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 11:07 AM)Bull Wrote:  Interesting how such a 'marginal' and 'shaky' bowl like St. Pete managed a significant upgrade in opponent and actually pulled in a P5 opponent from the ACC. Something that was a coup for the American, and a shot in the arm to our bowl lineup, right at a point where many in the P5 were going to 'not play against G5' anymore.

Who cares what the heck 'bitpay' is or isn't? So we take their money for sponsorship, and when they are done another sponsor steps up. Seriously, a bowl sponsor changes and that's todays reason to ***** about the conference? If that's all you got, we're doing pretty good!!

But why let any facts get in the way of the bash-the-AAC narrative? Keep on with the vague negative adjective-laden posts! lol

The St Pete Bowl is, in fact, a marginal bowl, so it does, in fact, make sense to question whether a sponsor dropping out is about the bowl.

That is not a shot at the AAC, just a fact about the nature of the bowl.

Quo you are really off your game my man... This post is (yet again) just your unsupported name-calling ("marginal") opinion. And they you close by calling your opinion 'just a fact'. You used to put much more effort into your trolling.

(04-04-2015 02:49 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  why are we comparing the Fiesta bowl sponsorships to St. Pete?!?! LOL

Who cares what the sponsors are, sorting through the white noise the bottom line is St. Pete is a crud bowl and the Fiesta is a big time bowl. Guess which one the AAC gets to associate with.

Yeah that's what the ACC thought when they signed up?

You can't have it both ways... grouse about all our bowls against the G5, then bash one of our bowls against a Power 5 opponent. (well maybe on an internet message board you can...)

Also, pretty sure an AAC team *won* the Fiesta a couple of years ago? LOL

(04-04-2015 02:58 PM)Bull Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 02:49 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  why are we comparing the Fiesta bowl sponsorships to St. Pete?!?! LOL

Who cares what the sponsors are, sorting through the white noise the bottom line is St. Pete is a crud bowl and the Fiesta is a big time bowl. Guess which one the AAC gets to associate with.

Yeah that's what the ACC thought when they signed up?

What ACC team does the Beefy Bowl get, the 9th team? Or is it the 10th?

Oops, it might be the 11th!

And only in 2014 and 2016, so what conference do we play in it this year?

Earth to Bull: it's a bottom feeder bowl.

(04-04-2015 02:58 PM)Bull Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 02:49 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  why are we comparing the Fiesta bowl sponsorships to St. Pete?!?! LOL

Who cares what the sponsors are, sorting through the white noise the bottom line is St. Pete is a crud bowl and the Fiesta is a big time bowl. Guess which one the AAC gets to associate with.

Yeah that's what the ACC thought when they signed up?

You can't have it both ways... grouse about all our bowls against the G5, then bash one of our bowls against a Power 5 opponent. (well maybe on an internet message board you can...)

Also, pretty sure an AAC team *won* the Fiesta a couple of years ago? LOL

LOL dude the ACC signed up so it's 8th or 9th place team could have a bowl some years. hahaha let's not pretend for a moment the ACC thinks this is a big time bowl. They don't. The ACC teams that go there probably roll their eyes when it's announced.

(04-04-2015 03:54 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 02:58 PM)Bull Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 02:49 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  why are we comparing the Fiesta bowl sponsorships to St. Pete?!?! LOL

Who cares what the sponsors are, sorting through the white noise the bottom line is St. Pete is a crud bowl and the Fiesta is a big time bowl. Guess which one the AAC gets to associate with.

Yeah that's what the ACC thought when they signed up?

You can't have it both ways... grouse about all our bowls against the G5, then bash one of our bowls against a Power 5 opponent. (well maybe on an internet message board you can...)

Also, pretty sure an AAC team *won* the Fiesta a couple of years ago? LOL

LOL dude the ACC signed up so it's 8th or 9th place team could have a bowl some years.

10th or 11th.

(04-04-2015 03:59 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 03:54 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 02:58 PM)Bull Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 02:49 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  why are we comparing the Fiesta bowl sponsorships to St. Pete?!?! LOL

Who cares what the sponsors are, sorting through the white noise the bottom line is St. Pete is a crud bowl and the Fiesta is a big time bowl. Guess which one the AAC gets to associate with.

Yeah that's what the ACC thought when they signed up?

You can't have it both ways... grouse about all our bowls against the G5, then bash one of our bowls against a Power 5 opponent. (well maybe on an internet message board you can...)

Also, pretty sure an AAC team *won* the Fiesta a couple of years ago? LOL

LOL dude the ACC signed up so it's 8th or 9th place team could have a bowl some years.

10th or 11th.

LOL worse than I thought even.

(04-04-2015 02:54 PM)Go Navy Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 03:18 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  Considering the ratings every game brings in, I fail to see any bowl game is a "POS". Unless, you are talking about games from a competitive or matchup standpoint. But even then, it gives the nation a chance to see unknown players.

Bowl games have always been about making money and attracting tourists. The Rose Bowl wasn't started to settle national championship debates. It was launched, as a part of a festival, to lure Easterners to Pasadena for economic progress.

Bowl games help simulate a local economy, no small task in these financial downtimes and no one is making you watch Podunk U play Commuter School State.

I think the lower tier bowl games, which Navy always plays in, are about making money for the promoters - nobody else.

Most likely, you are correct on that. But where exists a reason, why cities are petitioning for bowl games. Economic simulation and probably a touch of jealously. I mean, if you are Little Rock, you are thinking why should Shreveport have a bowl game and not us? Throw in the advertising for tourists and BOOM! The Hawaii Bowl lives because of tourism and the need for Hawaii football not to be left of bowl games because of their distance from the mainland.

Most of my post was more bent to history.

(04-04-2015 03:52 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 02:58 PM)Bull Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 02:49 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  why are we comparing the Fiesta bowl sponsorships to St. Pete?!?! LOL

Who cares what the sponsors are, sorting through the white noise the bottom line is St. Pete is a crud bowl and the Fiesta is a big time bowl. Guess which one the AAC gets to associate with.

Yeah that's what the ACC thought when they signed up?

What ACC team does the Beefy Bowl get, the 9th team? Or is it the 10th?

Oops, it might be the 11th!

And only in 2014 and 2016, so what conference do we play in it this year?

Earth to Bull: it's a bottom feeder bowl.

Excellent job moving the goal post. All our bowls are bottom feeder bowls. That has zip to do with the hair brained OP.

The OP implied the St Pete Bowl was financially troubled because Bit Coin left. That theory has been demolished by simply pointing out that the St Pete Bowl is owned by the Mickey Mouse Death Star, the richest and most powerful sports media company in the nation. The bowl is not financially troubled.

Frankly, as long as every bowl has a tv contract and has schools lining up to financially guarantee that "x" number of seats are sold, "X" number of hotel rooms are occupied, while accepting worthless tickets as a portion of their "payout"---the bowls will be healthy as horses (even the "bottom feeders").

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

(04-04-2015 03:52 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 02:58 PM)Bull Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 02:49 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  why are we comparing the Fiesta bowl sponsorships to St. Pete?!?! LOL

Who cares what the sponsors are, sorting through the white noise the bottom line is St. Pete is a crud bowl and the Fiesta is a big time bowl. Guess which one the AAC gets to associate with.

Yeah that's what the ACC thought when they signed up?

What ACC team does the Beefy Bowl get, the 9th team? Or is it the 10th?

Oops, it might be the 11th!

And only in 2014 and 2016, so what conference do we play in it this year?

Earth to Bull: it's a bottom feeder bowl.

Excellent job moving the goal post. All our bowls are bottom feeder bowls. That has zip to do with the hair brained OP.

The OP implied the St Pete Bowl was financially troubled because Bit Coin left. That theory has been demolished by simply pointing out that the St Pete Bowl is owned by the Mickey Mouse Death Star, the richest and most powerful sports media company in the nation. The bowl is not financially troubled.

First, no goalposts were shifted. The poster i replied to invoked the ACC tie to claim the SPB isn't a marginal bowl, so it was on point to note that ACC participation is partial, and with a team WAY down their list.

Second, Disney isn't a charity. If they invest in something and it underperforms they will dump it. Obviously they haven't reached that point with the SPB, but point is, they won't use their billions to keep it afloat if starts to lose money.

(04-04-2015 05:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

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

(04-04-2015 03:52 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 02:58 PM)Bull Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 02:49 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  why are we comparing the Fiesta bowl sponsorships to St. Pete?!?! LOL

Who cares what the sponsors are, sorting through the white noise the bottom line is St. Pete is a crud bowl and the Fiesta is a big time bowl. Guess which one the AAC gets to associate with.

Yeah that's what the ACC thought when they signed up?

What ACC team does the Beefy Bowl get, the 9th team? Or is it the 10th?

Oops, it might be the 11th!

And only in 2014 and 2016, so what conference do we play in it this year?

Earth to Bull: it's a bottom feeder bowl.

Excellent job moving the goal post. All our bowls are bottom feeder bowls. That has zip to do with the hair brained OP.

The OP implied the St Pete Bowl was financially troubled because Bit Coin left. That theory has been demolished by simply pointing out that the St Pete Bowl is owned by the Mickey Mouse Death Star, the richest and most powerful sports media company in the nation. The bowl is not financially troubled.

First, no goalposts were shifted. The poster i replied to invoked the ACC tie to claim the SPB isn't a marginal bowl, so it was on point to note that ACC participation is partial, and with a team WAY down their list.

Second, Disney isn't a charity. If they invest in something and it underperforms they will dump it. Obviously they haven't reached that point with the SPB, but point is, they won't use their billions to keep it afloat if starts to lose money.

Please show me your evidence that the bowl lost money. That bowl literally just signed 6 year agreements with 3 conferences. If it was losing money and near insolvency, why would ESPN do that? ESPN Regional Television's "ESPN Events Division" operates 11 bowl games. These are efficiently run corporate events utilizing a competent and highly professional shared staff. The shared structure insures that the ESPN bowls have less overhead with more available resources than most any similar sized stand alone bowl. Zero evidence the game is losing money. And your right---Disney is not a charity. If the game was losing money it would not exist. Thanks for showing how silly the whole idea that the game is losing money is.

(04-04-2015 07:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 05:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

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

(04-04-2015 03:52 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 02:58 PM)Bull Wrote:  Yeah that's what the ACC thought when they signed up?

What ACC team does the Beefy Bowl get, the 9th team? Or is it the 10th?

Oops, it might be the 11th!

And only in 2014 and 2016, so what conference do we play in it this year?

Earth to Bull: it's a bottom feeder bowl.

Excellent job moving the goal post. All our bowls are bottom feeder bowls. That has zip to do with the hair brained OP.

The OP implied the St Pete Bowl was financially troubled because Bit Coin left. That theory has been demolished by simply pointing out that the St Pete Bowl is owned by the Mickey Mouse Death Star, the richest and most powerful sports media company in the nation. The bowl is not financially troubled.

First, no goalposts were shifted. The poster i replied to invoked the ACC tie to claim the SPB isn't a marginal bowl, so it was on point to note that ACC participation is partial, and with a team WAY down their list.

Second, Disney isn't a charity. If they invest in something and it underperforms they will dump it. Obviously they haven't reached that point with the SPB, but point is, they won't use their billions to keep it afloat if starts to lose money.

Please show me your evidence that the bowl lost money.

I never said it was losing money.

(04-04-2015 07:29 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 07:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 05:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

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

(04-04-2015 03:52 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  What ACC team does the Beefy Bowl get, the 9th team? Or is it the 10th?

Oops, it might be the 11th!

And only in 2014 and 2016, so what conference do we play in it this year?

Earth to Bull: it's a bottom feeder bowl.

Excellent job moving the goal post. All our bowls are bottom feeder bowls. That has zip to do with the hair brained OP.

The OP implied the St Pete Bowl was financially troubled because Bit Coin left. That theory has been demolished by simply pointing out that the St Pete Bowl is owned by the Mickey Mouse Death Star, the richest and most powerful sports media company in the nation. The bowl is not financially troubled.

First, no goalposts were shifted. The poster i replied to invoked the ACC tie to claim the SPB isn't a marginal bowl, so it was on point to note that ACC participation is partial, and with a team WAY down their list.

Second, Disney isn't a charity. If they invest in something and it underperforms they will dump it. Obviously they haven't reached that point with the SPB, but point is, they won't use their billions to keep it afloat if starts to lose money.

Please show me your evidence that the bowl lost money.

I never said it was losing money.

I see. Then show me any evidence that the bowl is financially troubled (or "shaky" as you put it).

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...

(04-04-2015 07:49 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 07:29 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 07:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 05:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 05:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Excellent job moving the goal post. All our bowls are bottom feeder bowls. That has zip to do with the hair brained OP.

The OP implied the St Pete Bowl was financially troubled because Bit Coin left. That theory has been demolished by simply pointing out that the St Pete Bowl is owned by the Mickey Mouse Death Star, the richest and most powerful sports media company in the nation. The bowl is not financially troubled.

First, no goalposts were shifted. The poster i replied to invoked the ACC tie to claim the SPB isn't a marginal bowl, so it was on point to note that ACC participation is partial, and with a team WAY down their list.

Second, Disney isn't a charity. If they invest in something and it underperforms they will dump it. Obviously they haven't reached that point with the SPB, but point is, they won't use their billions to keep it afloat if starts to lose money.

Please show me your evidence that the bowl lost money.

I never said it was losing money.

I see. Then show me any evidence that the bowl is financially troubled (or "shaky" as you put it).

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.

(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.

(04-04-2015 08:36 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 07:49 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 07:29 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 07:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 05:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  First, no goalposts were shifted. The poster i replied to invoked the ACC tie to claim the SPB isn't a marginal bowl, so it was on point to note that ACC participation is partial, and with a team WAY down their list.

Second, Disney isn't a charity. If they invest in something and it underperforms they will dump it. Obviously they haven't reached that point with the SPB, but point is, they won't use their billions to keep it afloat if starts to lose money.

Please show me your evidence that the bowl lost money.

I never said it was losing money.

I see. Then show me any evidence that the bowl is financially troubled (or "shaky" as you put it).

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.

So no evidence at all that the bowl is shaky. Then why state that it is?

Is there reason to think its fine? Sure. The bowl pays out $537K a team, (over a million in total). That's more than 3 other bowls on the payout list (see link below). Four other bowls have not made their payout public, so there a good chance the St Pete Bowl pays more than those 4 as well. Attendance was up this year by around 9,000. Ratings were up from .9 in 2013 to a 2.0 in 2014 (see links). Doesn't sound like a death spiral to me. I think you just see everything through the doom and gloom templet. There's plenty about the AAC that sucks, No need to contrive bad news.


Bowl Payouts

http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/bowl_...edule.html

Bowl Ratings 2013

http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-...s/2/#bowls

Bowl Ratings 2014

http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-...#2014bowls


http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/bowl_...edule.html

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

(04-04-2015 08:36 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 07:49 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 07:29 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 07:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Please show me your evidence that the bowl lost money.

I never said it was losing money.

I see. Then show me any evidence that the bowl is financially troubled (or "shaky" as you put it).

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.

So no evidence at all that the bowl is shaky. Then why state that it is?

Is there reason to think its fine? Sure. The bowl pays out $537K a team, (over a million in total). That's more than 3 other bowls on the payout list (see link below). Four other bowls have not made their payout public, so there a good chance the St Pete Bowl pays more than those 4 as well. Attendance was up this year by around 9,000. Ratings were up from .9 in 2013 to a 2.0 in 2014 (see links). Doesn't sound like a death spiral to me. I think you just see everything through the doom and gloom templet. There's plenty about the AAC that sucks, No need to contrive bad news.

Never said the bowl was in a death spiral. My point was in response to Bull, who completely dismissed the idea that the loss of Bitcoin as a sponsor could, not did, but could, indicate a problem with the bowl, because other bowls including top ones change their sponsors all of the time.

I just noted that in the case of shaky minor bowls like the SPB, the loss of a sponsor could mean the bowl was having difficulty, because these minor, bottom-feed bowls tend to lead precarious lives.

No evidence presented here has swayed me from that. SPB is in fact a minor, low-end bowl. It draws flies for attendance and so probably has barely eeked out a living.

Until someone produces actual financial statements, I think that position is accurate.

(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:  

(04-04-2015 07:49 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 07:29 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I never said it was losing money.

I see. Then show me any evidence that the bowl is financially troubled (or "shaky" as you put it).

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.

So no evidence at all that the bowl is shaky. Then why state that it is?

Is there reason to think its fine? Sure. The bowl pays out $537K a team, (over a million in total). That's more than 3 other bowls on the payout list (see link below). Four other bowls have not made their payout public, so there a good chance the St Pete Bowl pays more than those 4 as well. Attendance was up this year by around 9,000. Ratings were up from .9 in 2013 to a 2.0 in 2014 (see links). Doesn't sound like a death spiral to me. I think you just see everything through the doom and gloom templet. There's plenty about the AAC that sucks, No need to contrive bad news.

Never said the bowl was in a death spiral. My point was in response to Bull, who completely dismissed the idea that the loss of Bitcoin as a sponsor could, not did, but could, indicate a problem with the bowl, because other bowls including top ones change their sponsors all of the time.

I just noted that in the case of shaky minor bowls like the SPB, the loss of a sponsor could mean the bowl was having difficulty, because these minor, bottom-feed bowls tend to lead precarious lives.

No evidence presented here has swayed me from that. SPB is in fact a minor, low-end bowl. It draws flies for attendance and so probably has barely eeked out a living.

Until someone produces actual financial statements, I think that position is accurate.

lol....So you admittedly have absolutely no idea if the bowl is shaky. No proof what so ever, yet continue to drone on about it being "shaky" because---well---cuz gosh darn it---you just know its gotta be true. SMH.....Classic.

(04-04-2015 05:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

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

(04-04-2015 03:52 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 02:58 PM)Bull Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 02:49 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  why are we comparing the Fiesta bowl sponsorships to St. Pete?!?! LOL

Who cares what the sponsors are, sorting through the white noise the bottom line is St. Pete is a crud bowl and the Fiesta is a big time bowl. Guess which one the AAC gets to associate with.

Yeah that's what the ACC thought when they signed up?

What ACC team does the Beefy Bowl get, the 9th team? Or is it the 10th?

Oops, it might be the 11th!

And only in 2014 and 2016, so what conference do we play in it this year?

Earth to Bull: it's a bottom feeder bowl.

Excellent job moving the goal post. All our bowls are bottom feeder bowls. That has zip to do with the hair brained OP.

The OP implied the St Pete Bowl was financially troubled because Bit Coin left. That theory has been demolished by simply pointing out that the St Pete Bowl is owned by the Mickey Mouse Death Star, the richest and most powerful sports media company in the nation. The bowl is not financially troubled.

First, no goalposts were shifted. The poster i replied to invoked the ACC tie to claim the SPB isn't a marginal bowl, so it was on point to note that ACC participation is partial, and with a team WAY down their list.

Second, Disney isn't a charity. If they invest in something and it underperforms they will dump it. Obviously they haven't reached that point with the SPB, but point is, they won't use their billions to keep it afloat if starts to lose money.

Disney only gets involved if espn loses money. They are not currently. They will manage the financial statement but not the business

(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:  

(04-04-2015 07:49 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I see. Then show me any evidence that the bowl is financially troubled (or "shaky" as you put it).

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.

So no evidence at all that the bowl is shaky. Then why state that it is?

Is there reason to think its fine? Sure. The bowl pays out $537K a team, (over a million in total). That's more than 3 other bowls on the payout list (see link below). Four other bowls have not made their payout public, so there a good chance the St Pete Bowl pays more than those 4 as well. Attendance was up this year by around 9,000. Ratings were up from .9 in 2013 to a 2.0 in 2014 (see links). Doesn't sound like a death spiral to me. I think you just see everything through the doom and gloom templet. There's plenty about the AAC that sucks, No need to contrive bad news.

Never said the bowl was in a death spiral. My point was in response to Bull, who completely dismissed the idea that the loss of Bitcoin as a sponsor could, not did, but could, indicate a problem with the bowl, because other bowls including top ones change their sponsors all of the time.

I just noted that in the case of shaky minor bowls like the SPB, the loss of a sponsor could mean the bowl was having difficulty, because these minor, bottom-feed bowls tend to lead precarious lives.

No evidence presented here has swayed me from that. SPB is in fact a minor, low-end bowl. It draws flies for attendance and so probably has barely eeked out a living.

Until someone produces actual financial statements, I think that position is accurate.

lol....So you admittedly have absolutely no idea if the bowl is shaky. No proof what so ever, yet continue to drone on about it being "shaky" because---well---cuz gosh darn it---you just know its gotta be true. SMH.....Classic.

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

And yet you admittedely have no evidence to indicate it is not shaky but drone on about how solid it is, eh?

At least i admit i might be wrong ...