(04-03-2015 09:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  What is the basis for believing our Miami Beach bowl made money? I can't think of any. What revenue did it have?

IIRC, there was no announced payout. That is not a sign of profitability.

What evidence do you have they lost money? The fact that the bowl still exists and 4 more bowls want to get in on the act tells me it probably did ok. As for announced payoff---to the best of my knowledge not one of the new bowls has announced a payout. That tells me they are all Nola Bowl payouts or less. You have to understand, most of these bowls cover their costs with the TV deal. The rest of the income is gravy. This bowl has no overpaid bowl director making 700K. Its essentially run by the AAC staff with logistical help from the Marlins. I cant see anyway our costs structure is more than your typical bowl--in fact, its probably significantly less than your typical bowl with little or no dedicated staff and a TV deal thats similar to every other G5 bowl that came on line last year.

(04-03-2015 10:13 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 09:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  What is the basis for believing our Miami Beach bowl made money? I can't think of any. What revenue did it have?

IIRC, there was no announced payout. That is not a sign of profitability.

What evidence do you have they lost money? The fact that the bowl still exists and 4 more bowls want to get in on the act tells me it probably did ok. As for announced payoff---to the best of my knowledge not one of the new bowls has announced a payout. That tells me they are all Nola Bowl payouts or less.

Most payouts are a sham.

Liberty used to announce a huge payout and MWC bailed to go to smaller payout Las Vegas. The Liberty was requiring a huge ticket purchase and a large "marketing fee" (conference was paying like $500,000 to Liberty to promote the MWC, then MWC got most of it back in the form of the Liberty payout).

Las Vegas was announcing a million dollar payout and offered to reduce the ticket purchase portion of the payout and reduce the announced payout the same amount. Pac-12 balked. They wanted an announced million.

(04-02-2015 05:07 PM)leapinggazelle Wrote:  

(04-02-2015 04:30 PM)Bull Wrote:  I'm astonished we have not pursued a bowl in the new Coogs stadium. Perfect size, location, and member school so the help/volunteers are there.

Its too small, teams would rather in in a big boy state-of-the-art stadium like Reliant or Rice stadium..

Let me get this straight, UT Austin stadium is too big but San Marcos is perfect, but Coogs is too small, but Rice stadium or NRG would be great?

Message board debates are fun!

Lets see if I can parse what's really going on.. It's more than just stadium size, market and location matter too. Ideal would a 'mid sized' stadium in an untapped market, with member schools nearby. I basically think we're going to Austin to get a new bowl market in a major CFB town, and taking the hit on stadium size (too big > too small anyway...) assuming attendance won't be a visible problem on TV (upper decks not shown much). I like the plan.

One thing that I haven't seen tossed around (though i'm doubtful this is the case)...

What if all this bowl talk is preps for expanding in the future? Going from 12 teams to 14?

(04-03-2015 02:33 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  One thing that I haven't seen tossed around (though i'm doubtful this is the case)...

What if all this bowl talk is preps for expanding in the future? Going from 12 teams to 14?

I mentioned that the other day. I cant see us doing it until the contract renegotiation. There is no official "look in"---but Aresco has said a number of times that he is looking to renegotiate the deal in "a couple of years". So, Im assuming he is looking to talk early extension in 2016 or 2017. At that point, expansion could be on the table (if ESPN wants it) and we would still be under in the current bowl cycle. Its possible I suppose.

Honestly, I think Aresco was being chewed on by his western AD's. They didn't want to be placed in a situation where they had to ask their fan base travel 1000 miles to play a mid-pack G5 finisher. It was a recipe for the western schools potentially taking a bath on those low end bowls with unattractive opponents located way out east. These close G5 bowls eliminate that unpleasant prospect.

(04-03-2015 02:42 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 02:33 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  One thing that I haven't seen tossed around (though i'm doubtful this is the case)...

What if all this bowl talk is preps for expanding in the future? Going from 12 teams to 14?

I mentioned that the other day. I cant see us doing it until the contract renegotiation. There is no official "look in"---but Aresco has said a number of times that he is looking to renegotiate the deal in "a couple of years". So, Im assuming he is looking to talk early extension in 2016 or 2017. At that point, expansion could be on the table (if ESPN wants it) and we would still be under in the current bowl cycle. Its possible I suppose.

Honestly, I think Aresco was being chewed on by his western AD's. They didn't want to be placed in a situation where they had to ask their fan base travel 1000 miles to play a mid-pack G5 finisher. It was a recipe for the western schools potentially taking a bath on those low end bowls with unattractive opponents located way out east. These close G5 bowls eliminate that unpleasant prospect.

Subscribing to Occam's Razor, that's probably the most likely scenario.

New bowl in Austin is all about building the "American" brand outside it historical geographic area mainly what was the East coast, it's all about building the conference brand in mainly non-traditional areas of the country since the conference has gone national in geographic scope.

(04-03-2015 10:13 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 09:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  What is the basis for believing our Miami Beach bowl made money? I can't think of any. What revenue did it have?

IIRC, there was no announced payout. That is not a sign of profitability.

What evidence do you have they lost money? The fact that the bowl still exists and 4 more bowls want to get in on the act tells me it probably did ok. As for announced payoff---to the best of my knowledge not one of the new bowls has announced a payout. That tells me they are all Nola Bowl payouts or less. You have to understand, most of these bowls cover their costs with the TV deal.

My post was in response to the OP, who basically says that bowls are immune to losing money so we should just keep starting more of them. History shows this isn't the case (many bowls have gone out of existence over the years), so I want to see evidence that Miami Beach is making money.

Also, if I understand correctly, the new bowls in Austin and Little Rock at least do not have ESPN deals, so the TV money, wherever it comes from, will probably be less than even Miami Beach Bowl and the bowls will lack ESPN visibility. It also is more evidence about how much ESPN actually values us and IMO has implications for the notion that they will be willing to throw more money at us in a few years.

And, from a brand-image POV, these new bowls are with G5 opponents, lessening our ratio of bowls with P5 opponents, thus these new bowls are a step backwards from Aresco's claim that we moving in a P5 direction. Silly claim, yes, but he has said it.

(04-03-2015 02:45 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 02:42 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 02:33 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  One thing that I haven't seen tossed around (though i'm doubtful this is the case)...

What if all this bowl talk is preps for expanding in the future? Going from 12 teams to 14?

I mentioned that the other day. I cant see us doing it until the contract renegotiation. There is no official "look in"---but Aresco has said a number of times that he is looking to renegotiate the deal in "a couple of years". So, Im assuming he is looking to talk early extension in 2016 or 2017. At that point, expansion could be on the table (if ESPN wants it) and we would still be under in the current bowl cycle. Its possible I suppose.

Honestly, I think Aresco was being chewed on by his western AD's. They didn't want to be placed in a situation where they had to ask their fan base travel 1000 miles to play a mid-pack G5 finisher. It was a recipe for the western schools potentially taking a bath on those low end bowls with unattractive opponents located way out east. These close G5 bowls eliminate that unpleasant prospect.

Subscribing to Occam's Razor, that's probably the most likely scenario.

I don't know about the western ADs and Aresco, but AttackCoog has sure as hell been chewing on us about it, forever.

(04-04-2015 07:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 10:13 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 09:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  What is the basis for believing our Miami Beach bowl made money? I can't think of any. What revenue did it have?

IIRC, there was no announced payout. That is not a sign of profitability.

What evidence do you have they lost money? The fact that the bowl still exists and 4 more bowls want to get in on the act tells me it probably did ok. As for announced payoff---to the best of my knowledge not one of the new bowls has announced a payout. That tells me they are all Nola Bowl payouts or less. You have to understand, most of these bowls cover their costs with the TV deal.

My post was in response to the OP, who basically says that bowls are immune to losing money so we should just keep starting more of them. History shows this isn't the case (many bowls have gone out of existence over the years), so I want to see evidence that Miami Beach is making money.

Also, if I understand correctly, the new bowls in Austin and Little Rock at least do not have ESPN deals, so the TV money, wherever it comes from, will probably be less than even Miami Beach Bowl and the bowls will lack ESPN visibility. It also is more evidence about how much ESPN actually values us and IMO has implications for the notion that they will be willing to throw more money at us in a few years.

And, from a brand-image POV, these new bowls are with G5 opponents, lessening our ratio of bowls with P5 opponents, thus these new bowls are a step backwards from Aresco's claim that we moving in a P5 direction. Silly claim, yes, but he has said it.

Does it really matter? I mean, the bowls we DO have games against P5 teams are against a P5 conference's 7th best team or whatever so we have two bowl opponent options:

1. Play a good G5 team...and so nationally two G5's squaring off, who cares.

2. Play a .500 or one game over .500 P5 team who is pissed they are there and have to play a G5 team. So nationally, again, who cares. So we beat a 6-6 P5. whoopie. I know UC got beat down in our game against 6-6 Va Tech but many UC fans were mad they had to play a 6-6 Va Tech in a bowl. And we lost lol.

It's a no win for us all so who cares either way


eh frick it...let's start up a bunch of bowls so every team in the conference has a bowl. The last two or three bowls can be against some top FCS teams just to complete the trifecta of suckatude