http://www.herald-dispatch.com/sports/x1...-USA-slate

the day where everyone gets a ribbon has finally arrived...

just wow...

An angle that gets missed in all of this discussion...who wants (and needs) these bowl games?...Sports Networks need programming; especially live programming which is more lucrative to advertisers in this Tivo era...two 6-6 teams on Dec 19 will out draw 95% of any other programming on a channel that day...Fox and CBS are in chase mode of ESPN and when ASN and NBC start to fill out programming hours, there may be more games to come...the same argument could be said of pre-season MBB tourneys on TV, the CBI and CIT, spring football games televised and midnight madness coverage...if you think the days of 8-14 bowl games is better, TV$ says much different things

(04-04-2015 10:56 AM)HeadsetGuy Wrote:  An angle that gets missed in all of this discussion...who wants (and needs) these bowl games?...Sports Networks need programming; especially live programming which is more lucrative to advertisers in this Tivo era...two 6-6 teams on Dec 19 will out draw 95% of any other programming on a channel that day...Fox and CBS are in chase mode of ESPN and when ASN and NBC start to fill out programming hours, there may be more games to come...the same argument could be said of pre-season MBB tourneys on TV, the CBI and CIT, spring football games televised and midnight madness coverage...if you think the days of 8-14 bowl games is better, TV$ says much different things

so you are a proponent of saturation?

ummmmmkay, that's meaningful

it's always about dollars....

dollars doesn't equate to satisfactory viewing in my world....

I have no choice, but to roll with it....

....doesn't mean I have to like it....

(04-04-2015 11:09 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 10:56 AM)HeadsetGuy Wrote:  An angle that gets missed in all of this discussion...who wants (and needs) these bowl games?...Sports Networks need programming; especially live programming which is more lucrative to advertisers in this Tivo era...two 6-6 teams on Dec 19 will out draw 95% of any other programming on a channel that day...Fox and CBS are in chase mode of ESPN and when ASN and NBC start to fill out programming hours, there may be more games to come...the same argument could be said of pre-season MBB tourneys on TV, the CBI and CIT, spring football games televised and midnight madness coverage...if you think the days of 8-14 bowl games is better, TV$ says much different things

so you are a proponent of saturation?

ummmmmkay, that's meaningful

it's always about dollars....

dollars doesn't equate to satisfactory viewing in my world....

I have no choice, but to roll with it....

....doesn't mean I have to like it....

The only people that like all these bowl games are TV networks, coaches that get bonuses for making a bowl, and fat cats on the bowl committee getting a check.

With the 4-team playoff now in place for the next 11 years (and a growing potential that expansion of it even before the contract expires but certainly when it does), it really doesn't matter if every FBS team gets a bowl game.

Bowl games are nothing more than glorified exhibitions anyway. The playoff is the future, and bowl games - which at one point served as a reward for meeting a certain benchmark - will never again be seen as that much less a measure of success. Anyone who thinks there are too many bowl games has missed the reality of this. They now just exist for business purposes - more specifically a handful of people in a city to make money off the proposition of promoting and hosting a "bowl game."

(04-04-2015 11:09 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 10:56 AM)HeadsetGuy Wrote:  An angle that gets missed in all of this discussion...who wants (and needs) these bowl games?...Sports Networks need programming; especially live programming which is more lucrative to advertisers in this Tivo era...two 6-6 teams on Dec 19 will out draw 95% of any other programming on a channel that day...Fox and CBS are in chase mode of ESPN and when ASN and NBC start to fill out programming hours, there may be more games to come...the same argument could be said of pre-season MBB tourneys on TV, the CBI and CIT, spring football games televised and midnight madness coverage...if you think the days of 8-14 bowl games is better, TV$ says much different things

so you are a proponent of saturation?

ummmmmkay, that's meaningful

it's always about dollars....

dollars doesn't equate to satisfactory viewing in my world....

I have no choice, but to roll with it....

....doesn't mean I have to like it....

An interesting read, stink.

Quote:March Madness is huge, right? This year, the multiweek extravaganza has had its usual share of upsets, an exhilarated coach falling off his rolling chair after a victory and the presence of a dominant Kentucky team. Nearly 11.6 million brackets were submitted to ESPN.com’s annual contest. So what in college sports could be a bigger fan draw than the N.C.A.A. men’s basketball tournament?

How about a bunch of bowl games? Yes, college football bowl games — nearly all of which had no meaning other than providing athletes with a postseason experience.

It is an imperfect comparison: a tournament with a natural direction of 68 teams reduced to a final pairing versus a bowl system that only this year introduced a four-team playoff to decide a national champion — the only instance in the history of bowl games when a winner advanced to the next level.

So it is worth noting that none of the 38 bowl games carried by the ESPN empire last season had fewer viewers than the 1.1 million who tuned in for the inaugural Camellia Bowl from Montgomery, Ala., while nine early-round N.C.A.A. tournament matchups generated audiences below that figure — Texas Southern-Arizona, a TNT telecast, was ranked last at 501,000 — based on the available data from 40 of the 48 games played before Thursday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/27/sports....html?_r=1

(04-04-2015 11:28 AM)USMSTUD Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 11:09 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 10:56 AM)HeadsetGuy Wrote:  An angle that gets missed in all of this discussion...who wants (and needs) these bowl games?...Sports Networks need programming; especially live programming which is more lucrative to advertisers in this Tivo era...two 6-6 teams on Dec 19 will out draw 95% of any other programming on a channel that day...Fox and CBS are in chase mode of ESPN and when ASN and NBC start to fill out programming hours, there may be more games to come...the same argument could be said of pre-season MBB tourneys on TV, the CBI and CIT, spring football games televised and midnight madness coverage...if you think the days of 8-14 bowl games is better, TV$ says much different things

so you are a proponent of saturation?

ummmmmkay, that's meaningful

it's always about dollars....

dollars doesn't equate to satisfactory viewing in my world....

I have no choice, but to roll with it....

....doesn't mean I have to like it....

The only people that like all these bowl games are TV networks, coaches that get bonuses for making a bowl, and fat cats on the bowl committee getting a check.

If that were true nobody would watch the games and the TV networks wouldn't want them.

All bowl games set collective viewing records this year. Even though "people" complain about the increasing number of "meaningless" game, more people are watching than ever.

So really, what's the real harm here? Student athletes get an experience, local economies get a bounce, TV gets their live programming, more fans get an extra game, and no one is mistaking the Rose and Sugar Bowls for the GoDaddy or Miami Beach Bowl.

(04-04-2015 01:13 PM)CoachMaclid Wrote:  All bowl games set collective viewing records this year. Even though "people" complain about the increasing number of "meaningless" game, more people are watching than ever.

So really, what's the real harm here? Student athletes get an experience, local economies get a bounce, TV gets their live programming, more fans get an extra game, and no one is mistaking the Rose and Sugar Bowls for the GoDaddy or Miami Beach Bowl.

Short term, no problem. Long term may be big problem. Scarcity creates demand. Saturation kills it. It's shaping up to be to much of a good thing and eventually the fans will tire of meaningless games. Not just football, but all sports.

Bowls used to be for good teams, now you just have to be average. It stinks. 6-6 teams shouldn't be in bowl games.

But the viewer study means you are in the minority. CUSA had 8 teams with 6 or more wins last yr to lead the Go5 conferences. Posted on Herdfans.com few days back said the studies show more viewers for the minor bowls than the first round NCAAs.

The HD article posted above is just a disgruntled little man in Huntington that's been pi$$ed for a while because Marshall wont kiss up and writes anything negative he can come up with that's about half and half truths and exaggerations to downright misinformation.

If you don't like them, don't watch them.

I love them. Glad there are more.

College football is already scarce. A few more bowl games won't change that.

If you worry about saturation, I buy it regarding the NFL (woefully overexposed), but I don't think college football is even close.

(04-04-2015 01:31 PM)Superanjario Wrote:  If you don't like them, don't watch them.

I love them. Glad there are more.

College football is already scarce. A few more bowl games won't change that.

If you worry about saturation, I buy it regarding the NFL (woefully overexposed), but I don't think college football is even close.

That's the way I feel about it. Last year we had 3 teams with 6-6 records stay home and their fans wanted a bowl. This year no one stays home.

(04-04-2015 01:24 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 01:13 PM)CoachMaclid Wrote:  All bowl games set collective viewing records this year. Even though "people" complain about the increasing number of "meaningless" game, more people are watching than ever.

So really, what's the real harm here? Student athletes get an experience, local economies get a bounce, TV gets their live programming, more fans get an extra game, and no one is mistaking the Rose and Sugar Bowls for the GoDaddy or Miami Beach Bowl.

Short term, no problem. Long term may be big problem. Scarcity creates demand. Saturation kills it. It's shaping up to be to much of a good thing and eventually the fans will tire of meaningless games. Not just football, but all sports.

Actually the saturation is a good thing for the schools. Obviously, it allows them to make a bowl more often. But is also changes the dynamic. It used to be conferences were chasing the bowls and the bowls had all the power. Now, with so many bowls out there, the bowls now have to chase the conferences. That allows the conferences to negotiate more favorable terms for its members when they attend so fewer teams lose money on these trips.

(04-04-2015 05:32 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 01:24 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 01:13 PM)CoachMaclid Wrote:  All bowl games set collective viewing records this year. Even though "people" complain about the increasing number of "meaningless" game, more people are watching than ever.

So really, what's the real harm here? Student athletes get an experience, local economies get a bounce, TV gets their live programming, more fans get an extra game, and no one is mistaking the Rose and Sugar Bowls for the GoDaddy or Miami Beach Bowl.

Short term, no problem. Long term may be big problem. Scarcity creates demand. Saturation kills it. It's shaping up to be to much of a good thing and eventually the fans will tire of meaningless games. Not just football, but all sports.

Actually the saturation is a good thing for the schools. Obviously, it allows them to make a bowl more often. But is also changes the dynamic. It used to be conferences were chasing the bowls and the bowls had all the power. Now, with so many bowls out there, the bowls now have to chase the conferences. That allows the conferences to negotiate more favorable terms for its members when they attend so fewer teams lose money on these trips.

Exactly.

The power belongs to the conference rather than the bowl directors. When the Bowl Alliance and BCS shifted the power at the top, the Cotton lost its importance and the Fiesta's grew. The Fiesta offered an over all better experience and better deal. Cotton took advantage of Jerry World and became a player again.

If the New Mexico Bowl does not provide CUSA with what it wants and can get elsewhere, CUSA will leave and New Mexico will struggle to remain afloat, in the past that was reversed, it was the conference who was trying to appease the bowl director.

Biggest point not made thus far (unless I missed it)

80ish teams get an extra 15 football practices.
40ish teams don't.

It's like having 2 different spring training opportunities.
Huge disadvantage if you don't get a bowl.

I would love to punch Chuck Landon. Who gives a **** if there are too many bowls? The entire system is a crock of ****. At least Conference USA won't have anyone staying home while 5-7 big conference schools go.

It doesn't matter to me what viewership studies say. I'm sure the demand is there. The problem I have is that it's meaningless to go to a bowl these days because everone goes to one. Programs are supposed to go through "dry spells" and sit at home if they aren't good enough. It makes it all that much more rewarding when they do get a 7th win and qualify. 6-6 teams are average and they shouldn't be in bowl games. I can't wait for the day that a bowl can't find a qualified team. It's only a matter of time.

nope. As was just posted there are 40 teams that don't get a Bowl and the extra practice is valuable if you have the right kind of dedication in your coaching staff. I haven't watched any NCAA BB but it doesn't mean there's too much BB but just that I don't like it. Its subjective....dig?