Not to be an ass, but having the Sinclair's American Sports Network with Campus Insiders covering the bowl match-up, it's not a good spot for it. I would argue the Cure Bowl on CBS Sports Network isn't either. I just have a feeling if they decide to cut a bowl out so we don't keep having 5-7 teams make it then the Arizona Bowl will be the one to go. We'll see though, who knows they keep all over them and next year they finally hit that 80 mark. I suspect the Arizona Bowl this year will be Idaho against North Texas, I highly doubt Air Force a service academy gets shafted with that bowl as they could easily fill the slot at the Heart of Dallas Bowl for the missing Big Ten team.

(12-03-2016 10:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-03-2016 09:39 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-03-2016 09:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-03-2016 09:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-03-2016 09:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I didn't know they were. It's still ridiculous. The payday for a bowl that size isn't worth the injury risk to the star players, even on a 5-7 team, especially when you add in the travel for the team & band etc. Most times it is a money loser.

It's not a money loser once you divide up all the bowl money that get pooled by the conference and then divided up.

Playing a bowl game is a nice reward for a school and its fans. It just shouldn't happen for a 5-7 team.

It's a money loser for the school. They get a cut of the bowl money anyway. Bowl money (at least the last time I checked) was divided 16 ways for 14 schools. The participating school gets 2 shares. All other schools get 1 share. The conference gets 1 share. The schools that go to bowls that lose them money usually justify it to their trustees as necessary for exposure for the athletic department. The coaches always like the extra practice time and the publicity.

I can see bowl games losing money for G5 schools, but not P5. Even if Mississippi State spends $2 million traveling to the Birmingham Bowl, their share of bowl money from the SEC will easily exceed that. They get a cut of all bowl money, Alabama's playoff money, the Sugar Bowl, all the bowls.

I remember a few years ago that there were a spate of reports that purported to show that schools losing money on bowls was rampant. The analysis typically went something like this: "Ole Miss spent $1.5 million on travel, hotels, meals, and entertainment for the football team, band, cheerleaders, top school administrators, and select elite boosters to attend the Bizmark Tangerino Bowl. They received $900,000 from the SEC for travel expenses, creating a net loss to the school of $600,000".

But ... this analysis would neglect the fact that the $900k for expenses was only part of the money Ole Miss ultimately got from the conference for bowl participation. They got cuts of all the SEC bowls as well, including the BCS bowls, and that money easily exceeded this alleged $600k loss.

Quo, you are missing a crucial distinction here. If they stayed home they would make more. My point is that each year a couple of schools nearer the bottom of the SEC could wind up in a bowl where their share is less than their expenses. Of course they will make plenty with their share of everyone else's bowl share. The distinction is that by going to such a bowl they actually NET less than if they had just stayed home. So we are talking about 1 in 12 lines of revenue this year. Let's say 11 of those lines are in the black. 1 is in the red. The school accountable for the one in the red would have NETTED more if they had stayed home since they lost money on their 2 shares of the 1 bowl.

Yes, but .... I spent $10 on a big greasy pizza today that I ate while watching the AAC title game. You might as well say "you would have more money in your bank account if you hadn't bought the pizza". True, but I enjoyed the pizza, it made the football watching more fun, and so the $10 spent was worth it to me.

Going to a bowl is fun. It's fun for the team, the admins, the boosters, and yes, the fans, whether they go to the game or watch it on TV. Not to everyone, of course. There are some students, faculty, and alums who couldn't care less and would rather that $600k be spent on more chemicals for the school's laboratory or something. But, I'd bet that if there was a vote on the campus of most schools going to that 12th bowl game, where they would get $600,000 more in the school coffers if they didn't play it than if they do, the vote would be to play the damn game.

(12-03-2016 10:25 PM)Realignment Wrote:  Not to be an ass, but having the Sinclair's American Sports Network with Campus Insiders covering the bowl match-up, it's not a good spot for it. I would argue the Cure Bowl on CBS Sports Network isn't either. I just have a feeling if they decide to cut a bowl out so we don't keep having 5-7 teams make it then the Arizona Bowl will be the one to go. We'll see though, who knows they keep all over them and next year they finally hit that 80 mark. I suspect the Arizona Bowl this year will be Idaho against North Texas, I highly doubt Air Force a service academy gets shafted with that bowl as they could easily fill the slot at the Heart of Dallas Bowl for the missing Big Ten team.

Two years ago, 83 teams hit the 6 win mark, but there was only 76 bowl slots. 7 teams stayed home (granted 2 were 1st year FBS in App St and Ga Southern so there werent eligible).

Fair enough.

(12-03-2016 10:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-03-2016 10:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-03-2016 09:39 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-03-2016 09:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-03-2016 09:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  It's not a money loser once you divide up all the bowl money that get pooled by the conference and then divided up.

Playing a bowl game is a nice reward for a school and its fans. It just shouldn't happen for a 5-7 team.

It's a money loser for the school. They get a cut of the bowl money anyway. Bowl money (at least the last time I checked) was divided 16 ways for 14 schools. The participating school gets 2 shares. All other schools get 1 share. The conference gets 1 share. The schools that go to bowls that lose them money usually justify it to their trustees as necessary for exposure for the athletic department. The coaches always like the extra practice time and the publicity.

I can see bowl games losing money for G5 schools, but not P5. Even if Mississippi State spends $2 million traveling to the Birmingham Bowl, their share of bowl money from the SEC will easily exceed that. They get a cut of all bowl money, Alabama's playoff money, the Sugar Bowl, all the bowls.

I remember a few years ago that there were a spate of reports that purported to show that schools losing money on bowls was rampant. The analysis typically went something like this: "Ole Miss spent $1.5 million on travel, hotels, meals, and entertainment for the football team, band, cheerleaders, top school administrators, and select elite boosters to attend the Bizmark Tangerino Bowl. They received $900,000 from the SEC for travel expenses, creating a net loss to the school of $600,000".

But ... this analysis would neglect the fact that the $900k for expenses was only part of the money Ole Miss ultimately got from the conference for bowl participation. They got cuts of all the SEC bowls as well, including the BCS bowls, and that money easily exceeded this alleged $600k loss.

Quo, you are missing a crucial distinction here. If they stayed home they would make more. My point is that each year a couple of schools nearer the bottom of the SEC could wind up in a bowl where their share is less than their expenses. Of course they will make plenty with their share of everyone else's bowl share. The distinction is that by going to such a bowl they actually NET less than if they had just stayed home. So we are talking about 1 in 12 lines of revenue this year. Let's say 11 of those lines are in the black. 1 is in the red. The school accountable for the one in the red would have NETTED more if they had stayed home since they lost money on their 2 shares of the 1 bowl.

Yes, but .... I spent $10 on a big greasy pizza today that I ate while watching the AAC title game. You might as well say "you would have more money in your bank account if you hadn't bought the pizza". True, but I enjoyed the pizza, it made the football watching more fun, and so the $10 spent was worth it to me.

Going to a bowl is fun. It's fun for the team, the admins, the boosters, and yes, the fans, whether they go to the game or watch it on TV. I'd bet that if there was a vote on the campus of most schools going to that 12th bowl game, where they would get $600,000 more in the school coffers if they didn't play it than if they do, the vote would be to play the damn game.

Hey Quo, your'e moving the target in a very Bisonesque fashion here. I've already acknowledged why they would want to go. But if it loses money (NET) it loses money. The fact that it lost money was my only point, aside from simply not thinking a loser should go to a bowl. You implied they made money because of their bowl cut from the conference. I stated it was actually losing money from what they would have netted by not going (because a deficit is a deficit and math is pretty much precise when it comes to addition and subtraction). But since it doesn't affect the bottom line of the other conference schools it is their choice to make. That's pretty much it.

Personally I think there should only be 1 bowl for team with losing records and it should be offered to the two teams with the worst records. Then the loser of that bowl gets to be the homecoming opponent of the National Champion the following year. That ought to give them something to play for huh?

(12-03-2016 10:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-03-2016 10:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-03-2016 10:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-03-2016 09:39 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-03-2016 09:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  It's a money loser for the school. They get a cut of the bowl money anyway. Bowl money (at least the last time I checked) was divided 16 ways for 14 schools. The participating school gets 2 shares. All other schools get 1 share. The conference gets 1 share. The schools that go to bowls that lose them money usually justify it to their trustees as necessary for exposure for the athletic department. The coaches always like the extra practice time and the publicity.

I can see bowl games losing money for G5 schools, but not P5. Even if Mississippi State spends $2 million traveling to the Birmingham Bowl, their share of bowl money from the SEC will easily exceed that. They get a cut of all bowl money, Alabama's playoff money, the Sugar Bowl, all the bowls.

I remember a few years ago that there were a spate of reports that purported to show that schools losing money on bowls was rampant. The analysis typically went something like this: "Ole Miss spent $1.5 million on travel, hotels, meals, and entertainment for the football team, band, cheerleaders, top school administrators, and select elite boosters to attend the Bizmark Tangerino Bowl. They received $900,000 from the SEC for travel expenses, creating a net loss to the school of $600,000".

But ... this analysis would neglect the fact that the $900k for expenses was only part of the money Ole Miss ultimately got from the conference for bowl participation. They got cuts of all the SEC bowls as well, including the BCS bowls, and that money easily exceeded this alleged $600k loss.

Quo, you are missing a crucial distinction here. If they stayed home they would make more. My point is that each year a couple of schools nearer the bottom of the SEC could wind up in a bowl where their share is less than their expenses. Of course they will make plenty with their share of everyone else's bowl share. The distinction is that by going to such a bowl they actually NET less than if they had just stayed home. So we are talking about 1 in 12 lines of revenue this year. Let's say 11 of those lines are in the black. 1 is in the red. The school accountable for the one in the red would have NETTED more if they had stayed home since they lost money on their 2 shares of the 1 bowl.

Yes, but .... I spent $10 on a big greasy pizza today that I ate while watching the AAC title game. You might as well say "you would have more money in your bank account if you hadn't bought the pizza". True, but I enjoyed the pizza, it made the football watching more fun, and so the $10 spent was worth it to me.

Going to a bowl is fun. It's fun for the team, the admins, the boosters, and yes, the fans, whether they go to the game or watch it on TV. I'd bet that if there was a vote on the campus of most schools going to that 12th bowl game, where they would get $600,000 more in the school coffers if they didn't play it than if they do, the vote would be to play the damn game.

Hey Quo, your'e moving the target in a very Bisonesque fashion here. I've already acknowledged why they would want to go. But if it loses money (NET) it loses money. The fact that it lost money was my only point, aside from simply not thinking a loser should go to a bowl. You implied they made money because of their bowl cut from the conference. I stated it was actually losing money from what they would have netted by not going (because a deficit is a deficit and math is pretty much precise when it comes to addition and subtraction). But since it doesn't affect the bottom line of the other conference schools it is their choice to make. That's pretty much it.

Personally I think there should only be 1 bowl for team with losing records and it should be offered to the two teams with the worst records. Then the loser of that bowl gets to be the homecoming opponent of the National Champion the following year. That ought to give them something to play for huh?

IMO, to your point, it's more accurate to say that by playing in the rinky bowl, the school makes less money than it would have made if it had stayed home. "Losing money" is the wrong term for what is going on here.

Brett McMurphyVerified account
‏@McMurphyESPN
St. Pete Bowl: Mississippi State vs. Miami, Ohio; Vegas Bowl: San Diego State/Wyoming winner vs. Houston, industry sources said

If the Arizona goes away it will be because it gets bought and moved by someone else, possibly Charleston, SC. With the current moratorium on new bowls they aren't going to deadline one before they move it.

(12-03-2016 10:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-03-2016 10:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-03-2016 10:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-03-2016 10:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-03-2016 09:39 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I can see bowl games losing money for G5 schools, but not P5. Even if Mississippi State spends $2 million traveling to the Birmingham Bowl, their share of bowl money from the SEC will easily exceed that. They get a cut of all bowl money, Alabama's playoff money, the Sugar Bowl, all the bowls.

I remember a few years ago that there were a spate of reports that purported to show that schools losing money on bowls was rampant. The analysis typically went something like this: "Ole Miss spent $1.5 million on travel, hotels, meals, and entertainment for the football team, band, cheerleaders, top school administrators, and select elite boosters to attend the Bizmark Tangerino Bowl. They received $900,000 from the SEC for travel expenses, creating a net loss to the school of $600,000".

But ... this analysis would neglect the fact that the $900k for expenses was only part of the money Ole Miss ultimately got from the conference for bowl participation. They got cuts of all the SEC bowls as well, including the BCS bowls, and that money easily exceeded this alleged $600k loss.

Quo, you are missing a crucial distinction here. If they stayed home they would make more. My point is that each year a couple of schools nearer the bottom of the SEC could wind up in a bowl where their share is less than their expenses. Of course they will make plenty with their share of everyone else's bowl share. The distinction is that by going to such a bowl they actually NET less than if they had just stayed home. So we are talking about 1 in 12 lines of revenue this year. Let's say 11 of those lines are in the black. 1 is in the red. The school accountable for the one in the red would have NETTED more if they had stayed home since they lost money on their 2 shares of the 1 bowl.

Yes, but .... I spent $10 on a big greasy pizza today that I ate while watching the AAC title game. You might as well say "you would have more money in your bank account if you hadn't bought the pizza". True, but I enjoyed the pizza, it made the football watching more fun, and so the $10 spent was worth it to me.

Going to a bowl is fun. It's fun for the team, the admins, the boosters, and yes, the fans, whether they go to the game or watch it on TV. I'd bet that if there was a vote on the campus of most schools going to that 12th bowl game, where they would get $600,000 more in the school coffers if they didn't play it than if they do, the vote would be to play the damn game.

Hey Quo, your'e moving the target in a very Bisonesque fashion here. I've already acknowledged why they would want to go. But if it loses money (NET) it loses money. The fact that it lost money was my only point, aside from simply not thinking a loser should go to a bowl. You implied they made money because of their bowl cut from the conference. I stated it was actually losing money from what they would have netted by not going (because a deficit is a deficit and math is pretty much precise when it comes to addition and subtraction). But since it doesn't affect the bottom line of the other conference schools it is their choice to make. That's pretty much it.

Personally I think there should only be 1 bowl for team with losing records and it should be offered to the two teams with the worst records. Then the loser of that bowl gets to be the homecoming opponent of the National Champion the following year. That ought to give them something to play for huh?

IMO, to your point, it's more accurate to say that by playing in the rinky bowl, the school makes less money than it would have made if it had stayed home. "Losing money" is the wrong term for what is going on here.

Hey if you could have a guaranteed $1000 and you take $600 you lost $400 on the decision. Semantics doesn't cover the $400 loss. The loss may be rationalized but it is still a loss. At the end of the day red ink is red ink. The only point you are arguing is whether it is $400 less from the black, or whether the $400 puts you in the red. Either way it is a minus $400. Never apply to be my accountant if you believe otherwise. I don't want a broker or a bookkeeper who thinks that if I have $400 less it's all good if I'm still in the black!

I like the match-up for the Las Vegas Bowl. It seems like most of the bowls will get announced tonight.

Wyoming vs BYU in Poinsettia

Boise St going to Cactus it appears.

(12-03-2016 10:50 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  If the Arizona goes away it will be because it gets bought and moved by someone else, possibly Charleston, SC. With the current moratorium on new bowls they aren't going to deadline one before they move it.

Yes please.

(12-03-2016 10:25 PM)Realignment Wrote:  Not to be an ass, but having the Sinclair's American Sports Network with Campus Insiders covering the bowl match-up, it's not a good spot for it. I would argue the Cure Bowl on CBS Sports Network isn't either. I just have a feeling if they decide to cut a bowl out so we don't keep having 5-7 teams make it then the Arizona Bowl will be the one to go. We'll see though, who knows they keep all over them and next year they finally hit that 80 mark. I suspect the Arizona Bowl this year will be Idaho against North Texas, I highly doubt Air Force a service academy gets shafted with that bowl as they could easily fill the slot at the Heart of Dallas Bowl for the missing Big Ten team.

They need to start by requiring a 7-5 record.

Then several of the weaker bowl games will dry up.

On station ... this thread is now live. I've posted a site-wide announcement. Post your confirmed bowl matchups, along with source (even if just ... "they just said on ESPN") and I'll update OP.

Miss State vs Miami (OH) in the St. Pete Bowl

http://www.espn.com/college-football/sto...sburg-bowl

(12-03-2016 08:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-03-2016 08:31 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-03-2016 11:53 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Rather than going through this whole messy business of figuring out which 5-7 teams to put in bowls games why not unsanction a bowl or two (like the Arizona Bowl). Sure it might eliminate a automatic tie in or two for the G5 but I think that it's better for the G5 to be able to jump up and grab a bid from a higher paying P5 bid rather than letting a 5-7 Power 5 go bowling. I'm predicting that the Heart of Dallas, Armed Forces, St Petersburg, Las Vegas, and Cactus bowls will all be short of a Power 5 participant. These all sound much better than playing the Arizona Bowl that no one can watch on basic cable or the Camellia Bowl.

North Texas and Mississippi St. are the only 5-7 teams. Hawaii goes at 6-7. USA and Army each have only 4 FBS wins, but will have at least 6 total and will get in at 6-6.

Both Mississippi's are 5-7.

Except for the one that's 6-6.

The ESPN talking heads are such idiots lol

(12-04-2016 12:09 PM)Ole Blue Wrote:  The ESPN talking heads are such idiots lol

Danny Kannel is terrible... atrocious.

(12-03-2016 08:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-03-2016 08:31 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-03-2016 11:53 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Rather than going through this whole messy business of figuring out which 5-7 teams to put in bowls games why not unsanction a bowl or two (like the Arizona Bowl). Sure it might eliminate a automatic tie in or two for the G5 but I think that it's better for the G5 to be able to jump up and grab a bid from a higher paying P5 bid rather than letting a 5-7 Power 5 go bowling. I'm predicting that the Heart of Dallas, Armed Forces, St Petersburg, Las Vegas, and Cactus bowls will all be short of a Power 5 participant. These all sound much better than playing the Arizona Bowl that no one can watch on basic cable or the Camellia Bowl.

North Texas and Mississippi St. are the only 5-7 teams. Hawaii goes at 6-7. USA and Army each have only 4 FBS wins, but will have at least 6 total and will get in at 6-6.

Both Mississippi's are 5-7.

I was referring to who goes bowling. UNT and MSU had the top 2 APRs.

OMG, Kirk Herbstreit is such a moron. Does anyone really think Washington planned for Rutgers to be worse than an FCS team this year? They're in the Big 10. It's not like UW played Idaho and Georgia State.