(12-23-2016 11:54 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-23-2016 11:21 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-23-2016 10:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-22-2016 03:15 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-22-2016 02:02 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Bowl finances are so convoluted, I'm not sure anyone really knows what it means for a bowl to "make a profit".

The problem with relying on variable money is that it is variable, and a bowl's payout has to be consistent from year to year.

It's probably a good thing I'm not a conference official. I tend to be 'negative' about ideas like this, not visionary.

The payout would be consistent. The funding to the pool would vary---which is why you'd start this year so the fund would get 3-4 million a year and would be at 9-12 million by the time the bowl starts (3 full yrs from now). Once the fund is at that size, the bowl income should offset most if not all the expenses and the fund should require little replenishment. It may even operate at a surplus given it would be more likely to attract higher TV money, a better time slot, an actual sponsor, and better ticket sales.

OK, so back to my objection of a post ago: Even though the variable money wouldn't actually be taken out of a school's budget (because it would be diverted to the bowl fund first), still, a school would see that, e.g., $140k that could have gone into the school coffers is being diverted to a bowl fund.

And why? So that in years when the AAC champ doesn't make the P6, they would get to play the #7 SEC team rather than the #10 SEC team in a bowl game?

I bet most schools would rather just get the money.

It would be a good indicator of the schools a level of commitment. The reality is, conferences with the showcase bowl game for their champion will likely be more valuable to television because The guaranteed postseason destination gives the conference race context over the entire season. Right now the winner frankly doesn't matter if they don't go to an excess bowl. Can anyone with a straight face say that the AAC champion gets a significantly better bowl then the fifth place team? That reality drains away much of the interest out of the AFC championship race for the general publics casual college football fans.

You seem to be assuming that whatever this thing is you would create would be considered a "showcase bowl game". That's a huge assumption, based purely on hope, and which I don't agree with. If it were in place this year, you might have seen Temple get matched up with Kentucky instead of Wake Forest. If you were an AD from an AAC school, would you be willing to "invest" nearly $1 million to get this?

And if Temple were to win that game, do you really think that would dramatically boost the prestige of the AAC?

The bowl system is a marketplace, and that marketplace has spoken loudly and clearly. That may suck for the AAC right now, but having the AAC essentially fund an excessive payout for a meaningless bowl game involving teams the market has little interest in doesn't seem like a viable strategy to me. There seems to be no upside to this.

My plan is to put the bowl on the same level/payout as bowls like the Liberty, Gator, Music City, Texas--etc. Those bowls receive a #3-5 pick from a P5. So, it would be an upper mid tier bowl.

The G5 in it would often be ranked and the opponent might even occasionally be ranked. So your talking a pretty decent pick most years---(this year, the opponent, at worst, would be a 7 win team, and could be 10 win team--most years its likely an 8-9 win team). It would be by far the best bowl game a G5 will appear in outside of the access bowl. Im not trying to replicate St Pete or Birmingham.

Quote:The bowl system is a marketplace, and that marketplace has spoken loudly and clearly. That may suck for the AAC right now, but having the AAC essentially fund an excessive payout for a meaningless bowl game involving teams the market has little interest in doesn't seem like a viable strategy to me. There seems to be no upside to this.

I wouldn't say meaningless bowl game, if you had AAC Champ vs MW Champ. However, I do think having Champ vs Champ would have little meaning -- compared to "best matchup". Like SD-State vs Houston (and not Temple).

Sure, putting money in to make it a Bigger Stage would make it a bigger deal in the eyes of generic fans, as opposed to being the best game on 1st Day of Bowls in the Vegas Bowl like it was this year, BUT:

a) It's thunder would be stolen by the BCS bowls (+Outback Bowl)

b) About 70% of the time, an AAC or MW Champ *won't* be in that game, and will instead be in a BCS Bowl themselves (and in this year, on the same day!)

So altogether, a bad idea. But I would agree that having an emphasis on pitting the best available AAC & MW teams against each other is good. This year's Las Vegas Bowl is a good example. Even though it was Houston and not Temple, it was still at least just as much of an attraction.

(12-23-2016 10:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  OK, so back to my objection of a post ago: Even though the variable money wouldn't actually be taken out of a school's budget (because it would be diverted to the bowl fund first), still, a school would see that, e.g., $140k that could have gone into the school coffers is being diverted to a bowl fund.

And why? So that in years when the AAC champ doesn't make the P6, they would get to play the #7 SEC team rather than the #10 SEC team in a bowl game?

I bet most schools would rather just get the money.

Especially given that a conference is not a publicly traded corporation, it's a membership organization, and whatever the benefits "to the conference as a whole", in most years, that higher profile game will be going to some other school. So you are giving up, eg, $140K so that a conference rival looks good.

And there is only so much that the money can buy ... offering the payout that currently goes to the #4 ACC school doesn't change the fact that the current payout is to go to a bowl game against another P5 school. This "Go5 buy up bowl" could well have to top that payout by a fair bit to avoid pushback against being the #4 or #5 ACC school "and going bowling against a mere Go5 school."

(12-23-2016 07:08 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(12-23-2016 10:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  OK, so back to my objection of a post ago: Even though the variable money wouldn't actually be taken out of a school's budget (because it would be diverted to the bowl fund first), still, a school would see that, e.g., $140k that could have gone into the school coffers is being diverted to a bowl fund.

And why? So that in years when the AAC champ doesn't make the P6, they would get to play the #7 SEC team rather than the #10 SEC team in a bowl game?

I bet most schools would rather just get the money.

Especially given that a conference is not a publicly traded corporation, it's a membership organization, and whatever the benefits "to the conference as a whole", in most years, that higher profile game will be going to some other school. So you are giving up, eg, $140K so that a conference rival looks good.

And there is only so much that the money can buy ... offering the payout that currently goes to the #4 ACC school doesn't change the fact that the current payout is to go to a bowl game against another P5 school. This "Go5 buy up bowl" could well have to top that payout by a fair bit to avoid pushback against being the #4 or #5 ACC school "and going bowling against a mere Go5 school."

Good point. We would probably have to offer a payout premium, significantly more than an existing bowl, to induce the P5 conference to give up a P5 matchup for a game against us, a G5.

Especially since some of the P5 have voiced a desire to schedule more P5 OOC opponents going forward. Basically, the same reason we want to play a P5, more prestige, works the other way for the P5, they are taking a prestige hit playing us so we would have to compensate for that.

So if the current SEC #7 plays in a bowl with a $2.2m payout against the Big 12, our bowl might have to offer $3m or more to lure them away from that P5 matchup.

(12-23-2016 03:02 PM)toddjnsn Wrote:  

Quote:The bowl system is a marketplace, and that marketplace has spoken loudly and clearly. That may suck for the AAC right now, but having the AAC essentially fund an excessive payout for a meaningless bowl game involving teams the market has little interest in doesn't seem like a viable strategy to me. There seems to be no upside to this.

I wouldn't say meaningless bowl game, if you had AAC Champ vs MW Champ. However, I do think having Champ vs Champ would have little meaning -- compared to "best matchup". Like SD-State vs Houston (and not Temple).

Sure, putting money in to make it a Bigger Stage would make it a bigger deal in the eyes of generic fans, as opposed to being the best game on 1st Day of Bowls in the Vegas Bowl like it was this year, BUT:

a) It's thunder would be stolen by the BCS bowls (+Outback Bowl)

b) About 70% of the time, an AAC or MW Champ *won't* be in that game, and will instead be in a BCS Bowl themselves (and in this year, on the same day!)

So altogether, a bad idea. But I would agree that having an emphasis on pitting the best available AAC & MW teams against each other is good. This year's Las Vegas Bowl is a good example. Even though it was Houston and not Temple, it was still at least just as much of an attraction.

I don't think it's a bad idea, it doesn't hurt the other NY6 bowls that don't have the #2 team (ie USC in the Rose and not CU) or if there is another bowl on NYD.
Bowl placement would be key and would have to be after Christmas. I wouldn't mind if it was on NYD if it was on a OTA station or NBCSN. With the hundreds of thousands of subs ESPN is losing, it won't matter as much if it was on a different network.
However, we would need to have a bowl that wasn't under a main bowl like the Arizona. If a bowl for the MW #1 team (not in Access Bowl) ever gets a big enough payout for a Pac #3 or #4 team, I think that would be preferable. However, I doubt a P5 conference would go for that as that would give a G5 conference more credit than they want to give.
I myself wouldn't mind if it was against a CUSA #1. I think they would have a better traveling fan base outside of the AAC, if it was just before or on NYD.