(02-09-2017 06:39 AM)panite Wrote:  

(02-02-2017 04:13 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(02-02-2017 01:06 PM)ValleyBoy Wrote:  If no one wanted to go to any bowl game that bowl game would end. Up an moving the location of a bowl game from one city to another is not that easy as some posters would want you to believe, first the financial backers of a bowl game placed the bowl location in a certain city for a reason so why would they want to move it to another city.

But that's not fair, because the owners of the Potato Bowl don't care about profits. They only care about provincial chest thumping and civic pride, to say that Boise must be some great place because it has a bowl game.

As long as they aren't losing a bunch of money, they'll never move the game. And that's not fair to make the bowl teams and traveling fans of the bowl teams go to a crappy place with nothing to do and freeze themselves.

Evidently 25,000 to 30,000 fans care about this bowl in a cold environment. Average attendance for this bowl since 1997 is 25,261 while the highest attendance for this bowl in that period is 30,446. This bowl obviously has importance to the area for local conference teams such as the Big West, the WAC, and now the MWC which have kept it going since 1997. Also with 25 - 30,000 people attending the game there is a nice boost into the local economy for tourism, restaurants, and hotels for a few days or a week surrounding this bowl date. This bowl will survive where it is as long as the fans, the conferences sending teams, and the locals support it despite your distain for the Potato Bowl and its location.

Remove the Boise home games from that average and it tells a different story...

(02-10-2017 06:54 PM)k5james Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 06:39 AM)panite Wrote:  

(02-02-2017 04:13 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(02-02-2017 01:06 PM)ValleyBoy Wrote:  If no one wanted to go to any bowl game that bowl game would end. Up an moving the location of a bowl game from one city to another is not that easy as some posters would want you to believe, first the financial backers of a bowl game placed the bowl location in a certain city for a reason so why would they want to move it to another city.

But that's not fair, because the owners of the Potato Bowl don't care about profits. They only care about provincial chest thumping and civic pride, to say that Boise must be some great place because it has a bowl game.

As long as they aren't losing a bunch of money, they'll never move the game. And that's not fair to make the bowl teams and traveling fans of the bowl teams go to a crappy place with nothing to do and freeze themselves.

Evidently 25,000 to 30,000 fans care about this bowl in a cold environment. Average attendance for this bowl since 1997 is 25,261 while the highest attendance for this bowl in that period is 30,446. This bowl obviously has importance to the area for local conference teams such as the Big West, the WAC, and now the MWC which have kept it going since 1997. Also with 25 - 30,000 people attending the game there is a nice boost into the local economy for tourism, restaurants, and hotels for a few days or a week surrounding this bowl date. This bowl will survive where it is as long as the fans, the conferences sending teams, and the locals support it despite your distain for the Potato Bowl and its location.

Remove the Boise home games from that average and it tells a different story...

You mean when Boise was a participant in their own Bowl? Do they really ever play in it? I remember them playing in it against Senaca Wallace Iowa St team in the 90's and Boston College about a decade ago. I'm going to look this up, because Boise has seemed to play in a lot of Fiesta and Las Vegas and Poinsetta Bowls. This year they got the Cactus Bowl. My point is that Boise always seems to land in good bowls, not the Potatater Bowl. I could be wrong, I'll check.
Cheers!

Boise has played in this bowl game 4 times in the bowls 20 year history. The last time they played in this bowl was 2005.

(02-10-2017 09:42 PM)ValleyBoy Wrote:  Boise has played in this bowl game 4 times in the bowls 20 year history. The last time they played in this bowl was 2005.

Well, the bowl is clearly surviving on its own despite not having Boise in it for the past 11 years. Not one of my favorite bowls at all but it seems to work for whatever reason.

Cheers!

Boise State is a football school so their is a buzz in Boise for college football.

Its a bowl the MWC seems to want to keep around. The MAC because of location is not well positioned for bowls so is willing to lend a team.

(02-11-2017 03:04 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Boise State is a football school so their is a buzz in Boise for college football.

Its a bowl the MWC seems to want to keep around. The MAC because of location is not well positioned for bowls so is willing to lend a team.

We'll see on the next bowl cycle what becomes with the bowl. The MAC will probably not renew and put the bowl in jeopardy.

(02-11-2017 03:13 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(02-11-2017 03:04 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Boise State is a football school so their is a buzz in Boise for college football.

Its a bowl the MWC seems to want to keep around. The MAC because of location is not well positioned for bowls so is willing to lend a team.

We'll see on the next bowl cycle what becomes with the bowl. The MAC will probably not renew and put the bowl in jeopardy.

Sure if the MAC can bump to the Fox Bowl Series or something for its champion or something.

With the new bowls the P5 want to create plus the tighter bowl certification standards it may have the effect of pushing a few games down to the G5.

(02-09-2017 12:16 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 06:39 AM)panite Wrote:  with 25 - 30,000 people attending the game there is a nice boost into the local economy for tourism, restaurants, and hotels for a few days or a week surrounding this bowl date.

Absurd.

It means 23-27k residents of the Boise metro are driving to the stadium on gameday. Maybe 1k fans from each G5 school come to Boise in December to sit in an outdoor stadium.



As I said, the bowl is nothing but a loss-leader on behalf of promoting Boise, the state of Idaho, and Idaho's potato industry.

And as long as they're fine with that, it's no one's concern.

(02-11-2017 03:13 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(02-11-2017 03:04 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Boise State is a football school so their is a buzz in Boise for college football.

Its a bowl the MWC seems to want to keep around. The MAC because of location is not well positioned for bowls so is willing to lend a team.

We'll see on the next bowl cycle what becomes with the bowl. The MAC will probably not renew and put the bowl in jeopardy.

This bowl has had decent attendance for one of the smaller bowls so if the MAC leaves with the MWC supporting it I think it will still survive status quo even if the MAC slot opens to an at large team as low as 6&6 or with todays standards a 5&7 team. Doubt that the open slot remains vacant from another conference signing in though. At the very least another G5 conference will cover the opening giving one of their bowl eligible teams a landing spot after the P5 conferences gobble up all the major high payout bowls again.

(02-11-2017 08:05 PM)Go College Sports Wrote:  And as long as they're fine with that, it's no one's concern.

False. I can be concerned with it, if I want.

(02-12-2017 10:34 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(02-11-2017 08:05 PM)Go College Sports Wrote:  And as long as they're fine with that, it's no one's concern.

False. I can be concerned with it, if I want.

Didn't you lecture people that it wasn't any of their concern if two 1-11 teams played in a bowl? Same thing.

(02-12-2017 10:36 AM)Go College Sports Wrote:  Same thing.

Of course it's not. It's about fairness.

Fair means that every FBS team that wants to should get to play an exhibition game after the regular season.

Fair means that Boise shouldn't get to host a bowl game anymore.

Nope. Conferences are willing to play there, which is all that matters. If not they'd have gone belly up.

(02-12-2017 10:45 AM)Go College Sports Wrote:  Conferences are willing to play there

This was already covered, and debunked.

Read the thread before you reply again.

(02-12-2017 11:39 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(02-12-2017 10:45 AM)Go College Sports Wrote:  Conferences are willing to play there

This was already covered, and debunked.

Read the thread before you reply again.

Nope. You just kept saying "artificially constrained supply". It could have died just like other bowl games have in the past two decades, if conferences weren't willing to play.

(02-12-2017 11:57 AM)Go College Sports Wrote:  It could have died just like other bowl games have in the past two decades, if conferences weren't willing to play.

As I already debunked, bowl teams go where ever there's a sanctioned bowl game to be played. Conference tie-ins are irrelevant.

Once you're in (sanctioned), you're in. Then it's only a matter of obtaining and maintaining title sponsorship to fund the game. In the case of Boise, the state of Idaho and is potato industry prop up the bowl as loss-leader to promote themselves.

And since it's the only bowl game which blatantly violates the two main criteria for selecting a bowl game (1 - a good December destination for fans, 2 - failing 1, at least a comfortable game setting for fans), this proves I am correct and it is unfair that Boise gets to keep having an outdoor bowl game.


There is no counter-argument that is valid. You simply have to convince yourself that you don't care or accept that it is unfair that Boise continues to have an outdoor bowl game.

You've debunked nothing. Conferences don't sign contracts in perpetuity with bowls. If the game in Boise were so universally undesirable, conferences would have thrown their support behind another bowl during the proliferation of games in the past 20 years.

Your other point is bizarre. Of course they "prop up the bowl" (i.e. sponsor) to promote themselves. Is there some other reason that bowl title sponsors exist other than to promote themselves? Is the Rose Bowl paying Northwestern Mutual to associate its brand with the game?

Hopefully your proclamations of being right make you feel better.

(02-12-2017 12:44 PM)Go College Sports Wrote:  If the game in Boise were so universally undesirable, conferences would have thrown their support behind another bowl

I already correctly explained why this is false.

The Boise bowl would've continued to survive -- and have bowl eligible teams accept its invitations -- regardless if it had no tie ins.

You've done no such thing. Again, if Boise were so undesirable, the Mountain West and Mid-American could have thrown support behind a new bowl organizing committee in Seattle or Cleveland or anywhere else. The Mountain West could have affiliated itself with the potential LA Christmas Bowl, but their refusal to do so for the several years it was an idea prevented it from being certified. And if those things had happened, the Boise game would have gone the same route as the Seattle game or the Silicon Valley Bowl or the Motor City Bowl or the Aloha Bowl. But it did not so Boise continues to get to have a game, much to your chagrin.

(02-12-2017 01:14 PM)Go College Sports Wrote:  And if those things had happened, the Boise game would have gone the same route as the Seattle game

Bowl teams would be forced to go to Boise (against their desires, in fact) so long as it is a certified bowl game.

If there were 100 certified bowl games that 80 bowl eligible teams got to choose from each year, then you would have a point.

But the actual circumstances prove I'm correct.