all that said. I am hungry now. So I am going to go to Chik-Fil-A. Or Beef O'Brady's. I'll probably use my capital One Card, and talk on my AT&T phone. Maybe get an oil change at Meinke. Or MAACO. I don't feel like going to the gas station, so I will borrow my friend's Hyndai.

(09-23-2014 11:35 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(09-23-2014 11:03 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Now from the Rose Bowl perspective though, selling off the name would instantly destroy much of the value of the bowl game. They are worth more to TV, fans, etc because of the name and by selling it, they'd lose far more than they'd gain in the extra sponsorship value.

I see a basic contradiction between what I bolded in black and in red. If the latter is true (and I believe it is) that the name "Rose" gives the bowl more value to fans and TV, then it would also be true for the sponsor as well:

If so then why does the Rose Bowl, the biggest of them all, collect less from sponsorship deals than the other three BCS bowls? Despite being the bigger bowl? Here are the sponsor rates as of 2013:


Also note how historically significant the Cotton Bowl, the Peach Bowl, and the Citrus Bowl are, and how much less money the bring in.
And two of them the sponsors chose to fully take over the name, as opposed to associate with the brand name of the bowl. The Chik Fil-A Peach bowl or the Capitol One Citrus Bowl bring a lot more brand awareness as then people know those are old school big bowls. Yet instead, they chose to remove that well known name to ensure that their name is what is always talked about. Same thing with the BCS bowls. Those bowls had the clout to say "we're keeping our name," but you can go over the top. They still get some of the awareness, while the bowl keeps it's identity. The Rose Bowl opted not to go that way, and as a result sells their title for $1.5 million less than three less valuable bowls. One thing to remember is the bowl names are ties to year long media sponsorship deals. I saw an article on it somewhere, but those deals include a lot of additional advertisement, but locally on the ground in terms of signage, and nationally, that go year round, especially for the BCS Bowls. The title sponsorship is almost an afterthought, but also shows why the other three make $1-$1.5 million more than the Rose, which should make MORE than them on standing alone.
[/quote]

First, I don't think the Peach or Citrus bowls have anything near the old-school or any other type of brand value as the Cotton bowl, which explains why the Cotton has never changed its name - probably because sponsors want to be associated with the Cotton name, not wipe it out.

Second, you seem to miss the big point of your data, which is that despite having the weakest form of sponsor naming, the Rose still command WAY WAY more money than any of the minor bowls. That shows the value of the Rose name.

In contrast, the comparison between the Rose and the other three major bowls is far less important: Yes, we would expect the Rose to make slightly more than any other major bowl, as it is the "granddaddy of them all" but instead makes slightly less, because it doesn't put the sponsor's name in the spotlight as much as do the Sugar, Orange, and Fiesta bowls. That makes sense and doesn't contradict my view. The Rose is obviously willing to trade off a couple million dollars in order to maintain the primacy of its name in the title, while the other bowls value those couple of millions more.

But big picture, what isn't undermined by this data is my notion that the sponsors want their names affiliated with, mentioned in the same breath with, the iconic bowl names, but do not to kill their brand value by wiping those names out, whereas with the minor bowls, where the original name has no brand value, well, then it makes sense to wipe them out.

Don't get me wrong: I agree that IF the sponsors thought that changing the Rose Bowl name to say the ATT Bowl would be possible without the loss of substantial value due to the absence of the "Rose" name from the title, than of course they would want to do that.

But i just don't believe that they believe that.

Capital One moving from the Citrus Bowl to the Orange Bowl is very big news because of the implications on future CFP contracts.

If you recall, the Capital One Bowl along with games in San Diego and Houston were trying to get into the CFP rotation. There was talk of a 7th CFP game for a while possibly in Houston on San Diego for the G5 champion which didn't materialize. The news of the Capital One sponsorship switching from the Citrus to the Orange is a big blow for the chances of a game in Orlando to be elevated to the ranks of the CFP because they've lost the major sponsor edge.

Taking Acorbett's data on bowl payouts, as of last year the average non-CFP bowl paid out 890,000 to participating teams (I'm omitting the Peach and Cotton Bowl here). When the BCS first got going the difference in payout between the BCS bowls and the other top non-BCS games was 2-3 times. That gap has grown to 5-6 times and with the new CFP system its now 12-15 times. In the same way the P5 has small timed the G5 schools the CFP bowls have small timed the non-CFP bowl games.

This adds fuel to my arguement that I don't think we'll see any CFP changes for the second half of the 12 year agreement. For one its only 5 more seasons after this and to make a major overhaul that will require at least 18 month notice. I don't think the power brokers of CFB will feel the need/desire to make another major change to the CFP post season in another 3-4 years time. It will be another 2 years before the reformed FBS governance votes in any of the recommended changes by itself. There is not enough data points yet on the new post season structure or verified screw jobs to put pressure on making changes to it. Kicking games like the Citrus down a peg reduces the pressure because moving forward it will be an average P5 bowl game.

(09-23-2014 12:46 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Capital One moving from the Citrus Bowl to the Orange Bowl is very big news because of the implications on future CFP contracts.

If you recall, the Capital One Bowl along with games in San Diego and Houston were trying to get into the CFP rotation. There was talk of a 7th CFP game for a while possibly in Houston on San Diego for the G5 champion which didn't materialize. The news of the Capital One sponsorship switching from the Citrus to the Orange is a big blow for the chances of a game in Orlando to be elevated to the ranks of the CFP because they've lost the major sponsor edge.

Taking Acorbett's data on bowl payouts, as of last year the average non-CFP bowl paid out 890,000 to participating teams (I'm omitting the Peach and Cotton Bowl here). When the BCS first got going the difference in payout between the BCS bowls and the other top non-BCS games was 2-3 times. That gap has grown to 5-6 times and with the new CFP system its now 12-15 times. In the same way the P5 has small timed the G5 schools the CFP bowls have small timed the non-CFP bowl games.

This adds fuel to my arguement that I don't think we'll see any CFP changes for the second half of the 12 year agreement. For one its only 5 more seasons after this and to make a major overhaul that will require at least 18 month notice. I don't think the power brokers of CFB will feel the need/desire to make another major change to the CFP post season in another 3-4 years time. It will be another 2 years before the reformed FBS governance votes in any of the recommended changes by itself. There is not enough data points yet on the new post season structure or verified screw jobs to put pressure on making changes to it. Kicking games like the Citrus down a peg reduces the pressure because moving forward it will be an average P5 bowl game.

That's because nobody has been forced to sit on the sidelines yet during the CFP era. This year, one or two conferences will sit out. Next year the same. The year after the process repeats again. By year 3, some conferences will have had enough of their champion being eliminated from the only games that anybody really cares about. So, I'd say that 24 to 36 months out you will begin to hear of some movement toward a more inclusive 8 team playoff where the all 5 power conference champs are AQ.

(09-23-2014 01:08 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-23-2014 12:46 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Capital One moving from the Citrus Bowl to the Orange Bowl is very big news because of the implications on future CFP contracts.

If you recall, the Capital One Bowl along with games in San Diego and Houston were trying to get into the CFP rotation. There was talk of a 7th CFP game for a while possibly in Houston on San Diego for the G5 champion which didn't materialize. The news of the Capital One sponsorship switching from the Citrus to the Orange is a big blow for the chances of a game in Orlando to be elevated to the ranks of the CFP because they've lost the major sponsor edge.

Taking Acorbett's data on bowl payouts, as of last year the average non-CFP bowl paid out 890,000 to participating teams (I'm omitting the Peach and Cotton Bowl here). When the BCS first got going the difference in payout between the BCS bowls and the other top non-BCS games was 2-3 times. That gap has grown to 5-6 times and with the new CFP system its now 12-15 times. In the same way the P5 has small timed the G5 schools the CFP bowls have small timed the non-CFP bowl games.

This adds fuel to my arguement that I don't think we'll see any CFP changes for the second half of the 12 year agreement. For one its only 5 more seasons after this and to make a major overhaul that will require at least 18 month notice. I don't think the power brokers of CFB will feel the need/desire to make another major change to the CFP post season in another 3-4 years time. It will be another 2 years before the reformed FBS governance votes in any of the recommended changes by itself. There is not enough data points yet on the new post season structure or verified screw jobs to put pressure on making changes to it. Kicking games like the Citrus down a peg reduces the pressure because moving forward it will be an average P5 bowl game.

That's because nobody has been forced to sit on the sidelines yet during the CFP era. This year, one or two conferences will sit out. Next year the same. The year after the process repeats again. By year 3, some conferences will have had enough of their champion being eliminated from the only games that anybody really cares about. So, I'd say that 24 to 36 months out you will begin to hear of some movement toward a more inclusive 8 team playoff where the all 5 power conference champs are AQ.

Not sure that this "nobody has been forced to sit on the sidelines" notion will be a compelling situation. After all, the BCS operated for 16 years, and during those years a maximum of two conference champs a year could play for the title with everyone else left out, and yet it took 16 years to expand the playoffs from two to four.

(09-23-2014 12:46 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Taking Acorbett's data on bowl payouts, as of last year the average non-CFP bowl paid out 890,000 to participating teams (I'm omitting the Peach and Cotton Bowl here). When the BCS first got going the difference in payout between the BCS bowls and the other top non-BCS games was 2-3 times. That gap has grown to 5-6 times and with the new CFP system its now 12-15 times. In the same way the P5 has small timed the G5 schools the CFP bowls have small timed the non-CFP bowl games.

Please note those are not payouts: those are the costs of corporate sponsorships.

(09-23-2014 01:08 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  So, I'd say that 24 to 36 months out you will begin to hear of some movement toward a more inclusive 8 team playoff where the all 5 power conference champs are AQ.

Note the startling number on that table. In addition to all of the other draw backs of a playoff revenue-wise (you kill access bowls, signifcantly reduce traveling fans, maybe harm the regular season, etc) you have an awful lot of sponsorship money lost as listed above. Yes the title sponsor of the playoffs would pay more than they pay for each individual game, but it's not like one company is going to pay $66 million per year to make up for the other three lost sponsorships.

(09-23-2014 12:10 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Don't get me wrong: I agree that IF the sponsors thought that changing the Rose Bowl name to say the ATT Bowl would be possible without the loss of substantial value due to the absence of the "Rose" name from the title, than of course they would want to do that.

But i just don't believe that they believe that.

I won't even get into the rest of it, because you are not really making a lot of sense. But what I bolded above; there in lies the problem. This is what we have been telling you, and THIS is what you have been arguing against THE ENTIRE THREAD. THIS STATEMENT RIGHT THERE. The sponsors would LOVE to make that change if they could. The bowl is the one who won't let them. And that was the entire point we made, that you disagreed with.

sometimes you like to take the contrarian position to the point that you don't even realize what you are arguing.

(09-23-2014 01:08 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-23-2014 12:46 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Capital One moving from the Citrus Bowl to the Orange Bowl is very big news because of the implications on future CFP contracts.

If you recall, the Capital One Bowl along with games in San Diego and Houston were trying to get into the CFP rotation. There was talk of a 7th CFP game for a while possibly in Houston on San Diego for the G5 champion which didn't materialize. The news of the Capital One sponsorship switching from the Citrus to the Orange is a big blow for the chances of a game in Orlando to be elevated to the ranks of the CFP because they've lost the major sponsor edge.

Taking Acorbett's data on bowl payouts, as of last year the average non-CFP bowl paid out 890,000 to participating teams (I'm omitting the Peach and Cotton Bowl here). When the BCS first got going the difference in payout between the BCS bowls and the other top non-BCS games was 2-3 times. That gap has grown to 5-6 times and with the new CFP system its now 12-15 times. In the same way the P5 has small timed the G5 schools the CFP bowls have small timed the non-CFP bowl games.

This adds fuel to my arguement that I don't think we'll see any CFP changes for the second half of the 12 year agreement. For one its only 5 more seasons after this and to make a major overhaul that will require at least 18 month notice. I don't think the power brokers of CFB will feel the need/desire to make another major change to the CFP post season in another 3-4 years time. It will be another 2 years before the reformed FBS governance votes in any of the recommended changes by itself. There is not enough data points yet on the new post season structure or verified screw jobs to put pressure on making changes to it. Kicking games like the Citrus down a peg reduces the pressure because moving forward it will be an average P5 bowl game.

That's because nobody has been forced to sit on the sidelines yet during the CFP era. This year, one or two conferences will sit out. Next year the same. The year after the process repeats again. By year 3, some conferences will have had enough of their champion being eliminated from the only games that anybody really cares about. So, I'd say that 24 to 36 months out you will begin to hear of some movement toward a more inclusive 8 team playoff where the all 5 power conference champs are AQ.

With the committee its possible the #4 ranked team in the polls is bumped for the #5 for that last playoff slot. If team #5 won a P5 championship while team #4 did not there isn't going to be many feathers ruffled when team #4 is sitting outside of the playoff.

It would take repeated years of 1 loss conference champions from P5 conferences being left out plus Top 8 ranked G5 schools not finding a spot in the playoff to put pressure to expand to 8 teams. Its not going to happen every year that someone truly deserving of the playoff will under some odd circumstance find themselves looking at the outside in. That is why I think its going to take 10 years of the new system to accumulate enough data points to figure out how the system can be improved. They could go from 4 teams to 6 and that would cover all of the 1 loss P5 conference champions with certainty. They could tack on 2 semifinal games at the end of the bowl season at neutral sites to raise the value of the TV contract for the next round of negotiations.

I don't think we are heading back to an AQ system due to the legality of excluding some conferences. I could be wrong and they do set up a system with 8 playoff participants with 5 AQ's from the power conferences but that would be a step backwards to the AQ system under the BCS.

If you go to 5 or 6 AQs (P5 plus best G5), BYU or Notre Dame would have to be ranked in the Top 2 (or 3) to be guaranteed a playoff berth in a 8-team playoff - as long as Notre Dame adds value, there won't be any AQ provisions.

(09-23-2014 11:55 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(09-23-2014 11:51 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-23-2014 11:35 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  If so then why does the Rose Bowl, the biggest of them all, collect less from sponsorship deals than the other three BCS bowls?

Because changing the name to "Vizio Rose Bowl" just to squeeze out a few extra bucks would be penny-wise and pound-foolish. The Rose Bowl Operating Committee would endanger the huge annual subsidy and other benefits they get from the city of Pasadena, and the money they'd lose by doing that would exceed the additional amount they'd get from letting a sponsor "capture" the name of the game. IMO, they are maximizing their revenue by doing it the way they're doing it now.

I get that. That is not the issue here. We both (who made this argument) pointed out that because the Rose Bowl has the leverage, THEY would not give that up. His point was that Vizio would prefer it to be called "the Rose Bowl presented by Vizio" or even "the Vizio Rose Bowl" to just "The Vizio bowl," which goes against every corporate naming rights strategy we have seen. That is the discussion.

I would think the Vizio Bowl would lose a lot of the casual interest the Rose Bowl generates among the non sports fan. It unique in that sense. Not many care about the Citrus Bowl or the Peach Bowl so the change to the Capital One and Chickfila Bowl did not have much effect. But the Rose Bowl has always been different and greater in terms of popularity and prestige so they are the rare instance where its better to include the Rose than to take it away.

(09-23-2014 04:11 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  If you go to 5 or 6 AQs (P5 plus best G5), BYU or Notre Dame would have to be ranked in the Top 2 (or 3) to be guaranteed a playoff berth in a 8-team playoff - as long as Notre Dame adds value, there won't be any AQ provisions.

Yeah, I think something like this would be the final solution. AQ for the power 5 and a guaranteed playoff access point for the best G5 champ. That still leaves a pair of wildcards for indy access or for deserving top ranked teams that should be included. In such a system, the wildcards guarantee there is no way you ever have a playoff that doesn't include the #1 and #2 teams in the country and the best conference champs decided on the field of play. Eight is not too big, not too small---kind of the Goldilocks number. It makes the regular season conference races important--thus preserving the sanctity of the regular season. It includes most any team that any reasonable person would think has a realistic chance of winning. It includes some sort of direct guaranteed path to access the playoff for every conference. It provides a access point for the Indys. Yes, I think once the number 8 is reached, the CFP will probably be tied to that number for a very long time.

(09-23-2014 06:14 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-23-2014 04:11 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  If you go to 5 or 6 AQs (P5 plus best G5), BYU or Notre Dame would have to be ranked in the Top 2 (or 3) to be guaranteed a playoff berth in a 8-team playoff - as long as Notre Dame adds value, there won't be any AQ provisions.

Yeah, I think something like this would be the final solution. AQ for the power 5 and a guaranteed playoff access point for the best G5 champ. That still leaves a pair of wildcards for indy access or for deserving top ranked teams that should be included. In such a system, the wildcards guarantee there is no way you ever have a playoff that doesn't include the #1 and #2 teams in the country and the best conference champs decided on the field of play. Eight is not too big, not too small---kind of the Goldilocks number. It makes the regular season conference races important--thus preserving the sanctity of the regular season. It includes most any team that any reasonable person would think has a realistic chance of winning. It includes some sort of direct guaranteed path to access the playoff for every conference. It provides a access point for the Indys. Yes, I think once the number 8 is reached, the CFP will probably be tied to that number for a very long time.

With the way things are heading, its more likely the P5 split from the G5 than the playoff moving to a 8 school format.

Think about it. If the P5 come to the conclusion the G5 will be a drag on their interests why don't they just split first and then redesign the post season afterwards? That is there big question in the coming years, do they want to continue to have the G5 play a meaningful role in THEIR post season. If the only complaint is G5 playoff access take care of it by eliminating them.

(09-23-2014 02:42 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(09-23-2014 12:10 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Don't get me wrong: I agree that IF the sponsors thought that changing the Rose Bowl name to say the ATT Bowl would be possible without the loss of substantial value due to the absence of the "Rose" name from the title, than of course they would want to do that.

But i just don't believe that they believe that.

I won't even get into the rest of it, because you are not really making a lot of sense. But what I bolded above; there in lies the problem. This is what we have been telling you, and THIS is what you have been arguing against THE ENTIRE THREAD. THIS STATEMENT RIGHT THERE. The sponsors would LOVE to make that change if they could. The bowl is the one who won't let them. And that was the entire point we made, that you disagreed with.

sometimes you like to take the contrarian position to the point that you don't even realize what you are arguing.

You obviously failed to comprehend what I said, otherwise you would have bolded the rest of the sentence, which contradicts what you have been telling me: You have claimed that the sponsors would love to change the name of the Rose Bowl to solely the name of the sponsor IF THEY COULD DO IT but they can't BECAUSE THE BOWLS WON'T LET THEM.

But that is not what I just said above. What i said, and what you failed to grasp, is that yes, the sponsors would love to change the name of the Rose Bowl to solely the name of the sponsor, BUT ONLY IF DOING SO WOULD NOT KILL THE VALUE OF THE BOWL AND HENCE THEIR SPONSORSHIP. But since changing the name of the bowl WOULD kill the goose that lays those golden eggs, and the sponsor knows that, they don't ask for that total name change, and so HOW THE BOWL FEELS ABOUT THAT DOESN'T EVEN ENTER THE EQUATION.

Capice?

(09-23-2014 04:36 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(09-23-2014 11:55 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(09-23-2014 11:51 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-23-2014 11:35 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  If so then why does the Rose Bowl, the biggest of them all, collect less from sponsorship deals than the other three BCS bowls?

Because changing the name to "Vizio Rose Bowl" just to squeeze out a few extra bucks would be penny-wise and pound-foolish. The Rose Bowl Operating Committee would endanger the huge annual subsidy and other benefits they get from the city of Pasadena, and the money they'd lose by doing that would exceed the additional amount they'd get from letting a sponsor "capture" the name of the game. IMO, they are maximizing their revenue by doing it the way they're doing it now.

I get that. That is not the issue here. We both (who made this argument) pointed out that because the Rose Bowl has the leverage, THEY would not give that up. His point was that Vizio would prefer it to be called "the Rose Bowl presented by Vizio" or even "the Vizio Rose Bowl" to just "The Vizio bowl," which goes against every corporate naming rights strategy we have seen. That is the discussion.

I would think the Vizio Bowl would lose a lot of the casual interest the Rose Bowl generates among the non sports fan. It unique in that sense. Not many care about the Citrus Bowl or the Peach Bowl so the change to the Capital One and Chickfila Bowl did not have much effect. But the Rose Bowl has always been different and greater in terms of popularity and prestige so they are the rare instance where its better to include the Rose than to take it away.

Give that man a cigar!

Quo, just because you repeat something over and over, doesn't make it so. I know what you said. I know what you tried to say. You just have nothing to back it up. Meanwhile there is a mountain of evidence to the contrary, including specific business dealings in the same ball park. You are basing your argument on gut instinct: I actually have evidence to back it up. You can feel free to believe what you want, but in terms of proving your case, you failed.

(09-22-2014 08:47 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  Brett McMurphy ‏@McMurphyESPN · 2m
Buffalo Wild Wings Citrus Bowl expected new name for Orlando’s Capital One Bowl, industry sources told @ESPN

"The Pepsi presents Buffalo Wild Wings Nestle Citrus Bowl brought to you by Budweiser"

It's only a matter of time.

(09-26-2014 10:52 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  Quo, just because you repeat something over and over, doesn't make it so. I know what you said. I know what you tried to say. You just have nothing to back it up. Meanwhile there is a mountain of evidence to the contrary, including specific business dealings in the same ball park. You are basing your argument on gut instinct: I actually have evidence to back it up. You can feel free to believe what you want, but in terms of proving your case, you failed.

I've explained how your 'mountain' of evidence is actually a molehill, really nothing at all. The only real evidence either of us could have would be statements from the parties involved to the effect that sponsors asked the Rose or Sugar or whomever to totally change the name to the sponsors name and were refused by the bowl, or that the sponsors stated that they never asked for a complete name change because they recognize the value of the original name and so didn't want a complete change, and neither of us have that.

My position has common sense on its side: It is obvious that the name "Rose Bowl" has tons of value and so logic says that no sponsor would try to vaporize that by eliminating that name. But go ahead, believe what you want to believe.

I think it basically works like this:

1. There is a lot of value in some names (Rose Bowl, Yankee Stadium, Wrigley Field, etc) that is lost if name changes.
2. Sponsors make most by having their name as prominent as possible.
3. For the Rose Bowl itself, there is much more value in having the name Rose Bowl than any other (even after considering sponsorship additions). For Vizio there would be more value it becoming the Vizio Bowl even if it meant fewer viewers.

It's got to be remembered that the sponsor doesn't care directly about how valuable the bowl is, but in what they get out of it. The Rose Bowl would lose a lot of casual interest but still have great match-ups and decent rating which would be enough for Vizio to want to pay more. If most mentions of the Rose Bowl were replaced with the Vizio Bowl that's probably 10x more times their name is mentioned. Even if you lose 1/2 the audience (not likely to be that quite that high), that's still worth it to them.

Now the Rose Bowl on the other hand would be shooting itself in the foot long term if it did that