The facts are related: teams are not yet declining bowl invitations because there's still a net benefit to going <--> new bowls are being created.

I'd oppose to any move to limit the actual number of bowls. Then we'd end up with 6-6 NC State going bowling while a 10 win Rice (or other G5 team) stayed at home.

I'd absolutely support increasing the requirement to 7 wins. That would naturally reduce the number of bowls.

(04-02-2015 11:16 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  When was the last time anybody turned down a bowl bid.

They didn't do it to save money, but in 2012, LaTech in effect turned down their hometown bowl because they thought they could get a better deal elsewhere. They didn't and ended up staying home, despite a 9-3 record.

(04-02-2015 12:01 PM)Almadenmike Wrote:  

(04-02-2015 11:16 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  When was the last time anybody turned down a bowl bid.

They didn't do it to save money, but in 2012, LaTech in effect turned down their hometown bowl because they thought they could get a better deal elsewhere. They didn't and ended up staying home, despite a 9-3 record.

They gambled and lost. Who knew it was possible. I thought all gambles won.

I understand Rice players voted not to accept a Sun Bowl bid after the 63 season. I don't remember anybody turning down a bid on financial considerations. I t6hink the nonfinancial always outweigh the financial.

(04-02-2015 11:41 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I'd oppose to any move to limit the actual number of bowls. Then we'd end up with 6-6 NC State going bowling while a 10 win Rice (or other G5 team) stayed at home.

I'd absolutely support increasing the requirement to 7 wins. That would naturally reduce the number of bowls.

Honestly, I wouldn't. It would only encourage P5 teams to game the system further... like maybe if you don't make the championship game, you get a tune-up game. p5 schools would essentially buy those home games and weak teams who didn't make a bowl would jump at them

I think you let any place that wants to host a bowl host a bowl. If UT wants to guarantee 40,000 fans at $100/ticket for their 6-6 team to play in the Marfa Bowl then let them.

I WOULD change the funding mechanism though... I'd like for all those monies and guarantees to go into a pot... because the better the bowl, the less you need the participating teams to buy tickets.

Using an extreme... If Rice got into an access bowl, and they gave us 40,000 tickets to sell, we'd have no trouble selling them, but they wouldn't all go to Rice people. Of course they wouldn't GIVE us 40,000 tickets to sell because THEY can easily sell them.

I don't EVER want a teams ability to travel to hinder them from making a bowl. Sure, that is somewhat self-serving for Rice, but it's not as if we are the only school who would have a tough time selling 15,000 tickets to LOTS of bowls in this country. There have been times when UT didn't sell their allotment.

(04-02-2015 12:38 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Using an extreme... If Rice got into an access bowl, and they gave us 40,000 tickets to sell, we'd have no trouble selling them, but they wouldn't all go to Rice people. Of course they wouldn't GIVE us 40,000 tickets to sell because THEY can easily sell them.

I'm not following you here. In the 2011 Fiesta Bowl UConn was allotted 17,500 tickets but only sold 2,800, and lost nearly $3 million on the unsold tickets. (attribution: http://www.foxsports.com/collegefootball...owl-030211 )

I'm sure we'd do better than that, but I don't think it's safe to assume that the access bowls (is that what they call BCS bowls now?) will always sell out.

(04-02-2015 08:46 PM)JOwl Wrote:  I'm not following you here. In the 2011 Fiesta Bowl UConn was allotted 17,500 tickets but only sold 2,800, and lost nearly $3 million on the unsold tickets. (attribution: http://www.foxsports.com/collegefootball...owl-030211 )

I'm sure we'd do better than that, but I don't think it's safe to assume that the access bowls (is that what they call BCS bowls now?) will always sell out.

That completely shocks me. I'm serious about that. That screams of poor management to me...

but yes... access bowls are the way you play into the championship... so they might be slightly different, but that wasn't my contention.