Proposed new bowls - Austin and Tucson

[MeanGreenTexan]

This tweet was sent out yesterday...

Dumb question: Is it for real?

[CMJ]

Man, this is overkill! There should only be thirty bowls plus the eight (currently) playoff teams. Even that gives you more than 50% of the teams that will be going to a bowl equivalent.

Every bowl should draw at or near 30,000+. That should eliminate the Bahamas, Miami Beach, Famous Idaho Potato, Camellia, and probably the Hawaii bowls.

I like the new bowl proposals except for the one in Orlando which would likely only be successful if UCF were in it.

Agreed on most all of this. Twenty five to thirty bowls should be it.

I actually think the Humanitarian/Potato Bowl would survive. It usually gets decent attendance (maybe not 30K every year, but considering that stadium only seats about 35K good nonetheless) unless two teams not from that area of the country are in it, because Boise largely supports it.

[Arkstfan]

I'm surprised that the AAC is getting into bed so much with the Sun Belt

AAC's western-most bowl on a regular basis is Birmingham.

Unless you are drawing at 3 or 4 million viewers TV isn't paying a bundle to show your bowl. If you aren't making a lot from TV then you have to make it by keeping costs down and selling tickets. AAC's additions in the west are perfectly logical. Orlando not so much.

[Arkstfan]

Man, this is overkill! There should only be thirty bowls plus the eight (currently) playoff teams. Even that gives you more than 50% of the teams that will be going to a bowl equivalent.

Every bowl should draw at or near 30,000+. That should eliminate the Bahamas, Miami Beach, Famous Idaho Potato, Camellia, and probably the Hawaii bowls.

I like the new bowl proposals except for the one in Orlando which would likely only be successful if UCF were in it.

Why 30? We both know if there are 30 then sixty spots after the playoff spots are going to the P5 then AAC, CUSA, Sun Belt, MWC, MAC get what's left.

The increase in bowls shifts the power from bowl directors to conference commissioners. When there were fewer bowls non-AQ commissioners went to bowl directors begging for games and had to take games on terms they dictate. Now there are more games, commissioners can extract terms they like better or go somewhere else and put the game out of business. The International Bowl folded because no conference other than the MAC would agree to a new contract. The Motor Pizza Bowl wanted to move to Tiger Stadium when they were kicked out of Ford Field. No one other than the MAC would agree to sign on.

When there were few bowls you had:

Today's Capital One Bowl moved from a lower division to major bowl by tying to the MAC. Soon as they get that status, goodbye MAC.

Fiesta was created as a WAC bowl. Booted them

Holiday was created as a WAC bowl. Booted them

Independence was created as Southland bowl. Booted them (year before the reorganization to I-AA).

Las Vegas Bowl was created as MAC vs. Big West.

GoDaddy was WAC vs. CUSA, WAC bailed because they couldn't afford the travel. MAC replaced them with a multi-year deal that expired after the CUSA deal. When CUSA expired, bowl signed ACC who never had a team eligible.

Constrain the supply and the bowls hold the cards and they will maximize profit by ditching G5 programs whenever possible to get P5 who bring bigger TV audiences and generally do better selling tickets.

Wanting to reduce bowls is like being a person who does not have capital investments favoring a low capital gains tax. Low tax capital gains tax encourages people to cash out so they can get the gain at a low tax rate, a higher rate encourages staying invested to defer the tax as long as possible. When USA Drug sold out to Walgreens and the large bank chain in Arkansas, Liberty Bank sold to Centennial, being able to take advantage of the current low rate was cited in both cases and in both cases resulted in hundreds being laid off. Low rate has its benefits but if you are living paycheck to paycheck it generally means you are at higher risk of losing your job when the owner cashes out early.

Fewer bowls = more chance G5's get left out in the cold.

Edited April 3, 2015 by Arkstfan

[GrayEagle]

Why 30? We both know if there are 30 then sixty spots after the playoff spots are going to the P5 then AAC, CUSA, Sun Belt, MWC, MAC get what's left.

The increase in bowls shifts the power from bowl directors to conference commissioners. When there were fewer bowls non-AQ commissioners went to bowl directors begging for games and had to take games on terms they dictate. Now there are more games, commissioners can extract terms they like better or go somewhere else and put the game out of business. The International Bowl folded because no conference other than the MAC would agree to a new contract. The Motor Pizza Bowl wanted to move to Tiger Stadium when they were kicked out of Ford Field. No one other than the MAC would agree to sign on.

When there were few bowls you had:

Today's Capital One Bowl moved from a lower division to major bowl by tying to the MAC. Soon as they get that status, goodbye MAC.

Fiesta was created as a WAC bowl. Booted them

Holiday was created as a WAC bowl. Booted them

Independence was created as Southland bowl. Booted them (year before the reorganization to I-AA).

Las Vegas Bowl was created as MAC vs. Big West.

GoDaddy was WAC vs. CUSA, WAC bailed because they couldn't afford the travel. MAC replaced them with a multi-year deal that expired after the CUSA deal. When CUSA expired, bowl signed ACC who never had a team eligible.

Constrain the supply and the bowls hold the cards and they will maximize profit by ditching G5 programs whenever possible to get P5 who bring bigger TV audiences and generally do better selling tickets.

Wanting to reduce bowls is like being a person who does not have capital investments favoring a low capital gains tax. Low tax capital gains tax encourages people to cash out so they can get the gain at a low tax rate, a higher rate encourages staying invested to defer the tax as long as possible. When USA Drug sold out to Walgreens and the large bank chain in Arkansas, Liberty Bank sold to Centennial, being able to take advantage of the current low rate was cited in both cases and in both cases resulted in hundreds being laid off. Low rate has its benefits but if you are living paycheck to paycheck it generally means you are at higher risk of losing your job when the owner cashes out early.

Fewer bowls = more chance G5's get left out in the cold.

Well, if it's participation that we want then let's have all 128 teams pair off and have all of them in a bowl.

In my opinion, bowls are for winning teams. Last year there were 58 teams that had seven or more wins. Actually there were 60 but two were transitional teams. With 30 bowls and four playoff teams that would mean that you'd still have to have taken eight break-even teams to fill 32 post season games. If you keep adding bowls you dilute national interest. The populace has little interest in seeing two mediocre G-5 teams in a post-season game; there are too many other holiday activities.

Based on last year, there would have been about an equal number of 6-6 teams from P-5 and G-5. The only 6-6 team not invited to a bowl as I recall was Texas State. The two transitional teams were G-5s from the Sun Belt but both had seven wins and would qualify in my 30 bowl lineup if they could repeat their record.

There would have to be assurances that all winning records get bowl priority. If any 6-6 team had to be invited I'm sure that P-5s would be chosen first but that's the choice of the bowls; not the association. I believe that the bowls should have the choice when all things are equal. After all, they have to sell the tickets and make the payouts.

[DallasGreen]

Ark. St. fan is right on for the G5. The four team playoff "pseudo" national championship is a made for tv joke and no better than the BCS. Look at the BB final four each year and tell me these would be the exact teams in w/o a REAL PLAYOFF to a national championship. The non P5 bowls are the only chance for G5 exposure, to argue less bowls is to insure NO exposure for the G5.

[UNTexas]

An Austin should be pretty well traveled by any of the Texas teams. That would be a nice bowl.

Austin would be a great bowl trip. I'd love it.

[greenit]

So, in the oh so rare years that we actually qualify for a bowl, our likely destinations would likely be Dallas, Austin, Albuquerque, Tucson, New Orleans, with the possibility of Shreveport, Little Rock, Fort Worth, etc... depending on the horse trading that goes on with the networks.

Seems like the best position bowl wise we have ever been in. Now we just need to figure out how to actually qualifying for a bowl.

[wardly]

ESPN Events owns 11 bowls to date. I don't know who is financially backing the proposed new bowls, but it has to be cheaper to own the t.v. rights than pay for them.

[JesseMartin]

Well, if Tucson becomes a CUSA bowl destination, at least there are then two tie-ins that I could meet up with everybody (Tucson and New Mexico). First, we have to #Hit6 again before we even start wishing in the direction of which bowl to go to....

[untjim1995]

Ark. St. fan is right on for the G5. The four team playoff "pseudo" national championship is a made for tv joke and no better than the BCS. Look at the BB final four each year and tell me these would be the exact teams in w/o a REAL PLAYOFF to a national championship. The non P5 bowls are the only chance for G5 exposure, to argue less bowls is to insure NO exposure for the G5.

Or the G5 could do something crazy--like make a playoff system of their own to be played while the P5s are waiting for their bowl games in late December/early January. A playoff system is always welcomed--and more importantly, covered by the media and attended by fans. Get rid of the cheap bowl games and get a 16 team G5 playoff system going, just like FCS does.

[greenit]

So we would go from having 50 or so G5 teams playing meaningless post season games to 16 G5 teams playing meaningless post season games?

[untjim1995]

So we would go from having 50 or so G5 teams playing meaningless post season games to 16 G5 teams playing meaningless post season games?

Why would they be meaningless playoff games? They certainly would have more merit than the spare bowl games we all are forced to play in, for the most part.

Try to do something to create buzz for your brand of football--since the P5 media have already admitted that they give less than 5% of their time to non-P5 football during the regular season.

Or we can just hope and pray the P5s will somehow keep paying for the G5s athletic budgets by buying them for blood-lettings in their stadiums each fall. I think that strategy has a shelf life that is nearing expiration, at least in my opinion...

[VideoEagle]

I haven't looked in a long time, but years ago the New Orleans Bowl's average TV rating over five or six years was about 30% higher than the FCS championship game over the same period. That's why the meaningless bowls are better than a G5 playoff.

Edited April 10, 2015 by VideoEagle

[Eagle1855]

I haven't looked in a long time, but years ago the New Orleans Bowl's average TV rating over five or six years was about 30% higher than the FCS championship game over the same period. That's why the meaningless bowls are better than a G5 playoff.

I would submit it's higher because far less people care about FCS football period.

Edited April 10, 2015 by Eagle1855

[GrayEagle]

The argument that G-5 teams would suffer greatly if there were fewer bowls but teams with winning percentages were given priority is pretty baseless.

For example, last year the P-5 had 36 teams with winning records; G-5 had 24. Two of the G-5s were transitional teams, thus ineligible for the bowls. Eleven teams from P-5 with 6-6 records were selected and three from G-5 were selected to fill out the bowl roster. Had Appalachian State and Georgia Southern been eligible it's likely only one break-even team would have been included from G-5. To fill the 64 bowl and 8 playoff spots 47 teams were selected from P-5 and 25 were selected from G-5. Forward to this year assuming the same records and with thirty bowls and eight playoff spots. P-5 still would've taken the eight playoff spots and 28 of the bowl spots for sure. Again, G-5 would have 24 teams with winning records (7-5 or above) added to the 28 P-5s, leaving eight 6-6 teams necessary to fill out the sixty teams necessary for thirty bowls. Granted, the eight teams would likely come from P-5 but still the P-5 count would be 24 vs. 25 last season with two less bowls. One team less with two less bowls wouldn't raise many eyebrows.

Fewer bowls could likely mean larger payouts for each bowl and would not dilute interest.

[DallasGreen]

The argument that G-5 teams would suffer greatly if there were fewer bowls but teams with winning percentages were given priority is pretty baseless.

For example, last year the P-5 had 36 teams with winning records; G-5 had 24. Two of the G-5s were transitional teams, thus ineligible for the bowls. Eleven teams from P-5 with 6-6 records were selected and three from G-5 were selected to fill out the bowl roster. Had Appalachian State and Georgia Southern been eligible it's likely only one break-even team would have been included from G-5. To fill the 64 bowl and 8 playoff spots 47 teams were selected from P-5 and 25 were selected from G-5. Forward to this year assuming the same records and with thirty bowls and eight playoff spots. P-5 still would've taken the eight playoff spots and 28 of the bowl spots for sure. Again, G-5 would have 24 teams with winning records (7-5 or above) added to the 28 P-5s, leaving eight 6-6 teams necessary to fill out the sixty teams necessary for thirty bowls. Granted, the eight teams would likely come from P-5 but still the P-5 count would be 24 vs. 25 last season with two less bowls. One team less with two less bowls wouldn't raise many eyebrows.

Fewer bowls could likely mean larger payouts for each bowl and would not dilute interest.

[DallasGreen]

My head is spinning from all these facts from a closet SMU fan!