CollegeFootballPoll.com Message Board

Dilute the product and you always have issues...football apparently is no exception.

http://www.thepostgame.com/blog/dish/201312/bcs-teams-struggling-ticket-allotment

One step closer to eliminating the bowls. The seats the schools are allotted are crap seats. Basically the only people who are in the market for those seats are students. The majority go through get bowl packages through travel agents with good seats to the game. If the students don't buy most of the school's allotment of tickets they won't sell, unless they sell late after the other avenues dry up.

You would think Ohio State students would go to this game not going to a bowl last year. Florida is a relatively cheap trip even if they won't let you sleep on the beach anymore.

Actually, I would like to see a reduction in the number of Bowls. Maybe back to 20 or so. If they start to not be profitable, that will do it.

RazorHawk wrote:Actually, I would like to see a reduction in the number of Bowls. Maybe back to 20 or so. If they start to not be profitable, that will do it.

When the major bowls are starting to get beat up, though, it makes it tough to justify their existence. Especially with the playoffs coming next year. That will make it even tougher.

As we have discussed many times, it ultimately gets controlled by advertisers. If they are not getting results, it all falls apart. So tv will make decisions that satisfies the advertisers and that is what will decide the Bowl Status.

donovan wrote:As we have discussed many times, it ultimately gets controlled by advertisers. If they are not getting results, it all falls apart. So tv will make decisions that satisfies the advertisers and that is what will decide the Bowl Status.

I agree, but where do you think that the advertisers will put their money - On the playoffs that will have national appeal - or on a bowl game between a non playoff Ohio State team playing a non playoff Clemson team? It doesn't matter who the non playoff teams are, they aren't going to draw any national audience and that will leave the ad money going in higher and higher percentages to the playoffs. People deemed the playoffs as a way for the have nots to play for a national championship. That couldn't be further from the truth under this scenario. A small committee of guys decide the teams. The clamour from the masses about the unfairness of the system will eventually lead to a tournament of champions that will have a clear cut path to the playoff. That will be a fair system, it will leave out lots of teams who are better than several that make the playoffs. In Basketball they fixed that by adding teams to the playoffs. They can't do much adding in CFB because of the amount of downtime required between games. The only way I see to fix that is to go to four 24 team conferences with the conference championship being the first round of the playoffs. That would relegate another 24 or so teams back to 1AA.

I thought it would take several years to kill the bowls, but they are already setting the table to dump them. The amount of money the playoffs command will be extreme. That money has to come from somewhere. Logic dictates that the bowls are going to be the ones taking the hit. They will start with 10 or so. Then another 10 until they are gone.

I can't try and predict the future, but I would lean towards your logic there, Spence. It might still be profitable to have games on primetime on weeknights. I think the TV contracts are where the bowls get the most of their money and exposure, so as long as that is there, there will be smaller bowl games sandwiched in between the playoffs. If they ever expanded the field to 16 or more, then the bowl games might be done and the lower rung of the current FBS will merge with the higher rung of the FBS.

The player stipend cost might also be built into the cost of running an athletic program whenever it comes. There are a handful of schools that currently turn in profits from their athletic departments. I know Florida and Texas are some of the most successful top-to-bottom; but can a program like Florida International or UTEP or Kent State afford to pay their players any amount? Probably not. I don't know if the NCAA could make special rules for the new FBS teams, but if that player stipend ever comes into effect, they probably won't enforce it throughout college athletics, allowing a team to opt-out of the system by dropping down, which could create a new division of 60ish teams with that 16 team playoff and another division of the has-beens.

I could be way off, I don't know the ins and outs. But outside of the new divisional arrangement, if the playoffs expand, the bowls become the NIT. When they become the NIT, nobody cares. When nobody cares, the games draw fewer eyeballs. If they draw fewer eyeballs, then the games will be less profitable. But the main difference between a postseason exhibition game in college football and a postseason exhibition tournament in college basketball is that college football fans have a much higher investment in total. It will be interesting to see how it pans out.

As long as you can bet on those bowl games, there will always be some level of interest. I know I'm in a bowl pools so I'm watching most of these games. I'm watching BG/Pitt right now and it is a good game.

strawman wrote:As long as you can bet on those bowl games, there will always be some level of interest. I know I'm in a bowl pools so I'm watching most of these games. I'm watching BG/Pitt right now and it is a good game.

Except that most sports books do not advertise as sponsors of bowl games.

Eric wrote:I can't try and predict the future, but I would lean towards your logic there, Spence. It might still be profitable to have games on primetime on weeknights. I think the TV contracts are where the bowls get the most of their money and exposure, so as long as that is there, there will be smaller bowl games sandwiched in between the playoffs. If they ever expanded the field to 16 or more, then the bowl games might be done and the lower rung of the current FBS will merge with the higher rung of the FBS.

The player stipend cost might also be built into the cost of running an athletic program whenever it comes. There are a handful of schools that currently turn in profits from their athletic departments. I know Florida and Texas are some of the most successful top-to-bottom; but can a program like Florida International or UTEP or Kent State afford to pay their players any amount? Probably not. I don't know if the NCAA could make special rules for the new FBS teams, but if that player stipend ever comes into effect, they probably won't enforce it throughout college athletics, allowing a team to opt-out of the system by dropping down, which could create a new division of 60ish teams with that 16 team playoff and another division of the has-beens.

I could be way off, I don't know the ins and outs. But outside of the new divisional arrangement, if the playoffs expand, the bowls become the NIT. When they become the NIT, nobody cares. When nobody cares, the games draw fewer eyeballs. If they draw fewer eyeballs, then the games will be less profitable. But the main difference between a postseason exhibition game in college football and a postseason exhibition tournament in college basketball is that college football fans have a much higher investment in total. It will be interesting to see how it pans out.

It is a huge investment for fans to travel in football, at least in the Midwest. I know I can't afford to go to more than one playoff game unless one of games is the conference championship. It can cost in excess of 5 grand for me to go a bowl game not counting the tickets. If Ohio State went to three different games that would cost over 15 grand. That would make the total bill for Ohio State football over 20K a year. There are people who can drop that kind of money to watch their sports teams, but I'm not one of them. I wouldn't spend that much on it if I had the money to do it. It would be irresponsible to that IMO.

You're right that going to that many neutral games would be too demanding. I think they would have to model it after the FCS with homefield if they were to expand the field and then play the Final Four at neutral sites. The FCS currently uses 24 teams with the first round being something of a play-in round. I think 16 is as high as the FBS would go.

Yes, $$ will cause some bowls to end. And, there will be a trend back toward the earlier games where schools were often invited (the lesser opponent) on whether they 'traveled well' and were nearby (i.e. - sold tickets) rather than being a as good an opponent as they could get.

I think the new system will have as many new questions as the BCS had. However, I am all for keeping the NCAA out of it.

Swamp Daddy

I am for keeping the NCAA out of it as well. The problem is that the guys deciding who is going are just as bad. If you have a tournament it should be a tournament of champions with a clear cut way to get in. If you want to take subjectivity out then take it all the way out. I real tournament shouldn't be an invitational.

Spence wrote:I am for keeping the NCAA out of it as well. The problem is that the guys deciding who is going are just as bad. If you have a tournament it should be a tournament of champions with a clear cut way to get in. If you want to take subjectivity out then take it all the way out. I real tournament shouldn't be an invitational.

Yes, I agree. Which is why I had no problem with a group of computers picking who would play in the NCG. Because using an agreed upon set of criteria (that didn't change every year), they could pick 2 teams without "bias".

I wish they should only take the Conference champs and maybe one or two "Wild Cards" to ensure that there are an even number of games.

The "selection" committee reeks of smoke filled rooms and good ole boy (plus Condi Rice) negotiations.

Let the conferences pick their champions however they do it. If some conference has better teams at lower standings than some that are going. Oh Well....