(12-26-2017 03:55 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-26-2017 01:09 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I think more bowl games is a good thing.

Its a good experience for the kids. A reduction in bowl game numbers would only hurt the smaller programs and the kids who play for them.

Somewhere along the way, it became a truism that the bowls were a reward to teams for having a good season. But that wasn't anybody's motivation when most of the bowls were centered around New Year's Day, and there were only a dozen or so of them. The reality is that all the motivation was to benefit the locations where the bowls were held. They were meant to aid hotels and restaurants looking to extend tourist season to include winter vacations at warm weather sites.

Television networks were quick to realize they could also fill the holidays with live sports programming. But when we are talking about networks, we were basically talking about NBC, ABC and CBS. There was no cable tv, with its voracious need to fill hours of programming. The number of bowls is limited only by the available broadcast windows to show them, and the willingness of enough people to watch them instead of something else (like yet another episode of Law & Order SVU, or showing of It's a Wonderful Life).

I'm with those who say if you don't like so many bowls, don't watch them. As far as I'm concerned, there should be as many as the viewing market will bear. I couldn't care less how many wins or losses the participants have.

And, some very good teams were left home because of regulations.

(12-26-2017 02:17 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  Not sure why more bowls offends anyone. If you don't want to watch, don't. I am more offended by 8, 9, 10 win teams staying home than the occasional 5-7 team getting in.

They cost the schools money. ESPN and the cities make money.

(12-26-2017 04:20 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  My main concern is if/when the TV bubble bursts, how many of these bowls survive? Some bowls have poor attendance nearly every year (Hawaii, Bahamas). Would the G5 say to ESPN, rather than flushing a couple of million away on some pre-Christmas bowls, why not just add it to our TV contract?

It is still cheap programming. A basic test would be:

(Ratings for Bowl - Ratings for normal show at same time slot)*(Network Bowl Expenses-Expenses for Regular Programming).

Ratings are used as a proxy for Ad costs.

(12-26-2017 04:36 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-26-2017 02:17 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  Not sure why more bowls offends anyone. If you don't want to watch, don't. I am more offended by 8, 9, 10 win teams staying home than the occasional 5-7 team getting in.

They cost the schools money. ESPN and the cities make money.

No one is forcing the schools to go. They can turn down a bid.

(12-26-2017 01:52 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(12-26-2017 01:50 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-26-2017 01:48 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Bottom line is if they wacked 20 of the 40 bowls, it would just mean that a whole lot of G5 teams would no longer play in bowl games.

True. We'd still see 6-6 P5 schools playing.

Fact is most schools lose money on bowls.

Give everyone two weeks of extra practice, limit bowls to teams with 8 wins and reduce the number of bowls accordingly.

Agreed. One of my points was to limit the bowls but put in requirements: 8 wins, no more than 1 FCS school, at least 1 power OOC for non-power schools, meet certain academic standard, no more than 7 home games, etc.

Power 5 will never agree. As long they have the two tie-in rule for bowls and the networks are involved, they will never let a P5 sit home for a G5 team. In the next contract round I think you will see a further push to eliminate P5 vs G5. Allowing for G5 to take places of P5s that can't fill the slots. Not saying it is fair, but probably will be what the P5 plans.

I could see the following bowls attempt P5 vs P5

Gasperilla ACC vs B10 or B12
Las Vegas B10 vs P12 (Move to new Vegas Stadium)
Birmingham SEC vs ACC or B12
Heart of Dallas B12 vs B10 or B12
Military ACC vs B10 (Move from Annapolis to Redskin Stadium)

(12-26-2017 05:02 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(12-26-2017 01:52 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(12-26-2017 01:50 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-26-2017 01:48 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Bottom line is if they wacked 20 of the 40 bowls, it would just mean that a whole lot of G5 teams would no longer play in bowl games.

True. We'd still see 6-6 P5 schools playing.

Fact is most schools lose money on bowls.

Give everyone two weeks of extra practice, limit bowls to teams with 8 wins and reduce the number of bowls accordingly.

Agreed. One of my points was to limit the bowls but put in requirements: 8 wins, no more than 1 FCS school, at least 1 power OOC for non-power schools, meet certain academic standard, no more than 7 home games, etc.

Power 5 will never agree. As long they have the two tie-in rule for bowls and the networks are involved, they will never let a P5 sit home for a G5 team. In the next contract round I think you will see a further push to eliminate P5 vs G5. Allowing for G5 to take places of P5s that can't fill the slots. Not saying it is fair, but probably will be what the P5 plans.

I could see the following bowls attempt P5 vs P5

Gasperilla ACC vs B10 or B12
Las Vegas B10 vs P12 (Move to new Vegas Stadium)
Birmingham SEC vs ACC or B12
Heart of Dallas B12 vs B10 or B12
Military ACC vs B10 (Move from Annapolis to Redskin Stadium)

I think that would be a problem. PAC 12 would not agree with the rest of the P5 conferences on this. PAC 12 Vs MWC bowl games are a treat for the PAC 12 fans. The reason is that Boise State still draws better tv ratings in bowl games as long as they still win. As long as Boise State, houston, Memphis, UCF, USf and Northern illinois continues winning, I could see that the P5 will award these well known G5 schools.

(12-26-2017 04:36 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-26-2017 02:17 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  Not sure why more bowls offends anyone. If you don't want to watch, don't. I am more offended by 8, 9, 10 win teams staying home than the occasional 5-7 team getting in.

They cost the schools money. ESPN and the cities make money.

If the schools were really making out that poorly on the deal, the system wouldn't be the way it is.

(12-26-2017 04:36 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-26-2017 02:17 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  Not sure why more bowls offends anyone. If you don't want to watch, don't. I am more offended by 8, 9, 10 win teams staying home than the occasional 5-7 team getting in.

They cost the schools money. ESPN and the cities make money.

Misleading, because the bowls are part of the CFP system, and even the G5 conferences easily get more from the CFP payout than they lose via the cost of playing bowls.

E.g., last year the AAC got about $20 million from the CFP while AAC teams spent a total of around $6m playing their bowl games, so overall the conference netted $14m.

Bottom line is all conference FBS schools make a profit from the bowl/CFP system.

Bowls exist because it's relatively cheap programming for ESPN. There are conference tie-ins to guarantee teams of a certain level will be there. The P5 pretty much lock up post Christmas and the G5 take pre-Christmas, lots of weeknight games to fill in now that MACTion November is over, so Bowl December.

The tie-ins work well because conferences can dole out the slots to teams that want them, and it simplifies the process. About 25 of the Bowl games have no importance whatsoever and are simply played as a bonus to the schools participating. (Really the NY6, and maybe 4 solid payout games with two ranked schools)

Why worry about it? The top 12 games are of ranking importance, the second 12 NIT type, the bottom 12 your CIT or CBI level. It's relatively stable because those are the slots ESPN needs to fill. They have no other value, except to help schools prepare for next year.

(12-26-2017 01:03 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  This season, 78 schools made bowl games. Only 40 schools made bowl games 20 yeas ago. The subject of bowl game reduction has been discussed ad nauseam but I think its time for a final decision. Bowl games used to a reward for a great season. Today, bowl games are used as money machines and a reward for a season at or above average. The decision should be to either limit the number of bowl games or give everyone a bowl game.

I would vote for bowl contraction to 30 bowls (60 schools). I chose this number because over the past 3 seasons, the FBS has averaged 63 7+ win schools so 60 gives us slightly better than that. I would like to see it closer to 20-25 bowls but with 130 schools, 60 seems like a fair number. Independents aren't included in here but they would be free to contract with bowls and those bowls would have the option of choosing that independent or the tie-in. Every non-power conference plays at least 1 power conference in a bowl game. Using today's conference alignments, here's how I'd divide up the bowl tie-ins:

NY6
Championship Game: semi-final winners
Rose: B1G vs. PAC
Sugar: SEC vs. XII
Orange: ACC vs. SEC
Cotton: XII vs. B1G
Fiesta: PAC vs. MWC
Peach: ACC vs. AAC

Fiesta / Peach - CUSA/SBC/MAC may switch a bowl game with MWC/AAC if ranked higher.

Other Bowls
Citrus: ACC vs. SEC
Alamo: PAC vs. XII
Hall of Fame: SEC vs. B1G
Bluebonnet: XII vs. B1G
Holiday: MWC vs. XII
Tangerine: ACC vs. XII
Music City: SEC vs. PAC
Liberty: AAC vs. SEC
Queen City: ACC vs. SBC
Pinstripe: ACC vs. B1G
San Francisco: PAC vs. B1G
Sun: PAC vs. XII
Gator: SEC vs. B1G
Las Vegas: PAC vs. ACC
Military: AAC vs. ACC
Birmingham: CUSA vs. MAC
Motor City: MAC vs. B1G
Cactus: MWC vs. SBC
Armed Forces: CUSA vs. AAC
Independence: CUSA vs. SEC
Hawaii: MWC vs. AAC
Idaho Potato: MWC vs. MAC
New Mexico: MAC vs. SBC
New Orleans: SBC vs. CUSA

OR

Get rid of tie-ins altogether and just let the bowls pick schools based on certain criteria like record, OOC games requirements, etc.

A plan where the MAC gets four tie ins while the SBC gets two is BS. The SBC has owned the MAC in bowl games. It has better attendance at home and draws more fans to the games.

The SB had a bad season in non conference play, but this attitude where the Sun Belt is some pitiful league worthy of only two tie ins is based on how bad the league was 10-15 years ago. Most of the teams in the league back then are now in C-USA, and the teams who replaced them have fared far better than those who were replaced.

(12-26-2017 06:09 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  

(12-26-2017 01:03 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  This season, 78 schools made bowl games. Only 40 schools made bowl games 20 yeas ago. The subject of bowl game reduction has been discussed ad nauseam but I think its time for a final decision. Bowl games used to a reward for a great season. Today, bowl games are used as money machines and a reward for a season at or above average. The decision should be to either limit the number of bowl games or give everyone a bowl game.

I would vote for bowl contraction to 30 bowls (60 schools). I chose this number because over the past 3 seasons, the FBS has averaged 63 7+ win schools so 60 gives us slightly better than that. I would like to see it closer to 20-25 bowls but with 130 schools, 60 seems like a fair number. Independents aren't included in here but they would be free to contract with bowls and those bowls would have the option of choosing that independent or the tie-in. Every non-power conference plays at least 1 power conference in a bowl game. Using today's conference alignments, here's how I'd divide up the bowl tie-ins:

NY6
Championship Game: semi-final winners
Rose: B1G vs. PAC
Sugar: SEC vs. XII
Orange: ACC vs. SEC
Cotton: XII vs. B1G
Fiesta: PAC vs. MWC
Peach: ACC vs. AAC

Fiesta / Peach - CUSA/SBC/MAC may switch a bowl game with MWC/AAC if ranked higher.

Other Bowls
Citrus: ACC vs. SEC
Alamo: PAC vs. XII
Hall of Fame: SEC vs. B1G
Bluebonnet: XII vs. B1G
Holiday: MWC vs. XII
Tangerine: ACC vs. XII
Music City: SEC vs. PAC
Liberty: AAC vs. SEC
Queen City: ACC vs. SBC
Pinstripe: ACC vs. B1G
San Francisco: PAC vs. B1G
Sun: PAC vs. XII
Gator: SEC vs. B1G
Las Vegas: PAC vs. ACC
Military: AAC vs. ACC
Birmingham: CUSA vs. MAC
Motor City: MAC vs. B1G
Cactus: MWC vs. SBC
Armed Forces: CUSA vs. AAC
Independence: CUSA vs. SEC
Hawaii: MWC vs. AAC
Idaho Potato: MWC vs. MAC
New Mexico: MAC vs. SBC
New Orleans: SBC vs. CUSA

OR

Get rid of tie-ins altogether and just let the bowls pick schools based on certain criteria like record, OOC games requirements, etc.

A plan where the MAC gets four tie ins while the SBC gets two is BS. The SBC has owned the MAC in bowl games. It has better attendance at home and draws more fans to the games.

The SB had a bad season in non conference play, but this attitude where the Sun Belt is some pitiful league worthy of only two tie ins is based on how bad the league was 10-15 years ago. Most of the teams in the league back then are now in C-USA, and the teams who replaced them have fared far better than those who were replaced.

Count again...

Here's my bowl scheme, for a near-future P4 scenario. There are 32 bowls for 64 participants, roughly half of the total FBS teams, plus the extra CFP championship game. Each P4 conference is guaranteed at least 8 bowl games and each non-P4 conference is guaranteed at least 4 (2 of which are against P4 teams).

NY6 bowl participants rotate in a three-year cycle. For example, in Year 1, the Rose Bowl serves as the CFP semifinal between the B10 and PAC champs. In Year 2, it's a non-CFP game between the #2 teams in the B10 and PAC. And in Year 3, it's a non-CFP game between at-large teams. The top FBS team outside the P4 is guaranteed an at-large spot.


I tried to maintain a similar ratio of power to non-power participants as there is currently. Realistically, only one non-P4 team is likely to make the NY6. So this means that in most years there would be 36 P4 spots (56%) and 28 non-P4 spots (44%) out of the total 64. This is comparable to the distribution in the 2017-18 bowl season, where P5 teams (+ ND) have 45 spots (58%) and G5 teams (+ Army) have 33 spots (42%) out of the total 78.

* I moved the Cactus Bowl back to Tucson to replace the Arizona Bowl. Note that no metro areas have more than one bowl. Spread the love, I say.

** The Medal of Honor (Charleston, SC) and Austin Bowls have actually been proposed.

I'd rather see them fix the payment issue. A large portion of the payment schools receive is in the form of tickets. The schools can't sell the tickets because corporate sponsors are dumping their tickets on sites like Stubhub.

(12-26-2017 02:17 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  Not sure why more bowls offends anyone. If you don't want to watch, don't. I am more offended by 8, 9, 10 win teams staying home than the occasional 5-7 team getting in.

This, the games are all almost on an ESPN platform. There isn't a lot else on to watch. I really don't know why fans care. watch something else.

Given choice of a minor bowl or the 5th replay of sports center, I will take a minor bowl any time.

(12-26-2017 06:13 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(12-26-2017 06:09 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  

(12-26-2017 01:03 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  This season, 78 schools made bowl games. Only 40 schools made bowl games 20 yeas ago. The subject of bowl game reduction has been discussed ad nauseam but I think its time for a final decision. Bowl games used to a reward for a great season. Today, bowl games are used as money machines and a reward for a season at or above average. The decision should be to either limit the number of bowl games or give everyone a bowl game.

I would vote for bowl contraction to 30 bowls (60 schools). I chose this number because over the past 3 seasons, the FBS has averaged 63 7+ win schools so 60 gives us slightly better than that. I would like to see it closer to 20-25 bowls but with 130 schools, 60 seems like a fair number. Independents aren't included in here but they would be free to contract with bowls and those bowls would have the option of choosing that independent or the tie-in. Every non-power conference plays at least 1 power conference in a bowl game. Using today's conference alignments, here's how I'd divide up the bowl tie-ins:

NY6
Championship Game: semi-final winners
Rose: B1G vs. PAC
Sugar: SEC vs. XII
Orange: ACC vs. SEC
Cotton: XII vs. B1G
Fiesta: PAC vs. MWC
Peach: ACC vs. AAC

Fiesta / Peach - CUSA/SBC/MAC may switch a bowl game with MWC/AAC if ranked higher.

Other Bowls
Citrus: ACC vs. SEC
Alamo: PAC vs. XII
Hall of Fame: SEC vs. B1G
Bluebonnet: XII vs. B1G
Holiday: MWC vs. XII
Tangerine: ACC vs. XII
Music City: SEC vs. PAC
Liberty: AAC vs. SEC
Queen City: ACC vs. SBC
Pinstripe: ACC vs. B1G
San Francisco: PAC vs. B1G
Sun: PAC vs. XII
Gator: SEC vs. B1G
Las Vegas: PAC vs. ACC
Military: AAC vs. ACC
Birmingham: CUSA vs. MAC
Motor City: MAC vs. B1G
Cactus: MWC vs. SBC
Armed Forces: CUSA vs. AAC
Independence: CUSA vs. SEC
Hawaii: MWC vs. AAC
Idaho Potato: MWC vs. MAC
New Mexico: MAC vs. SBC
New Orleans: SBC vs. CUSA

OR

Get rid of tie-ins altogether and just let the bowls pick schools based on certain criteria like record, OOC games requirements, etc.

A plan where the MAC gets four tie ins while the SBC gets two is BS. The SBC has owned the MAC in bowl games. It has better attendance at home and draws more fans to the games.

The SB had a bad season in non conference play, but this attitude where the Sun Belt is some pitiful league worthy of only two tie ins is based on how bad the league was 10-15 years ago. Most of the teams in the league back then are now in C-USA, and the teams who replaced them have fared far better than those who were replaced.

Count again...

Excuse me while I remove some egg off my face.

(12-27-2017 08:33 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(12-26-2017 02:17 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  Not sure why more bowls offends anyone. If you don't want to watch, don't. I am more offended by 8, 9, 10 win teams staying home than the occasional 5-7 team getting in.

This, the games are all almost on an ESPN platform. There isn't a lot else on to watch. I really don't know why fans care. watch something else.

Given choice of a minor bowl or the 5th replay of sports center, I will take a minor bowl any time.

This. I'm not sure why this offends people so much, if you are at upset with two 6-6 teams playing in Boise, don't watch.

There was talk of the conferences getting together and once again establishing limits to the amount of games a conference can certify equal to its average of 6 win teams.

That would place some limits on the P5 compared to where they've been this cycle and reduce the overall number of bowls by 2 or 3.

There is also going to be another push by the P5 to adding bowls at NFL stadiums. This will push games further down that aren't played in an NFL stadium.

Then the lowest tier games like the Potato and New Mexico are going to have to contend with new bowls the G5 want to get online like the bowl in Charleston.

Its puts the MAC in a position where they can do some deal making, perhaps being able to trade up their champion to the Holiday or Independence if those games drop down to the G5 level.

So this whole contraction plan to 30 from the G5 perspective is relatively moot.

Here is the question for P5s to include schools that are P5 like, but not invite them to be part of the P5 conferences, but allow them to be bowl tie-ins like Notre Dame with the ACC?


Boise State plays 5 PAC 12 teams a season, and get an access bowl. As it is, Boise State have a better record against the PAC 12 schools than any other G5 schools. It could give the PAC 12 a better SoS so that they do not get left out of the playoffs again. This would regulate the 6-6 PAC 12 teams down to a lower bowl so that the bowls could get better match ups.

(12-27-2017 12:54 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  There was talk of the conferences getting together and once again establishing limits to the amount of games a conference can certify equal to its average of 6 win teams.

That would place some limits on the P5 compared to where they've been this cycle and reduce the overall number of bowls by 2 or 3.

There is also going to be another push by the P5 to adding bowls at NFL stadiums. This will push games further down that aren't played in an NFL stadium.

Then the lowest tier games like the Potato and New Mexico are going to have to contend with new bowls the G5 want to get online like the bowl in Charleston.

Its puts the MAC in a position where they can do some deal making, perhaps being able to trade up their champion to the Holiday or Independence if those games drop down to the G5 level.

So this whole contraction plan to 30 from the G5 perspective is relatively moot.

This is actually going to happen. The deputy commissioner of the MW (who is on the bowl oversight committee) state they will go with a 4 year average of the number of eligible bowl teams and only allow that amount to be tied in. It may be the case where a G5 and P5 bowls get dropped or possible reassigned to another conference.

I do like the setup the OP wrote. Also, I would replace the Potato with the Arizona Bowl....

(12-27-2017 05:55 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(12-27-2017 12:54 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  There was talk of the conferences getting together and once again establishing limits to the amount of games a conference can certify equal to its average of 6 win teams.

That would place some limits on the P5 compared to where they've been this cycle and reduce the overall number of bowls by 2 or 3.

There is also going to be another push by the P5 to adding bowls at NFL stadiums. This will push games further down that aren't played in an NFL stadium.

Then the lowest tier games like the Potato and New Mexico are going to have to contend with new bowls the G5 want to get online like the bowl in Charleston.

Its puts the MAC in a position where they can do some deal making, perhaps being able to trade up their champion to the Holiday or Independence if those games drop down to the G5 level.

So this whole contraction plan to 30 from the G5 perspective is relatively moot.

This is actually going to happen. The deputy commissioner of the MW (who is on the bowl oversight committee) state they will go with a 4 year average of the number of eligible bowl teams and only allow that amount to be tied in. It may be the case where a G5 and P5 bowls get dropped or possible reassigned to another conference.

I do like the setup the OP wrote. Also, I would replace the Potato with the Arizona Bowl....

Current four year average

ACC 11 10 12 10 10.75
American 5 8 7 7 6.75
Big 12 7 7 6 8 7
Big Ten 11 10 10 8 9.75
Conference USA 5 5 7 9 6.5
Independents 3 2 2 2 2.25
MAC 5 7 6 5 5.75
Mountain West 7 8 7 6 7
Pac-12 9 10 6 9 8.5
SEC 12 11 13 9 11.25
Sun Belt 3 4 6 5 4.5

Not really sure there is much differential than the current tie-ins once you remove the CFP championship game, 5-7 teams and include ND as part of the ACC tie-ins rather than independents. So I think the 4 year average hurts the G5 worse than the P5. In theory the ACC, SEC and P12 should increase and the B10 and B12 stay the same.

The only thing the NCAA can do is not allow for any new bowls in 2020-2025. If 3 or more stay home, I think at least one new bowl will be added. Probably a lottery will occur for the city that gets to host unless South Carolina will get it since they have been on the waiting list longer than anyone else.