It's not the record. It's the matchup.

If you put a 6-6 Florida against an 8-4 UCF in Tampa, you'll get 64,000 fans to the game. Same goes for Tulane vs. UL Lafayette in the New Orleans Bowl (although they only drew 54,0000 in 2013), the New Mexico's (UNM/NMSU) in the New Mexico Bowl, CMU/WMU/EMU in the QuickLane Bowl, etc.

These bowl games are designed for very specific teams to attend. You either want local teams, big name schools, or a program that hasn't been good for a hot minute.

(01-06-2024 04:09 PM)Garden_KC Wrote:  

(01-06-2024 02:04 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-06-2024 01:07 PM)Garden_KC Wrote:  Its obvious that more money can be made with "bowl season" than the present set up.

It's possiblem but it;'s not at all "obvious"

Quote:1) Including some of the traditional major games like the Citrus Bowl as tune ups in the CFP TV package would make them worth more than standalone.

It's not clear what that means. Playoff teams playing body-bag games as a tuneup?

Quote:2) A 7-5 bowl elgibility rule would save everyone money because it elimitates the most marginal of bowl games allowing for those that are still there to be better attended/more profitable.

The existence of the 6-6 vs 6-6 bowls doesn't stop anybody from going to the mid-range bowls. they're in different cities, different schools are playing.

Looking at the schedule for this year, if you killed the Charlotte NC "Famous Toastery Bowl" between Western Kentucky and Old Dominion, do you really think that helps the Duke's Mayo Bowl in Charlotte? I doubt it.
The WKU and ODU fans aren't going to the Dukes Mayo Bowl.
Do you think there are 1000 people in Charlotte who went to the Toastery Bowl, but not the Dukes MAyo Bowl, and if they couldn't go to the Toastery Bowl they'd have bought Mayo Bowl tickets?

Quote:3) With the consolidation of conferences it would make sense to assign the conferences bowl opponent bracket style. The idea is the P4 would have the higher seeds in the bracket and would largely play themselves in bowls, with the exception of a few well qualified G5s (10+ wins) that might get a P4 bowl due to performance.

Quote:The playoff is Top 12 regardless of conference so I could perfectly see where it makes sense to have the next 24 regardless of conference playing each other in bowl games. That to me is the NIT concept. Have them included with in the 1.5 billion dollar CFP package to push the valuation up a couple 100 million dollars more.

.............a football NIT isn't going to be worth 100 million dollars. The current bowl system has economic value to ESPN because it's football that they can plug into programming windows in December. If your bowl draws the short straw and gets a 2:30 Tuesday start, it doesn't really matter because it's the last game of the season.

You can't play a football tournament quarterfinal on a 2:30 on Tuesday in December and ask them to play again on Saturday, or wait until the Saturday after that, there isn't enough room on the calendar.

Quote:Then have an open tier of bowls after that if you want on the 7-5/6-6 rule which is more profitable than 6-5/5-7 cut line in place currently.

None of this adds up. You jsut assume you can increase the value of some bowls by eliminating others, and you don't justify that assumption

All of those bowls with the 6-6 teams lose money.

By raising to 7-5 that would be better financially for the conferences.

No - it doesn’t have to do with the records. It’s about the name brands involved. A 6-6 Big Ten or SEC team is more valuable than G5 teams with better records or even their champs and that’s why the bowls involving the top conferences have higher payouts (regardless of records).

(01-06-2024 04:46 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-06-2024 04:09 PM)Garden_KC Wrote:  

(01-06-2024 02:04 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-06-2024 01:07 PM)Garden_KC Wrote:  Its obvious that more money can be made with "bowl season" than the present set up.

It's possiblem but it;'s not at all "obvious"

Quote:1) Including some of the traditional major games like the Citrus Bowl as tune ups in the CFP TV package would make them worth more than standalone.

It's not clear what that means. Playoff teams playing body-bag games as a tuneup?

Quote:2) A 7-5 bowl elgibility rule would save everyone money because it elimitates the most marginal of bowl games allowing for those that are still there to be better attended/more profitable.

The existence of the 6-6 vs 6-6 bowls doesn't stop anybody from going to the mid-range bowls. they're in different cities, different schools are playing.

Looking at the schedule for this year, if you killed the Charlotte NC "Famous Toastery Bowl" between Western Kentucky and Old Dominion, do you really think that helps the Duke's Mayo Bowl in Charlotte? I doubt it.
The WKU and ODU fans aren't going to the Dukes Mayo Bowl.
Do you think there are 1000 people in Charlotte who went to the Toastery Bowl, but not the Dukes MAyo Bowl, and if they couldn't go to the Toastery Bowl they'd have bought Mayo Bowl tickets?

Quote:3) With the consolidation of conferences it would make sense to assign the conferences bowl opponent bracket style. The idea is the P4 would have the higher seeds in the bracket and would largely play themselves in bowls, with the exception of a few well qualified G5s (10+ wins) that might get a P4 bowl due to performance.

Quote:The playoff is Top 12 regardless of conference so I could perfectly see where it makes sense to have the next 24 regardless of conference playing each other in bowl games. That to me is the NIT concept. Have them included with in the 1.5 billion dollar CFP package to push the valuation up a couple 100 million dollars more.

.............a football NIT isn't going to be worth 100 million dollars. The current bowl system has economic value to ESPN because it's football that they can plug into programming windows in December. If your bowl draws the short straw and gets a 2:30 Tuesday start, it doesn't really matter because it's the last game of the season.

You can't play a football tournament quarterfinal on a 2:30 on Tuesday in December and ask them to play again on Saturday, or wait until the Saturday after that, there isn't enough room on the calendar.

Quote:Then have an open tier of bowls after that if you want on the 7-5/6-6 rule which is more profitable than 6-5/5-7 cut line in place currently.

None of this adds up. You jsut assume you can increase the value of some bowls by eliminating others, and you don't justify that assumption

All of those bowls with the 6-6 teams lose money.

By raising to 7-5 that would be better financially for the conferences.

No - it doesn’t have to do with the records. It’s about the name brands involved. A 6-6 Big Ten or SEC team is more valuable than G5 teams with better records or even their champs and that’s why the bowls involving the top conferences have higher payouts (regardless of records).

They will still lose money on it Frank. Those payouts are tied to ticket sales and if you don't sell tickets you lose money.

I watched BG play Minnesota in Detroit and it was mostly BG fan. BG at least didn't have to fly to the bowl when only a 50 minute drive to Ford Field. Minnesota lost money.

Further the payouts of P4 bowls would be better if tied to a CFP contract than standalone. Wrapping up another 12 games into the CFP deal would mean more money since its more inventory. More media brands represented.

Now as egotistical as what college football is I don't think anything would happen but changes should occur for everyones mutual benefit.

I will also add all of the bowl games were on ESPN+ this year with the exception of the Semifinals and Oregon vs. Liberty. Everything sans the playoff basically considered second tier content and in the same general bucket already.

(01-06-2024 04:34 PM)thrill_house Wrote:  It's not the record. It's the matchup.

If you put a 6-6 Florida against an 8-4 UCF in Tampa, you'll get 64,000 fans to the game. Same goes for Tulane vs. UL Lafayette in the New Orleans Bowl (although they only drew 54,0000 in 2013), the New Mexico's (UNM/NMSU) in the New Mexico Bowl, CMU/WMU/EMU in the QuickLane Bowl, etc.

These bowl games are designed for very specific teams to attend. You either want local teams, big name schools, or a program that hasn't been good for a hot minute.

I mean on occassion that can work but more often than not 6-6 teams are shipped to matchp that is unprofitable.

Also if it was 7-5 and there were a handful of openings in bowls P2 programs can then fill those.

The most marginal of the bowls and 6-6 programs stay at home instead of lose money.

(01-06-2024 05:18 PM)Garden_KC Wrote:  ... Further the payouts of P4 bowls would be better if tied to a CFP contract than standalone. Wrapping up another 12 games into the CFP deal would mean more money since its more inventory. More media brands represented.

But it would be proportionally less money, so increased payouts to the added games would be at the cost of reducing payouts for the CFP. That's not an increase in media value, that's just proposing a cross subsidy.

Correction to my earlier comment. ESPN doesn't own "most" bowls. But they do own 17 of them. Basically half of the non-NY6 bowls.

Nah.

- They should get rid of the cold weather Pinstripe & Fenway Bowls.
- Move the FirstResponder Bowl back to the Cotton Bowl Stadium.
- Move the Frisco Bowl to Austin TX or San Diego CA (Poinsettia Bowl) or Toronto, ON, Canada (International Bowl)

I think instead of NIT type of Tourney we will keep have bowl season