The G5 automatic NY6 bid

[michaeljordan_fan]

Really? Surprises me a bit.

Gasparilla and Quick Lane did for sure. Not sure about the Texas Bowl, but it had to have been close.

 

[Deep Creek]

Some of the bowls this year had record attendance.

A few. And others went the other way. Check out the difference in tickets sold and tickets scanned in.

Really? Surprises me a bit.

Half-empty stadiums won't stop number of bowls from going up

 

[michaeljordan_fan]

A few. And others went the other way. Check out the difference in tickets sold and tickets scanned in.


Half-empty stadiums won't stop number of bowls from going up

Yeah it's likely getting worse. When going to a bowl meant something, fans would show up in droves.

Now, unless you're Nebraska, it's become old hat.

 

[CJH9972]

A few. And others went the other way. Check out the difference in tickets sold and tickets scanned in.


Half-empty stadiums won't stop number of bowls from going up

I wish we had a setup where they paired non-playoff teams by rankings or let bowls draft teams according to their payouts but had to pick teams reasonably close to each other in ranking or record.

 

[Deep Creek]

Yeah it's likely getting worse. When going to a bowl meant something, fans would show up in droves.

Now, unless you're Nebraska, it's become old hat.

They only care about TV revenue and TV viewership. Only ones that care about the lack of attendance is the tourism industry. And they only care about "out of town" attendees.

 

[Deep Creek]

I wish we had a setup where they paired non-playoff teams by rankings or let bowls draft teams according to their payouts but had to pick teams reasonably close to each other in ranking or record.

I'd settle for them not being able to require the teams to purchase a minimum number of tickets.

 

[michaeljordan_fan]

They only care about TV revenue and TV viewership. Only ones that care about the lack of attendance is the tourism industry. And they only care about "out of town" attendees.

For the bowl sponsors, you're absolutely correct. Certainly it would be in a lot of these cities' best interests to improve the fan atmosphere so that people want to stay there all week.

The Fiesta used to do a great job of this, not sure if they still do.

 

[Chewbaccer]

Last time BSU played Georgia, Boise kicked their asses.

That is all.

We need to have a rubber game.

 

[Mondo Jay]

We need to have a rubber game.

Indeed. My brother went to the game at the Georgia Dome...I missed that one. I would most likely travel for another one. Unfortunately, as I have told you before, I was at the first game in Athens. BSU turned it over their first 5 possessions... I think (PTSD). QB was Zabransky.

My brother and I left at halftime. Other than that shit show, we had a great trip. Saw the Braves/Reds (Griffey JR and Chipper both homered). I scared the shit out of Leo Mazzone when I yelled at him when he and Hudson were walking in from the bullpen.

My bro is a Red Sox fan, so we went to Boston for a day and a half to see a game and then we played in a big (Dupont World Amateur) golf tourney at Myrtle Beach.

I think it was the year Hurricane Katrina took a left instead of a right. We thought our golf was going to get fucked up. But no...sorry N.O.

 

[Tin Man]

MONDO! MONDO! JAY! JAY! JAY!

 

[fredsdeadfriend]

The game featuring the G5 team in the NY6 really loses its appeal when the G5 team isn't undefeated.

I think they need to add a qualifier to the rule.

If there are no undefeated G5 teams, there is no automatic bid.

Penn State-Alabama or Penn State-Utah would have had much more appeal.

Penn State just won the Cotton Bowl and my opinion of them changed zero.

This is a ridiculous idea. Why? Because as good as it might sound in your head when the thought first popped into your mind, you didn't think it out. If that becomes the requirement, you will drive all the best G5 teams to avoid playing any decent teams in the ooc. We want the best G5 teams playing big conference opponents.

 

[gob]

Additionally @gotigersgo , the game was down 34% in TV viewership from 2017 (2018 was a playoff year).

I mean, a drop was a given. 2017 was OSU vs USC. That's going to outdraw almost any other matchup out there.

 

[78Cyclones]

I'd settle for them not being able to require the teams to purchase a minimum number of tickets.

Not a bad thing IMO. Of course, ISU always sells their allotment plus some. The schools that cannot sell them can donate to nearby Military Families and such.

 

[michaeljordan_fan]

Not a bad thing IMO. Of course, ISU always sells their allotment plus some. The schools that cannot sell them can donate to nearby Military Families and such.

Yeah, if your school can't afford to buy the tickets...decline the bowl invite.

 

[Deep Creek]

Not a bad thing IMO. Of course, ISU always sells their allotment plus some. The schools that cannot sell them can donate to nearby Military Families and such.

That is what many of them do...but they still have to purchase them. From what I understand, some schools have a net financial loss for attending a bowl. I could be wrong, but I recall that a few years back.

 

[Deep Creek]

Yeah, if your school can't afford to buy the tickets...decline the bowl invite.

Even with some large TV contracts, exactly how many FBS schools actually show a net profit for their athletic departments? IIRC, it was something like 25-30. The rest have to be subsidized somehow or another. But, hey, I could be wrong. They could all be swimming in money.

 

[michaeljordan_fan]

That is what many of them do...but they still have to purchase them. From what I understand, some schools have a net financial loss for attending a bowl. I could be wrong, but I recall that a few years back.

There are certainly indirect benefits though.

If your team experiences an upward period of success resulting in a bowl berth, you should expect donations for the AD to increase, as well as an uptick in ticket purchases.

Also, often universities will sell licensed apparel for bowl appearances. This revenue will not show up in their "financial gain/loss" for attendance.

Additionally, many conferences' bowl revenue sharing reduces the incentive for programs to save costs on their bowl experience.

 

[Deep Creek]

There are certainly indirect benefits though.

If your team experiences an upward period of success resulting in a bowl berth, you should expect donations for the AD to increase, as well as an uptick in ticket purchases.

Also, often universities will sell licensed apparel for bowl appearances. This revenue will not show up in their "financial gain/loss" for attendance.

Additionally, many conferences' bowl revenue sharing reduces the incentive for programs to save costs on their bowl experience.

No doubt there may be indirect benefits. Schools can and do a lot of those things. I remember reading an article a few years ago about TCU and Baylor. The years after TCU won the Rose Bowl and RGIII won the Heisman, applications to those two schools tripled or quadrupled or some crazy crap like that. Enrollment didn't go up that much but applications did. That is an indrect benefit for both schools that is not directly monetized.

But the cold hard facts are most schools still run their athletic departments on a deficit. The question that each has to answer is "To what extent are we willing to do so?" It appears most of them are willing to subsidize those programs quite a bit...at least to this point. Well, maybe not UCONN. It appears they may have reached their "point".

 

[The Q]

No doubt there may be indirect benefits. Schools can and do a lot of those things. I remember reading an article a few years ago about TCU and Baylor. The years after TCU won the Rose Bowl and RGIII won the Heisman, applications to those two schools tripled or quadrupled or some crazy crap like that. Enrollment didn't go up that much but applications did. That is an indrect benefit for both schools that is not directly monetized.

But the cold hard facts are most schools still run their athletic departments on a deficit. The question that each has to answer is "To what extent are we willing to do so?" It appears most of them are willing to subsidize those programs quite a bit...at least to this point. Well, maybe not UCONN. It appears they may have reached their "point".

uconn is running at a pretty big deficit.

part of that is because of state politics requiring Them to pay well above market rates to play half their basketball games 30 min from campus.

another big reason schools ADs run at a deficit is title ix. Probably the biggest

 

[michaeljordan_fan]

No doubt there may be indirect benefits. Schools can and do a lot of those things. I remember reading an article a few years ago about TCU and Baylor. The years after TCU won the Rose Bowl and RGIII won the Heisman, applications to those two schools tripled or quadrupled or some crazy crap like that. Enrollment didn't go up that much but applications did. That is an indrect benefit for both schools that is not directly monetized.

But the cold hard facts are most schools still run their athletic departments on a deficit. The question that each has to answer is "To what extent are we willing to do so?" It appears most of them are willing to subsidize those programs quite a bit...at least to this point. Well, maybe not UCONN. It appears they may have reached their "point".

I think the difference is that while not many athletic departments have a surplus, there are many football programs that do (and in turn, help subsidize the rest of the AD). UConn's football program runs at a substantial loss.