NCAA approves 3 year moratorium on new bowls

[cm husker]

You really don't seem to get it. Let's try some basics:

 

Why do advertisers pay for spots during games?

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

 

It's not for the players, it's not for the universities, it's not for the fans. It's for ESPN to make more money off of a live televised game that most fans will not watch anyway, but hey at least there will be some background noise for bars and resturaunts on an idle Tuesday.

And adding more bowls makes more boxl execs. Making more bowl execs makes more corruption etc etc.

I swore to myself not to reply to your posts anymore, but can you seriously not see the internal inconsistency in your own post here?

 

If it's only for ESPN, then ESPN would make no money on it and they would stop doing it. So, by the very fact that they profit off of it, we know it is indeed for the fans, who are the consumers in this case.

 

Just because you won't watch doesn't mean no one will watch.

 

As to the rest, if universities don't want to pay for bowl bonuses, write better contracts (i.e., linked to records) and/or contest the existing contracts. Poor administration decision are not a convincing reason to limit games.

 

 

Because like I said, if it's about "profitability" then a lot more than just the bowl games need to be cancelled.

ESPN is making a bunch of money off of it, what do you think I meant by ESPN is doing it for ESPN? What are you even talking about? ESPN isn't making bank off these extra bowls from the fans, they make it from the TV ratings and the advertising. You honestly think they are getting rich from the fans dedication? Lmao

What drives TV ratings?

 

This is becoming comical.

Trying to gift you the ability to see past your own ideals is impossible.

 

Say the 47th bowl on the schedule is played between 4-8 Wyoming and 5-7 Florida International. Sure, fans of both teams are going to watch. Thats. About. It. Plus if the game is on say ESPN2 at 3pm it will be airing for bars etc. to have on.

 

Where do you think the most money comes from in this scenario? Is it the fans of the teams watching on free TV or is it from the advertisers?

 

Exactly....

 

The only people seriously watching most of these bowls are the fans from these schools. However, they are still on in sports bars, restaurants...etc....which drives up some of the TV viewers that ESPN uses to sell advertising.

 

The advertiser doesn't give a flying rip if the school has 5 million fans or 5 thousand. If people are in public and the TV is on, they are going to see the ad even if they don't care about the game.

 

Also, I believe advertising for these games are in package deals. Let's say Bud Light wants to buy ads. They don't specify they want to be in the middle of the Wyoming Florida International game. They buy a package that gets them on for all games. ESPN would then go to them and say....hey....Now their's 47 games so your cost now is jumped to XYZ.

[BigRedBuster]

You really don't seem to get it. Let's try some basics:

 

Why do advertisers pay for spots during games?

No...you really don't understand how advertising is sold.

[cm husker]

So... now games are only played for the alumni of a school? Or even just for the actual regular fans for schools?

 

Point is, if the advertisers didn't think it was effective to advertise, they'd certainly back off their advertising. We actually see that all of the time. ESPN does not have some sort of incredible leverage.

 

If it weren't ultimately profitable for an advertiser to post a spot, then they wouldn't. And it wouldn't be profitable if people weren't tuning in and taking in the content.

 

I guess bars and restaurants should play winter league baseball and cricket instead of those darned lower tier bowls.

 

 

Why does this stuff offend people so much? I get that one may be offended that athletes aren't seeing a fair share of the profits, but to say that it's bad to have games because not ENOUGH of the RIGHT fans are watching? Comon.

[cm husker]

The point is, what's the principle here? It's not that "kids don't deserve a bowl" I hope because, why does one want to deny someone who's no relation to them an opportunity at a bowl game? Extra bowl games don't take the shine off of the playoffs or other tier 1 bowls.

 

 

If it's about perceived tv ratings, then there's lots of sports (and even some upper tier bowl games) that should be taken off. No one is seriously proposing that move, so why artificially cut off bowls? If it's because the taxpayer is footing a bill, then I agree with that, but we should be cutting off tax funding to ALL bowls (and college sports, arguably). Again, no one is advocating that, so it can't be the principle here either.

 

 

As far as I can tell, winners in an expanded bowl system:

 

1. Goods/services providers who get marketing opportunities through advertising.

 

2. Broadcasters who get paid in advertising dollars

 

3. College players who get extra practice and a bowl trip

 

4. Half of the teams (i.e., the winners) who can go into the offseason on an upbeat, even after a poor season (see, Nebraska this year)

 

5. Families of players who may live in a state where a bowl game is played so they have an opportunity to watch a game in person

 

6. Local industry, which may see some influx in economic activity around the bowl

 

7. Those fans who enjoy watching football on a random Tuesday in december and seeing some teams featured that are usually just a scroll on the bottom during a regular Saturday

 

 

Who are the losers?

 

The players whose effort/productivity is being transferred from them to most of the people in the above list. I have no problem fixing that issue, but I don't see how just killing the expansion leaves players better off.

 

So, please someone in one or two sentences, explain the principle that drives a decision to limit expansion.

[Hunter94]

everyone gets a trophy........sigh

[cm husker]

 

You really don't seem to get it. Let's try some basics:

 

Why do advertisers pay for spots during games?

No...you really don't understand how advertising is sold.

 

 

I understand it just fine, and your package deal assumptions don't hold up to light scrutiny. If ESPN had the leverage to raise prices to XYZ by adding more bowls (which, in your argument, would implicitly add no value to the advertiser*), then they should be able to raise to XYZ on the existing package today. Is ESPN just being altruistic in not raising the price per game for the current bowls?

 

 

* because, in your argument, ESPN would be just cramming the XYZ prices down on the advertiser at a rate above what the actual return on that advertising would be.

 

Advertising is far too elastic for a broadcaster to have the sort of leverage you're ascribing to it.

[cm husker]

everyone gets a trophy........sigh

 

 

And that is the true crux of this issue. Some fans feel it diminishes the reflected glory that they bask in from their team (weird, but true) if another team that's ~.500 gets into a bowl (even though things like academic performance also influence eligibility).

 

 

I'll never get why people are offended by this. It's not like players are going to quit working for higher tier bowls and better records because some ~.500 teams get a bowl.

[Red Five]

I like watching college football, so bring on the Chobani Greek Yogurt Bowl.

[Redux]

So... now games are only played for the alumni of a school? Or even just for the actual regular fans for schools?

 

Point is, if the advertisers didn't think it was effective to advertise, they'd certainly back off their advertising. We actually see that all of the time. ESPN does not have some sort of incredible leverage.

 

If it weren't ultimately profitable for an advertiser to post a spot, then they wouldn't. And it wouldn't be profitable if people weren't tuning in and taking in the content.

 

I guess bars and restaurants should play winter league baseball and cricket instead of those darned lower tier bowls.

 

 

Why does this stuff offend people so much? I get that one may be offended that athletes aren't seeing a fair share of the profits, but to say that it's bad to have games because not ENOUGH of the RIGHT fans are watching? Comon.

 

If you completely glazed past my first posts, my issues are with the corruption behind the scenes mostly.

 

As far as more bowls, I'm not offended by them. I just liked it better when the bowl slate was around 30. I think more games starts dilluting the product. You can say "Fine, don't watch those". But really, when there are 40+ to choose from you start caring less and less, I know I cared very little this last post season about 90% of them. It used to be a measuring stick for what programs were truly great, how many bowls you made it to in consecutive seasons. Now we can have a losing record for the next 10 years and still keep our bowls streak alive.

 

Yeah players get another game, some their last. Schools get exposure, advertisers get paid, a fracrion of universities turn a profit from it and we get to watch them. Same ideals that took keeping track of score out of kids soccer.

[Redux]

The point is, what's the principle here? It's not that "kids don't deserve a bowl" I hope because, why does one want to deny someone who's no relation to them an opportunity at a bowl game? Extra bowl games don't take the shine off of the playoffs or other tier 1 bowls.

 

 

If it's about perceived tv ratings, then there's lots of sports (and even some upper tier bowl games) that should be taken off. No one is seriously proposing that move, so why artificially cut off bowls? If it's because the taxpayer is footing a bill, then I agree with that, but we should be cutting off tax funding to ALL bowls (and college sports, arguably). Again, no one is advocating that, so it can't be the principle here either.

 

 

As far as I can tell, winners in an expanded bowl system:

 

1. Goods/services providers who get marketing opportunities through advertising.

 

2. Broadcasters who get paid in advertising dollars

 

3. College players who get extra practice and a bowl trip

 

4. Half of the teams (i.e., the winners) who can go into the offseason on an upbeat, even after a poor season (see, Nebraska this year)

 

5. Families of players who may live in a state where a bowl game is played so they have an opportunity to watch a game in person

 

6. Local industry, which may see some influx in economic activity around the bowl

 

7. Those fans who enjoy watching football on a random Tuesday in december and seeing some teams featured that are usually just a scroll on the bottom during a regular Saturday

 

 

Who are the losers?

 

The players whose effort/productivity is being transferred from them to most of the people in the above list. I have no problem fixing that issue, but I don't see how just killing the expansion leaves players better off.

 

So, please someone in one or two sentences, explain the principle that drives a decision to limit expansion.

 

See the posts 18 20 and 21

[cm husker]

I'm fine (and encourage) reducing the corruption behind the scenes, but don't think that's limited to the bowls or that even the wholesale elimination of bowls would fix it.

 

 

I disagree with the dilution arguments, and don't think that they outweigh the positives, even if accepted on their faces, but that's a fair argument to make. I just think that apathy would occur no matter what. I know people who don't watch the wild card round of the playoffs (or end of the regular season). Some don't even watch the conference championships, reserving all their powder, so to speak, for the Super Bowl.

 

 

Overall, I just don't see a reason why the NCAA should be in the business of limiting bowl game opportunities. Fans, by not watching if there really is no significant interest, would provide that pressure more effectively.

[Redux]

What number of bowls is too many then? Are we really okay with 60+ so EVERY team gets post season play? I'm not.

[zoogs]

Why not?

[I am I]

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's not for the players, it's not for the universities, it's not for the fans. It's for ESPN to make more money off of a live televised game that most fans will not watch anyway, but hey at least there will be some background noise for bars and resturaunts on an idle Tuesday.

And adding more bowls makes more boxl execs. Making more bowl execs makes more corruption etc etc.

I swore to myself not to reply to your posts anymore, but can you seriously not see the internal inconsistency in your own post here?

 

If it's only for ESPN, then ESPN would make no money on it and they would stop doing it. So, by the very fact that they profit off of it, we know it is indeed for the fans, who are the consumers in this case.

 

Just because you won't watch doesn't mean no one will watch.

 

As to the rest, if universities don't want to pay for bowl bonuses, write better contracts (i.e., linked to records) and/or contest the existing contracts. Poor administration decision are not a convincing reason to limit games.

 

 

Because like I said, if it's about "profitability" then a lot more than just the bowl games need to be cancelled.

ESPN is making a bunch of money off of it, what do you think I meant by ESPN is doing it for ESPN? What are you even talking about? ESPN isn't making bank off these extra bowls from the fans, they make it from the TV ratings and the advertising. You honestly think they are getting rich from the fans dedication? Lmao

What drives TV ratings?

 

This is becoming comical.

Trying to gift you the ability to see past your own ideals is impossible.

 

Say the 47th bowl on the schedule is played between 4-8 Wyoming and 5-7 Florida International. Sure, fans of both teams are going to watch. Thats. About. It. Plus if the game is on say ESPN2 at 3pm it will be airing for bars etc. to have on.

 

Where do you think the most money comes from in this scenario? Is it the fans of the teams watching on free TV or is it from the advertisers?

Exactly....

 

The only people seriously watching most of these bowls are the fans from these schools. However, they are still on in sports bars, restaurants...etc....which drives up some of the TV viewers that ESPN uses to sell advertising.

 

The advertiser doesn't give a flying rip if the school has 5 million fans or 5 thousand. If people are in public and the TV is on, they are going to see the ad even if they don't care about the game.

 

Also, I believe advertising for these games are in package deals. Let's say Bud Light wants to buy ads. They don't specify they want to be in the middle of the Wyoming Florida International game. They buy a package that gets them on for all games. ESPN would then go to them and say....hey....Now their's 47 games so your cost now is jumped to XYZ.

You're wrong on many accounts. How do you think they know it costs $3M to run a 30 sec ad during the super bowl? Because they buy those slots.

 

Also, I think you are grossly underestimating how many people there are in the United States that watch ESPN and other sports channels. There are millions and millions of eyes on the tube at any given moment. The advertisers pay to be on those channels.

 

For instance when my wife has some dumbass reality show, there are ads for tampons, baby products, make up lines and cleaning supplies. When I watch football games, there's ads for trucks, beer, shaving, and financial planning.

 

ESPN would rather air a college football game than some other meaningless re run or sport. Yes, the consumer pays for it because we buy the products on the tv. And we pay $$ for ESPN to be on our select cable plan. It's cost like $7 for ESPN to be on Comcast. It only costs like $1 for NATGEO to be on the cable programming. It all adds up, because YOU are not the only person in the world, there are millions and millions of people who watch, buy, gamble, etc on college football and every other of the 600 channels on TV.

 

ESPN wants the games