NCAA Adding 3 Bowls Next Season

SteveGarvey1

Well-Known Member
Sounds like the solution for a problem that doesn't exist. 65% of teams will now qualify for a bowl, almost dipping into 4-8 teams. So don't worry if Iowa struggles next season with the hard schedule, because if we go 5-7 you can still book your trip somewhere for a bowl.

What a freaking joke.
 
Kinda surprised St Louis doesn't have one. The Dome is still there.

I hate St Louis, but that Dome is one of the reasons I am not very fond of the NFL anymore. The Rams were able to void the lease on that thing because it fell out of the top quarter of facilities after a wave of taxpayer funded monstrosities were built. What a kick in the balls to St. Louis.
 
Please. No more football games in baseball stadiums
That fell through 2 years ago, B1G didn't want to have their 3rd or 4th best team not playing in warm weather. They would have to go through some quick negotiations to have anything there by 2020.
 
Those things must make money or they wouldn't be adding more. It can't be from ticket sales though, some of those lower tier bowls have damned few people in attendance.
 
Those things must make money or they wouldn't be adding more. It can't be from ticket sales though, some of those lower tier bowls have damned few people in attendance.

Dearth of live sports content split among 3 specialty sports networks has driven the price of content way up.

I just looked it up and it looks like WNBA draws an average of 413,000 viewers, the majority of which I would assume are empty barstools in sports bars that have the game on in the corner. By comparison, the worst bowl game this year (FIU vs Ark State) drew 692,000 viewers. The worst game with 1 P5 team drew 1.5 million at 3 PM on a business day (Cincinnati v. BC). The worst game with 2 P5 opponents drew almost 1.9 million at 4 on a business day (Cal v Illinois).

Even really marginal college football content will draw substantially more viewers for live sports than a lot of other things they could come up with to put on TV.
 
I guess I don't have a problem with it if someone invites you to play another team and it makes sense. The problem is going to be the fan following and ticket sales. If the destination is less than desirable and the fan bases are poor it isn't going to be a money maker for anyone.

As football continues to die off you will see more and more institutions unwilling to take a loss to go play in a small market with poor national exposure with little to no return. The market will correct itself based on that.

I would still like to see an experiment with some northern site bowls as opposed to everything down south if it would work out. I think it would be interesting to see some of the southern teams come up north in Dec and January. I would be curious to see what the following would be for lets say Michigan to host a bowl game at the big house with two neutral teams, would the national interest be there to fill the seats? Would Ann Arbor be capable of supporting the influx of outsiders and would it affect the local economy in a positive way? Would the nation be interested in watching Texas play Florida in the Big House? Would Kinnick Stadium be a cool site for a middle teir bowl and would it make sense?
 
Would Ann Arbor be capable of supporting the influx of outsiders and would it affect the local economy in a positive way? Would the nation be interested in watching Texas play Florida in the Big House? Would Kinnick Stadium be a cool site for a middle teir bowl and would it make sense?

The only way teams would draw fans to those venues in January would be if the game was for the national title. Even if it was a game like the Cotton Bowl with two top 10 teams, no one from the South is going to go to Iowa or Michigan and sit outside. Southerners are not stupid.
 
Yup, solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Just grabbing that money. They don't care about the game.

Go look at what ESPN has on at night around this time of year. There is some bad college hoops, 1 NBA game, and just a bunch of pure shit. FS1 and NBCSN are in the same boat. Nothing I would watch. I'd gladly watch a 5-7 Nebraska team play 4-8 South Carolina over this crap.
 
I love it! More college football is great.

Every bowl game that has ever existed was created solely for money.
 
I guess I don't have a problem with it if someone invites you to play another team and it makes sense. The problem is going to be the fan following and ticket sales. If the destination is less than desirable and the fan bases are poor it isn't going to be a money maker for anyone.

As football continues to die off you will see more and more institutions unwilling to take a loss to go play in a small market with poor national exposure with little to no return. The market will correct itself based on that.

I would still like to see an experiment with some northern site bowls as opposed to everything down south if it would work out. I think it would be interesting to see some of the southern teams come up north in Dec and January. I would be curious to see what the following would be for lets say Michigan to host a bowl game at the big house with two neutral teams, would the national interest be there to fill the seats? Would Ann Arbor be capable of supporting the influx of outsiders and would it affect the local economy in a positive way? Would the nation be interested in watching Texas play Florida in the Big House? Would Kinnick Stadium be a cool site for a middle teir bowl and would it make sense?
I could see Minneapolis making a play. They've got a new indoor stadium that's already hosted a Super Bowl.
 
Crazy how 50 years ago you had to win your conference to go to a bowl game. Now the 10th place team in the BIG may go bowling. Don’t get me wrong, the more football the better!
 

Latest posts

Top