Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22
  1. #11
    BUGGZY's Avatar
    Join Date
    August 15, 2002
    Location
    Annandale, VA
    Posts
    13,709
    Quote Originally Posted by laphroaig View Post
    Correct. The bowls exist because there's money in hospitality and tourism. Rewarding football teams was never part of the concept.
    not entirely true, or there wouldn't be a .500 record requirement...but i understand the point.

    i've seen the stands at many of these lower bowls, is anyone other then the team generating tourism money? seems more like a scam when the travelling team LOSES money by attending.
    "This no more resembles that than something unlike something else resembles that." - Loosely quoting PHNC

  2. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by BUGGZY View Post
    not entirely true, or there wouldn't be a .500 record requirement...but i understand the point.

    i've seen the stands at many of these lower bowls, is anyone other then the team generating tourism money? seems more like a scam when the travelling team LOSES money by attending.
    From the city's perspective, I believe it depends on how much "tourism" is generated for the city outside the specific bowl game during that same time period. For example some cities (i.e. New Orleans, Miami, New York City, Nashville, etc) have a thriving tourism industry that is not as depended upon the "success" of a bowl game. Whereas for other cities (i.e. Shreveport, Birmingham, Mobile, Detroit, Charlotte, etc) do not have thriving tourism industry and may be more depended on a bowl game. Unfortunately, when the bowl game is certified by the NCAA there are a lot of unknowns (i.e. participating teams, the quality of the teams, general interest in the games, etc). Does that mean a city should be excluded from taking a risk? If the bowl games were not generating a lot of money for a city, then why have several cities decided to host multiple bowl games?

    New Orleans - potentially 3 when hosting NCG
    San Diego - 2
    Orlando - 2
    Miami - 2 (when hosting NCG) and soon to be 3
    Dallas - 2 *a case could be made for 3 if you expand it to the Dallas-Ft Worth area
    Tempe - potentially 3 when hosting NCG

  3. #13

    Join Date
    January 01, 2005
    Location
    Blacksburg
    Posts
    4,404
    Quote Originally Posted by BUGGZY View Post
    not entirely true, or there wouldn't be a .500 record requirement...but i understand the point.

    i've seen the stands at many of these lower bowls, is anyone other then the team generating tourism money? seems more like a scam when the travelling team LOSES money by attending.
    The 500 record was a requirement set by the NCAA, wasn't it? All the bowl committees want is income for their market using a football game as the centerpiece. It makes sense that decent football teams will help sell tickets, fill hotel rooms and restaurants because nobody will make the effort for bad teams, but you'll have to show me where a bowl committee itself set the 500 record requirement.
    Last edited by laphroaig; Fri Nov 08 2013 at 02:24 PM.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    January 01, 2005
    Location
    Blacksburg
    Posts
    4,404
    Quote Originally Posted by VTHokie2000 View Post
    From the city's perspective, I believe it depends on how much "tourism" is generated for the city outside the specific bowl game during that same time period. For example some cities (i.e. New Orleans, Miami, New York City, Nashville, etc) have a thriving tourism industry that is not as depended upon the "success" of a bowl game. Whereas for other cities (i.e. Shreveport, Birmingham, Mobile, Detroit, Charlotte, etc) do not have thriving tourism industry and may be more depended on a bowl game. Unfortunately, when the bowl game is certified by the NCAA there are a lot of unknowns (i.e. participating teams, the quality of the teams, general interest in the games, etc). Does that mean a city should be excluded from taking a risk? If the bowl games were not generating a lot of money for a city, then why have several cities decided to host multiple bowl games?

    New Orleans - potentially 3 when hosting NCG
    San Diego - 2
    Orlando - 2
    Miami - 2 (when hosting NCG) and soon to be 3
    Dallas - 2 *a case could be made for 3 if you expand it to the Dallas-Ft Worth area
    Tempe - potentially 3 when hosting NCG
    If the city wants to take the risk, I'm a capitalist, fine with me. Where do TV rights to the game fit into the economic equation?

  5. #15
    BUGGZY's Avatar
    Join Date
    August 15, 2002
    Location
    Annandale, VA
    Posts
    13,709
    Quote Originally Posted by laphroaig View Post
    If the city wants to take the risk, I'm a capitalist, fine with me. Where do TV rights to the game fit into the economic equation?
    i think the payouts to the teams should be ALL travel costs AND a payout on top of that. no school should lose money attending IMO.
    "This no more resembles that than something unlike something else resembles that." - Loosely quoting PHNC

  6. #16

    Join Date
    January 01, 2005
    Location
    Blacksburg
    Posts
    4,404
    Quote Originally Posted by BUGGZY View Post
    i think the payouts to the teams should be ALL travel costs AND a payout on top of that. no school should lose money attending IMO.
    That could be done by any individual bowl committee but I wouldn't want that done by NCAA decree. If a bowl committee did that, it would make their bowl more attractive to teams than bowls that didn't do it.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    December 22, 2002
    Posts
    4,351
    If they want to play the games, let them. I'll probably watch a few of them. Why not? I would much rather watch a couple of 6 or 7 win teams play than watch a Real Housewives reunion. If they are playing it, then somebody is making a buck. The TV rights alone make them financially doable probably. Send the teams out for a couple of days instead of a week and let them get it on. I truly do not understand the complaints about MORE football from these boards. Come March, I would be all about watching some of these teams play. Heck, I even watch preseason NFL games a little in August because I'm so nuts about it.

  8. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by laphroaig View Post
    If the city wants to take the risk, I'm a capitalist, fine with me. Where do TV rights to the game fit into the economic equation?
    The city does not really care who has the rights to the game. All the city cares about that the game is being broadcasted on TV so its local chamber of commerce can purchase ad slots to promote the city. If the game is not being broadcasted on TV, then it can promote the city to the rest of the viewing public.

  9. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    August 29, 2013
    Posts
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by BUGGZY View Post
    not entirely true, or there wouldn't be a .500 record requirement...but i understand the point.

    i've seen the stands at many of these lower bowls, is anyone other then the team generating tourism money? seems more like a scam when the travelling team LOSES money by attending.
    I think you guys are vehemently agreeing. The reason there are so many bowls is because they make money somehow for the city. Hey, what's the minimum payout for a bowl game? $100k? So if you can get 2000 fans to show up and buy tickets at $50/pop you're covered, hopefully, you're really making another couple hundred thousand dollars on hotels, restaurants, attractions, easy peasey. Bowls like the Orange Bowl have the school cover 17000 tickets, hmmm, at $100 a pop/ that's nearly $2M so maybe that big payout isn't really all that big after all, ie, you the fanbase are paying for it, what do they care? So no, these are not for the benefit of the teams, they're for the benefit of the local chamber of commerce, they are a kind of scam. if a team cannot at least break even they shouldn't be made to go. It's a racket.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    November 23, 1999
    Posts
    2,390

    We even lost money in the Orange bowl

    Yeah, we lost money in the Stanford/VT orange bowl because of those minimums. I have always wondered why conferences don't simply arrange for their own bowl games in their own stadiums. It looks like maybe the Boca Raton bowl will be like that, with FAU hosting it at their stadium. ACC #8 AND #9 in Raleigh and Charlottesville for bowl games against the MAC or CUSA would work as well as lots of the lower level games.

    Quote Originally Posted by `lag View Post
    I think you guys are vehemently agreeing. The reason there are so many bowls is because they make money somehow for the city. Hey, what's the minimum payout for a bowl game? $100k? So if you can get 2000 fans to show up and buy tickets at $50/pop you're covered, hopefully, you're really making another couple hundred thousand dollars on hotels, restaurants, attractions, easy peasey. Bowls like the Orange Bowl have the school cover 17000 tickets, hmmm, at $100 a pop/ that's nearly $2M so maybe that big payout isn't really all that big after all, ie, you the fanbase are paying for it, what do they care? So no, these are not for the benefit of the teams, they're for the benefit of the local chamber of commerce, they are a kind of scam. if a team cannot at least break even they shouldn't be made to go. It's a racket.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •