Your probably right.
2 TV's doesn't cut it when I will be concentrating on MY game.
I would record it, but if I hear or see (which you will every other commercial) I can't watch a recorded game.
2015 NCAA football discussion thread
- Thread starter Ronnie-
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 1K
- Views 82K
2 TV's doesn't cut it when I will be concentrating on MY game.
I would record it, but if I hear or see (which you will every other commercial) I can't watch a recorded game.
When you have 6-6 in a bowl game you have way too many bowl games. Just label those the toilet bowl game.
Why? More football is a good thing imo. I could think of ways to improve the games being played but cutting fans back; as a fan, is a bad idea.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
there are some 5-7 teams in bowls this year because there werent enough 6-6 teams
Why ?
We now have a participation trophy like kids do in grade school. ..
IF they just affordable a few more games next year ..... everybody can have a bowl game to go to ...... good grief.
Bowls use to be something you went for having a very good season, now it's just charity.
A few weeks after these bowls are over you will start hearing about all those small schools and ones that had a poor record complain about how the school LOST MONEY going to the bowl game.
Can it really be a participation trophy if many teams are still not invited? An example of a participation trophy is when 6 year old kids each get a trophy for being in the local tee-ball league. Bowl games are still based on record even if 6-6 teams or even a couple 5-7 teams get in. If it was really a participation trophy 2-10 Purdue would be in a bowl game too. They did participate after all....
I'm also fine with giving kids a participation trophy for playing little league. If it gets kids excited about the game and keeps them active in it instead of sitting in front of the TV all day I'm all for it. I think it's silly for adults to get upset about this kind of thing. Does it really matter which tee-ball/little league team is the best? I guarantee you that the parents who are upset some other kid got a trophy even though that kid isn't as good as theirs is care way more about it than their kid does.
I agree with msmith198025 here. I don't think it matters how many bowls there are. The fact that the Quick Lane Bowl exists doesn't make the Rose Bowl any less meaningful. If someone wants to watch a match-up between Central Michigan and Minnesota, so be it. I won't be watching even though I'm a Central Michigan alumni but it doesn't make me mad that the game exists because it has zero effect on my life.
These lower tier bowls are obviously making money or the companies wouldn't keep sponsoring them and ESPN wouldn't keep televising them. If they keep adding bowls every year eventually they will hit the point where some bowls aren't money makers and they will get dropped. It will all work itself out.
ESPN owns all those lower tiered Bowls, despite the sponsor name.
They exist solely to give ESPN something to broadcast in December.
Yep, the game itself could lose money, as well as the teams, but as long as ESPN is in the black due to advertising bucks, they'll keep having the bowls.
I like watching the smaller schools play, but those Bowl games exist purely for espn to sell ad time. Attendance sucks for the vast majority of them. I doubt vendors or cities make much from hosting them either.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk
Sanity!!!
Brett McMurphy ? @McMurphyESPN
John Swofford said ACC AD’s voted to increase bowl eligibility to 7-5 record. Obviously would have to pass nationally before any changes
Brett McMurphy ? @McMurphyESPN John Swofford said ACC AD’s voted to increase bowl eligibility to 7-5 record. Obviously would have to pass nationally before any changes
Some have been dropped and others move in.
The teams are the ones losing money ... make that the Schools.
You have approx 120 teams and over 60 are in a what the hell bowl game.
The pagentry of the bowl games is long gone anyways, it use to be a big deal to go to a bowl game, now it's a forgone conclusion.
Have you seen all the EMPTY Seats in most of those games ?
I haven no problem with a school turning down a lower tier bowl. If Minnesota wanted to decline their offer to the Quick Lane bowl because they only have a 5-7 record and they don't want to lose money by playing a bowl game against Central Michigian more power to them. If more schools declined the low tier bowls that would be another way to naturally reduce the number of bowl games.
Probably not because I don't typically watch the low tier bowls. I only watch the bowls I actually care about. I'll watch all the former BCS bowls, and a few other ones that look like good match-ups. I have no desire to sit through the CMU vs Minnesota type bowls though.
See, I'll watch the Major bowls and then the Local teams bowls and then if I find any others that look interesting I'll tune in for them as well.
That said, theres a BUNCH that I wont bother with.
I will never complain about there being too many football games. I could watch football all year.
The broadcasters do not care. Even to a half empty stadium they are not losing money on it, if they were they would stop.
I said the Schools were losing money, not the broadcasters.
If schools didn't have to share their bowl payout with the rest of the teams in their conference, more would be losing money, and probably not going to them.
True, but is the exposure worth more than the initial loss? I would think if it were truly detrimental, more schools would turn them down.
Similar threads
