NCAA continues to talk out of both sides of its mouth

[wlu_lax6]

I am not saying they are wrong but no new bowls for 3 years because of the number of sub-500 teams in bowls. But Bowls are important becuase they give a great experience to student athletes (which is why we don't just go to a larger playoff). So why does it matter what the record is for the game? It is an experience, school that think they will lose money don't have to accept (except conferences that require accepting bowl apperances), and won't cost the NCAA.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/sto ... bowl-games" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Nonlinear FC]

The only quibble I have with you is the "bowls are important" aspect. Whether or not a school ships a bunch of kids to Myrtle Beach or not doesn't really move the needle in terms of life experiences.

Bowl games USED to mean something. They weren't looked at how they are now, which is basically a sanctioned excuse to keep holding practices and trumped team field trip exercise. I know I'm old(ish), but when I fell in love with college football a huge part of that was the stakes people were playing for... You lose a conference game and there goes a shot at the Rose, Orange or Cotton bowls. When the 5th, 6th, 7th best teams in an average conference are sending teams to bowls... What's the point of that anymore.

I'm too lazy to dig it up, but I would also wonder about the economics of these games. If the university is having to subsidize these way down the ladder bowl games, how is that justified?

[wlu_lax6]

The only quibble I have with you is the "bowls are important" aspect. Whether or not a school ships a bunch of kids to Myrtle Beach or not doesn't really move the needle in terms of life experiences.

Bowl games USED to mean something. They weren't looked at how they are now, which is basically a sanctioned excuse to keep holding practices and trumped team field trip exercise. I know I'm old(ish), but when I fell in love with college football a huge part of that was the stakes people were playing for... You lose a conference game and there goes a shot at the Rose, Orange or Cotton bowls. When the 5th, 6th, 7th best teams in an average conference are sending teams to bowls... What's the point of that anymore.

I'm too lazy to dig it up, but I would also wonder about the economics of these games. If the university is having to subsidize these way down the ladder bowl games, how is that justified?

Yeah but the NCAA has made a point about expanding post season opportunities. They have expanded playoffs in most sports and pushed for AQs and conference playoffs so teams get a post season experience. I hated this because right after I graduated some terrible teams were making the NCAAs at the expense of teams that could give a run...but that is what the argument has been.

I agree the $ is probably a loss for many schools at the low end bowls. But if the school wants to provide that field trip (which they can turn down) why should the NCAA stop them? The on field product is garbage, fine. Fans may or may not go. And at least with these bowls they are usually one time when they don't mess too badly with the academic calendar.

[DSafetyGuy]

I agree the $ is probably a loss for many schools at the low end bowls.

The big bowls can be money-losing propositions, too. Connecticut lost $1.8 million dollars from playing in the Fiesta Bowl a few years ago.

One of the big losses for schools comes from having to buy a certain amount of tickets that have to try to sell. I recall reading somewhere that, if the schools want to send their band to the game, they have to buy tickets for them.

Thanks, Google, for finding this Dan Wentzel column about it.

The Sugar Bowl instead charged LSU $350 a seat, full price, for every last player request. Total cost: $254,800 on the players alone.

Oh, and the Tiger Marching Band, the one that is contractually obligated to attend bowl week and provide halftime entertainment? With bowls, not even the band gets in free. LSU had to buy tickets for every clarinetist, flutist, tuba player and majorette. Some of the seats, according to the Baton Rouge Advocate, just held the tuba.

That added up to 529 tickets, almost all full price. The bill for the student band to sit was $182,830.

That's $182,830 to get into a venue and give a free show to all the other paying customers.

[Nonlinear FC]

I agree the $ is probably a loss for many schools at the low end bowls.

The big bowls can be money-losing propositions, too. Connecticut lost $1.8 million dollars from playing in the Fiesta Bowl a few years ago.

One of the big losses for schools comes from having to buy a certain amount of tickets that have to try to sell. I recall reading somewhere that, if the schools want to send their band to the game, they have to buy tickets for them.

Thanks, Google, for finding this Dan Wentzel column about it.

The Sugar Bowl instead charged LSU $350 a seat, full price, for every last player request. Total cost: $254,800 on the players alone.

Oh, and the Tiger Marching Band, the one that is contractually obligated to attend bowl week and provide halftime entertainment? With bowls, not even the band gets in free. LSU had to buy tickets for every clarinetist, flutist, tuba player and majorette. Some of the seats, according to the Baton Rouge Advocate, just held the tuba.

That added up to 529 tickets, almost all full price. The bill for the student band to sit was $182,830.

That's $182,830 to get into a venue and give a free show to all the other paying customers.

The problem is that when you ask the question: Are bowl games worth it? You are have between 5 and 7 different major players to consider.

Individual Schools (not the football program, the institution)
Players
Coaches/The Program
Sponsors
TV
Host City
Bowl
Conferences
Fans/Ticket Buyers/TV audience

Shit, that's 9, and I'm sure I'm missing other stakeholders. For each one of those, you then slide around a ton of variables that change every year.

But what bugs me is what DSafe is starting to get at... When you take a bath on a bowl game, pretty much the only stakeholders that truly feel it are the universities involved. And, frankly, while I'm sure LSU isn't psyched to stroke a check, the money the SEC is bringing in through TV and always having at least one BCS team in the mix more than offsets that.

The schools where this is a much tougher sell are the midsize. They aren't getting a ton of TV money, the conference bowl payout is a fraction of the P5, and they typically just don't have the overall AD budget to take that hit without it affecting other sports.

[DSafetyGuy]

Agreed, but there are also ways for the bowls to help the schools. Maybe they allocate X number of tickets for each school's marching band as comps. It doesn't have to be the full band, maybe some students prefer to celebrate the holidays with the family or whatever other than traveling to the game. Maybe every player gets four tickets comped by the bowl and the athletic department of the school decides if they will pay for each additional ticket for the players.

One of the other things is that the bowls set up the room contracts with the hotels. While I am not privy to the negotiations behind these things, the bowl committees are not incentivized to fight for a better rate for the school on any part of their hotel needs (total number of overnight rooms, catering, meeting room space, audio/visual for film sessions in meetings, etc.).

While it is not the same situation, I did an event this past year where the company I work with worked with a giant company. The giant company set up the hotel contract for all parties. Based on the terms of the contract I was privy to, I'd have to guess they didn't really negotiate hard on the contract. There were exceptionally large guarantees for internet service and catering that were part of the contract that bordered on obscene. I don't think the large company cared, but at the same time, since they were covering our budget, they probably could have done themselves some help.

In short, there are lots of ways for the schools to get helped out.

[sancarlos]

But, can those mid-to-low-end bowls afford to give breaks to the universities? The attendance is really paltry at most of the first ten bowl games you see on television. I fail to see who is winning in this situation. Are the players that excited to go to the [sponsor you never heard of][bad destination] Bowl for a matchup between two 6-6 teams?

[wlu_lax6]

or give the schools the ability to say no or negotiate with the bowl (or tier 2/3 bowls). If the school can say no thank you or we will play but won't bring the band or sure but you are responsible for costs above x. Bet we have a whole lot less bowls.

[wlu_lax6]

But, can those mid-to-low-end bowls afford to give breaks to the universities? The attendance is really paltry at most of the first ten bowl games you see on television. I fail to see who is winning in this situation. Are the players that excited to go to the [sponsor you never heard of][bad destination] Bowl for a matchup between two 6-6 teams?

Some teams seem pretty excited about the NIT, CBI, CIT in hoops. In lacrosse the ECAC holds a post season tournament for member schools that did not make the NCAA tournament. I am sure lots of players want that one more game before their career ends.

[A_B]

Coaches want the practice time, too

[SportsDoc]

Coaches want the practice time, too

Bingo!

[Nonlinear FC]

The only quibble I have with you is the "bowls are important" aspect. Whether or not a school ships a bunch of kids to Myrtle Beach or not doesn't really move the needle in terms of life experiences.

Bowl games USED to mean something. They weren't looked at how they are now, which is basically a sanctioned excuse to keep holding practices and trumped team field trip exercise. I know I'm old(ish), but when I fell in love with college football a huge part of that was the stakes people were playing for... You lose a conference game and there goes a shot at the Rose, Orange or Cotton bowls. When the 5th, 6th, 7th best teams in an average conference are sending teams to bowls... What's the point of that anymore.

I'm too lazy to dig it up, but I would also wonder about the economics of these games. If the university is having to subsidize these way down the ladder bowl games, how is that justified?

I think I need to keep my posts shorter.

And, BTW, if you want to talk about some bullshit the NCAA is propagating, let's talk about their Hammer Ban on satellite camps that came out last week. That is some Grade A nonsense. I know I'm biased, given how Harbaugh was pushing the limits, but WOW did the NCAA fuck this shit up. Parents, coaches and players are losing their minds. Almost worth its own thread, frankly.

[A_B]

My bad!

[wlu_lax6]

And, BTW, if you want to talk about some bullshit the NCAA is propagating, let's talk about their Hammer Ban on satellite camps that came out last week. That is some Grade A nonsense. I know I'm biased, given how Harbaugh was pushing the limits, but WOW did the NCAA fuck this shit up. Parents, coaches and players are losing their minds. Almost worth its own thread, frankly.

Yeah this one makes no sense. So now a kid from Florida who is interested in Michigan can't go to camp nearby where he knows Harbaugh will be. What the NCAA just did is encourage Nike, UA, and other private coaches to enter the market at crazy prices, with lots of add ons (tape service, coaches buying evaluations, players paying for distribution).

Free market should say best camps and best schools will get kids to attend. Sorry Local U...lower your price, get better coaches, join up with several schools, etc.

The practice of coaches having camps at other locations is very popular in other sports. Coaches make a good bit of money on these that are sometimes included in their contract, sometimes separate. Schools also like them because they see revenue for on campus services (field rental, dorm rental, dining hall, etc).

[Nonlinear FC]

My bad!

Nah, I wasn't being snarky -- I have a tendency to 'kitchen sink' my posts... A lot to unpack and I didn't really highlight the point you underscored.

[DSafetyGuy]

But, can those mid-to-low-end bowls afford to give breaks to the universities? The attendance is really paltry at most of the first ten bowl games you see on television. I fail to see who is winning in this situation. Are the players that excited to go to the [sponsor you never heard of][bad destination] Bowl for a matchup between two 6-6 teams?

The bowl committee can negotiate harder on their hotel contracts and other assorted costs, since those costs have zero to do with bowl revenue, but can still help the schools.

The bowl committee can also help out schools be reducing costs for tickets. Maybe make the tickets half face value. Say, $40 off of a thousand tickets equals a lot of money for a school. Or do the guys with obnoxious-colored blazers really need to make around mid-six figures for running a bowl game?

And I wouldn't worry about bowls losing out. ESPN owns many of them for the specific purpose of airing them because college football does a lot better, ratings-wise, than many of their other programming options.

[Nonlinear FC]

Harbaugh sounds off on satellite camps: http://www.campusrush.com/jim-harbaugh- ... 53351.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Nonlinear FC]

This is a nice takedown on this issue.

http://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal ... m-harbaugh

I don't know if you guys have continued following this, but it's an AMAZING story showing just how fucking shady the NCAA can be. I wasn't really aware that at some point, in order to "streamline" their governance the NCAA put the power to vote on things like satellite camps in the hands of one representative from each conference. The thinking was to take the Presidents and Regents, who are far removed from stuff like satellite camps and have those decisions come from the collective voices of the ADs and coaches.

Well, funny... It has come out that at least 2, and probably 3 of the votes against satellite camps came from representatives that did not vote the will of the programs in their conferences. The Pac-12 is the most egregious, where the Commissioner has come out and said that their conference rep, the AD from UCLA, voted based on his "opinion," against the directive he was given by the 11 other schools who wanted a vote against anything banning the camps. There were 11 "against" votes and one "abstention" when they reached out on this issue in March. Funny, right? hahahaha

And the Sun Belt guy put out a completely nonsensical non-answer and there are at least 4 or 5 coaches in that conference publicly saying no one reached to them at all. And they are pissed about the ban. And, to be clear, not all of the P5 coaches in conferences that voted for the ban are happy, either. There are also quotes from OkSt, Iowa St. and another Big 12 school coming out against the ban.

But, as the linked piece says, the NCAA is all about the student-athlete. *cue evil clown laugh*

[wlu_lax6]

NCAA backs off the ban
http://espn.go.com/college-football/sto ... ing-review

[Nonlinear FC]

Yeah... http://www.mlive.com/wolverines/index.s ... orted.html

I don't have a problem if the SEC, ACC and other folks opposed to the camps want to discuss some reasonable restrictions. There IS a point where this gets into an area where it's unfair that a high functioning workaholic* gets to swing the Power 5 around by their collective tails with these camps.

I DON'T think the SEC or ACC should be allowed to set up forcefields around their respective campuses. If you want to say no more than 5 or 10 or whatever, fine. But not outside of 50 miles? Fuck that.

ETA - I ALWAYS forget my asterisk comments... I stole this turn of phrase from Brian Cook.

[wlu_lax6]

Harbaugh kissing up to the locals at his Satellite camp in Baltimore.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dc- ... lite-camp/