I know they generate revenue, I know teams still like going and fans still like attending, but listening to the discussion this morning on the radio, it really seems like the BCS has devalued the importance of the individual bowl games and I imagine will only devalue it further in the coming years as they go to a playoff.
All I heard about this morning was gimmick plays, halfback options, and fake punts. It sounds like these are really just glorified exhibition games where the coaches don't care much if they win or lose, they just want to pull something out of the bag of tricks. I don't remember this always being the case. In the past, I loved New Year's and it seemed like every bowl played that day mattered, but between not knowing half the teams, having no idea which bowl is which anymore because they have sponsor names all over them, and the coaches not treating them like meaningful games, what's the point?
I understand people wanting a true champion. That's why March Madness is the greatest annual sporting event in the world, because of the unpredictability and certainty of a single-elimination tournament. But the more college football tries to get a true champion, the more they get away from what made the sport so entertaining in the first place. I don't know...maybe I'm off base, but it just seems like with the advent of the BCS, all the other bowls have sort of a "ehh, whatever" feel to them. I mean if you go to the Rose Bowl ranked #3 in the country, there is no chance you will finish #1, while just a decade or so ago it was a realistic hope.
I am really starting to think that the more football emphasizes a tournament, whether it's 4, 8, or 16 teams, the less important these sponsored exhibitions will become. Who cares about the Famous Beef O'Meineke's Pinstripe.com Bowl when neither team is really playing for anything? And as the playoff inevitably expands, will these bowls, even the Grandaddy of them All, simply become irrelevant as they take the scraps that are left behind?
In short, i think only the BCS games matter. I'm not even so sure about that, maybe just the National Championship nowadays. But yes, i see what you're saying.
National Championship, Orange, Rose, Fiesta, i think those are the only main ones.
Getting in the bowls might matter some, but IMO once ur there it doesn't make a damn bit of difference if you win or lose.
There are some other bowls each year that are compelling. Chick-Fil-A usually put on a good show. Cotton too.
The reason most bowls now exist are to provide programming for ESPN during the week between Christmas and New Years. They provide a better audience than anything else they put on. Admittedly, I will generally check out the games during that week...and have the Sugar Bowl on right now.
'Bout as much as pre-season, closed basketball scrimmages. So for Kenosha Warrior, the tension generated is equal to fiscal cliff negotiations.
It was great seeing Louisville knock off #3 Florida tonight.
Great to see the B1G go 2-5 or whatever in their games again. They have been so completely brutal in the last decade.
Bowls don't matter. Many of the top players are suspended by this point. Coaches leave. The games mean nothing except for the national championship. Most players look at it as an extended party instead of an actual game.
I mean a team with 5 losses that was unranked played in one of the top bowls. If it wasn't for the fact that the games take place over the dead holiday season I don't think many people would bother watching.
Quote from: forgetful on January 02, 2013, 11:45:35 PM
Bowls don't matter. Many of the top players are suspended by this point. Coaches leave. The games mean nothing except for the national championship. Most players look at it as an extended party instead of an actual game.
I mean a team with 5 losses that was unranked played in one of the top bowls. If it wasn't for the fact that the games take place over the dead holiday season I don't think many people would bother watching.
I'd say a lot of teams I saw play yesterday, their players were busting their arses and leaving it all on the field. Not sure why you say they don't matter. Some bowl games, absolutely, but let's not paint to broad a brush. There is a lot of pride in winning the Rose Bowl, Sugar, etc.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 03, 2013, 12:01:15 AM
I'd say a lot of teams I saw play yesterday, their players were busting their arses and leaving it all on the field. Not sure why you say they don't matter. Some bowl games, absolutely, but let's not paint to broad a brush. There is a lot of pride in winning the Rose Bowl, Sugar, etc.
Do they want to win. Yes. But the players are there for the party win or lose. The season ended a month ago. This is an exhibition.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 03, 2013, 12:01:15 AM
I'd say a lot of teams I saw play yesterday, their players were busting their arses and leaving it all on the field. Not sure why you say they don't matter. Some bowl games, absolutely, but let's not paint to broad a brush. There is a lot of pride in winning the Rose Bowl, Sugar, etc.
Arizona took pride in winning the New Mexico Bowl but it doesn't mean it mattered. The only game that matters is the National Championship Game as that actually has a legitimate goal in crowning the champion. The rest are post season exhibitions like the Pro Bowl or Senior Bowl.
Quote from: Chili on January 03, 2013, 12:05:30 AM
Arizona took pride in winning the New Mexico Bowl but it doesn't mean it mattered. The only game that matters is the National Championship Game as that actually has a legitimate goal in crowning the champion. The rest are post season exhibitions like the Pro Bowl or Senior Bowl.
We agree to disagree. Unless you are saying that winning a NCAA tournament game doesn't matter because only winning the title counts? A Rose Bowl championship matters..it is a BIG deal. Same for the Orange Bowl, Sugar Bowl, etc. Even some of these lesser bowls, for some teams it's a big deal and it does matter. For other bowls, I agree they are a waste and don't matter. I just don't agree that it's one bowl game and that's it.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 03, 2013, 12:39:47 AM
We agree to disagree. Unless you are saying that winning a NCAA tournament game doesn't matter because only winning the title counts? A Rose Bowl championship matters..it is a BIG deal. Same for the Orange Bowl, Sugar Bowl, etc. Even some of these lesser bowls, for some teams it's a big deal and it does matter. For other bowls, I agree they are a waste and don't matter. I just don't agree that it's one bowl game and that's it.
Winning an NCAA tournament game allows you to proceed towards the NC game. A bowl game results in ... well nothing except maybe pride in a job well done.
A bowl game is like the non-conference holiday tournaments. There are some out there that think that winning the Great Alaska Shootout means you need a banner in the stadium, many more that think the championship doesn't matter as much. Heck, at least the non-conference holiday tournaments can build your resume for the post season.
There have been some entertaining games, and I'll admit I loved watching Louisville throttle Florida, but when gadget plays and fake punts become the norm it says the coaches don't really care. There were more fake punts Tuesday than you usually see in an entire season.
And there's no comparison to the NCAA Tournament as hypothetically any team involved could win the title if they get on a 6 or 7 game winning streak.
I feel like these games used to matter more. Like you really saw teams and coaches there with something to prove and not just putting on a show. Is that the faulty memory of my youth trying to convince myself the bowls were once something better, or were they always just exhibitions with more flash than substance?
Winning a lower tier bowl game is like winning an Alaskan Shootout.
Quote from: brewcity77 on January 03, 2013, 06:55:18 AM
There have been some entertaining games, and I'll admit I loved watching Louisville throttle Florida, but when gadget plays and fake punts become the norm it says the coaches don't really care. There were more fake punts Tuesday than you usually see in an entire season.
And there's no comparison to the NCAA Tournament as hypothetically any team involved could win the title if they get on a 6 or 7 game winning streak.
I feel like these games used to matter more. Like you really saw teams and coaches there with something to prove and not just putting on a show. Is that the faulty memory of my youth trying to convince myself the bowls were once something better, or were they always just exhibitions with more flash than substance?
I think historically there were more bowls that mattered because more teams had a shot at winning the NC by winning and hoping somebody else lost. Under the current structure that's gone...the only one that really matters to winning the NC is the last one. All the others are essentially meaningless.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 03, 2013, 12:39:47 AM
We agree to disagree. Unless you are saying that winning a NCAA tournament game doesn't matter because only winning the title counts? A Rose Bowl championship matters..it is a BIG deal. Same for the Orange Bowl, Sugar Bowl, etc. Even some of these lesser bowls, for some teams it's a big deal and it does matter. For other bowls, I agree they are a waste and don't matter. I just don't agree that it's one bowl game and that's it.
I agree with you except your NCAA tournament game is a bad analogy. Winning a tournament game gets you one step closer to the championship, winning a lesser bowl games means you win a lesser bowl game.
Hopefully it will change with a playoff system and the bowls will be more relevant.
I think it will be the opposite. I think a playoff will make the bowls less relevant. Especially once they expand beyond 4, which seems inevitable. When the PAC-12 and B1G champs are both in the playoffs and the Rose Bowl is taking two completely random teams, will there be any meaning left? If the Rose Bowl is between the unranked third best team from the PAC-12 and a 1-loss CUSA team because they were the best non-playoff team, will anyone care, or just want to put the Grandaddy in a retirement home?
Quote from: brewcity77 on January 03, 2013, 07:56:39 AM
I think it will be the opposite. I think a playoff will make the bowls less relevant. Especially once they expand beyond 4, which seems inevitable. When the PAC-12 and B1G champs are both in the playoffs and the Rose Bowl is taking two completely random teams, will there be any meaning left? If the Rose Bowl is between the unranked third best team from the PAC-12 and a 1-loss CUSA team because they were the best non-playoff team, will anyone care, or just want to put the Grandaddy in a retirement home?
Maybe so, I was thinking that the bowls would be similar to a NCAA tournament game and actually mean something. There would be more interest because the winner advances. Not true for the lesser bowls.
Quote from: hairyworthen on January 03, 2013, 07:58:58 AM
Maybe so, I was thinking that the bowls would be similar to a NCAA tournament game and actually mean something. There would be more interest because the winner advances. Not true for the lesser bowls.
I think it makes even the semifinals less relevant as well. While I wouldn't label bowl games "exhibitions," because I think they are far from meaningless, traditionally they have been about the destination. What I think is going to happen is that fans aren't going to travel twice....to a semifinal bowl game in one city, and then a championship game in another city a week later. I think there is a huge risk that the semifinal bowls are going to be sparsely attended.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 03, 2013, 12:39:47 AM
We agree to disagree. Unless you are saying that winning a NCAA tournament game doesn't matter because only winning the title counts? A Rose Bowl championship matters..it is a BIG deal. Same for the Orange Bowl, Sugar Bowl, etc. Even some of these lesser bowls, for some teams it's a big deal and it does matter. For other bowls, I agree they are a waste and don't matter. I just don't agree that it's one bowl game and that's it.
Apples to oranges here. Like others have stated, winning an NCAA Tournament game gets you one step closer to a National Championship. I see the bowl games like the other NCAA Post Season Tournaments. Winning the Rose or Orange is like the NIT and most other bowls are like the College Basketball Invitational or College Invitational Tournament. And after the playoff system is implemented the major bowls will all drop down a peg or two as well.
They matter if you like to make a wager. Thankfully I do not.
OK, bad analogy on my part, but if people really think winning the Rose or Orange is like winning the NIT...wow....equally bad analogy on your part.
Again, I think too many people here suffer from the fact we have basketball eyes on and not what most other people in this country that are from football perspectives have.
95,000 people and big ratings for watching the Rose Bowl. Even before the BCS, there were plenty of times the Rose Bowl was a game between #6 vs #9 or whatever, with no national championship at stake. It still was a game with great importance that people watched.
No question some bowl games are meaningless. I would not categorize the Rose, Orange, Sugar, Fiesta into those slots.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 03, 2013, 09:08:40 AM
OK, bad analogy on my part, but if people really think winning the Rose or Orange is like winning the NIT...wow....equally bad analogy on your part.
Again, I think too many people here suffer from the fact we have basketball eyes on and not what most other people in this country that are from football perspectives have.
95,000 people and big ratings for watching the Rose Bowl. Even before the BCS, there were plenty of times the Rose Bowl was a game between #6 vs #9 or whatever, with no national championship at stake. It still was a game with great importance that people watched.
No question some bowl games are meaningless. I would not categorize the Rose, Orange, Sugar, Fiesta into those slots.
Totally agree. The big name classic games always have meaning. Anything less than the BCS bowl games are just for fun. They matter if its a small school that doesn't get to bowl games often; usually big for the coach since he gets national recognition and can float his name for big schools.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on January 03, 2013, 09:19:21 AM
Totally agree. The big name classic games always have meaning. Anything less than the BCS bowl games are just for fun. They matter if its a small school that doesn't get to bowl games often; usually big for the coach since he gets national recognition and can float his name for big schools.
"Meaningless" is in the eye of the beholder. The Rose, Orange, Sugar, etc. are considered less meaningless because more people care about them. But I don't think that fans of Kent State would call the Motor City Bowl "meaningless."
Quote from: brewcity77 on January 03, 2013, 06:55:18 AM
There have been some entertaining games, and I'll admit I loved watching Louisville throttle Florida, but when gadget plays and fake punts become the norm it says the coaches don't really care. There were more fake punts Tuesday than you usually see in an entire season.
I take the opposite view. The reason you see more trickery is because the teams have 30+ days to prepare rather than the traditional 7 days. The fact that the coaches are putting them in the gameplan shows they want to get any edge they can.
Also consider most of these coaches get a handsome bonus for winning these bowl games, I would say they absolutely care. Some get $100K for winning a bowl game. Alvarez would have earned $50K for winning the Rose.
Back in prehistoric times when I started watching Bowl Games there was only the Rose, Orange, Sugar and Cotton. They mattered a lot. You might have even argued that the Rose Bowl, for example, which often pitted the winner of USC-UCLA vs the winner of OSU-Michigan, was bigger than the two rivalry games that produced the participants. Now, if a team goes 6-6 (there was actually a 6-7 team in this year) they are "bowl qualified". Add that to the fact that there's now a "championship game" and it means the bowls matter less.
That said, the reason teams put trick plays in their game plans isn't because the coaches are treating them as exhibition games - it's because the opposing coach has a season's worth of tape and a month or more to prepare for you. And conversely, you have a month to work on, and perfect, said trick plays. They're in the game plan not to entertain but to help win the game.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on January 03, 2013, 09:31:22 AM
"Meaningless" is in the eye of the beholder. The Rose, Orange, Sugar, etc. are considered less meaningless because more people care about them. But I don't think that fans of Kent State would call the Motor City Bowl "meaningless."
I never said meaningless. Also, I think we are agreeing.
Tha National Championship means a lot.
The other top 5-6 bowls mean something, but significantly less.
The other games mean very little to most teams, other than trying to send the seniors out with a win, having a year-end celebration for your fans, and getting 15 more practices to evaluate what you have for next year. Check the secondary market for ticket prices to the lower tier bowl games. For many of them a beer would cost you more than your ticket.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on January 03, 2013, 09:44:36 AM
I never said meaningless. Also, I think we are agreeing.
Yeah, I was trying to be supportive of your position!
The best thing about being invited to a bowl game are the extra 15 practices those teams are allowed to conduct. It is during those practices that coaching staffs start to figure out who will replace the senior starters. It makes a huge difference and is definitely a competitive advantage over the teams that were not invited to bowl games.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on January 03, 2013, 09:42:41 AM
Back in prehistoric times when I started watching Bowl Games there was only the Rose, Orange, Sugar and Cotton. They mattered a lot. You might have even argued that the Rose Bowl, for example, which often pitted the winner of USC-UCLA vs the winner of OSU-Michigan, was bigger than the two rivalry games that produced the participants. Now, if a team goes 6-6 (there was actually a 6-7 team in this year) they are "bowl qualified". Add that to the fact that there's now a "championship game" and it means the bowls matter less.
That said, the reason teams put trick plays in their game plans isn't because the coaches are treating them as exhibition games - it's because the opposing coach has a season's worth of tape and a month or more to prepare for you. And conversely, you have a month to work on, and perfect, said trick plays. They're in the game plan not to entertain but to help win the game.
I'm not quite as old as you, but have similar memories especially about the Rose Bowl. Also agree that there are definitely some "meaningless" games now, at least for the general public, but it's hard to gauge their importance for each school which is a key factor. Gives teams an extra month to practice, helps with recruiting, etc, etc.
I still remember going to Emmitt Smith's last college football game at the Freedom Bowl in Anaheim against Washington. Had no idea he would play for my Boys or become the NFL's all time leading rusher. Attended several Rose Bowls, a Holiday Bowl, etc.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 03, 2013, 11:48:05 AM
I'm not quite as old as you, but have similar memories especially about the Rose Bowl. Also agree that there are definitely some "meaningless" games now, at least for the general public, but it's hard to gauge their importance for each school which is a key factor. Gives teams an extra month to practice, helps with recruiting, etc, etc.
I still remember going to Emmitt Smith's last college football game at the Freedom Bowl in Anaheim against Washington. Had no idea he would play for my Boys or become the NFL's all time leading rusher. Attended several Rose Bowls, a Holiday Bowl, etc.
You like to claim that we don't understand what these mean to football fans, but I don't think you are in touch with the modern day reality of sports.
When you started watching Bowl games, winning the Rose/Orange meant there was a chance your team could win the national championship. Not so anymore. The BCS system and national championship game took all that away. Now winning the Rose/Orange means nothing, getting to the bowl game still means something but winning is just icing on the cake.
Most of the people I know that are diehard college football fans don't watch the other bowls anymore, they watch their team and if they lose...well no big deal. They used to watch the other big bowls hoping usually agains specific teams so that their SEC team could win the national championship if they won their bowl. All that is gone and college football is a joke.
Ultimately this is a philosophical question. Do they matter relative to what? Do sports in general matter?
Quote from: forgetful on January 03, 2013, 12:26:38 PM
You like to claim that we don't understand what these mean to football fans, but I don't think you are in touch with the modern day reality of sports.
When you started watching Bowl games, winning the Rose/Orange meant there was a chance your team could win the national championship.
Actually, most of the time that wasn't the case at all. Very rarely did more than two bowls, if not only one, have any impact in the national championship picture. Most bowls were as "meaningless" as they are now. There was just less of them.
Dump the bowl games that get bad attendance and tv ratings year over year. Some bowls are a matter of civic pride and do extremely well. I believe the Sun Bowl and the Alamo Bowl are two examples.
Take a look at the Pinstripe Bowl this year (i.e. the Long Underwear Bowl). Freezing cold. Snow. Played in a baseball stadium with poor sight lines. Attendance was 40K this year. That is about as good as that bowl can do given the fact that the seating arrangement is bad.. Then, take a look at the tv ratings - 3.4. Thats big. That bowl has zero history...and has tie-ins to the BE and the B12. Not great. Still, it was a very successful bowl game. Why would the Yankees and New Era stop hosting it?
Quote from: forgetful on January 03, 2013, 12:26:38 PM
You like to claim that we don't understand what these mean to football fans, but I don't think you are in touch with the modern day reality of sports.
You're right, it's only my job and my career. :o I'm very in touch with the modern day reality of sports, especially the money, the television ratings, etc. A meaningless game doesn't put 95,000 fannies in the seat (Rose Bowl), produce ratings higher than the year before (which they did)....up 11% over last year for the Rose and Orange bowls.
Quote from: forgetful on January 03, 2013, 12:26:38 PM
When you started watching Bowl games, winning the Rose/Orange meant there was a chance your team could win the national championship. Not so anymore. The BCS system and national championship game took all that away. Now winning the Rose/Orange means nothing, getting to the bowl game still means something but winning is just icing on the cake.
No, there were plenty of Rose Bowls over the years that had two lower ranked teams or maybe even one that wasn't ranked at all....in a nutshell, no chance at winning a national title. It was still meaningful, it still generated pride for the schools, the conferences, television ratings, etc.
Quote from: forgetful on January 03, 2013, 12:26:38 PM
Most of the people I know that are diehard college football fans don't watch the other bowls anymore, they watch their team and if they lose...well no big deal. They used to watch the other big bowls hoping usually agains specific teams so that their SEC team could win the national championship if they won their bowl. All that is gone and college football is a joke.
That's nice. That's sort of like the guy who the day after the election says "I don't get it, everyone I know voted for X and he didn't win".
You can keep saying college football is a joke....follow the money. The industry doesn't throw money at jokes.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on January 03, 2013, 12:47:31 PM
Actually, most of the time that wasn't the case at all. Very rarely did more than two bowls, if not only one, have any impact in the national championship picture. Most bowls were as "meaningless" as they are now. There was just less of them.
He's in a bubble Sultan, he and his friends don't watch and therefore they extrapolate that to mean college football is a joke and no one watches. ::)
Quote from: frozena pizza on January 03, 2013, 12:43:54 PM
Ultimately this is a philosophical question. Do they matter relative to what? Do sports in general matter?
Bingo.
They don't really matter at all... but obviously they do have some "impact". The fans like them, the schools get a trophy, and it's a nice way to "retire" for most senior players.
However, in the grand scheme of an athletic department, winning the Capital City bowl 8 times isn't much to brag about.
The Rose Bowl is cool. Orange. Fiesta. Etc, so those are a little more "braggable", but it's not like Iowa is suddenly going to be elite if it wins the Rose Bowl. It will be a big deal in Iowa, and then everybody will move on.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 03, 2013, 01:22:52 PM
He's in a bubble Sultan, he and his friends don't watch and therefore they extrapolate that to mean college football is a joke and no one watches. ::)
That's exactly it. People don't seem to have a sense that not everyone views the world the same way that they do. What I watch, and what my friends watch, is irrelevant to this. What matters is what most people watch.
And they apparently like "meaningless" college bowl games...more than "meaningful" regular season college basketball games.
Bowl games really matter to the teams playing in them and their fans. Now, that being said from a national perspective only the BCS games really matter but as a huge Northwestern football fan the Gator bowl had my all of my attention on New Years day. So in summary the non-BCS games matter to their fans but only the BCS games matter on a national level.
Of course, the Rose Bowl is a big deal. Beautiful setting, great weather. Always a full house. The Orange Bowl is usually a big deal...but felt second rate with NIU (sorry, Huskies). Plus it's recent alliance with the ACC has resulted in a lot of empty seats. Also, the Sugar Bowl is usually a big deal...but you'd never know it with that empty upper deck at the Superdome. Shocking to see that many empty seats last night.
I guess the Rose Bowl is the only one immune from empty seats—no matter who is playing. Some years are better than others, but they always seem to hover around that 95,000 to 100,000 mark.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on January 03, 2013, 12:47:31 PM
Actually, most of the time that wasn't the case at all. Very rarely did more than two bowls, if not only one, have any impact in the national championship picture. Most bowls were as "meaningless" as they are now. There was just less of them.
I don't think this is true. Using this year as an example, Notre Dame is the only team entering their bowl with 0 losses. There were four teams with only one loss. Only one of those teams can play ND so that means in the old days there were three other bowls that had National Championship implications (total of four) and those one-loss teams were going to give it their all to beat the crap out of their opponent and impress the voters---assuming things broke their way they were really playing for the NC. Today there is guaranteed to be only one game that really means anything.
I'm not going to spend the time to research how often this happened, but I suspect that more often than not there was only one (or zero) undefeated teams in a given year, but at least a couple with only one loss. Only two undefeated teams probably happened a minority of time.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on January 03, 2013, 01:28:43 PM
That's exactly it. People don't seem to have a sense that not everyone views the world the same way that they do. What I watch, and what my friends watch, is irrelevant to this. What matters is what most people watch.
And they apparently like "meaningless" college bowl games...more than "meaningful" regular season college basketball games.
I love when people make statements like this. So you are right and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. Fact of the matter is that most people don't watch college sports. Fact of the matter is that the young viewers that advertisers crave are losing interest in college football. College football viewership was down considerably this year with only NBC posting an increase. CBS viewership was down 10.3%, ESPN2 13%. The 18-24 group now favors soccer.
So Chicos since you are aware of these numbers, since it is your career and all, shouldn't you be concerned with the changing of the tide and aware of these issues??
So maybe you and chicos should get out of your bubble and read the tea leaves. Prices are going up yes, because right now they will just pass the buck on to the viewer who is forced to pay it. The 45-54 age group still watches a lot of college football so eyes will tune in, but that is changing fast.
Are you talking about the numbers referenced in this article?
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Issues/2012/12/21/Media/CFB-viewership.aspx
If so, this was routinely panned because, while certain networks did indeed see decreases in viewership the overall audience actually increased. FOX entry into the Saturday night marketplace took viewers away from other networks. When you add the "College Football Regular Season Audience" figures for both this year an last, viewership actually increased. That increase is due to Notre Dame on NBC, but even if you take out those numbers, the addition of FOX brought more viewership of college football.
So while your point that certain networks did indeed see decreases, overall viewership apparently increased.
edit.
Last week's top tv ratings:
http://www.zap2it.com/tv/ratings/zap-cable-ratings,0,2899849.htmlstory
The UK-UL bball game didnt make the top 20.
Quote from: honkytonk on January 04, 2013, 11:51:29 AM
Last week's top tv ratings:
http://www.zap2it.com/tv/ratings/zap-cable-ratings,0,2899849.htmlstory
The UK-UL bball game didnt make the top 20.
Of course not. Follow the money. The sports TV industry doesn't spend money on things that don't work or don't pay out, at least they try very hard not....especially on the sports side. On the entertainment side, a bit different. At any rate, too many fans here look through college basketball lens and don't realize the importance of football. With all that is going on with conference realignment, it baffles me why some people still don't see it, but what can you do.
As a sidenote, the Rose Bowl got a 9.6 which outdid a number of NFL games.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on January 03, 2013, 09:42:41 AM
Back in prehistoric times when I started watching Bowl Games there was only the Rose, Orange, Sugar and Cotton. They mattered a lot. You might have even argued that the Rose Bowl, for example, which often pitted the winner of USC-UCLA vs the winner of OSU-Michigan, was bigger than the two rivalry games that produced the participants. Now, if a team goes 6-6 (there was actually a 6-7 team in this year) they are "bowl qualified". Add that to the fact that there's now a "championship game" and it means the bowls matter less.
That said, the reason teams put trick plays in their game plans isn't because the coaches are treating them as exhibition games - it's because the opposing coach has a season's worth of tape and a month or more to prepare for you. And conversely, you have a month to work on, and perfect, said trick plays. They're in the game plan not to entertain but to help win the game.
Yes, they were the four games on New Years Day. Not sure if I remember correctly but was'nt it CBS that gave us the first instant replay in the 62 or 63 Cotton Bowl. I can remember Lindsay Nelson exclaiming to the viewer that this is not live action. Those were the days.
Quote from: honkytonk on January 04, 2013, 11:51:29 AM
Last week's top tv ratings:
http://www.zap2it.com/tv/ratings/zap-cable-ratings,0,2899849.htmlstory
The UK-UL bball game didnt make the top 20.
Of course they didn't. Your link is for the cable ratings only. They were on CBS. If you go to the network ratings you won't see them there either, because they only list it for Primetime, which the game being at 4 p.m doesn't qualify either.
Its funny how everyone brings the TV ratings up, since they are well known to be horribly inaccurate, but the industry won't get rid of them, because they know how they work and can make them work for them (which means more money).
As I've said before, the bowl games will rate higher, but if I was an advertiser I wouldn't spend a dime on these games. It is a holiday tradition, families put it on the TV (because nothing is on) and then walk away and socialize. Are there some diehard fans, yes, but not nearly the numbers reflected in the ratings.
You'll notice that nearly 6 million people apparently watched WV vs. Syracuse, do you know anyone that actually sat and watched that game?
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on January 03, 2013, 01:26:53 PM
Bingo.
They don't really matter at all... but obviously they do have some "impact". The fans like them, the schools get a trophy, and it's a nice way to "retire" for most senior players.
However, in the grand scheme of an athletic department, winning the Capital City bowl 8 times isn't much to brag about.
The Rose Bowl is cool. Orange. Fiesta. Etc, so those are a little more "braggable", but it's not like Iowa is suddenly going to be elite if it wins the Rose Bowl. It will be a big deal in Iowa, and then everybody will move on.
I don't know, that Capital One bowl comes with a nice $4.55 million payout per team. Nothing to sneeze at....only the Orange, Sugar, Fiesta, Rose, BCS title game pay out more. I do, however, agree that they are the next rung down.
Quote from: forgetful on January 04, 2013, 03:38:47 PM
Of course they didn't. Your link is for the cable ratings only. They were on CBS. If you go to the network ratings you won't see them there either, because they only list it for Primetime, which the game being at 4 p.m doesn't qualify either.
Its funny how everyone brings the TV ratings up, since they are well known to be horribly inaccurate, but the industry won't get rid of them, because they know how they work and can make them work for them (which means more money).
As I've said before, the bowl games will rate higher, but if I was an advertiser I wouldn't spend a dime on these games. It is a holiday tradition, families put it on the TV (because nothing is on) and then walk away and socialize. Are there some diehard fans, yes, but not nearly the numbers reflected in the ratings.
You'll notice that nearly 6 million people apparently watched WV vs. Syracuse, do you know anyone that actually sat and watched that game?
I did.
Now, while you acknowledge that people actually have their sets tuned to bowl game, your next theory is that no one actually watches them? How many ways are you going to twist your argument before you are going to simply admit you are wrong?
Give it up.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on January 04, 2013, 04:22:52 PM
I did.
Now, while you acknowledge that people actually have their sets tuned to bowl game, your next theory is that no one actually watches them? How many ways are you going to twist your argument before you are going to simply admit you are wrong?
Give it up.
I've been extremely consistent with my argument, starting with the Potato-Bowl debate. quote below:
"There is one bowl game on at that time and multiple basketball games. The one bowl game gets much more ad time and publicity to garner eyes. Casual sports fans know that the game is on and turn their tv to it even if they have no intention of paying attention to the game itself. They are doing work or something else and have it on in the background.
Meanwhile, the IU/Butler game draws people who are tuned in because it is a good game. They are watching the game an in tune with the outcome and therefore actually are more likely to be sitting there for commercials.
Advertisers pay more for sports because people watch in real time. But you want to make sure that they are actually paying attention. No one cares about the crappy bowls and don't "really" watch, but they may tune their tv in just in case a good play happens."
I never said people don't have their TVs on, I said they don't matter and are pointless. Last I checked the thread is titled, "Do Bowl Games Matter". If you got rid of all the bowl games except for the BCS bowls, no one would care. If you got rid of all the bowl games except for the "And 1 championship plan" no one would care.
You and chicos live in this Black and White world, the real world is gray and changing all the time. If you focus on current black or white, you'll miss the shades telling you that you need to change your plans.
The fact is that amongst young viewers Football is less important than soccer now, that means times are changing. The way TV is watched is changing. The way viewership is estimated needs to change. What everyone that disagrees with you has said is that College football has peaked. When the TV formats change and they will, channels will be unable to force consumers to pay more and these prices will go down.
Quote from: forgetful on January 04, 2013, 03:38:47 PM
Of course they didn't. Your link is for the cable ratings only. They were on CBS. If you go to the network ratings you won't see them there either, because they only list it for Primetime, which the game being at 4 p.m doesn't qualify either.
Its funny how everyone brings the TV ratings up, since they are well known to be horribly inaccurate, but the industry won't get rid of them, because they know how they work and can make them work for them (which means more money).
As I've said before, the bowl games will rate higher, but if I was an advertiser I wouldn't spend a dime on these games. It is a holiday tradition, families put it on the TV (because nothing is on) and then walk away and socialize. Are there some diehard fans, yes, but not nearly the numbers reflected in the ratings.
You'll notice that nearly 6 million people apparently watched WV vs. Syracuse, do you know anyone that actually sat and watched that game?
Yes, I know many people that watched the WV and Syracuse game. 5.1 million was the number by the way, not 6 million.
Yes, you are right that the tv doesn't have a wandering eyeball to make sure you aren't watching the entire program and not petting the dog, sleeping, grabbing a beer...it's what we have to measure But guess what, many of the providers can tell you things like how long you are watching, even what buttons you are hitting on your remote while you are watching. Or viewing habits with other partners like Zeebox, Viggle, etc. I can tell you how long on average a person watches a NFL Sunday Ticket game, or Game of Thrones episode, etc. Not at the account level, because that's a privacy issue, but on an aggregate level we can using a statistically significant sample size.
And ratings are available for people in the industry, just because you can't find them on the internet doesn't mean they aren't there. If you want to know how the Louisville-Kentucky game did last Saturday compared to others...here you go. Football kicked basketball's butt. The UW-UCONN basketball game barely beat out an English soccer game.
Texas-Oregon State, ESPN, 4.3
West Virginia-Syracuse, ESPN, 3.4
TCU-Michigan State, ESPN, 3.0
Rice-Air Force, ESPN, 2.3
Kentucky-Louisville basketball, CBS, 1.6UNLV-North Carolina, ESPN2, 1.0
Navy-Arizona State, ESPN2, 0.8
Santa Clara-Duke basketball, ESPN2, 0.7
Washington-Connecticut basketball, ESPN2, 0.4
Manchester United-West Bromwich, ESPN2, 0.3
That's nice you wouldn't spend the advertising dollars in this area, that's why you aren't one buying advertising as your job. Advertisers want to spend their money where it works which is why they hire experts to do make those purchases.
For giggles, let's look at Friday's ratings as well. Notice anything about the three football games vs the two basketball games?
Minnesota-Texas Tech, ESPN, 3.0
Rutgers-Virginia Tech, ESPN, 2.5
Ohio-Louisiana-Monroe, ESPN, 1.2
Missouri-UCLA basketball, ESPN2, 0.5
Baylor-Gonzaga basketball, ESPN2, 0.3
Quote from: forgetful on January 04, 2013, 06:13:10 PM
You and chicos live in this Black and White world, the real world is gray and changing all the time. If you focus on current black or white, you'll miss the shades telling you that you need to change your plans.
The fact is that amongst young viewers Football is less important than soccer now, that means times are changing. The way TV is watched is changing. The way viewership is estimated needs to change. What everyone that disagrees with you has said is that College football has peaked. When the TV formats change and they will, channels will be unable to force consumers to pay more and these prices will go down.
College football very well may have peaked....but you provide no evidence to prove this.
And I have no idea what "shades of gray" I am missing that would cause me to "change my plans." If I'm an advertiser, I wait until the numbers actually do change before I adjust.
I just think much of this debate is because of anger and angst based in the conference reshuffling. But the simple fact is football is king, by a long shot, and there is no evidence that suggests that this is ending anytime soon.
Forgetful, I'm a huge soccer fan...played throughout high school, almost walked on at MU except for an a-hole coach at the time that I wanted no part of. I get that things change, but I think it's more than a bit of a stretch to say we are simply black and white. We are going with the data. Whether it is ratings (which you don't like), whether it's ticket sales, whether it is merchandise sales, whether it is rights fees paid by media corps, whether it is streaming content measured by Comscore, it all comes up the same.
As far as ratings go, you keep harping on them but they are going to be equally biased against other sports as well. Unless you are suggesting that the ratings for football is over pronounced but somehow this exact same rating system is under counting other sports. That's just not going to fly as a reasonable, logical answer.
Football may come down in popularity from where it is, but will it be replaced? Will it be fractured so much to be just one of many? Perhaps, but what is going to fill the void?
RATINGS!! RON BURGANDY STORY...."you know those ratings systems are flawed..."
https://www.youtube.com/v/ZP0mhGmUbr0
A couple things...first, soccer isn't catching football. I spend plenty of Saturday mornings at Highbury and outside of Marquette basketball, that's the sport I most frequently watch. But despite the growing popularity among the younger crowd, anyone who thinks soccer is bigger than football for 18-24 year old viewers, or any arbitrary age, is completely off-base. It is obviously growing, but isn't there yet and won't be any time soon. When your marquee games are all on before noon on a weekend, you're going to struggle in this country.
Second, I know the money is there. I never disputed that. What I'm asking is more as this playoff system grows, will bowls cease to matter? We're already seeing glorified exhibitions full of gimmick plays that coaches would never try if they were serious about winning the game. But what happens when there are 8 teams in a playoff, or 12? Will people still care about the Rose Bowl when it's the third place team from the Pac-12 playing an at-large from Conference USA? Right now there's still the pomp and pageantry, but won't that become less and less interesting as the teams become less and less relevant?
A friend of mine started talking today about the need for a true playoff system. Honestly, I'm getting to the point where I think that going for any playoff system was a mistake in the first place. I can't see any way a playoff, especially once you get to 8+ teams, will generate the kind of money the bowl system does. And I can't see the bowls keeping relevance when only one or two even have a top-10 team involved.
I can't believe I'm saying this, but looking ahead, I really feel like the more conclusive the playoff, the more the BCS will ruin the spirit of what we loved about college football and the bowl season. I'm not saying the sport will go away. I'm not saying the money won't be there or that they won't find ways to generate money out of a playoff. Just that the advent of a true playoff will really diminish the importance of bowls and I think the playoff itself will be less engaging for the fans than the bowls are right now. As a fan, I think I could get a lot more amped up about my team playing in the Rose or the Fiesta or the Sugar or even the Cotton or Capital One than I could my team going up against the #1 seed in the semifinals, and then having nothing really to cheer for over the next 2-3 weeks.
There are so many that they shouldn't matter. The way it's going we might have a Pork Chop Bowl or the Volkswagen Bowl. Ridiculous!!!
Quote from: brewcity77 on January 08, 2013, 12:22:48 PM
Second, I know the money is there. I never disputed that. What I'm asking is more as this playoff system grows, will bowls cease to matter? We're already seeing glorified exhibitions full of gimmick plays that coaches would never try if they were serious about winning the game. But what happens when there are 8 teams in a playoff, or 12? Will people still care about the Rose Bowl when it's the third place team from the Pac-12 playing an at-large from Conference USA? Right now there's still the pomp and pageantry, but won't that become less and less interesting as the teams become less and less relevant?
Very possible and I wouldn't disagree with you on that. The focus will be on the playoff and not the bowls.
Quote from: brewcity77 on January 08, 2013, 12:22:48 PM
I can't believe I'm saying this, but looking ahead, I really feel like the more conclusive the playoff, the more the BCS will ruin the spirit of what we loved about college football and the bowl season. I'm not saying the sport will go away. I'm not saying the money won't be there or that they won't find ways to generate money out of a playoff. Just that the advent of a true playoff will really diminish the importance of bowls and I think the playoff itself will be less engaging for the fans than the bowls are right now. As a fan, I think I could get a lot more amped up about my team playing in the Rose or the Fiesta or the Sugar or even the Cotton or Capital One than I could my team going up against the #1 seed in the semifinals, and then having nothing really to cheer for over the next 2-3 weeks.
There are *a lot* of college football fans that agree with you on that.