Do Bowl Games Matter?

[Lennys Tap]

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.

[Hards Alumni]

"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.

[frozena pizza]

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.

[GGGG]

I never said meaningless.  Also, I think we are agreeing.

Yeah, I was trying to be supportive of your position!

[honkytonk]

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.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

[forgetful]

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.

[frozena pizza]

Ultimately this is a philosophical question.  Do they matter relative to what?  Do sports in general matter?

[GGGG]

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.

[honkytonk]

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?

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.     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.

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.  

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.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.   

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

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.

[GGGG]

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.

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

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.

[Groin_pull]

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.

[ATL MU Warrior]

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.

[forgetful]

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.

[GGGG]

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.

[forgetful]

 edit.

[honkytonk]

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.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

[muwarrior69]

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.

[forgetful]

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?

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.