USA Today story: poor attendance at bowls means nothing; revenue is from TV

Great Plains Gopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
6,451
Reaction score
993
Points
113
Bowls attended by as few as 13,000 not a problem, as almost any bowl draws at least a million viewers with commercials not likely to be DVR'd. Ticket sales are not the thing anymore, says USA Today. Someone should tell Teague.
 

Yet the bowls still favor those programs that are perceived to have a fan base travels well to bowl games. It attendance doesn't matter, someone needs to tell the people running the bowls.
 

Doesn't hurt to put fans in the stadiums.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Not just fans in the stadium, but people walking around.. shopping,
spending money in the host city of the bowl. Hotels, restaurants etc.
all play a role with traveling fan bases.
 

Not just fans in the stadium, but people walking around.. shopping,
spending money in the host city of the bowl. Hotels, restaurants etc.
all play a role with traveling fan bases.

And that's the reason bowls were started in the first place.

The Tournament of Roses thought a football game might bring more people to town, especially if they could get some snowbirds from the midwest.
 


I don't get why they don't just fill the place at whatever price will fill it.
 

I don't get why they don't just fill the place at whatever price will fill it.

And perhaps move it a week later so it's not so darn expensive to fly. I know it's tradition on the first of January but hey it's getting tough.
 

I don't get why they don't just fill the place at whatever price will fill it.

This. I'm willing to receive less revenue if it means a sold out crowd will
A. impress more recruits on visits
B. provide a greater home field advantage and energy that the players feed off of and make it more difficult for opposing offenses and their snap count
C. simply provide a greater and more entertaining atmosphere for the fans

Edit: Referring to regular home game ticket prices, not bowl games of course.
 

Some of these bowl games go back 100 years. I gotta figure they know what they're doing.
 



And that's the reason bowls were started in the first place.

The Tournament of Roses thought a football game might bring more people to town, especially if they could get some snowbirds from the midwest.

These days bowls are started to boost ESPN's profits during the holidays. If they could run 12 channels of simultaneous football games the whole time, they would.
 


From another site:
Annual reminder why so many bowls.
TV ratings from Saturday: New Orleans Bowl (cable) 1.6,
Kentucky-UCLA & UNC-Ohio St hoops (CBS) 1.5/1.4.

Basically, football is so popular now that even the lowest bottom feeder bowl game on cable will get a better rating than a major college basketball game on network TV. And people wonder why football is all that matters in terms of conference alignment.
 




I didn't realize that the Sun Bowl was the last non-ESPN game. I thought they had them all after the contract with Fox for the Cotton Bowl ended two years ago. Still, it's pretty remarkable that meaningless bowl games still attract that kind of viewership.
 

If this were true why wouldn't we be able to create / move major bowls to Detroit, Indianapolis, Minneapolis? The bowl committee should be able to sell those games for as much as a southern game if the gate doesn't matter.
 

If this were true why wouldn't we be able to create / move major bowls to Detroit, Indianapolis, Minneapolis? The bowl committee should be able to sell those games for as much as a southern game if the gate doesn't matter.
weather.
 


I think that is the point. If all that matters is TV, then why does weather make a difference? Do people not like to watch games as much when the weather outside a dome isn't very good?
 

I think that is the point. If all that matters is TV, then why does weather make a difference? Do people not like to watch games as much when the weather outside a dome isn't very good?
I don't think you want to be sponsoring the bowl that people hate to go to because it's -8 while most bowls are closer to 80.
 

Could start the "Ice Bowl" at the new vikings stadium. Make it the prestigious annual showdown between the 8th best big ten team and the 7th best ACC team.
 

Could start the "Ice Bowl" at the new vikings stadium. Make it the prestigious annual showdown between the 8th best big ten team and the 7th best ACC team.

Or the 5th best MAC team if the ACC can't fill the 7th slot.
 

I don't think you want to be sponsoring the bowl that people hate to go to because it's -8 while most bowls are closer to 80.

Again, why does that make a difference if all that matters is revenue from TV? The Bahamas Bowl had maybe 5,000 people at it this year.
 

Again, why does that make a difference if all that matters is revenue from TV? The Bahamas Bowl had maybe 5,000 people at it this year.
Weather is the reason they chose the Bahamas and not Cleveland. If attendance doesn't matter, you can make it far away and warm. Let's have one of those early season neutral location games instead.
 

Many of the bowl games this season have been pretty entertaining. The above mentioned Bahamas Bowl had Central Michigan nearly complete a 28 point comeback. You also have the no shows like UNC and Oklahoma but overall it's a good excuse to watch college football.
 


If it were up to me there'd be only twelve or so bowls. Sun, Peach, Sugar, Rose, Citrus, Fiesta, Cotton, Orange, Outback, Alamo, Gator, Holiday. Need eight wins to qualify. Play them all on Dec 30, Dec 31, and Jan 1. Make them mean something again.

Of course, I'm not in charge.
 




Top Bottom