The Future of Bowl Games in Detroit

Just looking at the box score from last night's Quick Lane Bowl in Detroit. It was a win for the Big 10 over the ACC (if you care about that sort of thing). Anyway, attendance was just under 24,000. Two Power 5 teams, albeit two boring teams, and the draw was among the worst going back to the days of the Motor City Bowl. Clearly fans did not travel and local draw was pretty weak. If you trust Wikipedia, attendance has been really bad for three years running. Maybe that is because the match-ups have been so bad: CMU v. WKU, Pitt v. BGSU, and Rutgers v. UNC.

It doesn't seem like Detroit can sustain a bowl game for much longer. If there is going to be a Detroit game, I think the date needs to be different. Fans are not going to travel to Detroit for Christmas just to watch their team play in lesser bowl game. Beyond that, I think it needs to go back to having a MAC tie-in. Fans of teams that do not get to bowls regularly might be more willing to travel. It also increases the odds of having a local team - CMU, WMU, or if hell freezes over, EMU - play in the game. Outside of CMU v. WKU, the games that have featured Michigan MAC teams have had good attendance. The two biggest crowds were for games that featured CMU. Either way, trying to get fans a Power 5 team to travel to Detroit and watch a game the day after Christmas is nothing more than wishful thinking.

There are flat out way too many bowl games. I'm surprised half of these bowls are even televised.

steveschneider wrote:There are flat out way too many bowl games. I'm surprised half of these bowls are even televised.

ESPN has them all. What else are they going to show? Not to mention all of those fans that do not travel get two watch the game on TV. But you are right about the number of bowl games. There are way too many. This just adds to the idea that is time to trim DI-A football. That would mean fewer bowl games and a more legitimate playoff system.

I am just glad with dantonio I never have to worry about the bowl game in Detroit anymore

I like all of the bowl games. Then again I gamble a lot.

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:I am just glad with dantonio I never have to worry about the bowl game in Detroit anymore

According to UM fans, Harbaugh will make sure MSU is a regular at that game...if MSU can even put up a 6-7 wins a year.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2014/12/25/college-football-bowl-games-attendance-bahamas-camellia-espn/20896969/

Related article

Is attendance even that relevant compared to tv revenue nowadays? I assume not... Only because I really doubt that things like the Idaho potato bowl exist because they thought people were going to travel to Idaho in December.

Herbie Green wrote:http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2014/12/25/college-football-bowl-games-attendance-bahamas-camellia-espn/20896969/

Related article

Thanks for sharing that article. There you have it. TV is driving these games. I wonder how much money CMU will lose, or WMU going to Boise, just so ESPN can bank revenue? The article mentions what I was talking about above with trimming DI-A football. These bowls are really for the "have nots" of DI-A CFB. They want to be a part of a post-season and these games are their vehicle. But in the long run, I wonder if the costs come to outweigh the benefits. Will there be a day when small schools have to decline bids because they simply cannot afford the expenses.

Also, and I do not know how this works, but what does the ROI for the sponsor look like? Is the incentive to sponsor tied into the TV ratings (like it would be for a firm to buy advertising time)? The Detroit game in on its third or fourth sponsor since it debuted as the Motor City Bowl.

Attendance to bowl games has always sucked. I think there were literally 10 people in the stands for the Bahama Bowl, double that for the Hawaii Bowl. The money comes from TV dollars catering to lemmings like me that watch every game.

It seems like ESPN should be the one buying the unsold tickets or reimbursing the schools for their losses.
I was watching that Idaho bowl where they listed the attendance around 20,000. It didn't look to me like there was even 1000 there.

I have a question, everyone talks about how you miss out on extra practice if you don't make it to a bowl.

Why don't teams like UofM just practice any way?

steveschneider wrote:I have a question, everyone talks about how you miss out on extra practice if you don't make it to a bowl.

Why don't teams like UofM just practice any way?

Rules say they can't have organized practice with coaches unless you are in a bowl game.

Herbie Green wrote:It seems like ESPN should be the one buying the unsold tickets or reimbursing the schools for their losses.
I was watching that Idaho bowl where they listed the attendance around 20,000. It didn't look to me like there was even 1000 there.

I think it is going to come to that. Hollis and several other big ADs were planting the seed that the bowl ticket allocation system is out of date.

steveschneider wrote:There are flat out way too many bowl games. I'm surprised half of these bowls are even televised.

So much crying about too many bowl games. It's more football. How is that a bad thing. I truly do not give a damn if a bowl has a low turn out.

I was at the game yesterday and had a good time. Went to Lafayette before and slows afterward, ended up spending a good amount of money but I had fun. It can only be good for the city if 24,000 others came and did the same.

Ass Dan wrote:

So much crying about too many bowl games. It's more football. How is that a bad thing. I truly do not give a damn if a bowl has a low turn out.

I was at the game yesterday and had a good time. Went to Lafayette before and slows afterward, ended up spending a good amount of money but I had fun. It can only be good for the city if 24,000 others came and did the same.

menos es más?

steveschneider wrote:


menos es más?

No. No one is forcing you to watch the ancillary games, but there's no way that less could be more in this case

Ass Dan wrote:

So much crying about too many bowl games. It's more football. How is that a bad thing. I truly do not give a damn if a bowl has a low turn out.

This... sitting on my ass for the second straight day

Nordic wrote:

This... sitting on my ass for the second straight day

Currently locked into asu v duke. Couldn't be happier

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:Is attendance even that relevant compared to tv revenue nowadays? I assume not... Only because I really doubt that things like the Idaho potato bowl exist because they thought people were going to travel to Idaho in December.

Idaho in December kicks Paris in the Spring's ass.

Doesn't ESPN own most of these bowl games?

I watch them on TV. Still think conferences are stupid for all the ticket guarantees and shit.

Ass Dan wrote:

Currently locked into asu v duke. Couldn't be happier

I would venture to say a 12-16 team playoff would prove to be equally as exciting as a bowl system that gives you 6-6 South Alabama v. 7-6 Bowling Green State University. You could even keep some of the lesser bowls as a prize for non-playoff teams. All in all, I would not mind fewer bowls if it meant more meaningful post-season play.

Turtleneck wrote:

I would venture to say a 12-16 team playoff would prove to be equally as exciting as a bowl system that gives you 6-6 South Alabama v. 7-6 Bowling Green State University. You could even keep some of the lesser bowls as a prize for non-playoff teams. All in all, I would not mind fewer bowls if it meant more meaningful post-season play.

The lesser bowls are not going away. They generate money for TV and conferences. ASU and Duke would still be playing if there was a 12-16 team playoff system. No one is forcing you to watch. Go watch the winter dew tour if this is a problem for you.

By-Tor wrote:  The lesser bowls are not going away.  They generate money for TV and conferences.  ASU and Duke would still be playing if there was a 12-16 team playoff system.  No one is forcing you to watch.  Go watch the winter dew tour if this is a problem for you.  

Glad to know that with all those empty seats and over all general lack of importance to the games that they are still able to generate a lot of money for these conferences.

By-Tor wrote: The lesser bowls are not going away. They generate money for TV and conferences. ASU and Duke would still be playing if there was a 12-16 team playoff system. No one is forcing you to watch. Go watch the winter dew tour if this is a problem for you.

I'm not watching. You know, since all but three bowl games are on ESPN, one would have to have cable to watch a bowl game from the comfort of their own home. Also, WTF is the winter dew tour? I do not specialize in obscurity.

You are right about money for conferences. The NCAA claims that all conferences profited from bowl games last year. If true, that means the money lost by CMU or WMU up front is covered down the road. That's great and it undermines my earlier point that these bowl games amount to a loss for many schools. However, that becomes a problem because it does not incentivize major change and helps maintain the status quo of a severely bloated DI-A.

You're in luck. 2 games on network tv today. Soak it in

By-Tor wrote:You're in luck. 2 games on network tv today. Soak it in

If the wind is blowing in the right direction, I might be able to pull some networks.

I see that you have the interwebs at your house. Most sporting events can be viewed through this series of tubes.

I'm a law abiding citizen myself, so I would never do this, but I hear if you're a little less scrupoulous you can watch some that you're not even supposed to be getting.

Turtleneck wrote:

I would venture to say a 12-16 team playoff would prove to be equally as exciting as a bowl system that gives you 6-6 South Alabama v. 7-6 Bowling Green State University. You could even keep some of the lesser bowls as a prize for non-playoff teams. All in all, I would not mind fewer bowls if it meant more meaningful post-season play.

Why are the two mutually exclusive? What's the down side to more bowls?