Let all the Bulldog faithful rally behind the men who now wear the red and black with two words, two simple words which express the sentiments of the entire Bulldog Nation: Auburn Sucks.
Bowl games are getting irrelevant? Too many? Well, not all of them…especially the ones we can wrap into a Power Four deal where rights are controlled by the conferences.
This offseason stands to be the most dramatic for the future of bowls.
P4 leaders are exploring several ideas, including a 10-bowl consortium – pitting P4 programs – without anymore conference-bowl affiliations and TV rights controlled by the leagues.https://t.co/BTSqnCa9jb
The leaders of the power conferences have been exploring proposals to dramatically change the financial structure and selection process of the non-CFP bowl games — at least those tied to the Big 12, SEC, ACC and Big Ten.
In one proposal shared with high-level administrators, a consortium of 10 bowl games — each pitting power conference programs — would be created and potentially sold on the open market, with its television rights controlled by the conferences themselves instead of the bowls. Presumably, these games will be played in existing bowls, but their participants would vary as the bowl system untethers from its traditional conference affiliations.
Could this mean an SEC team in the Alamo or Holiday Bowl? What about a Big 12 team at the Citrus or Gator?
What’s not to like? Five teams from each power league get tossed into a bucket, paired together based on attractive matchups, meet in interesting, new cities and make more cash than they currently generate.
The Pop-Tarts Bowl between BYU and Georgia Tech had the second-most viewers in non-CFP bowls this past postseason, just behind the Texas vs. Michigan Citrus Bowl. (Peter Joneleit/Getty Images) (Icon Sportswire via Getty Images)
After all, the top-10 most-watched non-CFP bowls last year averaged a rating of 5.8 million viewers, per Bowl Season. That’s more than the average rating in the NBA’s Western Conference finals last year, which produced the champion Oklahoma City Thunder.
The consortium plan provides flexibility in matchups, potentially incorporates new television partners (Apple, Amazon, Fox?) and, at least for the power leagues, limits the amount of bowl options at a time of opt-outs (perhaps not all bowl-eligible conference teams participate in a bowl?).
They could’ve just said “the deal would translate to more cash” and left it at that. The details would be pointless beyond that.
Also, something tells me that interesting new cities doesn’t include Birmingham or Shreveport. At least, it shouldn’t.
What it does likely translate to, if I’m reading the tea leaves correctly, is that some of the newer satellite bowls that don’t draw the desired ratings will start going the way of the dodo, while the corporate “P4 Bowls” will get increased ad space and hype from Mickey’s Money Making Machine until the viewership goes over what was communicated above in the piece.
Also it could translate to bowl games being streamed on whatever partner the conferences select, like Amazon or Apple TV, so I’d be interested to see how ESPN would capitalize if they didn’t have it on their own network.
If so, please know there’s something called Streameast out there. I won’t provide more details than that, but now you know.
These bowl games are dinosaurs in the playoff era. I have no interest watching a gutted version of our team play a gutted version of another school’s team for a little money. If the players vote to play, fine. Otherwise, just sit these games out.
Financially as a pure revenue generating model this makes sense. And they are also in court arguing for amateurism and Congress for anti-trust protections. If there is a better parallel between college sports leadership and homeless addicts begging for help services while committing robberies I’d like to hear it.
There is some sort of meeting today in D. C. to “save college sports” where one of the participants is also one of the biggest reasons (think TT) for the “meeting.”
Who gives a shit
These bowl games are dinosaurs in the playoff era. I have no interest watching a gutted version of our team play a gutted version of another school’s team for a little money. If the players vote to play, fine. Otherwise, just sit these games out.
“Also, something tells me that interesting new cities doesn’t include Birmingham or Shreveport.”
To quote our dear, beloved late Senator, the word “interesting” would be doing some heavy lifting there…
Financially as a pure revenue generating model this makes sense. And they are also in court arguing for amateurism and Congress for anti-trust protections. If there is a better parallel between college sports leadership and homeless addicts begging for help services while committing robberies I’d like to hear it.
There is some sort of meeting today in D. C. to “save college sports” where one of the participants is also one of the biggest reasons (think TT) for the “meeting.”