Poinsettia Bowl Shuts Down

Bamabuzzard · Jan 26, 2017

The ratings these lower bowls get tell how much "interest" there truly is for them. I hear football fans all the time talk about "At least it's football", "When June gets here...". Yet the ratings of these games suggest that even those in favor of keeping them aren't watching them.

The Independence Bowl is located in my city. It's been going on for 41 years. Yet it has been regulated to crappy conference slotting, and scheduled at possibly one of the worst times during bowl season. We lost another sponsor last week. The local talk radio and news have been debating this topic going on two weeks now. No one comes to the bowls because the teams who come are crappy, on top of it being two or three days after Christmas, in the middle of the afternoon in a middle class working city. The tv ratings are atrocious, the attendance is atrocious, the support for the bowl is atrocious. It needs to go.

CoastGhost · Jan 26, 2017

They could at least stagger them out through July, maybe 1 per week

TideEngineer08 · Jan 26, 2017

You can have too much of a good thing. I love chocolate cake but, well, you get the point. Still, if there is football on, and I can watch it, I will. Even a bowl game with two 5-7 teams. However, it's clear we've reached the saturation point. Bamabuzzard described it well. When these cities are struggling to find sponsors because attendance and viewership are so low, then it's probably time to let the game fizzle out.

Bamaro · Jan 26, 2017

Its a start.

B1GTide · Jan 26, 2017

Bamabuzzard said:
The ratings these lower bowls get tell how much "interest" there truly is for them. I hear football fans all the time talk about "At least it's football", "When June gets here...". Yet the ratings of these games suggest that even those in favor of keeping them aren't watching them.

The reality is that these games are played at a time in which fans have been watching college football for months, have had their fill, and have switched their focus to family, holidays and the NFL playoffs. But play these games in March and see what the rating would be.

The point is valid, that the games are far better than nothing. The ratings are a result of the timing, not the product.

We watch bad football in September because we are starving for it. We need a more compelling reason to watch a game in late December with all of the other things going on in our lives.

CoachJeff · Jan 26, 2017

Bamabuzzard said:
The ratings these lower bowls get tell how much "interest" there truly is for them. I hear football fans all the time talk about "At least it's football", "When June gets here...". Yet the ratings of these games suggest that even those in favor of keeping them aren't watching them.

This is false. The ratings for bowl games are excellent. There is nothing else ESPN could show that would generate such high ratings.

For example, the New Mexico Bowl between New Nexico and UT-San Antonio drew 1.48 million people. FS1 didn't have anything during bowl season that even drew half of that. Not. One. Thing.

The Boca Raton bowl between Memphis and WKU had more viewers than PTI. In fact, it got better ratings than anything ESPN had on all day including Sportscenter. In fact, the Boca Bowl got better ratings than the Kansas/WVU game from earlier this week and that had two top 20 teams playing.

So ratings for bowl games are great. That's the main reason there are so many: nothing ESPN would put on instead would get anywhere near the ratings.

CoachJeff · Jan 26, 2017

TideEngineer08 said:
You can have too much of a good thing. I love chocolate cake but, well, you get the point. Still, if there is football on, and I can watch it, I will. Even a bowl game with two 5-7 teams. However, it's clear we've reached the saturation point. Bamabuzzard described it well. When these cities are struggling to find sponsors because attendance and viewership are so low, then it's probably time to let the game fizzle out.

Viewership isn't low though. You're just repeating incorrect info.

The Poinsetttia Bowl got better ratings than USC/UCLA!

It got better ratings than Arkansas/LSU!

TideEngineer08 · Jan 26, 2017

CoachJeff said:
Viewership isn't low though. You're just repeating incorrect info.

The Poinsetttia Bowl got better ratings than USC/UCLA!

It got better ratings than Arkansas/LSU!

I'm not referring to an particular game. The ratings on some of these games is low. Attendance is sparse. Heck, attendance is bad on some of the prestigious games.

But no, I wasn't referring to any one particular game, and wasn't repeating incorrect information.

Bamabuzzard · Jan 26, 2017

CoachJeff said:
This is false. The ratings for bowl games are excellent. There is nothing else ESPN could show that would generate such high ratings.

For example, the New Mexico Bowl between New Nexico and UT-San Antonio drew 1.48 million people. FS1 didn't have anything during bowl season that even drew half of that. Not. One. Thing.

The Boca Raton bowl between Memphis and WKU had more viewers than PTI. In fact, it got better ratings than anything ESPN had on all day including Sportscenter. In fact, the Boca Bowl got better ratings than the Kansas/WVU game from earlier this week and that had two top 20 teams playing.

So ratings for bowl games are great. That's the main reason there are so many: nothing ESPN would put on instead would get anywhere near the ratings.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/prishe/2016/12/27/massive-media-revenues-reduce-the-sting-of-poor-bowl-game-attendance/#6ff15303cc7e

While bowl games of all shapes and sizes will have their place with fans, broadcasters, and sponsors alike for various reasons, declining game attendance and TV ratings for almost all bowl games is the new normal in college football. The new 4-team playoff has essentially rendered all but 3 games each bowl season as meaningless.

However, the long-term sustainability of this model beyond the current media deals is questionable. ESPN has already had to provide "make-goods" to advertisers for ratings shortfalls. If this practice continues steadily over the next 5 years, this would almost certainly burst the bubble of rights fees escalations for bowl game content.

CoachJeff · Jan 26, 2017

TideEngineer08 said:
uI'm not referring to an particular game. The ratings on some of these games is low. Attendance is sparse. Heck, attendance is bad on some of the prestigious games.

But no, I wasn't referring to any one particular game, and wasn't repeating incorrect information.

The worst bowl game in terms of viewership is better than almost anything ESPN could have on. Only one bowl game had less than a million viewers.

Attendance doesn't matter. Viewership does and viewership is better for bowl games than anything else they'd show.

If you think there should be less bowl games what do you think ESPN would show that would get better ratings?

B1GTide · Jan 26, 2017

CoachJeff said:
The worst bowl game in terms of viewership is better than almost anything ESPN could have on. Only one bowl game had less than a million viewers.

Attendance doesn't matter. Viewership does and viewership is better for bowl games than anything else they'd show.

If you think there should be less bowl games what do you think ESPN would show that would get better ratings?

While I agree that ESPN has no better programming option, they can't do this by themselves. These bowls need sponsors. If they can't get enough viewers to make these games a positive investment, that money will dry up. So, while ESPN needs these bowls for ratings, they have to produce a positive ROI for the sponsors to pay for the game. ESPN is happy to pay for broadcasting rights, but only because they have sponsors buying advertising time.

Bamabuzzard · Jan 26, 2017

CoachJeff said:
The worst bowl game in terms of viewership is better than almost anything ESPN could have on. Only one bowl game had less than a million viewers.

Attendance doesn't matter. Viewership does and viewership is better for bowl games than anything else they'd show.

If you think there should be less bowl games what do you think ESPN would show that would get better ratings?

Here's the angle I think you're missing. The advertiser's aren't pleased with the ratings and many of the sponsors forking out umpteen millions of dollars aren't either. These companies know what "good ratings" should look like and they simply aren't there. Hence one of the main reasons Camping World dropped the Indy Bowl here in Shreveport. To the average "Joe Public", 1.4 million viewers for a low rate bowl game is "good". But "Joe Public" has zero reference point as to what "good ratings" should like.

BamaNation · Jan 26, 2017

one down, twenty to go.

CoachJeff · Jan 26, 2017

The issue isn't low ratings, it's inflated contracts. ESPN is about to have some serious problems with their long term sports contracts. ESPN is losing viewers left and right.

Bamabuzzard · Jan 26, 2017

CoachJeff said:
The issue isn't low ratings, it's inflated contracts. ESPN is about to have some serious problems with their long term sports contracts. ESPN is losing viewers left and right.

:conf3: This must not mean how I'm interpreting it. :conf3:

davefrat · Jan 26, 2017

maybe they can move some of the bowls to the spring and allow teams to play each other instead of having team scrimmages...they could call them "Harbaugh Bowls".

B1GTide · Jan 26, 2017

Bamabuzzard said:
:conf3: This must not mean how I'm interpreting it. :conf3:

I think that he means that ESPN has fewer people paying for their service (for many reasons), thus fewer viewers for these programs. I don't agree, though.

Sure, ESPN is in fewer homes, but not so few that it accounts for the lower ratings.

CrimsonProf · Jan 26, 2017

B1GTide said:
I think that he means that ESPN has fewer people paying for their service (for many reasons), thus fewer viewers for these programs. I don't agree, though.

Sure, ESPN is in fewer homes, but not so few that it accounts for the lower ratings.

CoachJeff is still correct in noting that those games get better ratings than practically anything else ESPN is going to broadcast. That's the catch-22.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Bamabuzzard · Jan 26, 2017

CrimsonProf said:
CoachJeff is still correct in noting that those games get better ratings than practically anything else ESPN is going to broadcast. That's the catch-22.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They get "good ratings" compared to programming that is already getting bad ratings. It's like a fat person comparing himself to someone fatter. It doesn't matter who is fatter or slimmer. The truth of the matter is they're both still fat.

Tidewater · Jan 26, 2017

CoachJeff said:
This is false. The ratings for bowl games are excellent. There is nothing else ESPN could show that would generate such high ratings.

There's always curling ...

Poinsettia Bowl Shuts Down

FB Moderator

Suspended

TideFans Legend

TideFans Legend

TideFans Legend

Suspended

Suspended

TideFans Legend

FB Moderator

Suspended

TideFans Legend

FB Moderator

Publisher and Benevolent Dictator

Suspended

FB Moderator

Hall of Fame

TideFans Legend

Hall of Fame

FB Moderator

Hall of Fame

TideFans.shop - NEW Stuff!