ADVERTISEMENT

How do these bowl games make money?

Nothing like a holiday ASS. BEATING. :eek: . I watched North Dakota State wipe the turf with Montana State in an FCS semifinal game today. The game was played in Fargo, a home game for North Dakota State. Imagine the crowd if they had played this game on a neutral field.
And James Madison won at home in their semi-final.
 
I wonder they'd let some guy with a big ego and a lot of money sponsor a bowl and name it after himself. The Ned Jensen Bowl. The logo for the bowl could include a big picture of Ned Jensen's face. I bet if Ned Jensen offered up enough money, some bowl would take him up on it.
How about The Harrisburg Dave Bowl. He could play with his meaningless self
 
No. First, it was CBS that held the rights and they were for $55mm p.a. CBS bid $300mm which the SEC turned down, so $250mm-$300mm isn't going to cut it. Expectations are that the rights will go to ESPN for between $330mm-350mm.

Just because an entity makes a high bid for an asset doesn't mean.

My facts were off a wee bit, but doesn't change the story. And I am assuming they make their money off of advertising. When the bidding goes from 55 million to 300+, I guess there is money to be made somewhere, somehow. Which goes back to my original post, if these bowls were losing money, they would go away quickly. Instead we have expanded to a bloated 40 bowl games, and it doesn't matter for the most part whether anyone shows up or not. The article linked in my original post stated that the bowls have paid out 1 billion + to conferences over the last 3 years. And that is after all these bowl committees and others dip their hands in the coffers for millions. Someone is making lots of money here, and it's not the players (except maybe a few OSU guys).
 
Today ABC has Alcorn State vs. NC A&T followed SMU vs. FL Atlantic. ESPN has FL Int'l vs. AK State.

Will the stadiums be filled? What % of capacity is needed for the arena to break even? Is there really much of a TV audience for these games?
It is called Advertising. ESPN could care less if any fans are in the stands.
 
Nothing like a holiday ASS. BEATING. :eek: . I watched North Dakota State wipe the turf with Montana State in an FCS semifinal game today. The game was played in Fargo, a home game for North Dakota State. Imagine the crowd if they had played this game on a neutral field.
NDSU has one of the finest programs in the Nation.
 

Just because a network signs a large TV contract with a league doesn't automatically guarantee that the network will make money on it. There have been more than a few money-losers, the most notorious being the CBS deal with MLB that lost the Tiffany Network a half a bil, which in those years was real money. More currently, there are media analysts who believe ESPN is losing money on the CFP deal.
 
Just because a network signs a large TV contract with a league doesn't automatically guarantee that the network will make money on it. There have been more than a few money-losers, the most notorious being the CBS deal with MLB that lost the Tiffany Network a half a bil, which in those years was real money. More currently, there are media analysts who believe ESPN is losing money on the CFP deal.

Don't forget the Longhorn Network.
 
Don't forget the Longhorn Network.

Ah, yes, the network for which ESPN had difficulty getting carriage.....in Texas.

Network execs are used to cancelling programs for which the actual ad revenue doesn't meet that projected when they signed the production contract. There are no escapes from long-term sports deals.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stormingnorm
It is called Advertising. ESPN could care less if any fans are in the stands.
I understand that. The question is how many people actually watch these games on TV. Advertisers aren't going to spend a lot of money to run ads if few people are watching.
 
I understand that. The question is how many people actually watch these games on TV. Advertisers aren't going to spend a lot of money to run ads if few people are watching.

Look at it a different way. What else would people be watching if there weren't bowls on, even crappy bowls? Surely the bowls are getting much better ratings than reruns of axe throwing championships or cornhole
 
What else would people be watching if there weren't bowls on, even crappy bowls? Surely the bowls are getting much better ratings than reruns of axe throwing championships or cornhole
Indiana vs Notre Dame basketball
Kansas vs Villanove basketball
Ohio State vs Kentucky basketball
Bills vs Patriots football
Boise State vs Washington football

I realize that there are some people who will watch these games but I also realize that it costs a lot of money to put on these games (the stadium, administrative staff, team travel, entertainment, TV coverage, etc.).

I imagine there are some people living in places like Albuquerque who are willing to lose a lot of money just so they can say that they sponsored a bowl game. At least for a year or two until they get tired to losing money. I'm just can't imagine that advertisers are willing to spend much on these games. Maybe that's the case. Maybe the sports networks pay next to nothing to carry these games and maybe the schools/conferences take a loss.
 
Indiana vs Notre Dame basketball
Kansas vs Villanove basketball
Ohio State vs Kentucky basketball
Bills vs Patriots football
Boise State vs Washington football

I realize that there are some people who will watch these games but I also realize that it costs a lot of money to put on these games (the stadium, administrative staff, team travel, entertainment, TV coverage, etc.).

I imagine there are some people living in places like Albuquerque who are willing to lose a lot of money just so they can say that they sponsored a bowl game. At least for a year or two until they get tired to losing money. I'm just can't imagine that advertisers are willing to spend much on these games. Maybe that's the case. Maybe the sports networks pay next to nothing to carry these games and maybe the schools/conferences take a loss.

Sorry, I meant on ESPN specifically. ESPN airing a podunk bowl will always get better ratings than whatever else ESPN would be airing w/o the bowl (knowing that it'd have the competition you listed)
 
Sorry, I meant on ESPN specifically. ESPN airing a podunk bowl will always get better ratings than whatever else ESPN would be airing w/o the bowl (knowing that it'd have the competition you listed)

It's true that a crappy bowl will get better ratings for ESPN than will axe throwing, but a crappy bowl will also cost ESPN more to broadcast. The question is whether the extra revenue from a crappy bowl is enough to cover the extra costs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bdgan
Today ABC has Alcorn State vs. NC A&T followed SMU vs. FL Atlantic. ESPN has FL Int'l vs. AK State.

Will the stadiums be filled? What % of capacity is needed for the arena to break even? Is there really much of a TV audience for these games?
Attendance has little to do with money. TV Ads are pretty much the whole deal.
 
It's true that a crappy bowl will get better ratings for ESPN than will axe throwing, but a crappy bowl will also cost ESPN more to broadcast. The question is whether the extra revenue from a crappy bowl is enough to cover the extra costs.

That's why the programmers get paid the big bucks. Someone will always buy ad time, the question is for how much. And at this low level of investment, the folks at ESPN (and every other network) have it pegged. Cost isn't much more than what is paid for broadcast rights. The talking heads and production crews are under contract and get paid whether they perform or sit in their offices picking their noses. The equipment is also paid for. So the network is left with transportation, lodging, and meals.

The real risk is with the major bowls and playoff games where the cash outlay for rights is no longer trivial.
 
The bowls force the schools to buy tickets they can’t sell

Depends. The allotments for the minor bowls are relatively small. And the Big Ten eats the tickets that its members can't sell. Don't know about the other conferences.
 
It’s, quite simply, television programming. ESPN owns and operates 14 bowl games (primarily, the shittiest of the shitty ones). ESPN broadcasts 35 bowl games. If they weren’t broadcasting bowl games; you’d be watching poker, axe throwing, corn hole and hackey sack tournaments on ESPN this time of year.

Here is a link if interested... https://espnpressroom.com/us/press-...schedule-for-2019-20-college-football-season/

ESPN didn't own ANY Bowl games until about 15 years ago. Now they own 14. That's a pretty obvious signal that they're making $$$ on these games.

Each Bowl obviously has some expenses. But ESPN must be net positive after considering (1) any sponsorship income, and (2) incremental advertising $, over whatever else they would have been showing instead.
 
Ah, yes, the network for which ESPN had difficulty getting carriage.....in Texas.

Network execs are used to cancelling programs for which the actual ad revenue doesn't meet that projected when they signed the production contract. There are no escapes from long-term sports deals.
The Longhorn Network never made sense. I swear they play the USC-UT Rose Bowl about 15 times a week because they have to fill the time. There’s only so many Mack Brown/Charlie Strong/Tom Hermann PCs you can watch
 
I wasn’t aware that an industrial park in Elk Grove, IL was the sponsor of that game. I’m betting they won’t do it next year.

I believe this is their 2nd year doing it. Someone posted an article about it last year, but I don't have time to find it. I believe the article mentioned how the bowl game helped their business tremendously.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cjrugger
Bad Boy Mowers Gasperilla Bowl

What the hell is a Gasperilla? Why does this world have a Gasperilla? Has anyone ever benefited from the notion of a Gasperilla?
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT