Is Miami winning against UNC really better for the ACC? Last night a sloppy Miami team beat UNC in a game with many errors. Miami clearly demonstrated they are not the number 10 team in the Country, but at 6-0 will keep their spot most likely.
Is the ACC better off with 3 unbeaten teams at this point, or would be the ACC be better off with more bowl eligible teams? UNC is now 1-5, and needs to win 5 of 6 for bowl eligibility down the stretch?
Georgia Tech at 3-3, needs four more wins out of their six remaining games to keep their 16 year streak alive. Syracuse their opponent is in a similar position at 3-3, but at least their toughest part of their schedule is behind them (Clemson & FSU).
Looking down the stretch, there is a chance that the ACC will not be able to meet its bowl's obligations. Is that good for the reputation of the league?
Comments
Unfortunately, I don't believe UNC winning last night would accomplish anything for the ACC. They still are unlikely to get bowl eligible, just discounting their win over a top 10 team. When comparing conferences, most people will discount the bottom feeders of the conference, acknowledging that they aren't going to add anything to the overall cache.
Having 4 teams in the top 20 is a bigger deal than having 8 teams that are 7-5. Just ask the B1G or Pac12. It means that the top is strong, and they can compete out of conference. If our teams can't win within, nobody expects them to win outside. Maybe it was a poor showing, but it was a win for the Canes. Happens every week to some team in the $EC along the way.
As for the bowl obligations, so be it. Honestly, the 8th team in a league getting a bowl game is a joke. How is going to Idaho in late December around the Holidays a bonus reward for the kids??? I know it means 5 more weeks of practice, but at what cost. I wish they would pair it down to 24 teams making bowls, and make it a true reward for a good season. You want a bowl? Play better next year! (And go enjoy the Holidays with your family instead of freezing your butt off in Idaho or playing in a baseball stadium.)
The benefit of that 8th team going to a bowl game is that the payout gets split with the rest of us. If only 24 teams made bowls, the conferences, and thus each university, would receive less money. Remember, in today's day of college athletics, it's all about the dolla dolla bills y'all, but only for the schools and not the players. It also helps recruiting too. Some kid might see the team play out there and become interested in the school.
Along with the 24 teams would be a higher payout, resulting in a similar split as it is now. Nobody would be reciving less money, but lets be honest, how much are some of these bowls making? I understand the money getting distributed to the remainder of the teams in the conference. But that doesn't offset the logistics of taking an entire team across the country. Make the payouts higher, make it a reward, and stop the "our 7th team is better than your 9th!" crap.
Sidebar: The minimal amount of teams in bowls leads to a potentially bigger tournament for the playoffs. Approx 20% of teams make the March Madness tournament. It should be a similar number in football.
Where's the higher payout going to come from? Companies won't front twice or three times the money they are now because they won't make that money back. You think bowl games will have multiple sponsors? "The Goodyear, Tostitos, AT&T Cotton Bowl?" That's just not going to happen because then they have to split profit and there is only so much money to be made.
More sponsors, higher tv payout because they don't have to cover 28 games, and possibly higher ticket prices. It can be worked out...There's money to be made.
We got paid $2.5 for the CFA game, not bowl. There's money out there. Stop with the CFA games and such, and put that money into an elite game at the end of the year. Trying to load up a game early doesn't appeal to me as much as a battle of top ten teams at the END of the year. I'm sure they would switch funding if they knew they had good teams in the game.
At higher ticket prices, you are going to lose a lot of fans. The bowls are already during the holiday season, when some budgets get tighter.
Meant higher payout for that bowl...
If a similar pot of money is still split the same way, the schools are still receiving their share.
Plus, fewer bowls means less teams shelling out hundred of thousands in logistical $$$ to go to the bowl.
And yes, higher ticket prices will drive away some fans, but fewer bowls would make it a more "exclusive" trip. I would rather go to New Orleans every three years to a bowl than Nashville, then Atlanta, then San Fran.
Not necessarily. There's not a pool of money out there divided between the multiple bowls. Each bowl organization determines its own payout independent of everyone else save for the BCS bowls whose payout is the same.
Stated otherwise, there are currently 35 bowls paying out $136,156,260, or an average of $3,890,179 per team. If there are only 12 bowls, as you propose, that does NOT mean each bowl will suddenly be paying out an average of $11,346,354 per team. That's just not how it works. (unless it does, in which case I accept my votedowns for inaccuracies)
(Source for numbers)
Yep.
Better for the conference perception to have a 2-4 teams that are top 10-15, then have the bowl requirements filled.
The next step-(which has happened to some degree this year) is to have our top 6-8 teams routinely beat other conference teams (ie SEC).
I agree with you on everything here except for the statement on bowl practice. It may not seem like much of a reward to play in the Anchorage Ice Cube Bowl on Dec. 21st, but that extra practice is a HUGE benefit. Coaches get a good look at up-and-comers already in the system who are replacing outgoing seniors. It's like an extra spring practice session. I know any coach will take that all day long.
I know that's the "reward." But what if they allowed practice for ANY team up til Dec 15? That would eliminate the silly season stuff and cost of a road trip that the bowls become.
But..but then we would've missed that thrilling overtime win in the Russell Athletic bowl with only 24 teams being able to go bowling! Said no Hokie ever!
Nobody would notice if we have 7 or 8 bowl teams. I remember a few years ago when we had 10 bowl eligible teams and were still considered one of the worst conferences. The only way to gain respect is to have one or two teams consistently in the NCG picture.
People would care more about 6 bowl teams going 4-2 than the league having 10 bowl teams that go 4-6. It's all about winning. It doesn't matter if 10 teams are in bowls if you end up with a losing bowl record.
It's aboslutely more beneficial for the conference to have 3 teams in the top 10 than have 8 bowl-eligible teams vs 6 or 7.
No only that but I think your assessment of Miami is flawed. They were without a couple of their top playmakers including the best RB in the ACC, and they had injuries to a couple of safeties. The fact that they pulled out that win speaks volumes to their toughness, depth and resiliency.