Ay-Ziggy-Zoomba.com

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dl ... /-1/SPORTS

I think this is a great thing for the MAC, but that goes without saying. I think it is a hint of great things yet to come as well, not just for the MAC but all of the Mid-Majors.

First, it is appropriate that Marshall is leaving the MAC this year. Ungrateful Herd fans have always felt they were the center of the Universe, so it is fitting they leave having proven they are not on the field, and that the MAC no longer cares if they stay or go.

The success of Marshall was the impedes for the MACs accelerated improvement and the initial leverage point for more TV and bowl attention. Herd fans have long seen themselves as being the only bright point in the MAC. Yet, it has quickly faded to a secondary story in the MAC. Over the last four years the MAC has dispelled the image of being a one-horse conference. The national media realizes the MAC needs to be followed each year, not just when a team makes a splash. People who watch college football recognize Miami, BGSU, NIU, and Toledo, as well as they ever did Marshall. It is this fact that is at the heart of what is happening this year.

The TV networks and Bowl games have gotten comfortable with being able to sell a MAC team being on TV or in a post season contest. How many fans you can bring is ultimately secondary to how good a story your team presents. A good story, ranking, or star player equals TV ratings, which is better than fans in the seats.

The MAC has proven it can produce several teams able to bring a great story and team to bowls and TV.

Combine this with the trouble filling bowl games this year, and suddenly the MAC is at the front of the line to negotiate new bowl affiliations. The MAC will emerge from this year with a third bid in Toronto, but a side agreement with at least one, maybe two other bowls. Plus a fourth "locked" bid could emerge in Indiana by the end of the next season or two.


The cycle of TV exposure, post season play, and national rankings and PR will continue to feed on itself. Recruiting reach and results will continue to improve. Fans will feel more drawn to support their teams. Fans will not write a season off after a single loss, having bowls to hope for. Attendance will improve on its own. Money gets raised, facilities get improved.

On the rise of the Mid-Majors.

Never-mind Utah. The real story right now is still Boise State. That a mid-major team is making a run to a BCS bowl isn't news now.
That a second non-BCS, mid-major team like Boise remains undefeated, and is still climbing in the polls is a harbinger of things to come. First, it shows the change in the demographics of the "coaching fraternity." Basic numbers will tell you that in the last 15 years, a large number of young coaches have climbed up the ranks of the profession. The once small and loyal cadre of coaches, linked to only the handful of top programs has spread to a much wider base of programs. Combined with results on the field, there is much less reluctance for coaches to vote their colleges into higher and higher rankings. Second, we are always going to have a "Utah" in the polls now. Third, a Boise State floating around in the top 15 means we are starting to see an even deeper pool of mid-major teams contending for a BCS bid. Right now Boise State might not have a chance. However their situation is very much like that of NIU, Marshall, and even BGSU during recent years.

This makes the BCS adding a 5th bowl not only a positive, but a necessity. In five years, they will not only have one mid-major fighting for a bid, but several.

How does this tie into the MAC getting bids in a year like this? Bowl organizers recognize that great stories get ratings and sell tickets. That has value to sponsors and for selling TV rights. A Boise State or BGSU, or NIU, snubbed by the BCS, makes for a better story than Fresno State playing a 6-5 Minnesota. Five years ago, bowls fought tooth and nail to get a bottom feeder from a major conference. Now they know there is an alternative.

NWLB: Incredibly thoughtful post that is, as usual, right on the money. Excellent insight!

"How does this tie into the MAC getting bids in a year like this? Bowl organizers recognize that great stories get ratings and sell tickets. That has value to sponsors and for selling TV rights. A Boise State or BGSU, or NIU, snubbed by the BCS, makes for a better story than Fresno State playing a 6-5 Minnesota. Five years ago, bowls fought tooth and nail to get a bottom feeder from a major conference. Now they know there is an alternative."

A most excellent point, Nathan....All one has to do is look at the sagging bowl ratings and attendance issues to realize very few people wanna see 6-5 BCS teams in bowls anymore. Why be rewarded for an average season?

Falconfreak90 wrote:"How does this tie into the MAC getting bids in a year like this? Bowl organizers recognize that great stories get ratings and sell tickets. That has value to sponsors and for selling TV rights. A Boise State or BGSU, or NIU, snubbed by the BCS, makes for a better story than Fresno State playing a 6-5 Minnesota. Five years ago, bowls fought tooth and nail to get a bottom feeder from a major conference. Now they know there is an alternative."

A most excellent point, Nathan....All one has to do is look at the sagging bowl ratings and attendance issues to realize very few people wanna see 6-5 BCS teams in bowls anymore. Why be rewarded for an average season?

Especially why be rewarded for an average seaon when your fans don't even want the bowl (osu).

Man San Jose, that is a long trip though

Because a 6-5 Minnesota or Michigan State sells 40,000+ tickets to a bowl game. Boise State, UTEP, and the MAC schools would only sell a fraction of that. Bowls are all about filling seats and bringing in people with discretional income to spend in the host city.

TV viewers are a distant second in the pecking order of priorities in selecting bowl teams.

I disagree. It is all about providing value to the sponsors. There are some bowls that put more of a premium on people in the seats. But to say it is the first and biggest things misses how things have changed. If the sponsors and TV don't feel enough folks watch-ON TV, it isn't worth it to them. The sponsor goes away, the game goes away.

Any well run bowl game can draw twenty to forty thousand people. How they do it varies from year to year. If selling forty thousand seats to one team was the only motivating factor, the BCS wouldn't add a fifth game no matter what anybody said.

Sponsors hate it when their bowl is shown on national TV with a half-empty stadium. Nothing says failure more than this with a national TV audience watching. And, sponsor VIPs being wined and dined in a empty stadium also is bad news for them.

Believe me, finding a "good story" when matching teams in bowl game is not a high priority.

"Believe me", that NWLB has hit the nail on the head. You are right in saying that bowls love to have full stadiums. However sponsorship revenue has eclipsed the revenue brought in from tickets, especially in traditionally low attended games like the Las Vegas bowl. TV Ratings and prominence of the game in the media are just as important as attendance nowadays. Return on sponsors investments are measured in number of mentions of the sponsors name on TV, not butts in the seats.

Rollo83 wrote:Sponsors hate it when their bowl is shown on national TV with a half-empty stadium. Nothing says failure more than this with a national TV audience watching. And, sponsor VIPs being wined and dined in a empty stadium also is bad news for them.

Believe me, finding a "good story" when matching teams in bowl game is not a high priority.

Spot on.

Sponsorship is a numbers game depending on how deep your pockets are? If you want serious viewership numbers you sponsor a top flight bowl such as a BCS game.

Because there is glut of games in December, most bowls have a "built-in" audience. Unless you are on New Year's Day, you are looking at a 3-4 share at best. And in those second tier games, you have your ESPN-types who will watch any football game on TV and of course the markets surrounding the participating schools.

Do you really think there is a serious viwership difference between the Independence Bowl and the Liberty Bowl? And if there is a slight difference, its all about what night of the week they play and are there competing games or sporting events on against it?

The food chain among bowls has always been determined by team payouts. The Rose Bowl is considered the "Grand Daddy" of Bowls and had the largest payout for years until the BCS came about.

Unless you you are on New Year's Day, overall viewership doesn't mean as much to sponsors. Its all about gameday experience and having a great crowd. Plus, you would be surprised at the smaller amounts that the sponsors pay for the lower tier bowls. The broadcast rights and the sponsosrship money is only part of the overall budget. These bowls need strong ticket sales to make themselves profitable.

I agree the dollar figures vary, and I still think getting a game on TV, and sponsorship dollars are trumping actually fans in the stands.

Bowls look at a number of factors, and the number of fans a team will draw isn't at the top. Do you seriously think the SVB believes BGSU, Miami, Toledo, or NIU will draw 20,000 fans? Granted they are just trying to find anybody. But if fan tallies were the main concern, they'd pick a 6-5 Marshall, because those people will sell the cinder blocks off their trailers to go to a Herd bowl game.

BGSU, Miami, UT, and NIU are their first choices because they have more marketing value. Even if BGSU could draw 40,000 people to a bowl game in Tempe, do you think they are going to want us if the ratings are going to be nil?

What the games pay out and where they rank in the "pecking" order does not really matter. That is something for the teams and the conference bean counters to care about.

I'm sure GA. Tech was really motivated by a NCAA min. payout to play in BOISE last year. They were so thrilled to be there, half their team was napping with cookies and milk on the sidelines. They didn't care. They wanted to be in ANY bowl game, and the bowl wanted the game on TV.

The wonderful long shots of the mountains, quaint shopping districts, and local tourist ads are what they wanted people to see. If a lot of folks showed up, that is a bonus. In the end, that game has never drawn well, but it isn't a factor.

Nobody runs bowl games to make vast sums of money anyway, except the staffers for the game of course. They are PR stunts. They get your name listed in USA today a dozen times a year. They get your logo on ESPN, in front of several million people. They get your name on Sportscenter several times in a week. They put your name on tons of promo material among participating conference schools.

Ten years ago, yes, you would hear the argument that a game wouldn't survive because of attendance. Back then you weren't always assured TV coverage either. Now you have to have sponsors and TV. The first two things bowls worry about is keeping TV and sponsors.

Bowls have learned they can't assume the teams will be a given to draw. They make efforts to market the game locally. Some years not much effort is needed. Others it may take a lot. In such a year, does the SVB take a marketable BG team, or a also-ran Big Ten squad that also won't draw many of its own fans? They take the BG team.

If TV ratings are about flat for all games, its beyond the point. The networks haven't been paying logical amounts for most sports for years. They just want content. Like bowls trying to draw crowds, they want something they can market. So again, story beats fans in the stands.

" But if fan tallies were the main concern, they'd pick a 6-5 Marshall, because those people will sell the cinder blocks off their trailers to go to a Herd bowl game."

Exactly my point. Why are the smaller schools bitching every year when a 6-5 Big Ten team goes to a bowl over a 10-2 Northern Illinois or some other mid-major? Because the Big Ten team can sell more tickets and bring more alumni to the table.

Dollars & cents...period!

That why the Big 12 has 8 bowl alignments and the MAC has 2.

Don't agree with it, but that's the way it is.

You just agreed with my point, not the other way around.

If fans were the FIRST AND ONLY issue, Marshall would be who the SVB is talking about. They are not.

If fans were the FIRST AND ONLY issue, the SVB would be talking to the possible 8th place teams from the Big Ten. They are not.

You are right, it is about money, just not about who will have the most fans paying it to see the game.

So right on, dollars and cents, not fans, period!

Not exactly. You are assuming that Marshall would bring the most fans to a bowl game (SVB) this year? I am not sure I agree with that. They are down this year, and you saw their turnout at BG last weekend. Apathy has set-in down in Huntington.

Plus, the eight place Big Ten team is not bowl eligible. You can bet that if Indiana was 6-5 they would be ahead of most mid-major programs for a bid.

I would agree with this. Based on the turnout in BG, there is no reason to think Marshall would travel as well as they did in the Moss/Leftwich era.