CougarCorner
Sign in
Archived Topic

Why can't the Vegas Bowl improve?

by Mars · 3/5/2010

Advertisement
S
SpiffCoug
I'd rather improve the payout through better sponsors than the date. The pre-Christmas date isn't the issue. There are plenty of bad bowl games post-Christmas as well. The bowl isn't terrible because of the date. It's terrible because of the payout and the 5th place PAC-10 team.
M
Mars
kitic77 wrote:
There are plenty of bad bowl games post-Christmas as well.
No, there aren't.



EDIT. I read you as saying PRE-Christmas, sorry. I hate it when the first two bowl games of the year are MWC games. The unofficial rule is, the later the bowl game, the more important. Just seems like a bad set-up to me for conference respect.
B
BigCougsFan
Mars wrote:
There are plenty of bad bowl games post-Christmas as well.

No, there aren't.


I thought there were tons of horrible bowl games. It must be in the eye of the beholder. What's a bad bowl game: money, date, opponents, etc...???
S
SpiffCoug
Some "great" post-Christmas bowls from this last year that must be better than the LV Bowl simply because they're after Christmas:

The Little Ceasars Bowl (Marshall 6-6 vs Ohio 8-4)

Meineke Car Care Bowl (Pitt 9-3 vs North Carolina 8-4)

Gaylord Hotels Music City Bowl (Clemson 85- vs Kentucky 7-5)

AdvoCare v1000 Independence Bowl (Texas A&M 6-6 vs Georgia 7-5)

Eaglebank Bowl (UCLA 6-6 vs Temple 8-3)

Roady's Humanitarian Bowl (Bowing Green 7-5 vs Idaho 7-5)

Insight Bowl (Minnesota 6-6 vs Iowa St 6-6)

International Bowl (South Florida 7-5 vs Northern Illinois 7-5)



Yeah, my bad. "No, there aren't" plenty of bad bowl games post-Christmas. And none certainly as bad as the LV Bowl.



I repeat, the date of the LV bowl is NOT what's wrong with the bowl. It's the payout and the quality of opponent for the MWC. I'd watch the LV Bowl the FIRST week of December if it meant a larger payout and a better opponent.
Advertisement
B
BigCougsFan
Even though it's before Christmas... Everyone watched this game. They watched how the Pac's runner up was disassembled by the MWC's runner up. Everyone was talking how horrible the Pac was AND how impressive the MWC was.



It was another statement game that we can add to our MWC resume.



The payout of one million isn't enough, but the most out of all the MWC Bowl games(minus a BCS Bowl)
M
Mingjai
kitic77 wrote:
Some "great" post-Christmas bowls from this last year that must be better than the LV Bowl simply because they're after Christmas:

The Little Ceasars Bowl (Marshall 6-6 vs Ohio 8-4)

Meineke Car Care Bowl (Pitt 9-3 vs North Carolina 8-4)

Gaylord Hotels Music City Bowl (Clemson 85- vs Kentucky 7-5)

AdvoCare v1000 Independence Bowl (Texas A&M 6-6 vs Georgia 7-5)

Eaglebank Bowl (UCLA 6-6 vs Temple 8-3)

Roady's Humanitarian Bowl (Bowing Green 7-5 vs Idaho 7-5)

Insight Bowl (Minnesota 6-6 vs Iowa St 6-6)

International Bowl (South Florida 7-5 vs Northern Illinois 7-5)



Yeah, my bad. "No, there aren't" plenty of bad bowl games post-Christmas. And none certainly as bad as the LV Bowl.



I repeat, the date of the LV bowl is NOT what's wrong with the bowl. It's the payout and the quality of opponent for the MWC. I'd watch the LV Bowl the FIRST week of December if it meant a larger payout and a better opponent.


From a payout standpoint, the Insight and Music City Bowls would be upgrades over LV, though only the Insight Bowl is a good geographic fit. I'm still surprised that the Insight Bowl prefers Big 10 vs. Big 12. They'd be better off with a more regional tie--I think MWC vs. Big 10/12 would be fun.
S
SpiffCoug
Mingjai wrote:
From a payout standpoint, the Insight and Music City Bowls would be upgrades over LV, though only the Insight Bowl is a good geographic fit. I'm still surprised that the Insight Bowl prefers Big 10 vs. Big 12. They'd be better off with a more regional tie--I think MWC vs. Big 10/12 would be fun.

The premise of the original post is that the date makes the LV Bowl terrible, not the pay-off or opponent.
L
Lawboy
Until Sam Boyd Stadium gets replaced with a new facility, the LV Bowl will stay what it is. That is why it does not improve. Stadium revenues are maxed out, TV ratings are so-so.



It really is the same reason that UNLV football won;t improve over a long term. The facilities suck.
G
gmj81
It doesn't need to get replaced so much as just upgraded. I know UNLV might never sell out the joint during the regular season. But they could certainly sell 5-10k more tickets to the Vegas Bowl, especially if they get a better tie-in from the Pac-10. If they increased the payout, I think they could easily get the 3rd place Pac-10 team. It's closer to the majority of that conference than the Sun Bowl, and would be a greater destination than the Emerald Bowl in late December.



By adding a few more seats and just generally "sprucing up" the joint, plus putting out a better payout, they could go a long way in making this bowl better. But don't for a second think that there's going to be any possibility of building a new stadium altogether. For one, they don't have a good enough team. Two, it would have to be even further out from the strip/campus and three it wouldn't matter that much anyway. The Orange Bowl sucked for a long time but that didn't stop people from going there. The stadium itself could still be serviceable with a few minor upgrades as well as upgrades to the parking, surrounding infrastructure, etc.



But kitic is right. The date doesn't mean squat. Do you think the GMAC bowl got more ratings just because it's the last bowl game played? The Vegas Bowl has enormous potential. Great destination, cheap at that time of year, and relatively close to the two contracted conferences. With the tweaks mentioned above, they could get much higher interest and ratings. But in order to make money, you've got to spend money, right? If they want to really boost the economy during that "dead week" before Christmas, they would upgrade the stadium and increase the payout before the next round of bowl negotiations.
Advertisement
K
KYCoug
Does payout mainly come from ticket sales? It would be interesting to see the breakout between corporate sponsors, ticket sales, and TV revenue. It just seems to me if they were able to get the payout up in the 4-5 mil range we wouldn't have any problem getting a better seating from the PAC or any other conference we wanted. It really is all about money. How did the Fiesta Bowl take off like it did? Wasn't it all about the money with them.



Go Cougs!



L Hatton

Louisville, KY
S
SpiffCoug
Payout is nearly all sponsor driven. 40,000 x $50 is your 2million in payouts for both teams, but I can't imagine. But I can't imagine the Sugar Bowl is charging $485 a ticket. (34million for 2 team payout divided by 70,000 seats).
B
bigbluepuma
Being before Christmas isn't the problem. Fans have been without football for a month, and are hungry. After Christmas, there are games coming out their ears. If anything, a couple of days earlier wouldn't hurt. I think better pub and sponsership are the biggest needs. Although ticket sales are not the driver of revenue, a better stadium would give a better perception, thus better pub. Also, a higher pick from the Pac 0 would have an enormous effect on perception.
M
Mars
bigbluepuma wrote:
Being before Christmas isn't the problem. Fans have been without football for a month, and are hungry.

Completely disagree. The game was played 13 measly days after it was officially announced last season. Try buying cheap tickets 12 days before you fly. Doesn't work.
B
bigbluepuma
Mars wrote:
Being before Christmas isn't the problem. Fans have been without football for a month, and are hungry.

Completely disagree. The game was played 13 measly days after it was officially announced last season. Try buying cheap tickets 12 days before you fly. Doesn't work.


I see your point. I conceed.
Advertisement
B
BoiseBYU
It's a crap stadium booking a mediocre PAC 10 team that does not want to be there



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">
W
Wickchad
I've already booked my hotel and am ready to buy tickets...
S
scott715
The first thing to change is the name. Fiesta and Sugar are good names. Las vegas is not good enough. Pullen weadeater is worst. Catcus bowl, nope, Desert bowl no. What about craps bowl? Oh it makes me laugh but nope. Blue chip bowl? Maybe if they could find a sponsor that ties in. Blackjack bowl? If there was a name that they could get Disney as a sponsor. How about Happest place in the world bowl? I guess it would have to be played in Southern Calif.
G
gmj81
Mars wrote:
Being before Christmas isn't the problem. Fans have been without football for a month, and are hungry.

Completely disagree. The game was played 13 measly days after it was officially announced last season. Try buying cheap tickets 12 days before you fly. Doesn't work.


Is two weeks more really any more time to get cheap tickets? Nobody gets cheap tickets during bowl season, even the teams in the NC game, unless they gamble which bowl their team is going to be in at the beginning of the season.
G
gmj81
scott715 wrote:
The first thing to change is the name. Fiesta and Sugar are good names. Las vegas is not good enough. Pullen weadeater is worst. Catcus bowl, nope, Desert bowl no. What about craps bowl? Oh it makes me laugh but nope. Blue chip bowl? Maybe if they could find a sponsor that ties in. Blackjack bowl? If there was a name that they could get Disney as a sponsor. How about Happest place in the world bowl? I guess it would have to be played in Southern Calif.


What makes the Sugar or Fiesta Bowl such good names? Nothing. It's the tradition that makes those bowls good and the Fiesta Bowl really didn't have much of a tradition to speak of before it became a BCS bowl.



Who cares about the name? If there is a good payout, you'll get good teams... with good teams, you'll get good football... with good football, you'll build good tradition.
Page 1 of 2
This is an archived topic from the original CougarCorner forum. New replies are not accepted.