It was only a matter of time before these bowl executives fought back against these opt outs that will cost them eyeballs and attendees.
This will get reallllllllllly interesting.
I wondered why they weren’t already doing thatIt was only a matter of time before these bowl executives fought back against these opt outs that will cost them eyeballs and attendees.
This will get reallllllllllly interesting.
That would go over just swell with the fan base and donors.It seems that if the conferences don’t get the money, they won’t send the teams. Or am I missing something.
Not sure there'd be much the conferences could do to stop schools from participating. Bowls have broadcast contracts, so I have to think this would fall outside the usual "grant-of-rights" agreements. Yeah, there's feeder agreements, but those aren't lock-tight.It seems that if the conferences don’t get the money, they won’t send the teams. Or am I missing something.
NIL ain’t pay to play?Lol
Two thoughts
1, this ain't NIL, it's pay to play
2, as with many issues, the answer is often for labor to seize the means of production, so PLAYERS GO GET YO BAG
So confusingNIL ain’t pay to play?
Not really, they just need to call it what it is.So confusing
The schools and therefore the NCAA don't want it to be the same thing, hence the big farce.Not really, they just need to call it what it is.
Why the big farce?
Most Bowl games aren’t a financial win for schools. If the money goes to the players, why would the school want to pay money to travel and get nothing in return?Not sure there'd be much the conferences could do to stop schools from participating. Bowls have broadcast contracts, so I have to think this would fall outside the usual "grant-of-rights" agreements. Yeah, there's feeder agreements, but those aren't lock-tight.
Also, the conference is set up to serve the interests of the schools, so the extent to which the Conference can/wants to flex power is questionable.
You're going to see an elimination of bowl games. They're going to consolidate and revert to how it used to be pre late 90s.Most Bowl games aren’t a financial win for schools. If the money goes to the players, why would the school want to pay money to travel and get nothing in return?
IIRC, the ACC allows bowl payouts to go directly to the participating teams instead of being pooled.Most Bowl games aren’t a financial win for schools. If the money goes to the players, why would the school want to pay money to travel and get nothing in return?
I could be wrong, but I believe the ACC pools bowl revenue, and splits it evenly among the teams, keeping a share for itself (i.e., 15 total shares are paid out), except for teams that make the CFP, who get a performance incentive bonus, for lack of a better term.IIRC, the ACC allows bowl payouts to go directly to the participating teams instead of being pooled.
Also, this isn't a game of absolutes. This sounds like a message from the bowls to the NCAA that something needs to be done because the mood on bowls from consumers has shifted.
That would go over just swell with the fan base and donors.
Nobody ever believes me, but no.NIL ain’t pay to play?
Most Bowl games aren’t a financial win for schools. If the money goes to the players, why would the school want to pay money to travel and get nothing in return?