Actually it is true, though maybe not quite on the scale I thought: http://www.forbes.com/sites/prishe/...make-sense-for-schools-sponsors/#472b639b4af4
Ah, you actually highlight the biggest issue with the NCAA. The haves and the have nots. NCAA has their elite conferences, and they get most of the spoils, as do most of the elite schools.
It's sponsorship money. There should only be like 10 bowl games. If a kid chooses not to play in the sponsorship bowl, they get no beef from me. The money a star brings the school from some of these games outweighs any scholarship they are given. It's stupid to leverage your pro future for it.
Which I assume requires a TV channel paying big bucks to broadcast it and other companies wanting to advertise during said game. I am sorry but I don't see MLS vs Liga MX filling those requirements. Sponsors don't just pay to sponsor games for the heck of it. I am sure you know this but your post is very simplistic. Get a sponsor and get millions. If only it worked that way.
If it were up to me I'd set the cutoff at any bowl created since 1980 (and again grandfather in the Hawaii Bowl) that would get it down to 13. Rose, Orange, Sugar, Cotton, Peach, Fiesta, Sun, Gator, Citrus, Liberty, Independence, Holiday (most "recent" one to make the cut, created in 1978), Hawaii. As a fan I agree. If I were a teammate I'm not so sure I would. Win as a team, lose as a team, you know? What if you were a Stanford o-lineman hoping to get another look from NFL scouts who tuned in to see McCaffery but since he's not playing they didn't bother?
I agree. I actually wiki'd the bowl games to see how many could even be considered "traditional". I understand. It just bothers me to see the TV rights go up and kids who stand to make a lot of money risk injury for an exhibition game. The only people who benefit from the Popeye's Bahama Bowl are the handful of reporters who get to go to the Bahamas and have Popeyes in the press box.
a) Re: The NCAA bowl comparison (which is truly moot in this regard because of so many reasons) The "losses" any team has from these appearances are subjective since the revenues are also typically tied to other conference funding. GT may "lose" money going to Shreveport but in exchange gets access to the rest of the ACC monies. Further, the issue is confounded by the size of the travel contingent with teams, bands, staff, etc. Add it requirements that schools must buy X amount of tickets... b) When it comes to games that don't mean anything in a league or tournament, less is more. If your plan for building revenue and fan appeal is by playing more friendlies against bigger brand teams then good luck to you, but I'm not paying big $$ to see the reserves for PSG, or Chelski, or... c) That CONCACAF has an issue with the imbalance of the region is, as I said before, a microcosm of a broader issue for all of FIFA/world soccer. I don't know if it's fair or for the best to simply lop off the smallest nations whose teams are underfunded amateurs by comparison, but I do think there should be something established that looks at the competitions from the sake of that event's competitive integrity. The ability of a country to host pro leagues and teams is decidedly different from fielding a single national side, so the thresholds dignifying what constitutes qualified leagues and teams for confederation tournaments should be reexamined. A Champions League should be different from an Open Cup, in other words. So if CONCACAF is trying to create the most competitive, and marketable, event for their best clubs, then it should be tailored to that and not likewise try to be too accommodating to the full body of leagues/nations. d) This is where I want to know more about how the confederations and FIFA use their investment monies, because I would think they would tie those projects and programs to how they'll impact these leagues. I'm not averse to straight up charity, but certainly portions of it could be targeted to helping take a domestic league to the next level. Would leagues and teams in Costa Rica or Guatemala grow healthier and stronger with a big investment in facilities? If so, wouldn't that in turn make the CCL better down the line? Don't know, I'm just thinking out loud here.
I like having lots of bowls. Between 1916 (the start of the regularly scheduled Rose Bowl) and 1978 my school, Purdue, went to 1 bowl game. Since then we've went to 16. Not every year but about half the time. Maybe it would be OK if those 13 bowls were reserved for the top 26 teams. Or 30 if that is in addition to the 4 in the playoffs. That way you would know that you were in if you were ranked. But for the most part those would be the same teams every year. And one of them would be Notre Dame every single year. I know that it was mostly a Big Ten issue but from 1965 to 1969 Purdue was ranked in the top 20 every single year and only went to that one bowl in 1968.
Agreed. But seriously, though, this is where perhaps the wealth of the game should be seeking investments in support of domestic leagues that can make a big step forward in economic sustainability, if not profitability. We and other pundits are touting the progress made in places like the US, China and Australia. We've seen what the investments can do in places like Japan and the value of smart stadium development in smaller nations like Portugal and Turkey. If some of FIFA's development funds can tip the scale in nations like El Salvador, Uruguay, Hungary or Nigeria, then I wouldn't object to using those funds to pay for pro stadiums or training facilities, or to help bring venues up to modern broadcasting standards... Anything that can help deepen the pool of nominal domestic leagues. I'm not saying the bulk of funds should go there and definitely agree that charitable acts must be pursued, but in the spirit of reinvesting in the continued growth of the game I see the potential of FIFA monies helping to give places like Canada a boost in developing a stable league, even if not quite at D1 levels. Maybe it's just my delirium from Arsenal's abysmal performance today, but it stands to reason that since North and Central America are more populous than South America you'd think we could make the CCL at least a more credible a competition than we see today. Maybe not Libertadores levels, but a legit event worth TV money and fan interest.
Florida State is popular and averaged 76,800 fans in 2016. A few years ago they complained that their fans were buying bowl tickets from neutral sources, so those tickets weren't counting towards the tickets Florida State paid for.
That happens all the time. The school allotment often has a markup and depending on the bowl, secondary market and direct from the bowl seats can be better and cheaper.
Well MLS would have to win the new tournament first. if an MLS can win this Supeliga 2.0 by beating 3 or 4 LMX teams, I think they will be in decent shape for CL (travel will still be a B$%^&)
This is basically what the top teams in Europe are always threatening UEFA that they will do to dump the small teams from the smaller countries. In Europe you have 4 or 5 leagues that would form their own Superliga tournament, here we have 2.5 (the half is Canada). The only difference is who grabs the cash, Superliga and Superliga 2.0 were/are also cash grabs.
Come on, we can go at least 20 pages before any facts come out. And that is basically what this tournament will do, the 2 haves want their own tournament to keep a bigger share of the spoils from the have nots (other Concacaf nations).
Challenge accepted! Alright people, here are some SuperLiga 2.0 leads we can chase down to win this thing: - It's a plot by Traffic to get back into US soccer?! - It's a plot by Liga MX to scope out where to put US based franchises! - Why bother since MLS teams will get creamed anyway! - Canadian Soccer: "Interested in making it a 3-way?"
What they can do, is have the best teams that dont qualify to other competions, such as the teams that dont qualify for US Open cup, or CCL and put those teams to play in this competition, that way those teams can play against better opposition, and get better, plus cash grab, rather than just play one boring tournament (MLS) all year, cuz they suck.
Rosters, play a big part in this tho. Can you verify roster sizes comparing a typical MLS team to an EPL team?
This is overly negative. We have had some thrilling (well-attended) matches and series in the knock-out rounds. And it is miles better than it used to be all things considered. Unfortunately the group stage is still a tough sell and hence the change back to a "Champions Cup" format.
It is hard to compare because of the squad rule differences between the FA and US Soccer. In MLS, this season you can have up to 31 players on the active roster. Each of the 31 players can take part in league, cup, or CCL games. In the EPL, they have a 25 man roster (8 of which must be home grown). However, each team is allowed an unlimited amount of players who are U21. And, these roster rules only apply to league games. The roster rules are different for Cup and European games.
Believe it or not, the model for the proposed MLS-Liga MX tournament, has already been established at the youth level. For the past couple of years, the Torneo Internacional has hosted 4 Liga MX and 4 MLS youth teams. The teams are placed in 2 groups, with an MLS only group and an LMX only group. All the teams involved in the tournament, play each other once (7 games). The teams with the best overall record in each group, then meet in the Championship game. Thus guaranteeing an MLS vs LMX final. It's likely that the league's are using this tournament as a starting template, and are negotiating changes that they both consider necessary, including scheduling dates, number of games, teams hosting, and other such details.