Mindful Marketing
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Mindful Meter & Matrix
    • Leadership
  • Mindful Matters Blog
  • Engage Your Mind
    • Mindful Ads? Vote Your Mind!
  • Expand Your Mind
  • Contact

College Bowl Game Bloat

1/2/2016

5 Comments

 
Picture
by David Hagenbuch, Founder of Mindful Marketing
Remember the generation of kids that played youth sports when everyone received an award just for showing up?  “Congratulations, here’s your participation trophy,” said soccer, T-ball, and countless other coaches.  Well, that cohort is now playing Division I College Football, and it appears the NCAA has adapted post season play to meet those same childhood expectations.
 
This year’s NCAA Division I college football season has culminated with a record number of bowl games.  The first of 40 post-season contests kicked off on December 19, pitting Arizona against New Mexico in the New Mexico Bowl.  The final bowl game takes place in Phoenix on January 2, when West Virginia plays Arizona State in the Cactus Bowl, a little more than a week before the National Championship game, which is not included in the bowl total.
 
To appreciate the rise to 40 games, it’s helpful to see the historic trend.  In 1955 there were just six bowl games.  Over the years, that number has steadily increased: to 11 games by 1975, 18 by 1995, 35 by the end of the Bowl Championship (BCS) era in 2013, and 40 by 2015.  That’s an increase in bowl games of about 567% over 60 years.
 
Enabling more college football players to perform in the national spotlight is nice; however, the NCAA understandably also has more material motives, i.e., ticket sales and TV viewing.  Fortunately fans turned out in mass for last season’s marquee matchups; for instance, 74,682 attended the Allstate Sugar Bowl and 91,322 packed into the Rose Bowl.  Most other contests, however, drew much more modest numbers, as the average attendance of 44,365 per game suggests.  Likewise, the attendance for returning bowls declined by 4%, and five bowls drew less than 25,000 people.  The Bahamas Bowl had just over 13,000 attendees.
 
In keeping with ticket trends, television viewership of the premier bowl games also was very strong.  In fact, the 2015 Sugar Bowl garnered 28.27 million viewers, making it “the second-most viewed telecast in cable TV history,” while the Rose Bowl, with 28.16 million viewers was not far behind.  Such media deals represent a huge revenue source for college football and its member institutions; for example: “ESPN pays the College Football Playoff about $470 million a year for the media rights to the three playoff games and four other bowls and most of the money is distributed to the 10 FBS conferences and schools.”  Still, seven of last season’s 39 bowl games attracted less than 2.1 million viewers, and 16 games garnered a household rating of less than 2.1.
 
In short, while top-tier bowl games are going gangbusters, lower level ones seem to be struggling, even as the NCAA adds more contests to the calendar.  But, what could be wrong with more football, especially for college football fans?  If a little football is good, more must be better.  That logic holds until one looks at the post season proliferation both in terms of its quantity and quality.  Holding 40 bowl games over a 15-day period amounts to 2.67 games per day.  True, that average is lower than that of the regular college football season; however, bowl games should be different.  In decades gone by these crowning contests were reserved for teams that truly distinguished themselves, earning the right to represent themselves and their conference by virtue of their outstanding winning ways.
 
Unfortunately, as of late, winning has become less of a prerequisite for earning a bowl bid.  For instance, out of 80 teams playing in this year’s bowl games five have losing records:  San Jose State, Georgia State, and Utah State ended their seasons with records of 6-7, while Nebraska and Minnesota finished at just 5-7.  Furthermore, nine bowl-bound teams did only slightly better, posting records of 6-6: Connecticut, Washington, Indiana, Tulsa, Virginia Tech, Nevada, Auburn, Kansas State, and Arizona State.  In sum, 14 of 80 bowl teams (over one-sixth, or 17.5%) compiled records at or below 500.
 
Given that there are 128 schools in the Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) and that 80 teams (nearly two-thirds of the total) are needed to populate 40 different bowl games, it’s not surprising that the NCAA has had to reach deeper into the recesses of team rankings.  In fact, just a few months ago teams with losing records could not have been considered for bowl bids; however, with one tweet, the NCAA amended its policy: “Without enough 6-6 teams, remaining bowl bids will be filled by 5-7 teams based on highest Academic Progress Rate.”
 
So, receiving a bowl bid has lost some of its luster, but why should the NCAA care when overall engagement is still strong?  It should be concerned because oversaturation is often the first step in diluting a strong brand.  Take McDonald’s.  Granted, it’s challenges are multifaceted, but the restaurant chain’s longstanding emphasis on quantity (opening more and more stores) over quality (keeping its menu instep with consumers’ evolving tastes) has seen McDonald’s Interbrand ranking fall from sixth place to ninth place in five years.
 
In contrast, Apple has been a great guardian of its brand.  Of course, the company operates very few of its own outlets, and it carefully chooses its retail partners.  It also introduces a relatively small number of new products annually, each one laser-focused on boosting the Apple brand image: stylish and sophisticated, yet simple technology.  For its efforts, Apple has earned much money and become the world’s most valuable brand.
 
As the NCAA continues to add bowl games with more teams of mediocre merit, Division I College Football bowl games run the risk of going the route of McDonald’s—too much quantity with questionable quality.  In fact, it’s interesting to note that in Orlando alone, there were three bowl games this postseason: Capital One, Russell Athletic, and Cure—seems like McDonald’s-style saturation.
 
Instead, the NCAA should take pointers from Apple’s playbook, being careful to build rather than dilute some of the most prestigious names in all of sports: the Rose Bowl, the Sugar Bowl, the Orange Bowl, the Fiesta Bowl, which one might consider college football’s iPhones.  More intentional branding and selective distribution would serve the NCAA well, much as it has Apple.  Teams should not be rewarded just for “participation” in the regular season.
 
Branding everyone a winner may seem respectful to those who didn’t excel during the regular season, but the resulting dilution of college bowl brands will eventually erode stakeholder value.  Consequently, the NCAA’s bowl game bloat signals a case of “Simple-Minded Marketing.”


Picture
Picture
Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix and Mindful Meter.
Check out Mindful Marketing Ads
 and Vote your Mind!
5 Comments
TestoZilla.com link
1/2/2016 09:00:36 am

We also did that in college, fun and fancy ;D

Reply
Josiah E.
1/8/2016 08:10:17 pm

While I understand why the writer of this blog takes issue with the current NCAA bowl game system, I’m not so sure that he is correct in his criticisms about the system. First off, I’m not sure that this upholds societal values, therefore, I do not believe that this is simple-minded. Rewarding participation is not a value that I personally hold, and I’m not sure society should either. Winning should hold some weight because it usually shows which teams worked the hardest. So, to start, I eliminate simple-mindedness as a possibility for the bowl system. However, I also disagree with the writer on another point. I believe that instead of decreasing stakeholder value, this many bowl games increases it. Take, for instance, the NCAA Division I men’s basketball tournament. While there is little argument that the most important games are left for the finals, final four, and elite eight, the other rounds have fantastic games as well. In fact, it seems that most people who would be interested in the finals are also interested in what happens during the games in the outer brackets. Basketball would not be as good if it did not contain as many teams in the tournament. Almost everyone except the diehard fans of certain teams want upsets to happen, and those happen a lot in the beginning rounds. Granted, this type of tournament is much different than NCAA football, however, I believe the same standard applies. Therefore, I believe having so many bowl games is single-minded, rather than simple-minded. It ignores the societal values of rewarding the teams who worked the hardest to earn their spot in the bowl games, but it does increase stakeholder value.

Reply
Jarred S
1/27/2016 12:01:13 pm

I agree that it is single minded. These games are tougher to invest in emotionally as a sports fan because they really do not lead anywhere, they soleley come off as money makers for the NCAA besides the actual National Championships.

Reply
Anne Squire
2/18/2016 08:47:33 pm

He talks about the trend in society that everyone receives a participants ribbon just for showing up. This has been something I have always struggled with because if you don't let someone or a team struggle and face defeat then they will never get better. The same goes for the branding. Since more teams have been allowed into a college bowl then it doesn't seem as spectacular to be able to be in a college bowl. In my opinion it makes the incentive less and teams may start slacking.

Reply
Monopoly Casino link
9/26/2017 03:48:28 am

Gambling has been a great source of recreation for years. From ancient horse, camel and elephant races to the first card games, dice, and board games, there's always been a way to take a fun risk.

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Subscribe to receive this blog by email

    Editor

    David Hagenbuch,
    founder of
    Mindful Marketing    & author of Honorable Influence

    Archives

    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014

    Categories

    All
    + Decency
    + Fairness
    Honesty7883a9b09e
    * Mindful
    Mindless33703c5669
    > Place
    Price5d70aa2269
    > Product
    Promotion37eb4ea826
    Respect170bbeec51
    Simple Minded
    Single Minded2c3169a786
    + Stewardship

    RSS Feed

    Share this blog:

    Subscribe to
    Mindful Matters
    blog by email


    Illuminating
    ​Marketing Ethics ​

    Encouraging
    ​Ethical Marketing  ​


    Copyright 2020
    David Hagenbuch

Proudly powered by Weebly