š Are there to many bowl games?
- Thread starter BigAl
- Start date
planomateo
Member
G
Guest
Argo said:
yeah...6-6 and in a bowl with a win over Citadel is kind of bogus...although I can understand the idea.
It gives teams another game to play and fans another game to watch. The lower tier bowls serve no other purpose, and they don't detract from the upper tier.
All in all, I guess it is ok, but 6-6 with a win over a D1AA team is a bad season. A bowl seems kind of pointless.
Some of the SEC bowl match ups this season are interesting. It is like the SEC has been set up to fail. LSU against Tech...3-5 in conference against 9-3/5-3 ACC Tech? Vandy at 6-6/4-4 against 9-4/5-3 BC? BC is top 25 and was the ACC runner up! Tex Tech vs Ole Miss is interesting because of Ole Miss' defense...but Ole Miss at 8-4 is playing an 11-1 top 10 team...the SEC is not exactly evenly matched up this season.
I don't see any problem with the smaller bowl games. They are a chance for some smaller schools that worked their butt off to go to a bowl game. These kids deserve to enjoy the bowl games. It doesn't change the prestige of the upper level bowls, everyone knows which are the real bowl games, but why take away college football? I mean I love watching college football during the Christmas and New Year season, why take some of those games away? Especially when half of them turn into really good barn-burning games.
G
Guest
I can see both sides of this, on one hand it's more practice time and a special way to end the season on the other hand it kind of cheapens the bowls by having so many. I wish there were less bowl games and I long for the "good ole days" when the major bowl games were all played on New Years Day!! With the major conferences playing 12 game seasons, 6 wins should not be the minimum bowl qualification any longer. I say raise the minimum to 8.
I
imported_porkchop
I feel like from the perspective of "rewarding" schools there are too many bowl games. To me, it's hard to justify sending a team to a bowl because they finished with a winning record. As if they've accomplished a lot by winning one more than they've lost.
All in all though, I love watching college football and don't mind the extra bowl games from that perspective. The more the better.
All in all though, I love watching college football and don't mind the extra bowl games from that perspective. The more the better.
RollTide1980 said:
You say that and it was the Indy Bowl that played a large part in propelling the team to what they accomplished this year.
That said, if the requirement remains at 6 wins, it shouldn't count wins over FCS teams. If you have one on your schedule, it should be 7 wins...two, 8 W's and on down the line.
TerryP said:
I could care less about the Indy Outhouse Bowl, Terry. I don't care what it did for 'Bama either.
If you're proud to win 6 games...yet lose 6 games, the only bowl you need to be in...is the one in the bathroom.
Like another poster mentioned, if you win one more than you lose (7) is that really a great accomplishment? YAY! Thank goodness we beat LA-Monroe for HC...now we can go bowling. :roll:
I do understand what the Indy bowl did for Bama in retrospect, but the only reason we get the "6 win benefit" is b/c we travel well.
In my opinion if you consider yourself an "elite team" and finish 6-6, you should have enough class to STAY HOME! You don't need the money and you're keeping an up and coming team from a bowl bid.
~Bryan
G
Guest
While I do admit that many of these "Whatever.com" bowls are no big deal, they are a really great experience for the kids. These guys get a chance to be squired around for a week and treated like they are someone special. Most will never get treatment like that again.
I do believe that the bowl ought to have to pick up the travel tab (or some of it) for the teams because many of the smaller schools (Memphis, Southern Miss, etc) end up losing money on the deal when they go to a bowl that has a sub-500k payout.
I do believe that the bowl ought to have to pick up the travel tab (or some of it) for the teams because many of the smaller schools (Memphis, Southern Miss, etc) end up losing money on the deal when they go to a bowl that has a sub-500k payout.
G
Guest
Big_Fan said:
If you look at the Bowls that the SEC is affiliated with the SEC is AT BEST paired with their corresponding equal (i.e. SEC #4 vs ACC #4). On a whole EVERY year we as playing an unfair Bowl schedule...and yet we do alright...which goes to show WE'RE #1 of course.
Other than the BCS NC game, there is no clear stated purpose for bowl games. In the past folks have adopted the "...its a reward..." approach, but that is not the case now and likely was not the driving purpose in the beginning anyway. Commercialism was ans is. The Rose Bowl as one of several events that was created surrounding the Rose Festival (like pie-eating contest at the county fair), but it proved wildly popular, so other citys followed netting visitors attention to their local flavor and products/images. As time went on, the teams began to reap greater reward from bowling, so much so that Notre Dame overrode its "NO BOWL" stance, which it did for some reason that had been sound up until it started hurting the program.
Bowls have been a Win-Win situations, and now we have picked some number out of the air as a qualifying cut-off. But believe you me, if thirty more cities came to the NCAA's door tomorrow offering millions each to be allowed to host a Bowl, that not-so-magical 6 win standard would be done away with. We have 32 Bowls because there are 32 acceptable opportunities. This is why I believe that as long as the BCS is not the only Bowls, open up every team to the opportunity bowl.
Then money and attention has made college football stronger, and that has bled over into other sports as well. There are cities who do not have a college team, but have a bowl, and an now follower of football because of this. It is why the NFL is playing games in London, and Mexico City.
Similar threads
- SEC Sports
- Our Fansights
- 5
- 196
- SEC Sports
- Our Fansights
- 0
- 108