Too Many Bowls???

.

I agree JMoff...the bowl season is too long. After awhile you run out of 'em and you half to eat your cereal out of over-sized coffee mugs. Or a saucepan lid. Or even stapling shut the business end of one of those disposable oil change funnels. Everything is fair game when you're hungry.





.

quote:

Originally posted by JMoff:
It seems like every year there are a few more bowl games.

Are this many games good for college programs? How many teams are losing money to go play a mid-late December, "made for ESPN" bowl played in front of an empty stadium on a weekday evening against a far inferior/superior team?

Is this good for college sports?

I'm longing for the days when the bowl season started on New Year's Day and ended on New Year's Day...

It's great for college football and college football fans and the teams that otherwise would not be playing. A great case-in-point is this year's New Mexico Bowl. It would have been a shame if that game had not existed. What a treat for all involved and anyone watching on TV or at the stadium.

quote:

Originally posted by jemaz:

It's great for college football and college football fans and the teams that otherwise would not be playing. A great case-in-point is this year's New Mexico Bowl. It would have been a shame if that game had not existed. What a treat for all involved and anyone watching on TV or at the stadium.

I just wonder if we haven't dilluted the field too much.

JEMAZ: The U of A comeback was very exciting, but there have been some stinkers since then. For instance, the ASU / Navy game. I pull for the home team, but I don't like to see a US Military Academy getting beat up. ASU did nothing wrong with how they played the game, but why is Navy even in that game in the first place? There have been many others.

It just seems to me we're rewarding too many 6-6 teams with bowl bids.

I think there should be a minimum requirement for a team to have at least 9 wins or finish at least second in their conference to play in a bowl game to ensure we have the best teams playing at the end.

Just me.

quote:

Originally posted by JMoff:

quote:

Originally posted by jemaz:

It's great for college football and college football fans and the teams that otherwise would not be playing. A great case-in-point is this year's New Mexico Bowl. It would have been a shame if that game had not existed. What a treat for all involved and anyone watching on TV or at the stadium.

I just wonder if we haven't dilluted the field too much.

JEMAZ: The U of A comeback was very exciting, but there have been some stinkers since then. For instance, the ASU / Navy game. I pull for the home team, but I don't like to see a US Military Academy getting beat up. ASU did nothing wrong with how they played the game, but why is Navy even in that game in the first place? There have been many others.

It just seems to me we're rewarding too many 6-6 teams with bowl bids.

I think there should be a minimum requirement for a team to have at least 9 wins or finish at least second in their conference to play in a bowl game to ensure we have the best teams playing at the end.

Just me.

I don't know any ASU fans who would agree with you. For sure, the game today gives the Sun Devil amazing momentum going into next year in terms of the progress that was achieved during bowl practices, the confidence the team will have going forward and the heightened expectations that might be a powerful motivating factor next season. What others might have viewed as a boring mismatch, I viewed as a remarkable display of progress for a first-year coach and his program.

So, as a college football fan, I must say I might not see a need for any more bowl games, but I definitely do not want fewer.

.

More bowls this morning would be a good thing cuz' I'm nearly outta' these.





.

Now we have teams with losing records in bowls. See GTECH, 6-7.

Probaly too many but the players enjoy the reward . After all the schools and networks are making billions off football and the kids get free education .

Give the bowl games significance; use them for playoffs. I hate the BCS.

Way too many bowls. The "Meinke Auto Care Bowl of Texas"??

For me its not the amount of bowl games but the match ups that I don't like. This thing where teams from certain conferences are locked into to certain bowl games is not good for the match ups. I would have loved to see Ohio play Michigan. I would have loved to see Oregon State play a team like Ga. For me its the lack luster match ups not as much the amount of games played. I really like the NIU FSU match up. I want to see how NIU stacks up. I would have loved to see Ohio play one of the big boys in a bowl game.

Way to many bowl games IMO.

How does a Duke team that lost it's last four games while giving up 600 yards per game deserve a post season honor. They are only one of many mediorce 6-6 teams that should have been done by Thanksgiving.

Also, many of these schools lose money on bowl games with travel expenses and guaranteed seats, so what's the point? A little exposure? This might be negative exposure with a bad outing.

quote:

Originally posted by fillsfan:
Way to many bowl games IMO.

How does a Duke team that lost it's last four games while giving up 600 yards per game deserve a post season honor. They are only one of many mediorce 6-6 teams that should have been done by Thanksgiving.

Also, many of these schools lose money on bowl games with travel expenses and guaranteed seats, so what's the point? A little exposure? This might be negative exposure with a bad outing.

But what an exciting game it was with a gut-wrenching finish. As a fan of ACC football (one of the few), I would not have missed it. And I guarantee for Duke, which has not won a bowl game in 50 years, it was a thrill not to be missed. For those not interested, the simple solution is not to watch.

I will guarantee this, though, if the game does not provide some level of meaningful economic benefit, it will go away of its own accord. That is true of any bowl game. And even after the playoff system comes into play in a couple of years, these lesser bowl games will continue to exist for all sorts of good reasons. The primary beneficiaries are the players themselves and the fans of the schools involved.

So, I ask, if there are indeed too many bowl games, too many for whom?

quote:

Originally posted by Coach_May:
For me its not the amount of bowl games but the match ups that I don't like...

Better matchups would definitely help. I've used the ASU - Navy example above, but there were a lot of them. ASU played a heck of a game for sure and the extra practices are beneficial going into the spring, but the game was basically over after the first 20 minutes. ASU was locked in because they finished sixth in the PAC-12. Navy signed a contract to play in the Kraft Hunger Bowl if they were "bowl eligible" (6-6 or better)

Many of these bowls are set up with similar parameters.

I agree with using the bowls as a playoff system. Pick the top 16 teams using whatever method and let them have at it over four weeks and use the bowls to play the games. Make New Year's the final four or something like that.

1 vs. 16 is still a better matchup than some of these games.

quote:

Originally posted by JMoff:

quote:

Originally posted by Coach_May:
For me its not the amount of bowl games but the match ups that I don't like...

Better matchups would definitely help. I've used the ASU - Navy example above, but there were a lot of them. ASU played a heck of a game for sure and the extra practices are beneficial going into the spring, but the game was basically over after the first 20 minutes. ASU was locked in because they finished sixth in the PAC-12. Navy signed a contract to play in the Kraft Hunger Bowl if they were "bowl eligible" (6-6 or better)

Many of these bowls are set up with similar parameters.

I agree with using the bowls as a playoff system. Pick the top 16 teams using whatever method and let them have at it over four weeks and use the bowls to play the games. Make New Year's the final four or something like that.

1 vs. 16 is still a better matchup than some of these games.

So, JMoff, Navy came into the game with an 8-4 record. ASU, of course, was 7-5 and one play away from playing for the Pac 12 championship in place of UCLA. Both teams earned their way into the game.

Navy, obviously, was none too happy with the outcome, but I was enthralled, along with Sun Devils everywhere. I savored every play until the end. And what great story lines throughout. Best of all was the great coverage this morning in the Arizona Republic and the momentum for the entire program. I guarantee that ASU ticket sales will be at least 20 percent higher next year based on the bowl victory alone, which makes the game very much worthwhile.

And, as we already have discussed, Arizona (a loser to ASU) got a similar boost in its thrilling bowl victory over Nevada (on paper, at least, a much lesser opponent).

I must say, I look forward to everyone of these games and I am disappointed when the season finally comes to a close. But, I will admit, I am a college football junkie through and through, especially when it comes to the Sun Devils and the Hokies.

quote:

Originally posted by jemaz:

So, JMoff, Navy came into the game with an 8-4 record. ASU, of course, was 7-5 and one play away from playing for the Pac 12 championship in place of UCLA. Both teams earned their way into the game.

Navy, obviously, was none too happy with the outcome, but I was enthralled, along with Sun Devils everywhere.

I'm not dissing ASU at all. I think they were much better than a typical #6 team in the PAC-12, which contributed to the missmatch. In another year, they're playing a better team in a better bowl. For the record, I don't think Arizona or Nevada should have played in a bowl either, even though it wound up entertaining for those who stuck it out to the end.


Many of these games have just not been that fun to watch. The scores of all bowls played so far have been: 41-15, 49-48, 23-6, 38-17, 43-34, 28-26, 43-10, 24-21, 48-34, 29-20, 49-26, 13-10, 34-31, 45-14, 38-14, 17-16, 62-28, 31-27 and 33-14. Of 19 games, only 9 games have finished with less than a 14 point differential (and I missed three of the good ones).

There are still 16 games left, including the national championship game. A total of 70 out of the 124 schools in the FBS will play in a bowl game this year. Only 47 FBS schools weren't bowl elligible (according to the standings in Wikipedia). If this were HS sports we'd be complaining too many teams are making the post season.

I'm a big college football fan as well and I really like watching them, but it seems saturated to me.

More schools in bowl games means more money for the school and more BASEBALL scholarships they can fund...

...I wish!!

Anyone who says there are too many bowl games is not a big fan of college football. Sorry, you're not. I think there were 3 bowl games on TV this past Saturday. What would you rather watch if you were watching TV? College football or ice skating? Granted, you could say college basketball or maybe the NBA, but you have from January 8th until those seasons end, so why not enjoy some college football the last week or so of the season. Last chance until Labor Day weekend.

I guess by the "too many bowl" thinking we need to change other sports too.

No need for the NFL playoffs, just let the Broncos and Patriots play the Super Bowl next weekend.

Why the need for MLB playoffs, we should have just let the Nationals and Yankees play a one game Wolrd Series.

Who needs a college world series, just let the top two teams at the end of season play one game to decide the championship. Also, whats with the 3 game series every weekend. Lets just have one game every weekend. TOO MANY GAMES!!!

Bowls are to be a reward for a good year. Is 6-6 a good year? How about GTECH at 6-7, is that a good year? What happens is these bowls turn around and force the schools to buy x number of tickets. If the year is average, then fans like me have no interest in going to them. The school then turns around and loses $$ on this deal because they are stuck with tickets for which they cannot sell, but have the financial obligation to the bowl to buy them.

This then affects the non-revenue sports like baseball because of the deficit.

Did you see how empty RFK stadium was on Friday?

NBA and NHL both have too many playoff rounds/games. Is it really necessary to have 2 1/2 months of playoffs?

Even baseball added the play-in game. Was that really needed? Obviously it's all about the money for all sports, college and pro. Before money took over what you describe Mizzou is the way it was.

Although at least the playoffs lead to something, a championship. The obscure bowl games lead to nothing, except maybe the concussion the Duke player got banging heads...twice

quote:

Anyone who says there are too many bowl games is not a big fan of college football. Sorry, you're not. I think there were 3 bowl games on TV this past Saturday.

I disagree. Because I choose to quit watching (poor) college football after 14-15 weeks of it, I'm not a fan? Why don't we let the big boys just beat up on some nobody states again?

I spent Wednesday-Saturday watching high school basketball instead.

quote:

Originally posted by Mark B:
Bowls are to be a reward for a good year. Is 6-6 a good year? How about GTECH at 6-7, is that a good year? What happens is these bowls turn around and force the schools to buy x number of tickets. If the year is average, then fans like me have no interest in going to them. The school then turns around and loses $$ on this deal because they are stuck with tickets for which they cannot sell, but have the financial obligation to the bowl to buy them.

This then affects the non-revenue sports like baseball because of the deficit.

Did you see how empty RFK stadium was on Friday?

Georgia Tech is in a bowl at 6-7 because the loser of the ACC championship game gets an automatic spot. GT was in the game against Florida State because both Miami and North Carolina were ineligible for NCAA transgressions, so it is an unusual circumstances that ordinarily would not be the case. On the other hand, without losing that game, GT would have been 6-6 and in a bowl game.

Again, I ask, if the GT community and its players get something out of the bowl game, who is it hurting. It is simply to turn to another station if you are not interested in the game, especially when you have 200 channels available. And, as I said earlier, the moment the game fails to have a positive economic impact, it will cease to exist.

quote:

Originally posted by jemaz:

quote:

Originally posted by Mark B:
Bowls are to be a reward for a good year. Is 6-6 a good year? How about GTECH at 6-7, is that a good year? What happens is these bowls turn around and force the schools to buy x number of tickets. If the year is average, then fans like me have no interest in going to them. The school then turns around and loses $$ on this deal because they are stuck with tickets for which they cannot sell, but have the financial obligation to the bowl to buy them.

This then affects the non-revenue sports like baseball because of the deficit.

Did you see how empty RFK stadium was on Friday?

Georgia Tech is in a bowl at 6-7 because the loser of the ACC championship game gets an automatic spot. GT was in the game against Florida State because both Miami and North Carolina were ineligible for NCAA transgressions, so it is an unusual circumstances that ordinarily would not be the case. On the other hand, without losing that game, GT would have been 6-6 and in a bowl game.

Again, I ask, if the GT community and its players get something out of the bowl game, who is it hurting. It is simply to turn to another station if you are not interested in the game, especially when you have 200 channels available. And, as I said earlier, the moment the game fails to have a positive economic impact, it will cease to exist.

The bowl may not lose money, but the schools can on some of these bowls. Again the bowl forces the two schools to buy x number of tickets plus the bowls has various sponsors along with tv so the bowl does not lose money, but the school can and often does in these 6-6 or 7-5 bowls and that affects the entire athletic departments spending, meaning non-revenue sports.

quote:

Originally posted by Mark B:
The bowl may not lose money, but the schools can on some of these bowls. Again the bowl forces the two schools to buy x number of tickets plus the bowls has various sponsors along with tv so the bowl does not lose money, but the school can and often does in these 6-6 or 7-5 bowls and that affects the entire athletic departments spending, meaning non-revenue sports.

Yes, some schools may lose money on bowl games. I remmeber a few years ago, Mizzou was in a bowl and the AD said they did lose money on that game, but the football program as a whole made money that year, as well as the athletic department as a whole. I dont remember the AD saying they were cutting ANYTHING from the non revenue sports because of losing money in the bowl game. Money was made elsewhere to make up for it. I am sure it is that way at other schools.

Not once have I heard a school making cuts elsewhere in the athletic department because the football program lost money by going to a bowl game. Can you name me one? I could be wrong.

And what does all this have to do with my enjoyment of having the opportunity to watch extra college football from December 9th to Janaury 7th? I like the bowls. Im bummed Im at work and missing some of them now.

As a side note... that 6-7 Georgia Tech team leads preseason unanimous #1 ranked USC going into the 4th quarter. That certainly has some intrigue to it.

What an awful season for USC. They didnt want to be at this bowl game according to the announcers.Several players twittered about not wanting to be at this bowl.Look what happened,you lost.Poor representation in all aspects.

quote:

Georgia Tech is in a bowl at 6-7 because the loser of the ACC championship game gets an automatic spot. GT was in the game against Florida State because both Miami and North Carolina were ineligible for NCAA transgressions, so it is an unusual circumstances that ordinarily would not be the case.

I'm not sure how "unusual" things are when this is the second time in two years it has happened.

I also think it's sad when a team is in a bowl game after their head coach is fired for underperformning....

quote:

Originally posted by Bulldog 19:

quote:

Georgia Tech is in a bowl at 6-7 because the loser of the ACC championship game gets an automatic spot. GT was in the game against Florida State because both Miami and North Carolina were ineligible for NCAA transgressions, so it is an unusual circumstances that ordinarily would not be the case.

I'm not sure how "unusual" things are when this is the second time in two years it has happened.

I also think it's sad when a team is in a bowl game after their head coach is fired for underperformning....

There is a general rule that a team must have at least a .500 record to be bowl eligible, so it is an unusual set of circumstances when it does occur.

Bowl games are a waste unless playing for the national championship.. All those other bowl games really don't mean much other than revenue for the schools.

One thing this myriad of bowl games shows is that the big schools are more than capable of having a playoff system. Although there are those who still argue it's not doable "so the kids can attend class."

quote:

Originally posted by zombywoof:
Bowl games are a waste unless playing for the national championship.. All those other bowl games really don't mean much other than revenue for the schools.

Unless you're a fan of college football. You're right. The Clemson/LSU game was a complete waste.

quote:

Originally posted by Bulldog 19:
One thing this myriad of bowl games shows is that the big schools are more than capable of having a playoff system. Although there are those who still argue it's not doable "so the kids can attend class."

Wait you mean classes are going on? I thought it was winter break from mid - December to Mid January.....you know about four weeks.

Wouldn't it take four weeks to play a sixteen team playoff?

It would take a total of 15 bowls to do a whole 16 team playoff. Do the playoffs on a Saturday and the rest of the week can have the other bowls not in the playoffs. Rotate all the lower bowls so they have a chance to be in a spotlight.

quote:

Wait you mean classes are going on? I thought it was winter break from mid - December to Mid January.....you know about four weeks.

I didn't say their excuse was actually valid...

Here is an interesting tidbit on bowl revenue.

I am not sure how it's decided, who plays which bowl, but I guess programs have opportunities to make money, and I am not sure how anyone "loses".

http://www.collegefootballpoll...s_bowl_schedule.html

Here's another one but I am not sure I understand the payouts.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...2-bcs_n_1174808.html

This a paragraph from an article in a Philly paper. The article was about Villanova and what's happening with the big East.

"But so far, the big bet hasn't paid off. Even going to the Fiesta Bowl two seasons back after winning the Big East cost the school. UConn spent $2.9 million from unsold tickets out of its 17,500-ticket allotment, $1.1 million for travel and housing, including $550,000 for the band and cheerleaders, and $164,428 in meals at a high-end resort hotel where UConn was required to stay. (Lodging alone was $211,496.) Meanwhile, the school's cut from the $18 million paid to the Big East was $2.523 million. (The school also received funds from other Big East schools' bowl appearances.)"

Apparently the big payouts goes to the conference and then split with each team.

I haven't watched all the bowl games but the one trend I see is the announcers making the comment about motivation to play or coach the game. A team is playing well although there is no motivation to play or a team has lost X number of bowls games in a row and is motivated to win.

So where is this coming from? It's like they are trying to show that there are teams who don't want to play in certain bowls. I think several USC players tweeted about their game with Ga Tech and being in El Paso.

There's always the off button. No one is required to watch. The cities get exposure for tourism. The teams get to recruit saying they went to a bowl game.

Personally I can't get excited about watching teams who aren't at least 8-4 going into their bowl. I have noticed many of these games, including some of the big ones are not sold out. The only game I watched before New Years was the Holiday Bowl. I watched the end of the LSU - Clemson game at a party.

Over the last ten years I've lost my love of football thanks to the on going disaster that is the Jerry Jones run Cowboys and had really not watched a lot of college football either. But over the last couple of months I had my interest reawoken thanks to one player on a team I have never been a fan of--Johnny Manziel of Texas A & M. He destroyed a local 4A high school team in the playoffs a couple of years ago.

Last night he shut up anyone who feels he shouldn't have been the Heismann Trophy winner and destroyed Oklahoma. It's hard to take your eyes off him when A & M has the ball. I do believe I will be tuning in this Fall when the Tide rolls into College Station!

I don't think anyone questions Manziel's ability. There are traditionalists who question a freshman winning the Heisman. I did get a little tried of hearing Johnny Football over and over last night. Once is enough. Call him by his name before people get turned off and turn on him. A lot of people got sick of Tebow due to the announcers worshipping him every week when he was at Florida.

Must be the same traditionalists who voted for Cabrera for MVP!