+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Lounge (/forum-564.html)
+---- Forum: College Sports and Conference Realignment (/forum-637.html)
+---- Thread: Bowl Regulation (/thread-838373.html)
Bowl Regulation - BePcr07 - 12-26-2017 01:03 PM
This season, 78 schools made bowl games. Only 40 schools made bowl games 20 yeas ago. The subject of bowl game reduction has been discussed ad nauseam but I think its time for a final decision. Bowl games used to a reward for a great season. Today, bowl games are used as money machines and a reward for a season at or above average. The decision should be to either limit the number of bowl games or give everyone a bowl game.
I would vote for bowl contraction to 30 bowls (60 schools). I chose this number because over the past 3 seasons, the FBS has averaged 63 7+ win schools so 60 gives us slightly better than that. I would like to see it closer to 20-25 bowls but with 130 schools, 60 seems like a fair number. Independents aren't included in here but they would be free to contract with bowls and those bowls would have the option of choosing that independent or the tie-in. Every non-power conference plays at least 1 power conference in a bowl game. Using today's conference alignments, here's how I'd divide up the bowl tie-ins:
NY6
Championship Game: semi-final winners
Rose: B1G vs. PAC
Sugar: SEC vs. XII
Orange: ACC vs. SEC
Cotton: XII vs. B1G
Fiesta: PAC vs. MWC
Peach: ACC vs. AAC
Fiesta / Peach - CUSA/SBC/MAC may switch a bowl game with MWC/AAC if ranked higher.
Other Bowls
Citrus: ACC vs. SEC
Alamo: PAC vs. XII
Hall of Fame: SEC vs. B1G
Bluebonnet: XII vs. B1G
Holiday: MWC vs. XII
Tangerine: ACC vs. XII
Music City: SEC vs. PAC
Liberty: AAC vs. SEC
Queen City: ACC vs. SBC
Pinstripe: ACC vs. B1G
San Francisco: PAC vs. B1G
Sun: PAC vs. XII
Gator: SEC vs. B1G
Las Vegas: PAC vs. ACC
Military: AAC vs. ACC
Birmingham: CUSA vs. MAC
Motor City: MAC vs. B1G
Cactus: MWC vs. SBC
Armed Forces: CUSA vs. AAC
Independence: CUSA vs. SEC
Hawaii: MWC vs. AAC
Idaho Potato: MWC vs. MAC
New Mexico: MAC vs. SBC
New Orleans: SBC vs. CUSA
OR
Get rid of tie-ins altogether and just let the bowls pick schools based on certain criteria like record, OOC games requirements, etc.
RE: Bowl Regulation - Erictelevision - 12-26-2017 01:08 PM
I'd just get rid of the bowls ESPN owns/invented. I'd also have no problem getting rid of preset tie-ins.
RE: Bowl Regulation - HeartOfDixie - 12-26-2017 01:09 PM
I think more bowl games is a good thing.
Its a good experience for the kids. A reduction in bowl game numbers would only hurt the smaller programs and the kids who play for them.
RE: Bowl Regulation - quo vadis - 12-26-2017 01:48 PM
Bottom line is if they wacked 20 of the 40 bowls, it would just mean that a whole lot of G5 teams would no longer play in bowl games.
Instead of 7 AAC and Sun Belt teams in bowls there would be maybe 2 from each.
RE: Bowl Regulation - bullet - 12-26-2017 01:50 PM
(12-26-2017 01:48 PM)quo vadis Wrote: Bottom line is if they wacked 20 of the 40 bowls, it would just mean that a whole lot of G5 teams would no longer play in bowl games.
True. We'd still see 6-6 P5 schools playing.
Fact is most schools lose money on bowls.
Give everyone two weeks of extra practice, limit bowls to teams with 8 wins and reduce the number of bowls accordingly.
RE: Bowl Regulation - BePcr07 - 12-26-2017 01:52 PM
(12-26-2017 01:50 PM)bullet Wrote:(12-26-2017 01:48 PM)quo vadis Wrote: Bottom line is if they wacked 20 of the 40 bowls, it would just mean that a whole lot of G5 teams would no longer play in bowl games.
True. We'd still see 6-6 P5 schools playing.
Fact is most schools lose money on bowls.
Give everyone two weeks of extra practice, limit bowls to teams with 8 wins and reduce the number of bowls accordingly.
Agreed. One of my points was to limit the bowls but put in requirements: 8 wins, no more than 1 FCS school, at least 1 power OOC for non-power schools, meet certain academic standard, no more than 7 home games, etc.
RE: Bowl Regulation - HeartOfDixie - 12-26-2017 01:56 PM
(12-26-2017 01:52 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:(12-26-2017 01:50 PM)bullet Wrote:(12-26-2017 01:48 PM)quo vadis Wrote: Bottom line is if they wacked 20 of the 40 bowls, it would just mean that a whole lot of G5 teams would no longer play in bowl games.
True. We'd still see 6-6 P5 schools playing.
Fact is most schools lose money on bowls.
Give everyone two weeks of extra practice, limit bowls to teams with 8 wins and reduce the number of bowls accordingly.
Agreed. One of my points was to limit the bowls but put in requirements: 8 wins, no more than 1 FCS school, at least 1 power OOC for non-power schools, meet certain academic standard, no more than 7 home games, etc.
Now we are getting somewhere, you are just wanting to change the rules to fit your opinion which stands against the big P5 programs.
RE: Bowl Regulation - BePcr07 - 12-26-2017 02:12 PM
(12-26-2017 01:56 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:(12-26-2017 01:52 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:(12-26-2017 01:50 PM)bullet Wrote:(12-26-2017 01:48 PM)quo vadis Wrote: Bottom line is if they wacked 20 of the 40 bowls, it would just mean that a whole lot of G5 teams would no longer play in bowl games.
True. We'd still see 6-6 P5 schools playing.
Fact is most schools lose money on bowls.
Give everyone two weeks of extra practice, limit bowls to teams with 8 wins and reduce the number of bowls accordingly.
Agreed. One of my points was to limit the bowls but put in requirements: 8 wins, no more than 1 FCS school, at least 1 power OOC for non-power schools, meet certain academic standard, no more than 7 home games, etc.
Now we are getting somewhere, you are just wanting to change the rules to fit your opinion which stands against the big P5 programs.
I can see why you'd say that but that's not it at all. The examples I gave for "bowl requirements" were only possibilities. In no way am I for or against any of them. If the bowl standard is unlimited FCS schools OOC then fine. If the bowl standard is no fewer than 4 road games then fine. I really don't care what the standards are. If you want my "official" opinion, if there is bowl contraction then there should be strict bowl standards applied equally amongst all schools. If it came across as something different, I apologize.
RE: Bowl Regulation - dbackjon - 12-26-2017 02:17 PM
Not sure why more bowls offends anyone. If you don't want to watch, don't. I am more offended by 8, 9, 10 win teams staying home than the occasional 5-7 team getting in.
RE: Bowl Regulation - HeartOfDixie - 12-26-2017 02:23 PM
(12-26-2017 02:12 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:(12-26-2017 01:56 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:(12-26-2017 01:52 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:(12-26-2017 01:50 PM)bullet Wrote:(12-26-2017 01:48 PM)quo vadis Wrote: Bottom line is if they wacked 20 of the 40 bowls, it would just mean that a whole lot of G5 teams would no longer play in bowl games.
True. We'd still see 6-6 P5 schools playing.
Fact is most schools lose money on bowls.
Give everyone two weeks of extra practice, limit bowls to teams with 8 wins and reduce the number of bowls accordingly.
Agreed. One of my points was to limit the bowls but put in requirements: 8 wins, no more than 1 FCS school, at least 1 power OOC for non-power schools, meet certain academic standard, no more than 7 home games, etc.
Now we are getting somewhere, you are just wanting to change the rules to fit your opinion which stands against the big P5 programs.
I can see why you'd say that but that's not it at all. The examples I gave for "bowl requirements" were only possibilities. In no way am I for or against any of them. If the bowl standard is unlimited FCS schools OOC then fine. If the bowl standard is no fewer than 4 road games then fine. I really don't care what the standards are. If you want my "official" opinion, if there is bowl contraction then there should be strict bowl standards applied equally amongst all schools. If it came across as something different, I apologize.
No, I'll apologize to you.
Fair enough on your point and I agree with you actually.
RE: Bowl Regulation - BePcr07 - 12-26-2017 02:44 PM
(12-26-2017 02:17 PM)dbackjon Wrote: Not sure why more bowls offends anyone. If you don't want to watch, don't. I am more offended by 8, 9, 10 win teams staying home than the occasional 5-7 team getting in.
Definitely agree - I don't watch many bowl games mainly because I don't have enough time! I will make time for the CFP bowls and probably most of the other NY6 bowls as well as a couple others. I would be okay giving every school a bowl game if they continue adding bowls. My reasoning in limiting bowls is that it waters down the meaning.
If everyone gets a trophy then getting a trophy doesn't mean anything. If every school gets a bowl then, outside of the CFP, every bowl doesn't mean anything. I would concede that even if they limited the number of bowls that all bowls outside the CFP wouldn't mean anything but it would feel much more significant to the players. Personally, I hate getting recognition that everyone gets. If everyone is special then no one is. If you're going to give 60% of schools a bowl game then give all schools a bowl game.
RE: Bowl Regulation - OdinFrigg - 12-26-2017 03:41 PM
Agree, no one is forced to watch. That said, with the proliferation of bowls, only the CFP plus several of the old time, traditional games carry much meaning. Still, those schools in G-5 conferences that have fine seasons for the most part, do get an opportunity at post-season play.
The realistic goal for many is just to become bowl eligible with six wins usually. Beyond further TV exposure, and perhaps a few more dollars, the extra practice time is desired.
Corporate sponsors and advertising, plus communities wanting extra tourist business, are a driving force along with conferences seeking to place everybody who is possible eligible. A revised system may need to be considered.
RE: Bowl Regulation - orangefan - 12-26-2017 03:44 PM
Even the crappy bowls get decent television numbers. The 27 bowls on rated networks that were not part of the NY6 averaged over 3 million viewers per game last season. All but one had over 1 million viewers. The prior two years none had fewer than 1 million viewers. If you don't find them interesting, don't watch them.
RE: Bowl Regulation - DavidSt - 12-26-2017 03:49 PM
Would that be 131 teams when Liberty joins? Not sure what they will do if others join Liberty this route.
RE: Bowl Regulation - dbackjon - 12-26-2017 03:50 PM
(12-26-2017 03:49 PM)DavidSt Wrote: Would that be 131 teams when Liberty joins? Not sure what they will do if others join Liberty this route.
Still 130 as Idaho returns to the Big Sky/FCS
RE: Bowl Regulation - ken d - 12-26-2017 03:55 PM
(12-26-2017 01:09 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: I think more bowl games is a good thing.
Its a good experience for the kids. A reduction in bowl game numbers would only hurt the smaller programs and the kids who play for them.
Somewhere along the way, it became a truism that the bowls were a reward to teams for having a good season. But that wasn't anybody's motivation when most of the bowls were centered around New Year's Day, and there were only a dozen or so of them. The reality is that all the motivation was to benefit the locations where the bowls were held. They were meant to aid hotels and restaurants looking to extend tourist season to include winter vacations at warm weather sites.
Television networks were quick to realize they could also fill the holidays with live sports programming. But when we are talking about networks, we were basically talking about NBC, ABC and CBS. There was no cable tv, with its voracious need to fill hours of programming. The number of bowls is limited only by the available broadcast windows to show them, and the willingness of enough people to watch them instead of something else (like yet another episode of Law & Order SVU, or showing of It's a Wonderful Life).
I'm with those who say if you don't like so many bowls, don't watch them. As far as I'm concerned, there should be as many as the viewing market will bear. I couldn't care less how many wins or losses the participants have.
RE: Bowl Regulation - DavidSt - 12-26-2017 04:15 PM
(12-26-2017 03:55 PM)ken d Wrote:(12-26-2017 01:09 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: I think more bowl games is a good thing.
Its a good experience for the kids. A reduction in bowl game numbers would only hurt the smaller programs and the kids who play for them.
Somewhere along the way, it became a truism that the bowls were a reward to teams for having a good season. But that wasn't anybody's motivation when most of the bowls were centered around New Year's Day, and there were only a dozen or so of them. The reality is that all the motivation was to benefit the locations where the bowls were held. They were meant to aid hotels and restaurants looking to extend tourist season to include winter vacations at warm weather sites.
Television networks were quick to realize they could also fill the holidays with live sports programming. But when we are talking about networks, we were basically talking about NBC, ABC and CBS. There was no cable tv, with its voracious need to fill hours of programming. The number of bowls is limited only by the available broadcast windows to show them, and the willingness of enough people to watch them instead of something else (like yet another episode of Law & Order SVU, or showing of It's a Wonderful Life).
I'm with those who say if you don't like so many bowls, don't watch them. As far as I'm concerned, there should be as many as the viewing market will bear. I couldn't care less how many wins or losses the participants have.
Well, there seems to be some good places to have more bowls at.
Western Sizzling Beef Bowl in Canyon, Texas. Amarillo would love the business.
Sooner Bowl usually warm at times in Norman. Somebody should grab West Texas a&M and Central Oklahoma in the next 10 years.
Navy's Pensacola Wings of Gold Bowl in Pensacola, Florida
Jaguar Bowl in Jacksonville, Florida North Florida should add football.
Little Rock Bowl
Southern Rebel Bowl in Jackson, Mississippi
Bring back some of the defunct bowls as well.
RE: Bowl Regulation - Frank the Tank - 12-26-2017 04:18 PM
Why more bowl regulation? I’d rather have more *deregulation*. If two teams:conferences can make some more extra money after the season regardless of their records, they ought to be free to enter into contracts as they wish. Let the free market reign... and the free market says that the bowl games get as good of ratings as anything at this time of year.
RE: Bowl Regulation - chargeradio - 12-26-2017 04:20 PM
My main concern is if/when the TV bubble bursts, how many of these bowls survive? Some bowls have poor attendance nearly every year (Hawaii, Bahamas). Would the G5 say to ESPN, rather than flushing a couple of million away on some pre-Christmas bowls, why not just add it to our TV contract?
RE: Bowl Regulation - BePcr07 - 12-26-2017 04:30 PM
(12-26-2017 04:18 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote: Why more bowl regulation? I’d rather have more *deregulation*. If two teams:conferences can make some more extra money after the season regardless of their records, they ought to be free to enter into contracts as they wish. Let the free market reign... and the free market says that the bowl games get as good of ratings as anything at this time of year.
Agree. My two points were either highly regulate the bowls or not at all.