I generally don't have a problem with the number of bowl games. I say who does it hurt?

The problem I'm seeing now is that there is a key indicator that illustrates that there are too many bowl games (aside from teams with losing records getting bowls). That indicator is the number of teams that are practically playing home games (i.e. literal home games or don't even leave their state). Bowls used to be about getting to send your team to a destination as reward. But look at this year's bowls. Thirty percent (30%) have a team playing a virtual home game or even a literal home game in some cases.

It's no longer a reward for the players and fans. It's a reward to the bowl committees to sell more tickets which they probably get a cut from.

here are a few positives to the qty as it exists today....

1. extra practices for participants is huge
2. recruiting....keeps one on the radar
3. proximity close to home generates $$$ and gives fans another opportunity to watch another game.....that will always drive the bus....

eliminating games will only make the g5 more irrelevant....

(12-05-2016 11:02 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  here are a few positives to the qty as it exists today....

1. extra practices for participants is huge
2. recruiting....keeps one on the radar
3. proximity close to home generates $$$ and gives fans another opportunity to watch another game.....that will always drive the bus....

eliminating games will only make the g5 more irrelevant....

Agreed

North Texas is getting a free seventh home game, in bowl season, against a known opponent. What's not to like?

It hasn't been a reward for the teams since 1975. Playoff has always made sense, but there's something fishy going on with this bowl system thing. It's dumb, imo.

(12-05-2016 11:43 AM)ScrappyFight Wrote:  North Texas is getting a free seventh home game, in bowl season, against a known opponent. What's not to like?

Perhaps the fact that we played seven road games this year, still went 8-4 after losing our QB and also beating your ass at your place. I don't know. Just a thought.

(12-05-2016 10:54 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  It's no longer a reward for the players and fans. It's a reward to the bowl committees to sell more tickets which they probably get a cut from.

There are people saying the playoff will never get to 8 teams, too much money left on the table at 4.

(12-05-2016 12:19 PM)wh49er Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 10:54 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  It's no longer a reward for the players and fans. It's a reward to the bowl committees to sell more tickets which they probably get a cut from.

There are people saying the playoff will never get to 8 teams, too much money left on the table at 4.

vs. four additional games.....highly doubtful.....

I'd like to see 'that' logic defined....

(12-05-2016 12:17 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 11:43 AM)ScrappyFight Wrote:  North Texas is getting a free seventh home game, in bowl season, against a known opponent. What's not to like?

Perhaps the fact that we played seven road games this year, still went 8-4 after losing our QB and also beating your ass at your place. I don't know. Just a thought.

We've been to a bowl game before with a losing record. Y'all remember that, don't you?

(12-05-2016 07:29 PM)Curtzilla Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 12:17 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 11:43 AM)ScrappyFight Wrote:  North Texas is getting a free seventh home game, in bowl season, against a known opponent. What's not to like?

Perhaps the fact that we played seven road games this year, still went 8-4 after losing our QB and also beating your ass at your place. I don't know. Just a thought.

We've been to a bowl game before with a losing record. Y'all remember that, don't you?

You've set the bar pretty high...

(12-05-2016 12:13 PM)T_Won1 Wrote:  It hasn't been a reward for the teams since 1975. Playoff has always made sense, but there's something fishy going on with this bowl system thing. It's dumb, imo.

I don't completely agree. Even in the mid-90s, plenty of damned good teams had to sit at home and watch the bowls on TV.

Bowl games since their existence have been about making money.

Let's not act like it was once a pure system.

(12-05-2016 10:54 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  I generally don't have a problem with the number of bowl games. I say who does it hurt?

The problem I'm seeing now is that there is a key indicator that illustrates that there are too many bowl games (aside from teams with losing records getting bowls). That indicator is the number of teams that are practically playing home games (i.e. literal home games or don't even leave their state). Bowls used to be about getting to send your team to a destination as reward. But look at this year's bowls. Thirty percent (30%) have a team playing a virtual home game or even a literal home game in some cases.

It's no longer a reward for the players and fans. It's a reward to the bowl committees to sell more tickets which they probably get a cut from.

Probably get a cut? Most def get a cut. The Bowl execs get all the money. That's what was hilarious about the BCS Bowls and their claim about donating to charitable organizations which was compete and utter BULLSHI

The ONLY bowl that ever donated was the Chik Fil A Bowl and that was minimal compared to the amount of money that was brought in. All this was covered in the book Death to the BCS

(12-05-2016 07:38 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 12:13 PM)T_Won1 Wrote:  It hasn't been a reward for the teams since 1975. Playoff has always made sense, but there's something fishy going on with this bowl system thing. It's dumb, imo.

I don't completely agree. Even in the mid-90s, plenty of damned good teams had to sit at home and watch the bowls on TV.

Back in late 90s when MAC Champ went to Motor City Bowl and that was it there were several 1 or 2 loss MAC schools that went nowhere.

(12-05-2016 10:54 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  I generally don't have a problem with the number of bowl games. I say who does it hurt?

The problem I'm seeing now is that there is a key indicator that illustrates that there are too many bowl games (aside from teams with losing records getting bowls). That indicator is the number of teams that are practically playing home games (i.e. literal home games or don't even leave their state). Bowls used to be about getting to send your team to a destination as reward. But look at this year's bowls. Thirty percent (30%) have a team playing a virtual home game or even a literal home game in some cases.

It's no longer a reward for the players and fans. It's a reward to the bowl committees to sell more tickets which they probably get a cut from.

Our conference will benefit from our 5-7 team playing in a bowl game. Remember, a 7th bowl game for our conference means more money for the league to split. If my 5-7 North Texas team didn't go to a bowl, it would have been some other conference's 5-7 team.

Yes, when it comes to the G5, committees look harder at teams that are closer to their bowls. Because they need to make money, and a team that is closer will travel better. In addition to that, the size of the university and the number of alumni in the area will also factor into their decisions.

When we went to the HOD back in 2014, I said this bowl really liked the way North Texas showed up for their bowl (35K). During the season, after North Texas had beaten Rice, Marshall, and Army, I said North Texas would be looking at the HOD if we were eligible. A while back I even reported that the HOD had representatives at our game when we beat Southern Miss. I not saying it's fair.

I think the same situation exists with the New Orleans Bowl and Southern Miss and LA Tech too. Those programs are close enough to travel in large numbers to New Orleans, and the bowl wants to make as much money as it can.

As a conference we need to develop better bowls for the eastern half of the conference. We need to get rid of the Hawaii and Bahamas and add a bowl in Nashville, and Virginia.

(12-05-2016 12:17 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 11:43 AM)ScrappyFight Wrote:  North Texas is getting a free seventh home game, in bowl season, against a known opponent. What's not to like?

Perhaps the fact that we played seven road games this year, still went 8-4 after losing our QB and also beating your ass at your place. I don't know. Just a thought.

Guess yall aren't the draw you think you are...bowl games are about tickets sold...sucks for the muts

(12-05-2016 07:38 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 12:13 PM)T_Won1 Wrote:  It hasn't been a reward for the teams since 1975. Playoff has always made sense, but there's something fishy going on with this bowl system thing. It's dumb, imo.

I don't completely agree. Even in the mid-90s, plenty of damned good teams had to sit at home and watch the bowls on TV.

I was being over dramatic. But I did learn in the early 90's that a bowl organization would take a 2-9 Notre Dame over a 10-1 Louisiana Tech because Notre Dame had more fans (meant more money for the bowl organization). I'm not sure how many years that was the case, or why bowls were even invented. No other sport in the world has a postseason like this. (that I know of). It's dumb.

ESPN ruined the bowl season in order to create more inventory. They own the majority of the bowls, almost all the lower tier ones, essentially choose the match ups, and keep almost all the money.

You say ruined, I say appreciative of many of our schools getting to play a bowl game, increase fan excitememt, increase player development and exposure

Teams that don't go at 8-4 don't deserve a reward.