https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...bowl-games

(06-15-2018 07:53 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...bowl-games

I'm a fan of college football and love the bowl season just as much as the regular season. My only gripe would be if we regularly see 5-7 teams going bowling. 6-6 is the absolute basement of bowl eligibility IMHO but an occasional (once every few years) 5-7 would be OK. At 43 bowl games we might have 5-7 teams bowling every year and that's not what I feel Bowl season should be about. In fact I would like to see a rule made that says all 7 or more win teams must be placed before any 6-6 team. The 6-6 teams can then go into a pool for the remaining open slots.

(06-15-2018 07:53 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...bowl-games

I'm probably in the minority here but I like bowl games. The more the merrier.

It's a long few weeks between conference title games and Christmas, so why not fill it with MORE college football?

If it comes down to watching a (5-7) Colorado State battle a (5-7) Temple or another rerun, boring "special" or Frosty the Snowman for the umpteenth time, give me football.

I would understand the "Too many bowls, participation trophy" argument if all bowls were the same and everyone had an equal shot of making one. We all know that's not how college football works though. Only certain teams are allowed to play in certain bowls and only elite teams will ever play in the CFP. The NCAA recently proposed a cap on how many bowl games each conference can have and guess what, all the P5 conferences are allowed to have 10+ bowl tie-ins while the G5 conferences get half that at best. So the next time someone complains about Myrtle Beach starting a bowl game for some G5 teams, they should ask themselves who really are the ones watering down bowl season? And if you support the current structure of the elites-only CFP, you have no room to complain about the addition of more bowls.

(06-15-2018 09:40 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  I would understand the "Too many bowls, participation trophy" argument if all bowls were the same and everyone had an equal shot of making one. We all know that's not how college football works though. Only certain teams are allowed to play in certain bowls and only elite teams will ever play in the CFP. The NCAA recently proposed a cap on how many bowl games each conference can have and guess what, all the P5 conferences are allowed to have 10+ bowl tie-ins while the G5 conferences get half that at best. So the next time someone complains about Myrtle Beach starting a bowl game for some G5 teams, they should ask themselves who really are the ones watering down bowl season? And if you support the current structure of the elites-only CFP, you have no room to complain about the addition of more bowls.

Without more bowl games what would the purpose of the G5 be? Outside of a team or two the G5 has almost nothing to play for....

I like bowl games as well, my main gripe is their history is cheapened and they become hard to follow due to naming conventions. For instance, a bowl begins with a corporate sponsor (e.g., Blockbuster), which subsequently switches to another bowl or quits sponsoring all together. It should be mandated that all bowls, not just playoff bowls, have a consistent name so they are easy to follow and establish consistency. Hell, this sport pimps "tradition" more than any other besides major league baseball. Exceptions would be if the bowl changes cities, then they can change their consistent name to be more applicable; no Utah Jazz situations, please.

There was something that was brought up in the article in the other thread about three new bowls. Conferences have history of schools getting bids to bowl games. Big West, WAC, MVC, Southland and Southern all had schools that went to bowl games that have history. Are they expecting more schools going the same route as Liberty? Or, would some conferences upgrade as a whole? MVFC schools could easily do it better than the other conferences I am talking about except for a couple. We might now starting to see a split in D1 for all sports coming.

(06-15-2018 09:09 AM)Georgia_Power_Company Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 07:53 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...bowl-games

I'm a fan of college football and love the bowl season just as much as the regular season. My only gripe would be if we regularly see 5-7 teams going bowling. 6-6 is the absolute basement of bowl eligibility IMHO but an occasional (once every few years) 5-7 would be OK. At 43 bowl games we might have 5-7 teams bowling every year and that's not what I feel Bowl season should be about. In fact I would like to see a rule made that says all 7 or more win teams must be placed before any 6-6 team. The 6-6 teams can then go into a pool for the remaining open slots.

I agree.

I'd rather see a 10-2 FCS school in a bowl than a 5-7 FBS team. If that were allowed, I think it would create a lot of interest.

The problem really boils down to the inability to predict the future.

The number you certify one year can leave a team that went 7-5 at home and the next year you have to take a 5-7 to fill slots.

It hasn't been that long since 2003 when Marshall won 8 including beating a top ten Kansas State and didn't bowl and Toledo won 8 with a top 10 win over Pitt and didn't bowl and Air Force won 7 including at Northwestern and didn't bowl.

I consider what happened in 2003 to be worse than a 5-7 making it.

(06-15-2018 09:16 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  I'm probably in the minority here but I like bowl games. The more the merrier.

This

(06-15-2018 01:09 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  The number you certify one year can leave a team that went 7-5 at home and the next year you have to take a 5-7 to fill slots.

Quote:I consider what happened in 2003 to be worse than a 5-7 making it.

And this.


If you don't like a bowl then don't watch it.

(06-15-2018 01:09 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  The problem really boils down to the inability to predict the future.

The number you certify one year can leave a team that went 7-5 at home and the next year you have to take a 5-7 to fill slots.

It hasn't been that long since 2003 when Marshall won 8 including beating a top ten Kansas State and didn't bowl and Toledo won 8 with a top 10 win over Pitt and didn't bowl and Air Force won 7 including at Northwestern and didn't bowl.

I consider what happened in 2003 to be worse than a 5-7 making it.

And NIU went 10-2 ranked as high as #8 BCS with wins over Alabama, Iowa State, and #15 Maryland (10-3) and didn’t go bowling.

(06-15-2018 01:09 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  The problem really boils down to the inability to predict the future.

The number you certify one year can leave a team that went 7-5 at home and the next year you have to take a 5-7 to fill slots.

It hasn't been that long since 2003 when Marshall won 8 including beating a top ten Kansas State and didn't bowl and Toledo won 8 with a top 10 win over Pitt and didn't bowl and Air Force won 7 including at Northwestern and didn't bowl.

I consider what happened in 2003 to be worse than a 5-7 making it.

Thats my feeling. Frankly, I think its a spot where G5 "cooperation" might make a difference. I think it is in the interests of the G5 to make a selfish "concession" here. Each G5 conference should immediately vote to bar its 5-7 members from playing in bowls. Why? Because its an outstanding way to artificially manufacture increasingly rare G5 vs P5 matchups in the lower tier bowls. But it only works if all 5 G5 conferences work together and pass the same rule.

My problem with the bowl structure is that 6-6 P5s, who IMHO are not deserving of post season accolades, have displaced 9-3 and 10-2 G5s who deserve the honor and the cash. Instead, these schools are cast aside into no name bowls in no name cities for purses that don't even cover their travel expenses.

Exclusivity creates value. Decrease the amount of bowls and increase the requirements to participate and we will start to see bowl season return to its intended purpose rather than the ESPN content filler it has become.

(06-15-2018 07:53 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...bowl-games

I post the same thing every year on this subject.

If there were too many bowls there would not be too many bowls.

(06-15-2018 02:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 01:09 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  The problem really boils down to the inability to predict the future.

The number you certify one year can leave a team that went 7-5 at home and the next year you have to take a 5-7 to fill slots.

It hasn't been that long since 2003 when Marshall won 8 including beating a top ten Kansas State and didn't bowl and Toledo won 8 with a top 10 win over Pitt and didn't bowl and Air Force won 7 including at Northwestern and didn't bowl.

I consider what happened in 2003 to be worse than a 5-7 making it.

Thats my feeling. Frankly, I think its a spot where G5 "cooperation" might make a difference. I think it is in the interests of the G5 to make a selfish "concession" here. Each G5 conference should immediately vote to bar its 5-7 members from playing in bowls. Why? Because its an outstanding way to artificially manufacture increasingly rare G5 vs P5 matchups in the lower tier bowls. But it only works if all 5 G5 conferences work together and pass the same rule.

How is that going to be good for the G5? I would think the G5 would want more G5 vs. P5 matchups not less. The Pac-12 not allowing teams under 6-6 to go to a bowl creates the opportunity for more G5 vs. P5 matchups.

Eventually every team will go to a bowl. The will keep adding bowls until everyone except maybe 1 or 2 teams will go to a bowl and I think that's great!!! More college football. They'll start the week after the CCGs and end the day before the NCG is played.

If the G5 instituted a no 6-6 or better record, they'd be missing out on a lot of G5 vs. P5 matchups. Granted most of those matchup will be against team below .500 but then there's a better opportunity for a win. I think the G5 would be shooting themselves in the foot if they limited themselves to 6-6 or better.

(06-15-2018 01:09 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  The problem really boils down to the inability to predict the future.

The number you certify one year can leave a team that went 7-5 at home and the next year you have to take a 5-7 to fill slots.

It hasn't been that long since 2003 when Marshall won 8 including beating a top ten Kansas State and didn't bowl and Toledo won 8 with a top 10 win over Pitt and didn't bowl and Air Force won 7 including at Northwestern and didn't bowl.

I consider what happened in 2003 to be worse than a 5-7 making it.

I'd have to agree with that sentiment.

If the bowl system of today is a mostly made for TV thing with ESPN propping up games is it going to make it in the future streaming world?

Then again the traditional purpose of a mid or lower tier bowl game from the program perspective is to win it and use the win as a springboard for recruiting. Plenty of times we've seen a program turn the corner after a nice bowl win.

(06-15-2018 08:43 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 02:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 01:09 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  The problem really boils down to the inability to predict the future.

The number you certify one year can leave a team that went 7-5 at home and the next year you have to take a 5-7 to fill slots.

It hasn't been that long since 2003 when Marshall won 8 including beating a top ten Kansas State and didn't bowl and Toledo won 8 with a top 10 win over Pitt and didn't bowl and Air Force won 7 including at Northwestern and didn't bowl.

I consider what happened in 2003 to be worse than a 5-7 making it.

Thats my feeling. Frankly, I think its a spot where G5 "cooperation" might make a difference. I think it is in the interests of the G5 to make a selfish "concession" here. Each G5 conference should immediately vote to bar its 5-7 members from playing in bowls. Why? Because its an outstanding way to artificially manufacture increasingly rare G5 vs P5 matchups in the lower tier bowls. But it only works if all 5 G5 conferences work together and pass the same rule.

How is that going to be good for the G5? I would think the G5 would want more G5 vs. P5 matchups not less. The Pac-12 not allowing teams under 6-6 to go to a bowl creates the opportunity for more G5 vs. P5 matchups.

Eventually every team will go to a bowl. The will keep adding bowls until everyone except maybe 1 or 2 teams will go to a bowl and I think that's great!!! More college football. They'll start the week after the CCGs and end the day before the NCG is played.

If the G5 instituted a no 6-6 or better record, they'd be missing out on a lot of G5 vs. P5 matchups. Granted most of those matchup will be against team below .500 but then there's a better opportunity for a win. I think the G5 would be shooting themselves in the foot if they limited themselves to 6-6 or better.

I dont think so. The bowls obviously start filling from the traditional contractual ties signed in advance (plus backups). Then---the bowls that are short a team due to a conference not having an available team then hit up the "at large pool". The "at large pool" typically moves to fill the best available bowls first and the worst bowls last. Thus, the bowls with one P5 already in place will all certainly be filled by "at large" teams before any 5-7 team is allowed to enter the picture. Since the worst bowls are all G5 vs G5 bowls, we can expect that most all bowls still needing a team at this point are G5 vs G5 bowls. If the only 5-7 teams able to accept a bowl invite are P5 teams---then these bottom G5 bowls needing an opponent can artificially manufacture a P5 vs G5 matchup out of thin air. The only place it wouldnt work is if a bowl could not fill with either of its slots with its primary or backup agreement.

(06-15-2018 09:16 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 07:53 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...bowl-games

I'm probably in the minority here but I like bowl games. The more the merrier.

It's a long few weeks between conference title games and Christmas, so why not fill it with MORE college football?

If it comes down to watching a (5-7) Colorado State battle a (5-7) Temple or another rerun, boring "special" or Frosty the Snowman for the umpteenth time, give me football.

I think we're at the point where we'd be disappointed with only 5 wins, so I don't think we'd deserve a bowl game at 5-7.

2.5m watched the Dollar General Bowl Ohio v Troy on a fri nite before Christmas.
What else do you need to know?