I would take USA vs Bowling Green in Montgomery over any of those. I have too many Cousin Eddies in my family that play those over and over again.Usually your choices are:
1) The 98th airing of the Griswold Christmas movie
2) It's a Wonderful Life
3) Brian's Song, the updated one that nobody likes
4) The Grinch
5) Home Alone 6: This Time It's Personal
6) Rudolph
7) The Grinch
I will second that and now they will have to win at least 5 games to get a bowl bid.3 more bowl games that I won't be watching....
This coupled with too many undeserving programs completely waters down the product. It's not like we're talking about bowl games with huge sold out crowds, we are talking about declining attendance for bowl games. Attendance has reached a point we haven't seen since the 70s. We're talking about bowl games that don't even get 30,000 people to show up. Matchups like Buffalo and San Diego St. and we're going to get more of that?Complaining that there are too many football games on TV is like complaining that there is too much beer in your refrigerator.
Fewer football games on TV equals FEWER football games on TV. Look, on any given Thursday night or Saturday there can be crap games on the tube. During the bowl season, would you rather have the possibility of a good football game or some reality Show on HGTV? When I was a kid, all that mattered to my brother and I was that we were off from school and there would be football on during the break. We never cared who was playing, only that there was a game on TV. Did anyone here watch the Bahanas Bowl last year?? It was awesome!This coupled with too many undeserving programs completely waters down the product. It's not like we're talking about bowl games with huge sold out crowds, we are talking about declining attendance for bowl games. Attendance has reached a point we haven't seen since the 70s. We're talking about bowl games that don't even get 30,000 people to show up. Matchups like Buffalo and San Diego St. and we're going to get more of that?
Anyway, the product is being harmed. Too many bowl games means too many bad teams in bowl games. It lowers the hype, and it spreads the fans thinner. The less bowl games you have, the less crap teams you have, meaning the more exciting the bowl games you do see will be.
Ok, you've been on this point about "undeserving" programs for awhile, but how are we to decide if a program is undeserving? You would have to limit the number of teams first and foremost. So if you go by attendence then when cutting programs came down to cutting between Kentucky and Stanford who do you cut? By your arguement you cut Stanford. Yes, because Kentucky out does the mighty Stanford by almost 10k people. and Kentucky actually is a few hundred above Oregon. But yet those teams would desrtoy Kentucky on the gridiron.This coupled with too many undeserving programs completely waters down the product. It's not like we're talking about bowl games with huge sold out crowds, we are talking about declining attendance for bowl games. Attendance has reached a point we haven't seen since the 70s. We're talking about bowl games that don't even get 30,000 people to show up. Matchups like Buffalo and San Diego St. and we're going to get more of that?
Anyway, the product is being harmed. Too many bowl games means too many bad teams in bowl games. It lowers the hype, and it spreads the fans thinner. The less bowl games you have, the less crap teams you have, meaning the more exciting the bowl games you do see will be.
I think krazy3's point is clear that he's referring more to those mid-majors that have moved up in recent years like Boise State and the Lessers.Ok, you've been on this point about "undeserving" programs for awhile, but how are we to decide if a program is undeserving? You would have to limit the number of teams first and foremost. So if you go by attendence then when cutting programs came down to cutting between Kentucky and Stanford who do you cut? By your arguement you cut Stanford. Yes, because Kentucky out does the mighty Stanford by almost 10k people. and Kentucky actually is a few hundred above Oregon. But yet those teams would desrtoy Kentucky on the gridiron.
Orange Bowl tickets....ORANGE BOWL tickets for Mississippi State-Ga Tech (both based IN THE SOUTH) were selling on game day on StubHub for THREE DOLLARS!!!!!!The biggest hole in why attendence should matter arguement is the ticket prices itself. Most people cant acquire a ticket that is about 200% over face value so they sit at home and cheer for their favorite team on a way more comfortable seat with a bathroom that is easily accesable.
So Vandy falls out of the SEC the first year and who moves up?While we are stuck at 1% increase a year due to this, those lower teams that are having success are seeing a 10% increase. So growth is there.
Another point on why we probably should keep these "undeserving" teams is the anti-SEC movement is trying to force us to play non-FCS oppenents in the future. While the idea of playing Oklahoma,Oregon,and teams of the such for our 3 non conference games sounds like a good idea. It will actually decrease the liklihood of us playing for a championship in the longrun. I would like to play teams like that as much as anyone, but with the CFP committee a loss or a close win could influence them greatly since all of them have an agenda. I rather have a tune up game before Auburn than have Oklahoma in Norman the week before only to either expose us or tire us out before the Iron Bowl. I would take an easy win from a tune up game than an exhausting slugfest between a powerhouse before a SEC game.
Im not saying that all teams are deserving of being a NCAA team,but attendence shouldnt be the prime component of the decision making. Probably the best way is to divide the NCAA into leagues like the English Soccer League and move teams up and down based on performance. It will never happen because of the conferences, but it is the most fair way to decide.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoo...ndance-home-crowds-drop-to-lowest-in-14-years
It was an example really. It would be an improvement from a fan's perspective, but what if we went with a power 5 schedule like this (Wk1 Wisky, Wk2 @TTU, Wk 4 OU, Wk12 PSU) and Auburn went like this (Wk1 Louisville,Wk2 @Kansas,Wk5 Rutgers, and Wk12 Iowa St). Which one would you rather have? My point is that while I dont agree that we shouldnt need more bowls, I feel that each team should have the right to play for one if they meet the criteria to play for one if one is available. People have been using the arguement of attendence to try to limit the number of teams in NCAA. I just feel there are better ways to do it and I see the need for these smaller teams at the momment until there is a bonafide way to do it. So what harm is it to us that there are some directional schools that have 6 wins playing in the New Orleans bowl. If you wanna watch it watch it, if not enjoy your Christmas flicks.IMOSo Vandy falls out of the SEC the first year and who moves up?
That idea would never work because of the conferences (as you duly note). We wouldn't play Oklahoma the week before Auburn but having them say the third week rather than MTSU or Southern Miss would be an improvement.
KrAzY we have had this discussion more than once on here and I am in total agreement that the number of bowl games is ridiculous. I have stated before that possibly 12-15 bowl games would reward the top 25% of the FBS teams. it is a shame that a team only has to win 6 games to qualify for a bowl invitation. IMO that number should be at least 8.This coupled with too many undeserving programs completely waters down the product. It's not like we're talking about bowl games with huge sold out crowds, we are talking about declining attendance for bowl games. Attendance has reached a point we haven't seen since the 70s. We're talking about bowl games that don't even get 30,000 people to show up. Matchups like Buffalo and San Diego St. and we're going to get more of that?
Anyway, the product is being harmed. Too many bowl games means too many bad teams in bowl games. It lowers the hype, and it spreads the fans thinner. The less bowl games you have, the less crap teams you have, meaning the more exciting the bowl games you do see will be.
Not everyone has perfect recollection, but to really distill my point it comes down to two things.Ok, you've been on this point about "undeserving" programs for awhile, but how are we to decide if a program is undeserving?
It's more like complaining that there are too many crappy football games is like complaining that there is too much crappy beer in your refrigerator.Complaining that there are too many football games on TV is like complaining that there is too much beer in your refrigerator.