5-7 teams going to the back of the bowl selection
- Thread starter Redwood Forrest
- Start date
5-7 teams shouldn't get a bowl invite period. It's absurd to be rewarded for a losing season. There are just too many Bowl games now and the ones involving teams with records below 7-5 are just unwatchable for the most part.
I'm only barely okay with 6-6 teams getting an invite as it is. But it affords them the chance to have a winning season at 7-6 I suppose. But when we are talking about a team winning a bowl game and STILL having a losing record (6-7) it's just kind of silly and unnecessary.
I'm only barely okay with 6-6 teams getting an invite as it is. But it affords them the chance to have a winning season at 7-6 I suppose. But when we are talking about a team winning a bowl game and STILL having a losing record (6-7) it's just kind of silly and unnecessary.
KrAzY3 said:
Can't agree the sport is healthier, [depending on which definition of healthy you're using]... It most definitely is RICHER...!
Personally I would prefer, when they played FOOTBALL, gimme the 40's-60's! Not this new powder-puff and flag...!
Even most coaches, coach today for the almighty-buck not for the love of the game!
Just see if any would take a pay cut to keep their programs afloat...:biggrin:
None of that is attributable to the college football programs struggling to get 15,000 fans to attend one of their games.
The fact is the sport really peaked in the BCS era, what we saw was had everything to do with what the SEC was doing, with what the Big 10 was doing, with what the Pac-12 was doing and had nothing to do with what these insignificant programs were up to. I would argue, strongly, that there's some long term damage being done. Bowl games mean less than they once did, there's no question about that.
You can argue it all you want - it doesn't make it so. As for bowl games meaning less - are you kidding me? There have always been about 8-10 bowls that were compelling, and the rest were just fillers. Of those 8-10 games, only a few ever "meant" anything. During the BSC era, only 1 bowl game meant anything. ONE. Now 3 bowl games have meaning, and there are still another 5-7 bowls each year that are pretty compelling.
In other words - there are just as many compelling bowl games as there ever have been, and more games that really mean something. Yes, there are more "filler" games, but they have not hurt the important games in any way. Participating teams are still just as excited to play in them, fans are just as excited to watch their teams play in them, and the bowls themselves are making money hand over fist.
I am not sure what you want. You want fewer bowls just because you don't like them, even though they help the participating programs, the fans, and the communities sponsoring them. Your point of view is very myopic on this subject.
The more football the better. While I may not be interested in the bowl match ups until a few days after Christmas, there are tens of thousands of fans that are. Good for them.
On a lighter note, I've found that the bowl pick 'em contests make the lesser heralded games more interesting!
On a lighter note, I've found that the bowl pick 'em contests make the lesser heralded games more interesting!
I get the concept of making sure every 6-6 team is taken before 5-7. I think it is a bad look for the sport for 5-7 teams to be involved in the postseason
Fan interest, the ability to attend games or not, the ability to watch or not, and money should be results not reasons. The only reason a team should go to a bowl is their performance, not their ability to entice fans. Fan interest should never be used as a criteria, because, as we know, our thresh hold is pretty low. When does fan interest wane? 4-8,3-9,2-10? I'm pretty sure even a 3-9 Michigan would draw some fan interest, but they certainly wouldn't deserve a bowl bid.
Just because something can be done, doesn't mean it should be.
Just because something can be done, doesn't mean it should be.
As mentioned earlier the only complaint I have is if they have 3 solid SEC teams playing on the same day that overlap. If a rule should be made it should be along those lines. IMHO
I don't watch every bowl, but there are some with teams you may not watch, but factors like "this coach has taken a job at X university" or "this coach never punts the ball due to some algorithm" could possibly pique my interest.
Now I don't have to watch, and 5-7 teams may not deserve a bowl, but if they played a very difficult schedule vs a team that had cupcakes all year long I may watch some of it to see which team wants to win, which has the better players or there's nothing but Kardashian reruns....
oh by the way did you hear Black China may be having Robs baby? and...Whats up with Britney? Who?
I don't watch every bowl, but there are some with teams you may not watch, but factors like "this coach has taken a job at X university" or "this coach never punts the ball due to some algorithm" could possibly pique my interest.
Now I don't have to watch, and 5-7 teams may not deserve a bowl, but if they played a very difficult schedule vs a team that had cupcakes all year long I may watch some of it to see which team wants to win, which has the better players or there's nothing but Kardashian reruns....
oh by the way did you hear Black China may be having Robs baby? and...Whats up with Britney? Who?
Latest threads
-
SEC West Showdown Sends Alabama to Oxford to Meet with Ole Miss- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
Davis II Named to Stopper of the Year Midseason Watch List
- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
Eleven-Run Third Powers Alabama to 14-5 Win over Samford
- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
Maybe aTm's Pockets Aren't So Bottomless After All -- Layoffs In The Athletic Department
- Started by 4Q Basket Case
- Replies: 5
-
Time to un-vacate 2005-2007 on field victories and un-forfeit the 1993 season?
- Started by CmdrThor
- Replies: 20
-