The more football the better.I have no problem with adding bowls and teams regardless of their record.Let these kids get a chance play in a bowl.Bowl games are already over rated anyway.It's not important like the old days.
Your last line sums it all up.It's just over saturated! I under stand them working hard and glad that they are, but sports is all about entertainment. Some games have been great, but now it's just too much. I still watch though.
So our BCSCG is less important because of the Bell Helicopter Bowl? I would be interested to know how many of players in the Orange, Sugar, Cotton or Rose Bowls think their game is less important because of the Papa Johns Pizza Bowl. My guess is most would say it has zero affect on them. So your argument is basically you don't like it because that's not the way they used to do it? I guess the bigger question is who is the game for, the fans or the players?Because it absolutely cheapens the 'reward' of paying in a bowl game. It benefits teams (financially, extra coverage, extra practice time) that don't deserve.
I care because I think it cheapens the sport.
*sigh*So our BCSCG is less important because of the Bell Helicopter Bowl? I would be interested to know how many of players in the Orange, Sugar, Cotton or Rose Bowls think their game is less important because of the Papa Johns Pizza Bowl. My guess is most would say it has zero affect on them. So your argument is basically you don't like it because that's not the way they used to do it? I guess the bigger question is who is the game for, the fans or the players?
Is the consensus that it cheapens the game for rewarding sub par performance? If we called them "exhibition" games instead of "bowl" games would that be better? I think the idea of these bowls being some big reward sailed about 30 years ago. They are basically post season exhibition games.
Are there too many games on every Saturday during the season? Being on TV used to be reserved for the top teams that were winning and had good records. In the 70's you wouldn't have been watching Alabama play a game against a winless or one win Arkansas on a major network. Should we go back to the days of two or three games on TV every Saturday? Did allowing BAMA to play on TV the years between CGS and CNS just cheapen the games that Florida, LSU, OU, TX and teams that were winning played?
Hmmm...that's kind of harsh and not very "inclusive" of you. Maybe you're a closet conservative.Any bowl that I dont recognize its name is too many.
Does Saban's own rhetoric somewhat disagree with this?So what? They may have worked hard, but they stunk as a team and shouldn't be rewarded for the poor results. Results are what counts, not how much effort went into it, otherwise we wouldn't keep score.
This is the only good point you've made in my opinion.The reality - this expanding bowl involvement may be the only thing holding a full-on playoff at bay, as more schools get a piece of the pie. These bowls are preserving the sport as we love it.
I dunno, possibly. I don't really care - CNS is a great coach but that doesn't mean I agree with every thought he has.Does Saban's own rhetoric somewhat disagree with this?
That's cool - I was only expressing my opinion.This is the only good point you've made in my opinion.