College Bowl Games

[Bobcat79]

Just thought this could be an interesting discussion...

Now, I didn't get that interested in college football until I, well, got to college, so perhaps this has been happening for a while now. What I'm talking about is this trend in college bowl games (not the big-name ones people care about) for pretty much every damn team to go. To me, it's how our generation is described as "trophy kids." Like every participant in the spelling bee gets a "participant" or "I'm special" ribbon even if they spell cat with a 'k.'

For example, the MAACO Bowl pits one team (I forget which conference) against the 6th ranked team in the Pac-10. 6TH. Since when do you get an extra shot at anything in any sport if you come in 6th place? This year's Humanitarian Bowl, which in my opinion Ohio has a good chance of going to, is the #1 WAC team vs. the #3 MAC team. That's not too bad. But #6 vs. #7? Come on.

Does the NCAA/the sponsors of each bowl do this just for the money? It's GOT to be for that reason alone. To me, unless you're #1 or #2 in your conference, your season should be over. That's it. I don't like that everyone has to feel privileged or special nowadays... like "if you participated, you get a big ol' trophy to boost your ego." It's especially unnerving as a college marching band member. I spent my Thanksgiving, Christmas DAY, and New Year's Day at either a bowl game, championship game, or a parade last year. I don't want to get my entire holiday season robbed again this year just to play the fight song a few times to cheer on a #7 or #8 team in the conference. Of course this sounds selfish, but seriously... why so many chances? And really, it's the football team that matters in this, no matter how much pride I have in the band. THEY want to be out there playing the game.

They make a commemorative pin for EVERY GAME (I have both an Ohio vs. CMU MAC Championship and Ohio vs. Marshall Little Caesar's Bowl pin on my band jacket). They make t-shirts for EVERY GAME. They design a new logo for EVERY GAME. They make advertisements and sell tickets for EVERY GAME. Is it really worth it for a school's athletic department to send their team (logistically speaking, like flying the entire team and/or marching band) to a bowl game halfway across the country?

Thoughts?

[infrared41]

Not to rain on your parade but the "sixth team in the PAC-10" doesn't necessarily mean that team is the sixth best in the conference. It could mean that bowl picks a team after five other bowls have. That's how it works in other bowls.

[PurpleRush]

Still, we have like 57 bowl games.

It's too many.

[TBGKon]

Not to rain on your parade but the "sixth team in the PAC-10" doesn't necessarily mean that team is the sixth best in the conference. It could mean that bowl picks a team after five other bowls have. That's how it works in other bowls.

Thats true, and there are rules in place that teams with better records must be selected over lower teams unless they are a game apart, or something like that. Might be a conference rule, not sure.

[Bobcat79]

Not to rain on your parade but the "sixth team in the PAC-10" doesn't necessarily mean that team is the sixth best in the conference. It could mean that bowl picks a team after five other bowls have. That's how it works in other bowls.

Thats true, and there are rules in place that teams with better records must be selected over lower teams unless they are a game apart, or something like that. Might be a conference rule, not sure.

Ah, okay. See, to me, the whole "let's send the 7th-best team in a conference to a bowl game" is what isn't right about the bowl picks anyway. However if I was misinformed, then thanks for correcting me. I still think there are WAY too many bowl games in general, but this explanation makes a little more sense. I thought half the bowl commissioners just picked the "less than 3rd best" teams kind of arbitrarily.

[infrared41]

Still, we have like 57 bowl games.

It's too many.

OK. Why?

[rams80]

Still, we have like 57 bowl games.

It's too many.

OK. Why?

Because we've hit the point that teams with losing records will be able to play in the postseason in the future. Bowl games/postseason play should be a reward. Why are teams getting rewarded for 5 wins...counting the I-AA guarantee? That's not rewardable behavior. Shoot, if you have an 8 game Conference schedule, all you have to do is pull an Indiana, schedule the most gutless non-Conference slate imaginable, hope that somebody slips up against you in Conference play, and then LOOK AT THE PIZZA BOXES FALLING FROM THE SKY!!!!

That's why.

[infrared41]

Still, we have like 57 bowl games.

It's too many.

OK. Why?

Because we've hit the point that teams with losing records will be able to play in the postseason in the future. Bowl games/postseason play should be a reward. Why are teams getting rewarded for 5 wins...counting the I-AA guarantee? That's not rewardable behavior. Shoot, if you have an 8 game Conference schedule, all you have to do is pull an Indiana, schedule the most gutless non-Conference slate imaginable, hope that somebody slips up against you in Conference play, and then LOOK AT THE PIZZA BOXES FALLING FROM THE SKY!!!!

That's why.

Again, so what? If you don't like the bowl games then don't watch them. None of these six win bowl match-ups means a thing. They don't matter so why worry about it? For a lot of the players a trip to the Viagra Who Gives A Flying Bowl will be the highlight of their careers. Indiana is the perfect example of that. They shouldn't get a bowl bid because you think there are too many bowl games? For all the people who bitch about there being too many bowls, not one of you has ever come up with a solid argument against having them. Bowl games aren't playoffs. They aren't really anything other than an exhibition game played after the season is over. Where's the harm in that? They're meaningless games. Ignore the ones you don't want to see.

[rams80]

Still, we have like 57 bowl games.

It's too many.

OK. Why?

Because we've hit the point that teams with losing records will be able to play in the postseason in the future. Bowl games/postseason play should be a reward. Why are teams getting rewarded for 5 wins...counting the I-AA guarantee? That's not rewardable behavior. Shoot, if you have an 8 game Conference schedule, all you have to do is pull an Indiana, schedule the most gutless non-Conference slate imaginable, hope that somebody slips up against you in Conference play, and then LOOK AT THE PIZZA BOXES FALLING FROM THE SKY!!!!

That's why.

Again, so what? If you don't like the bowl games then don't watch them. None of these six win bowl match-ups means a thing. They don't matter so why worry about it? For a lot of the players a trip to the Viagra Who Gives A Flying Bowl will be the highlight of their careers. Indiana is the perfect example of that. They shouldn't get a bowl bid because you think there are too many bowl games? For all the people who bitch about there being too many bowls, not one of you has ever come up with a solid argument against having them. Bowl games aren't playoffs. They aren't really anything other than an exhibition game played after the season is over. Where's the harm in that? They're meaningless games. Ignore the ones you don't want to see.

No, they shouldn't get a Bowl game because they sucked played like Indiana this and every hypothetical season. If you want a winter vacation after turning in a 5 win season, go to Cancun on your own dime. Maybe then you might think about executing plays better. (Yes, I'm looking at you Damarlo Belcher)

/ , schools LOSE money going to most minor Bowls. With tuition and activity fees the way they are, this is not desirable.

[Bobcat79]

/ , schools LOSE money going to most minor Bowls. With tuition and activity fees the way they are, this is not desirable.

EXACTLY my point.

1. Teams with a :censored:ty record shouldn't be rewarded for a mediocre season.

2. Yes, I can choose not to watch the bowl game, but why should they even go? I want to know why the bowl games are even scheduled to happen. It's just my opinion that they are giant money traps to get people interested a particular field, a particular city, a particular sponsor, etc. If they're so unimportant to a team's fame and notoriety, why even play the bowl game, especially when the losing team probably drops thousands of dollars on transporting the team, band, and athletic staff to a game? There are SO many other important things universities could be spending money on.

This isn't me whining because OU has a lackluster football team. I'd feel the same way if a great football team like Alabama, OSU, etc. suddenly fell from the rankings and sucked for a few years. If they don't play well during a season, they don't deserve to go the "Who Gives a Crap" Bowl.

[Sport]

I know that OU lost money in 06 at the GMAC Bowl and last year at the Little Caesars Bowl. The Athletic department had to move some money around to make it happen.

[Bobcat79]

I know that OU lost money in 06 at the GMAC Bowl and last year at the Little Caesars Bowl. The Athletic department had to move some money around to make it happen.

I do, too... I was there last year for both Little Caesar's and MAC Champs. I would have rather not have had to give up my Christmas to travel with the marching band, to watch OU lose to Marshall, and to get spit on in uniform by a Central Michigan fan at the MAC Championship game. AND the athletic department would have - *gasp* - saved money! I still had a blast, and I love all the awesome things I get to do with the band (we wouldn't BE there without the football team), yet at the same time I can't shake the wish that pointless money-wasting bowl games are, indeed, pointless and money-wasting.

I'm wondering what our hopes of post-season are now that Boo Jackson has gotten himself in trouble and is apparently done for the season. I love my 'Cats, but if that spares me, as well as the rest of the athletic department from funding a trip to Detroit that would make the university lose money again, I think I'm okay with that.