More Bowl Games? You have to be kidding!

[Grayghost]

Hello all,
First time posting here though I have been coming to this website for 6 years now.

It seems the NCAA in their infinite wisdom has decieded to expand the bowls to 35. They were scraping just trying to come up with 64 teams last year and now they have to find 70 qualified teams. I thought the bowl schedule was watered down before, but this is getting ridiculous.

Here is the link to the story.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5129612

Your thoughts.

[Eric]

Hey welcome Grayghost! We need some Pac-10 representation here

Yeah, they are getting out of hand. This year, we had 34 bowl games and 71 eligible teams. Notre Dame obviously declined any bowl invitations so that left UL Lafayette and UL Monroe as the only teams getting left out the picture. There's a shot that the college football world falls short of 70 eligible teams. I'm not sure what the process is either for determining who is eligible if we don't have any eligible teams left. I wonder if these teams have to clear some type of waiver or something?

The bowl tie-ins are getting extremely complicated too. I usually try to keep track of bowl projections, but there are so many round-robin-year things and different alternate tie-ins and bowls that defer to other bowls if they want a team badly enough and there's just so much stuff going on. The MAC apparently has some extra tie-in in the New Mexico Bowl or the Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl (previously the Emerald Bowl...) where if Army is not eligible then the WAC will send a team to play in San Francisco and then the New Mexico Bowl is left without a WAC team so the MAC will fill in that slot. At least I think I have it right

Regardless, it's all about the money and the money is what makes the college football world go 'round. I would like to see some standards though, no 6-6 Sun Belt or MAC teams please

[Grayghost]

Thanks...

And I agree, no 6-6 teams. But, I have problems with 6-6 teams from any conference going to a bowl...but that is just me. The year Cal went 6-6, losing it's last 5, going to the Armed Forces bowl, I was actually embarrassed that they would even accept the bid, but as you say "Money Talks, Integrity Walks".

Having read through some of the forum posts I am actually looking foward to participating here. So far what I have read leads me to believe (so far) that a reasonably decent group of intelligent individuals reside here. I am hoping my initial impression is correct.

That being said...looking foward to participating. At least my work doesn't block this site.

[Spence]

Welcome ghost, I agree teams with 500 records should watch the bowl games.

We look forward to your imput.

[Vileborg]

I would like to blame it on society but it's all about money, and free commerce. With the advent of deregulation and every company or organization looking for any way to make a dollar these days it doesn't surprise me that the NCAA would turn to the exploitation of college athletes for the almighty dollar. The greed in this country has reached staggering proportions. Just today I saw a story about an investment bank betting that their investors would lose money and then making it reality with bad investments to their own profit. Free market societies run by the free markets is a ridiculous Utopian ideal, and the NCAA is much the same. A Utopian ideal of a sports sanctioning body who also needs some regulation to prevent future exploitation of our college students. It is only that the nation is blind to the practices of free commerce that they are not revolting in the streets.

Welcome to the board Gray. I foresee Cal having a good year. You'll pardon me if I don't place all my money on them just yet but they are poised to make a run at the pac-10 title. There are a lot of people interested in Locker for this coming year, both scouts and award committees alike. If he lives up to expectations it could very well be a rosy year for Cal, but I doubt you'd be upset if they passed on the roses for chips and salsa in Glendale in 2011.

[Grayghost]

Yes, I would forgoe Roses for Chips and Salsa, but then again, I'll take Roses first and worry about Fiesta's once we have won an outright Pac 10 title, which we haven't in quite some time...50's I think?. Thanks for the welcome. And yes, I think Sarkisyan is going to turn Washington around rather quickly. Washington St.?....Wuff.

[billybud]

Soooo?

What's the west coast word on PAC 10 expansion.

Conference expansion possibilities are a dominant theme on our east coast boards (except, really, this one).

[Grayghost]

Soooo?

What's the west coast word on PAC 10 expansion.

Conference expansion possibilities are a dominant theme on our east coast boards (except, really, this one).

This is the first year that serious talk of expansion has come up. The teams that have been considered are:

BYU
Utah
Boise
Colorado
Texas

Some others have been mentioned, but not seriously. The talk was hot and heavy right after Bowl Season, but has died off since with not much being said right now. I think the Big 10 talk has pre-empted everyone else since the Big 10 has laid out a tentative plan. The PAC10 has merely just started having discussions with no timetables laid out as of yet. I think that once the Big 10 starts to formally make it's move that the discussion on the west coast will get much more serious.

[Derek]

Does the Pac-10 do revenue sharing like the SEC does?

[Grayghost]

Yes, it does. Bowl money, TV money, and Travel game money is all shared. I think the only ticket revenue is not shared...I could be wrong.

[Spence]

Yes, it does. Bowl money, TV money, and Travel game money is all shared. I think the only ticket revenue is not shared...I could be wrong.

That is how the B-10 works as well. I believe every conference has the same revenue sharing plan.

[donovan]

That is not my understanding of how the Pac 10....we can count on the West Coast, Spence, works. It is different than other conferences and is a constant source of discussion. I found one article on it, how they do it.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/sports/2009256167_uwmoney24.html

This is also the major reason PAC 10 expansion will not happen, because there are too many losers in the PAC 10 system money-wise and any new team would not be in a financial position to do it. BYU, a touted prospect, is financially in the best position and they still would not receive any money. Schools like Boise is just fodder talk...they in no way could afford to be in the conference. SEC and ACC schools, with their plan, more like the NFL's, support, subsidize, schools that make their programs successful. But I guess liberalism is all right in football, just not in helping the poor...OK...skip that.

[Spence]

I didn't look up the PAC-10 revenue sharing plan, I just thought it would be similar.

If this expansion thing is to be believe, the B-10 will really not count well.

[Grayghost]

That is not my understanding of how the Pac 10....we can count on the West Coast, Spence, works. It is different than other conferences and is a constant source of discussion. I found one article on it, how they do it.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/sports/2009256167_uwmoney24.html

I stand corrected. Right on some things, wrong on others to some degree. Thanks donovan.

[Derek]

Yes, it does. Bowl money, TV money, and Travel game money is all shared. I think the only ticket revenue is not shared...I could be wrong.

Then I don't see why a conference like the Pac-10 would want other teams to join. Unless it's a Boise that will usually get another bowl game for the conference. And even then the Pac-10 bowl tie-ins are TERRIBLE. You have the Rose Bowl....then your WAY down to the Holiday bowl. I think that's something they should work on instead of more teams.

2 cents.