I know this is another hotly debated concept. Are there too many bowl games? Is it just right? Are there too little? Do you like to take the, "bowl invitations should mean more," "I like it the way it is," or the "more bowls = more football" approach?
I think that it's just right. I don't like to tinker around with what works. I think there is the perfect balance of mid-majors getting bids and mediocre BCS conference teams getting in. If we had more bowl games, we'd have teams like Central Michigan and Louisiana Tech getting at-large bids, if we have too few, teams like Kansas, Utah, and Virginia getting snubbed.
Bowl Games
Forum rules
NOTICE: Please be sure to check the CFP Message Board Rules and Regulations and the Read Me page before posting.
NOTICE: Please be sure to check the CFP Message Board Rules and Regulations and the Read Me page before posting.
Bowl Games
Running bowl/MSU/OSU record '05-present: 11-32
-
mountainman
I'll think about your poll questions and vote later, but I did read where three new bowl hopefuls are going before the NCAA postseason licensing committee next week in search of certification.
I also read where the Houston Bowl is in trouble. According to USA Today, the Houston Bowl has not yet fully paid 2005 participants Iowa State and TCU. Despite the situation, Houston Bowl executive director Shawn Bouley said, "at this point, we're planning on having a 2006 bowl."
As I understand it, a bowl in Houston is politically and financially very important to the Big XII Conference.
I also read where the Houston Bowl is in trouble. According to USA Today, the Houston Bowl has not yet fully paid 2005 participants Iowa State and TCU. Despite the situation, Houston Bowl executive director Shawn Bouley said, "at this point, we're planning on having a 2006 bowl."
As I understand it, a bowl in Houston is politically and financially very important to the Big XII Conference.
-
Spence
- Administrator
- Posts: 20976
- Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 11:52 pm
- Location: Chillicothe, Ohio (Ohio's First Capital)
- Contact:
I also read where the Houston Bowl is in trouble. According to USA Today, the Houston Bowl has not yet fully paid 2005 participants Iowa State and TCU. Despite the situation, Houston Bowl executive director Shawn Bouley said, "at this point, we're planning on having a 2006 bowl."
I can't believe that the payout on those games wasn't bonded. Why would they even agree to play if the money wasn't guaranteed?
"History doesn't always repeat itself but it often rhymes." - Mark Twain
-
mountainman
Eric wrote:Isn't the Fort Worth Bowl floundering right now? I saw that Plains Capital dropped their sponsorship last year.
Yeah. It's gotten a little out of hand.
I wish we could go back to the days where they were all named after fruit or a flower or Sugar.
They’re either going to run the ball here or their going to pass it.
The fewer rules a coach has, the fewer rules there are for players to break.
See, well ya see, the thing is, he should have caught that ball. But the ball is bigger than his hands.
- John Madden
The fewer rules a coach has, the fewer rules there are for players to break.
See, well ya see, the thing is, he should have caught that ball. But the ball is bigger than his hands.
- John Madden
Another note, the New Orleans Bowl will not kick off bowl season anymore. The GMAC Bowl will now do it. The New Orleans Bowl's sponsorship, Whyndam Hotel, didn't sponsor it last year, so they're now searching for another. I always thought this bowl kicked off so it could "get out of the way" of better bowls. This is probably historically the worst bowl there has been; the Sun Belt champ has only won 1 matchup since its inception in 2001.
Running bowl/MSU/OSU record '05-present: 11-32
-
mountainman
Too many
Football is really a zero sum game...for every winner there must be a loser....with the proposed 32 bowls, it will take 64 teams...a lot of barrel scraping will happen to get teams with .500 plus records...the only saving grace right now is the allowance of the counting of a IAA win once every four years.
The good news is that everybody goes to a bowl and we will see intersectional games, the nad news is that bowl games are devalued.
The good news is that everybody goes to a bowl and we will see intersectional games, the nad news is that bowl games are devalued.
Agree 100%...Some are already losing meaning.
"The good news is that everybody goes to a bowl and we will see intersectional games, the nad news is that bowl games are devalued."
"The good news is that everybody goes to a bowl and we will see intersectional games, the nad news is that bowl games are devalued."
They’re either going to run the ball here or their going to pass it.
The fewer rules a coach has, the fewer rules there are for players to break.
See, well ya see, the thing is, he should have caught that ball. But the ball is bigger than his hands.
- John Madden
The fewer rules a coach has, the fewer rules there are for players to break.
See, well ya see, the thing is, he should have caught that ball. But the ball is bigger than his hands.
- John Madden
-
colorado_loves_football
We can argue the 'merits' of the bowl system, it's been around a long time. The 'plusses' I think, outweigh the 'minuses' at least in my mind.
I wasn't aware the Houston Bowl was struggling, but they are still a relatively 'new' bowl, in fact, they've only been in Houston two years, prior to that time they were the Gallery Furniture Bowl, and played in San Antonio, TX. I think they drew a reasonable crowd there, which is probably one reason they decided to go with a larger 'venue'.
I know they drew somewhere around 37,000 fans. That's only about 55% of capacity. Even so, I think they did better, than the previous year.
I do know that their rating wasn't that great. So it could be that's where they lost money.
I am a 'propoent' of the bowls. I don't like the idea of having 32 teams play in 'playoff' arrangment. I prefer the bowl structure.
I do think that a 'competitive' BCS would remedy much of the problems the bowls have, at least in regard to selecting a national champion.
The bowls will either profit or fail on their own terms. I still think that putting teams in bowls is a better arrangement than a playoff. But, unless these bowls make money, the playoff might make more sense, economically.
I wasn't aware the Houston Bowl was struggling, but they are still a relatively 'new' bowl, in fact, they've only been in Houston two years, prior to that time they were the Gallery Furniture Bowl, and played in San Antonio, TX. I think they drew a reasonable crowd there, which is probably one reason they decided to go with a larger 'venue'.
I know they drew somewhere around 37,000 fans. That's only about 55% of capacity. Even so, I think they did better, than the previous year.
I do know that their rating wasn't that great. So it could be that's where they lost money.
I am a 'propoent' of the bowls. I don't like the idea of having 32 teams play in 'playoff' arrangment. I prefer the bowl structure.
I do think that a 'competitive' BCS would remedy much of the problems the bowls have, at least in regard to selecting a national champion.
The bowls will either profit or fail on their own terms. I still think that putting teams in bowls is a better arrangement than a playoff. But, unless these bowls make money, the playoff might make more sense, economically.
-
Spence
- Administrator
- Posts: 20976
- Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 11:52 pm
- Location: Chillicothe, Ohio (Ohio's First Capital)
- Contact:
I know they drew somewhere around 37,000 fans. That's only about 55% of capacity. Even so, I think they did better, than the previous year.
I do know that their rating wasn't that great. So it could be that's where they lost money.
If they can't generate more interest for their game, then they won't be around very long.
Playoffs would be cheaper to operate then the bowls and would likely make a higher percentage of money, but you would lose all but 8 or 10 teams in the post season. It would have a negative effect on recruiting in all but a few "power house" schools.
"History doesn't always repeat itself but it often rhymes." - Mark Twain
-
colorado_loves_football
Actually, after reading about how many of the bowls struggle to make money, a 'playoff' of 64 teams might not be the worst arrangement. It could be organized immediately following the season, and would require 6 weeks to complete, approximately the same amount of time the bowls do.Spence wrote:
If they can't generate more interest for their game, then they won't be around very long.
Playoffs would be cheaper to operate then the bowls and would likely make a higher percentage of money, but you would lose all but 8 or 10 teams in the post season. It would have a negative effect on recruiting in all but a few "power house" schools.
And, again compared to last year's model, 64 vs. 56 teams are allowed to compete, and there were teams 'on the bubble' not selected.
But, I'm a traditionalist. I would still much prefer a competitive BCS to an 'all out' playoff.
I am inclined to think a playoff would be more profitable, but you are correct it would likely negatively impact the regular season.
All the more reason, in my opinion, for a BCS, competitively arranged.
It solves both problems, fairly.
Return to “General Discussion”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 163 guests