CollegeFootballPoll.com Message Board

Every year I hear the wonders of schools getting the extra 2-4 weeks of practice in December in preparation for the bowl game. I hear constantly that it helps teams going forward, but doesn't that mean that teams that miss out on bowl games are getting shafted by not getting the bowl practices? To me that seems like having a pro sports draft with putting the winners in better positions to keep getting better while giving losing teams low end draft picks.

Take a team like Temple who is still pretty young and went 8-4. Since Middle Tennessee won yesterday to get to 6-6, Temple will be left out in the postseason cold. This is a team that, if the December practices are what coaches say they are, could have been in position to win the MAC, but according to this theory they will start off on the wrong foot.

The extra practice is the real reward to every bowl but the national championship game teams.

Soooo...be one of the 70 teams playing in a bowl. It is an added incentive.

I know that the same can be said for EE's. They get the extra spring practice that other freshmen do not get. It is always good to have a few studs enroll early.

billybud wrote:Soooo...be one of the 70 teams playing in a bowl. It is an added incentive.

I know that the same can be said for EE's. They get the extra spring practice that other freshmen do not get. It is always good to have a few studs enroll early.

I think the extra practice is the only real reward. The games, other then the championship game do not mean anything. The practice for next year means lots.

billybud wrote:Soooo...be one of the 70 teams playing in a bowl. It is an added incentive.

I know that the same can be said for EE's. They get the extra spring practice that other freshmen do not get. It is always good to have a few studs enroll early.

Yeah, that's like asking the Carolina Panthers to quit complaining that their roster is depleted of talent and demanding that they make the playoffs next year so they can get better draft picks. Seems like it would be a never-ending cycle. How are you supposed to get better when you aren't afforded the opportunity? If you do make the bowl game, that likely means you are already better and the added practices add to the disparity.

I just say let any school practice in the winter.

I wouldn't change it.

Spence wrote:

billybud wrote:Soooo...be one of the 70 teams playing in a bowl. It is an added incentive.

I know that the same can be said for EE's. They get the extra spring practice that other freshmen do not get. It is always good to have a few studs enroll early.

I think the extra practice is the only real reward. The games, other then the championship game do not mean anything. The practice for next year means lots.

You know, as one of the many critics of the BCS, a supporter of a playoff system, and one who believes there are too many bowls today, I would generally agree with this statement.

Nevertheless, as a Syracuse fan, I've realized that even the minor bowls are an important incentive. Possibly it only means that Syracuse is one of the 70 best teams in the country... or not even that due to flaws in the system as displayed by the aforementioned situation that will see a solid 8-4 Temple left out. Still, after these years in the wilderness, this city is ape crazy for the simple small money inaugural Pinstripe Bowl. I guess the past season has left me like the Grinch understanding the value of Christmas.

So maybe it doesn't do anything for the teams, aside from the practice, but for the fans the other bowl games really do matter. After all, there are only two teams with the distinction of playing for the National Championship... only 8-16 in most playoff proposals, but the current system allows for a feeling of accomplishment for the supporters of even fair-to-middling and improving teams.

Of course, that being said, I would still support a playoff or any plan to reduce lesser bowls. I now understand the mixed feelings that would arise from it, but after watching 'Cuse play on Dec. 30 I'll go back to my usual self... unlike the Grinch, the growth of my heart stopped at about a size and a half too small.

Or else we could have the best of both worlds and replace/co-opt the bowl season into a full 64-team, 5 week playoff period, complete with December Madness brackets and all of the accompanying gambling goodness paying off our Christmas bills.

Don't kid yourselves about "reward".

The program may view extra practice as a reward...but the kids play hard with a goal of making a bowl...sometimes a specific bowl. And, from being around members of a team for a long time, I can tell you that it is a reward that they celebrate.

Two weeks of extra practice preparing schemes and prepping for a specific opponent may help in the next year..but I suspect that it's not as much as some may tout. Two weeks less practice wouldn't have made Texas a much worse team and two weeks of practice wouldn't have made Akron better.

But maybe Eric is on to something about the draft and the NFL. In college, give the bottom 60 teams (as determined by some methodology) an extra two weeks in the spring. This would be more beneficial in the long run as a "leveler" than two weeks in the winter since it would give an extended practice period when added to the spring.

The 85 scholarship rule is "leveler" enough.

Players get tired. They are ready to take a break. All this nonsense talk is about "adults living out their childhood fantasy or figuring out a way to make more money. Going to a bowl...practice..some goal in site. Not going...take a shower and get ready for the Spring.

billybud wrote:But maybe Eric is on to something about the draft and the NFL. In college, give the bottom 60 teams (as determined by some methodology) an extra two weeks in the spring. This would be more beneficial in the long run as a "leveler" than two weeks in the winter since it would give an extended practice period when added to the spring.

I suspect that extra practice is overrated, but my question is working with the assumption that the extra practice is what it is promoted as being.

Obviously I sense a hint of sarcasm here, but this is not analogous and it is a strawman of what I would propose. The crucial difference is that I'm not excluding teams from practicing on their own terms whereas this example is founded on the concept of excluding certain teams from practicing. I don't think egalitarianism with respect to the outcome is the goal, equal opportunity is the goal. Big difference.

billybud wrote:Soooo...be one of the 70 teams playing in a bowl. It is an added incentive.

I know that the same can be said for EE's. They get the extra spring practice that other freshmen do not get. It is always good to have a few studs enroll early.

Temple was good enough to be one of the 70 teams in a bowl. At 8-4 they were far better than some others who are bowling. The bowl selection process needs tweaked, its not about being good enough. Its about geography and money.

Jason G wrote:

billybud wrote:Soooo...be one of the 70 teams playing in a bowl. It is an added incentive.

I know that the same can be said for EE's. They get the extra spring practice that other freshmen do not get. It is always good to have a few studs enroll early.

Temple was good enough to be one of the 70 teams in a bowl. At 8-4 they were far better than some others who are bowling. The bowl selection process needs tweaked, its not about being good enough. Its about geography and money.

I think if I were running a bowl and the success depended on ticket sales, fans etc., I would want to have some ability to select the teams and fairness would not be a consideration.

The only way you could allow fairness would be for the government to subsidize each bowl to guarantee a profit. insert <sarcasm tag>

RazorHawk wrote:

Jason G wrote:

billybud wrote:Soooo...be one of the 70 teams playing in a bowl. It is an added incentive.

I know that the same can be said for EE's. They get the extra spring practice that other freshmen do not get. It is always good to have a few studs enroll early.

Temple was good enough to be one of the 70 teams in a bowl. At 8-4 they were far better than some others who are bowling. The bowl selection process needs tweaked, its not about being good enough. Its about geography and money.

I think if I were running a bowl and the success depended on ticket sales, fans etc., I would want to have some ability to select the teams and fairness would not be a consideration.

The only way you could allow fairness would be for the government to subsidize each bowl to guarantee a profit. insert <sarcasm tag>

That is right. Fairness has never been a consideration for the bowls. They are doing what is best for them.

Hey...even play offs aren't fair. Very good bubble teams in basketball are left out for less worthy teams every year.