Insane Number Of Bowl Games

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

I counted 37 in the newspaper ... that is 74 teams ... there aren't 74 really good teams in the 120? team upper division... crazy... NCAA basketball tournament only invites 65 out of over 400 upper division basketball teams.

Worse.... some of those teams will not have played a game in over a month... It is tough to keep players motivated that long.... especially those not in the top 5-10 teams.

A playoff is really needed with about eight teams. An extra game or two [ with a week off for finals ] for the four??? winners is far better than this mess. Holiday Bowls could still exist for teams not picked for the playoffs....they would be meaningless??? ... most bowl now are worthless now as far as rankings... no different...... They are just a "reward" (maybe} for players and fans for a decent season....... and even more a financial coup for the town hosting them....which explains why there are now so many..

They oddest situation I can remember ( several years ago) is SMU losing their final game and not getting to go to the Cotton Bowl as the SWC rep. [across town] .... instead they were picked to play in the Hula Bowl in Hawaii ... what a letdown for those unfortunate players....I often wondered if they lost on purpose.. LOL

______________

---When I was in college [back in the dark ages] .. there were four Bowl games on New Years Day and about six more earlier...Sun, Gator. Bluebonnet, Peach and some others... people actually paid attention to them.

Edited December 9, 2010 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[forevereagle]

I counted 37 in the newspaper ... that is 74 teams ... there aren't 74 really good teams in the 120? team upper division... crazy... NCAA basketball tournament only invites 65 out of over 400 upper division basketball teams.

Worse.... some of those teams will not have played a game in over a month... It is tough to keep players motivated that long.... especially those not in the top 5-10 teams.

A playoff is really needed with about eight teams. An extra game or two [ with a week off for finals ] for the four??? winners is far better than this mess. Holiday Bowls could still exist for teams not picked for the playoffs....they would be meaningless??? ... most bowl now are worthless now as far as rankings... no different...... They are just a "reward" (maybe} for players and fans for a decent season....... and even more a financial coup for the town hosting them....which explains why there are now so many..

They oddest situation I can remember ( several years ago) is SMU losing their final game and not geting to go to the Cotton Bowl as the SWC rep. [across town] .... instead they were picked to play in the Hula Bowl in Hawaii ... what a letdown for those unfortunate players.... LOL

You counted wrong, there are 35 bowls with 70 teams getting bids.

I disagree with an 8 team playoff. If there is going to be a playoff, then every conference should get a shot which would require a 16 team playoff. Seed them however makes sense, but 8 just allows the AQs to continue to keep everyone else out.

[NorthTexan95]

You counted wrong, there are 35 bowls with 70 teams getting bids.

I disagree with an 8 team playoff. If there is going to be a playoff, then every conference should get a shot which would require a 16 team playoff. Seed them however makes sense, but 8 just allows the AQs to continue to keep everyone else out.

I agree. The champion of EVERY conference should get a shot.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

You counted wrong, there are 35 bowls with 70 teams getting bids.

I disagree with an 8 team playoff. If there is going to be a playoff, then every conference should get a shot which would require a 16 team playoff. Seed them however makes sense, but 8 just allows the AQs to continue to keep everyone else out.

--I did say "about 8".... and no conference should ever have more TWO teams in it... if only 8, maybe ONE conference with two... but not more... would make winning the conference more meaningful. I agree with 12 or 16 ... but getting started with 8 would be a big improvement over what we have.

--I doubt any team ranked below 8 could win it all anyway....basketball yes.. football no. What I am saying would cause at least 7 conferences to be represented... [consider independents such as Notre Dame, Navy, etc. to be one conference). 12 teams would be a good number... Most deserving conferences (or teams) would get in if only a two teams could be sent from a couple of unspecified conferences. Also 12 would allow weaker teams to not have to play the top 4 in first round and reward the very best with a bye.

If 12 teams and only 2 from only two conf. --applied to BSC standings this year, first 4 get first rd bye.

Auburn --SEC

Oregon --Pac-10

TCU --MWC

Stanford -- Pac-10 -2ed

Wisconsin --Big 10

Ohio St. --Big 10 -2ed --last 2ed team

Oklahoma --Big 12

Arkansas --OUT

Michigan St. --OUT

Boise St. ---WAC

LSU --OUT

Missouri --OUT

Virginia Tech --ACC

Oklahoma St. --OUT

Nevada ---Out

Alabama --Out

Texas A&M --Out

Nebraska --Out

Utah --Out

South Carolina --OUT

Mississippi St. --Out

West Virginia ---Out

Florida St. --OUT

Hawaii---OUT

UCF --CUSA

------------There are still two spots left for non-top 25. Best records of teams from conf. not listed...Navy 8-3 (Ind), Connecticut 8-4 (Big-E), Northern Ill (MAC). 9-3, Troy 7-5 (Sun). (pick two)

..

Edited December 9, 2010 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[oldguystudent]

So if next year, UNT goes to whatever crappy bowl is up in Detroit, you won't watch it? That's about the most meaningless bowl game that comes to mind without looking at the list.

As it is, even the New Orleans bowl is kinda' bunk to me. The Sunbelt champion against some other conference's third/fourth place team? Is that how things really match up?

There are two factors keeping us from a playoff:

1) You can pry the power and the money and the monopoly out of the AQ's cold, dead hands.

2) How do you compensate the now defunct 25-30 bowl games that were once profitable for the entities hosting them? (although certainly not necessarily profitable for the schools playing in them)

[Rudy]

You counted wrong, there are 35 bowls with 70 teams getting bids.

I disagree with an 8 team playoff. If there is going to be a playoff, then every conference should get a shot which would require a 16 team playoff. Seed them however makes sense, but 8 just allows the AQs to continue to keep everyone else out.

+99 in addition to the +1 I gave you.

--I did say "about 8".... and no conference should ever have more TWO teams in it... if only 8, maybe ONE conference with two... but not more... would make winning the conference more meaningful. I agree with 12 or 16 ... but getting started with 8 would be a big improvement over what we have.

If we "get started" with only 8 teams, then the BcS money whores would NEVER allow it to expand, at least expand into the non-AQ conferences. If they were to get a playoff system started, it would have to start with every conference getting in. Personally, I'd say 20 teams. the top 4 conference winners would get a bye the first week. Or, have the conference winner from each of the AQ conferences get a bye the first week.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

+99 in addition to the +1 I gave you.

If we "get started" with only 8 teams, then the BcS money whores would NEVER allow it to expand, at least expand into the non-AQ conferences. If they were to get a playoff system started, it would have to start with every conference getting in. Personally, I'd say 20 teams. the top 4 conference winners would get a bye the first week. Or, have the conference winner from each of the AQ conferences get a bye the first week.

Look back at the list.... 20 would addd more BCS teams...

[FirefightnRick]

There is never too much football on TV.

Rick

[FloMoGrad]

Some of those "meaningless" bowls turn out to be amazing games to watch. 2002 Motor City Bowl with Marshall and ECU comes to mind with plenty of others... Craziest game I've ever seen. And we wouldn't be saying that if we were in any one of those 35 bowls. Just happy to see the Belt in 3, although I wish at least one was against someone other than the MAC...

[Rudy]

Look back at the list.... 20 would addd more BCS teams...

I know, but it would keep the BcS bitches somewhat happy that they can still dominate the playoff field, but we would at least have a shot.

But I still agree, NEVER enough college football on TV. Time to clear out my DVR

[CMJ]

Sixteen team playoff is the perfect number. All 11 conference champs plus the next 5 at large. Since that will never happen, and any playoff would probably only be 4-6 teams, I am against a playoff.

[jdh008]

There is never too much football on TV.

Rick

I completely agree. I watch way more meaningless bowl games than I'd like to admit.

If you wanted to cut down the number of bowl games, though, I would think there is an easy fix. Someone correct me if I'm wrong or way off base, but I just think the minimum sponsorship requirement to get a bowl game needs to be upped. You know when companies like Beef O'Brady's and uDrove (or uDrive, or whatever it is) are getting bowl games, you might need to raise the standards. I think there would be two benefits. First, you might cut out some of the smaller bowls that consistently struggle with attendance and interest. Second, you can raise the payouts given to the participating schools. Schools shouldn't lose money just because they sent their team to a bowl game, but it happens.

[UNTflyer]

I like pie.

Edited December 9, 2010 by UNTflyer

[forevereagle]

I like pie.

Don't we all.

[VideoEagle]

I like pie.

Pie for everyone! Wait, we already did that.

[Mean Green 93-98]

I agree. The champion of EVERY conference should get a shot.

I disagree. I think that it is ridiculous that an 8-4 UConn is heading to a BCS game while more worthy candidates are left out. If it were playoffs, I do not believe they would deserve a shot to play for the championship. I think every conference champion should get a shot, with the exception of conference champions who finish the season without either a top 15 ranking or less than 3 regular season losses.

[forevereagle]

I disagree. I think that it is ridiculous that an 8-4 UConn is heading to a BCS game while more worthy candidates are left out. If it were playoffs, I do not believe they would deserve a shot to play for the championship. I think every conference champion should get a shot, with the exception of conference champions who finish the season without either a top 15 ranking or less than 3 regular season losses.

Then why change the current system? The rankings are subjective and can be made to reflect what is desired. The all conferences get a rep works in basketball, why not football. Any system that purposefully excludes teams is not a true championship since not all members are represented.

[Mean Green 93-98]

Then why change the current system? The rankings are subjective and can be made to reflect what is desired. The all conferences get a rep works in basketball, why not football. Any system that purposefully excludes teams is not a true championship since not all members are represented.

Any system will purposefully exclude the worse teams. Otherwise, we are left with 60 first-round playoff games, and twice as many rounds as March Madness.

Seriously, why should a team who has four regular season losses be allowed into the playoffs, and a one-loss team be excluded, on the sole virtue of having won or not won their conferences?

[forevereagle]

Any system will purposefully exclude the worse teams. Otherwise, we are left with 60 first-round playoff games, and twice as many rounds as March Madness.

Seriously, why should a team who has four regular season losses be allowed into the playoffs, and a one-loss team be excluded, on the sole virtue of having won or not won their conferences?

Then the SBC and MAC should probably just drop to AA or football altogether. Good plan.

[Mean Green 93-98]

Then the SBC and MAC should probably just drop to AA or football altogether. Good plan.

No. According to what I said above, if a SBC or MAC team won their conference with 2 losses they would still be in. But if they had more losses than that, they simply would not deserve to be in.

[forevereagle]

No. According to what I said above, if a SBC or MAC team won their conference with 2 losses they would still be in. But if they had more losses than that, they simply would not deserve to be in.

When was the last time an SBC team finished with only two losses?

[Mean Green 93-98]

When was the last time an SBC team finished with only two losses?

What's that have to do with anything? I'm not trying to propose a system that unnecessarily favors the Sun Belt; I'm trying to propose a system that's fair.

[CMJ]

Seriously, why should a team who has four regular season losses be allowed into the playoffs, and a one-loss team be excluded, on the sole virtue of having won or not won their conferences?

So...any team that has say...10 or more losses shouldn't goto the Big Dance by that logic. A playoff is only fair if every conference has an auto bid. Sure, the Sunbelt rep would be at a disadvantage, but we are in the basketball tournament too. We're still invited and sometimes a WKU wins a round or two.

[forevereagle]

So...any team that has say...10 or more losses shouldn't goto the Big Dance by that logic. A playoff is only fair if every conference has an auto bid. Sure, the Sunbelt rep would be at a disadvantage, but we are in the basketball tournament too. We're still invited and sometimes a WKU wins a round or two.

What he said. Inclusion IS fair. By excluding, you are completely ruling out a team getting hot and winning games.

[greenminer]

I think the money distribution is far more unfair than any current or proposed championship setup.

Spread the wealth and watch the competition truly heat up.