NCAA Approves 35 Bowl Games

[boblight24]

NCAA Approves 35 Bowl Games for next 4 years

Is it really necessary to 70 teams play in bowl games, most of which are essentially meaningless except for the money the schools get. Who really wants to see the #6 Big 10 vs #7 Big 12 team? I know that the new Cowboys Stadium and Yankee Stadium are the hosts of these new bowls, but seriously why do we need more bowl games? I'm not suggesting a playoff system, but why not have every team play in a bowl game. I'd love to see Washington State (1-11) play Western Kentucky (0-12) in the Loser Leaves Town Bowl.

My apologies to those of you who are Cougars/Hilltoppers

[Eric]

Bowl applications were denied for the Cure Bowl in Orlando, Fla., and the Christmas Bowl in Los Angeles.

At least they turned some bowls down.

[darkcloud4579]

Yup, why not? If there's not going to be a playoff, I'm all for this. For all of the reasons we have them, traditional or whatever else. The communities/sponsors are the ones paying and student-athletes work very hard during the year. Sure, 6-6 might seem like a pittance to most but...these kids aren't pros. Free education or not, they work hard and I'm fine with giving them a reward if we're not gonna have a playoff anyway.

Plus, who cares? The alumni of those schools care. Fans of big schools probably don't understand, but when you root for a team that's FBS, not in a major conference and isn't likely to contend for a national title in football...these bowl games can be a nice fun way to bring alumni together, raise money for the schools and keep them on a radar even if it's a small one.

So again, it doesn't hurt anything really and since losing teams aren't allowed in bowl games (and they're even allowed into all of the postseasons the NCAA actually sponsors, if they win an auto-bid.) anyway, I'm all for it. You at least have to win half your games.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by darkcloud4579

Yup, why not? If there's not going to be a playoff, I'm all for this. For all of the reasons we have them, traditional or whatever else. The communities/sponsors are the ones paying and student-athletes work very hard during the year. Sure, 6-6 might seem like a pittance to most but...these kids aren't pros. Free education or not, they work hard and I'm fine with giving them a reward if we're not gonna have a playoff anyway.

Plus, who cares? The alumni of those schools care. Fans of big schools probably don't understand, but when you root for a team that's FBS, not in a major conference and isn't likely to contend for a national title in football...these bowl games can be a nice fun way to bring alumni together, raise money for the schools and keep them on a radar even if it's a small one.

So again, it doesn't hurt anything really and since losing teams aren't allowed in bowl games (and they're even allowed into all of the postseasons the NCAA actually sponsors, if they win an auto-bid.) anyway, I'm all for it. You at least have to win half your games.

Very well said. Thanks.

[His Own Bad Self]

Originally Posted by darkcloud4579

So again, it doesn't hurt anything really and since losing teams aren't allowed in bowl games (and they're even allowed into all of the postseasons the NCAA actually sponsors, if they win an auto-bid.) anyway, I'm all for it. You at least have to win half your games.

Of course, if it weren't for the (nonsensical) rule that wins against 1AA teams count in a team's 1A record, there might not be 70 1A teams that win half their games.

[Carplos]

Is it really necessary to 70 teams play in bowl games, most of which are essentially meaningless except for the money the schools get.

This is the exact reason I'd be okay with every team being able to play in a bowl game. I don't care if you're 0-12, if there's a company out there that wants to sponsor a bowl game the two worst teams and throw money that way, let 'em.

[darkcloud4579]

Originally Posted by His Own Bad Self

Of course, if it weren't for the (nonsensical) rule that wins against 1AA teams count in a team's 1A record, there might not be 70 1A teams that win half their games.

It's not nonsensical though. FCS teams aren't aliens from another planet, they're still Division 1 football teams that play with one hand tied behind their back. If they win, those games count for them and so, the games ought to count for FBS teams even if they are "supposed" to win.

It's not that weird. I mean, they're not HS or Pee Wee teams and despite what everyone thinks, the differences -- especially at the lower FBS level -- isn't that different depending on the year.

[Cryomaniac]

I still think there needs to be a playoff, and I've said before if they are worried about tradition, then why not keep the sponsorship and names for the playoff games (and even keep the other bowl games for non-qualified teams)

[boblight24]

Originally Posted by darkcloud4579

Yup, why not? If there's not going to be a playoff, I'm all for this. For all of the reasons we have them, traditional or whatever else. The communities/sponsors are the ones paying and student-athletes work very hard during the year. Sure, 6-6 might seem like a pittance to most but...these kids aren't pros. Free education or not, they work hard and I'm fine with giving them a reward if we're not gonna have a playoff anyway.

Plus, who cares? The alumni of those schools care. Fans of big schools probably don't understand, but when you root for a team that's FBS, not in a major conference and isn't likely to contend for a national title in football...these bowl games can be a nice fun way to bring alumni together, raise money for the schools and keep them on a radar even if it's a small one.

So again, it doesn't hurt anything really and since losing teams aren't allowed in bowl games (and they're even allowed into all of the postseasons the NCAA actually sponsors, if they win an auto-bid.) anyway, I'm all for it. You at least have to win half your games.

Excellent post, very well said and it's changed my opinion of my original post.

[His Own Bad Self]

Originally Posted by darkcloud4579

It's not nonsensical though. FCS teams aren't aliens from another planet, they're still Division 1 football teams that play with one hand tied behind their back. If they win, those games count for them and so, the games ought to count for FBS teams even if they are "supposed" to win.

It's not that weird. I mean, they're not HS or Pee Wee teams and despite what everyone thinks, the differences -- especially at the lower FBS level -- isn't that different depending on the year.

1A and 1AA have separate championship competitions. Therefore, their games against each other shouldn't count in their 1A and 1AA records, instead being treated as exhibitions. Otherwise, they ought to remove the distinction between 1A and 1AA. It would be like an MLB team and a AAA team playing each other, with the outcome affecting their respective league records.

[Le Grande Orange]

I think I'm coming down with irritable bowl syndrome...

[JeterHOF]

Small Bowl Games Rob Peter To Pay Peter - Brian Cook - The Sporting Blog - Sporting News

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by Carplos

This is the exact reason I'd be okay with every team being able to play in a bowl game. I don't care if you're 0-12, if there's a company out there that wants to sponsor a bowl game the two worst teams and throw money that way, let 'em.

And I think the balance is pretty reasonable right now. The payout of the worst bowls would roughly let the participating teams come out even after travel and administrative expense. That's why you sometimes get teams rejecting minor bowls when the traveling expense is too high.

[yankeesrule]

Originally Posted by darkcloud4579

Yup, why not? If there's not going to be a playoff, I'm all for this. For all of the reasons we have them, traditional or whatever else. The communities/sponsors are the ones paying and student-athletes work very hard during the year. Sure, 6-6 might seem like a pittance to most but...these kids aren't pros. Free education or not, they work hard and I'm fine with giving them a reward if we're not gonna have a playoff anyway.

Plus, who cares? The alumni of those schools care. Fans of big schools probably don't understand, but when you root for a team that's FBS, not in a major conference and isn't likely to contend for a national title in football...these bowl games can be a nice fun way to bring alumni together, raise money for the schools and keep them on a radar even if it's a small one.

So again, it doesn't hurt anything really and since losing teams aren't allowed in bowl games (and they're even allowed into all of the postseasons the NCAA actually sponsors, if they win an auto-bid.) anyway, I'm all for it. You at least have to win half your games.

Well said. I cant speak for what its like for the smaller schools, but I was a student at Rutgers in '05 when we made our first bowl game since 1978. The entire campus went crazy. Being at the stadium, it was almost surreal. If thats how we were as fans, I can just imagine what it must have been like for the players.

Having been to 2 of our 5 bowl games these past 5 seasons, and getting down early in the bowl week to checkout the bowl festivities, you can see how much these games mean to the players and its really great for them.

[darkcloud4579]

Originally Posted by His Own Bad Self

1A and 1AA have separate championship competitions. Therefore, their games against each other shouldn't count in their 1A and 1AA records, instead being treated as exhibitions. Otherwise, they ought to remove the distinction between 1A and 1AA. It would be like an MLB team and a AAA team playing each other, with the outcome affecting their respective league records.

Not true at all. Besides, D2 and D3 schools play each other sometimes. NAIA schools play D3 and D2 schools sometimes, too. You can't compare college sports to the pros, because the distinctions are very, very different. Namely classifications at the college level are somewhat arbitrary and have no bearing on quality, talent level or anything else.

Any school in the D3 University Athletic Association (a conference) have the financial werewithal to play at the D1 level. They choose not to. Same with the Ivy League, as they choose to hamper themselves through a host of restrictions and of course, a moratorium on playoff football.

Schools in other divisions may have other priorities or might be bound by a different classification, but it's not akin to saying it's intentionally a lower level because while it's generally true, it's not always true.

But we can agree to disagree on this, even if you're wrong.

[theasfl]

I don't like teams under .500 getting in unless everyone is eligible....and if everyone is eligible a 3-9 Michigan or Notre Dame is getting in over a 5-7 Northwestern.

Go playoffs.