5-7 teams to make bowl games....
- Thread starter IowaHawkeyeFBnBB4Life
- Start date
Not that there are too many bowl games or anything.........
For all the young pups on the board, in (relatively) olden days, going to a bowl game was a really big deal. Example: In '71, ISU's only losses were to the teams that finished 1-2-3 in the national rankings, but the conventional wisdom was that the Cyclones needed not just to beat Okie State, but win big, if they were going to get a bowl invitation with an 8-3 record. They won 54-0 and went to the Sun Bowl. Five years later, ISU went 8-3, including a win over top ten Nebraska, and got no bowl bid.
On the other hand, the way the system worked, sometimes bad teams got to bowls.....including the ISU team in '72 that finished 5-5-1 and went to the Liberty Bowl, which was a pretty decent bowl at the time.
Bowls vied with each other to get the best teams they could as early as they could, so sometimes they issued invitations long before the season ended. Then if a team went into the crapper in the final games, the bowl was stuck with it.
End of history lesson. But there needs to be some kind of happy medium. A team with a losing record shouldn't be rewarded with a bowl invitation, IMHO.
And you kids get off my lawn.
For all the young pups on the board, in (relatively) olden days, going to a bowl game was a really big deal. Example: In '71, ISU's only losses were to the teams that finished 1-2-3 in the national rankings, but the conventional wisdom was that the Cyclones needed not just to beat Okie State, but win big, if they were going to get a bowl invitation with an 8-3 record. They won 54-0 and went to the Sun Bowl. Five years later, ISU went 8-3, including a win over top ten Nebraska, and got no bowl bid.
On the other hand, the way the system worked, sometimes bad teams got to bowls.....including the ISU team in '72 that finished 5-5-1 and went to the Liberty Bowl, which was a pretty decent bowl at the time.
Bowls vied with each other to get the best teams they could as early as they could, so sometimes they issued invitations long before the season ended. Then if a team went into the crapper in the final games, the bowl was stuck with it.
End of history lesson. But there needs to be some kind of happy medium. A team with a losing record shouldn't be rewarded with a bowl invitation, IMHO.
And you kids get off my lawn.
Yes. And Iowa State. Maybe they'll play each other.
I love college football. There cannot be "too much" of it. Therefore, I'll watch a bowl between two 3-9 teams, if it is on.
Too many of the 'new' bowl games are starting to lose money, and having trouble with sponsors, etc.
So long as they don't rely on gate revenues, you'll keep seeing tons of bowl games, but when there are so many competing ones with crappy teams, no one will really watch, and advertising revenues for TV also drop. W/o butts in seats, or Draft Kings/FanDuel ads, we'll start to see the number of bowls shrink. They are often viewed as 'revenue boosters' for cities that host them, but I think lots of cities find they don't really draw that many fans and are more of a net liability than economic boost for local economies.
I think this will happen as more Millennials no longer have interest in watching crappy bowl games, and have other entertainment options...
Not only are the bowls losing money(which doesn't bother me in the least bit), but more importantly schools are too. Certainly some institutions could cut down on their travel expenses, etc but it seems ridiculous for schools to accept bowl invites that ultimately will cost them money.
The extra bowl games and teams with 6-6 or even worse records don't bother me. I guess what I don't like is how the top bowl games are taking in $25-30 million and others are losing money. You'd think there would be some kind of "trickle down economics" to support the lesser bowl games. Of course, I realize that's a naive viewpoint - the rich are just going to get richer. The playoff and the splitting off of the Power 5 conferences with their own rules will assure that.
Agree. If you don't like watching two 5-7 teams play each other on a Tuesday afternoon in late December, pick up your remote and watch The View instead.
Actually if Nebraska goes 5-7, they will be the first 5-7 team picked. The NCAA has some rule about the academic progress rankings thing, and Nebraska ranks #6 overall, but the teams ahead of them all have six wins already. That is how they determine which 5-7 teams go.
Do teams that get into a bowl get an extra month of practice? Is that really the main benefit of going to a bowl....
Well, also one more game against an equal team on a national stage. Fans and players typically get some sort of vacation for it over the winter month.
Practice, competition and growth, exposure, and a vacation. Not the worst thing for a program.
Bowl games are a thing of the past. College Football playoff is where we are heading.
They will expand to 8 teams in the next couple of years. They wIll have the power 5 champions and 3 at large teams. The higher rated teams get to play at home in the first round.
Then use the Rose, Sugar, Orange & Fiesta bowls for semi-finals and championship game.
The lower tier bowls can be used for MAC, American, Conference USA, & WAC champions playing at large
Power 5 teams.
Those could be some interesting match ups.
It would be much better watching 5-7 teams play each other.
They will expand to 8 teams in the next couple of years. They wIll have the power 5 champions and 3 at large teams. The higher rated teams get to play at home in the first round.
Then use the Rose, Sugar, Orange & Fiesta bowls for semi-finals and championship game.
The lower tier bowls can be used for MAC, American, Conference USA, & WAC champions playing at large
Power 5 teams.
Those could be some interesting match ups.
It would be much better watching 5-7 teams play each other.
Interesting that we would get a bowl game lesson from an ISU fan and even more interesting that I agree.....full moon this week must be the explanation
As the lower tier Bowl games continue to lose money, it
will spark a new evaluation of how college football bowl
games have peaked. Some of these cannot fill a stadium.
As stated above, eventually there will be an 8 team playoff
for the National Championship of college football. TV money
wants the excitement of the playoffs and not The Hunger Bowl
in San Francisco between 2 mediocre teams.
will spark a new evaluation of how college football bowl
games have peaked. Some of these cannot fill a stadium.
As stated above, eventually there will be an 8 team playoff
for the National Championship of college football. TV money
wants the excitement of the playoffs and not The Hunger Bowl
in San Francisco between 2 mediocre teams.
I think we should add a class of bowls just for 5-7 teams. It would give us Lincolnites something to shoot for. Some name ideas:
The Doritos Locos Taco Bowl
The Cool Ranch Doritos Locos Taco Bowl
The All Day Breakfast Bowl
The Meat and Potato Burrito Bowl
The Doritos Locos Taco Bowl
The Cool Ranch Doritos Locos Taco Bowl
The All Day Breakfast Bowl
The Meat and Potato Burrito Bowl
Schools may lose money on the bowl games but a lot of the crappy bowl games aren't losing money. That's because they're owned by ESPN and even though they may be losing money on tickets they are making a ton of money on TV revenue because even the crappy bowls get better numbers than good college basketball games.
True but the eSECpn money train is tightening its belt
Would not be surprised to see then jettison a few of the biggest losers
Why not? You don't care about those teams' other games, why do you care about this one? Serious question, as I've never understood the animosity against bowl games. The people who put significant importance on every bowl game are the idiots. It doesn't have to be: "They made a BOWL game?!? Wow they must be good!" right? It could be, "they made the south-side Chicago Smith & Wesson bowl? huh, didn't even know about it" ....right?
The bowls from back in the day you talk about are still good bowls for teams to go to, it doesn't tarnish their reputation. The Rose Bowl isn't a toilet bowl simply because ISU could go to Idaho again.
See my above post. Did you have interest in watching those teams play during the season? What is gained in your "nothing lost" scenario?
No I don't have any interest in those teams once they've already established they're sub .500.
I'm in the camp that a bowl should still in some sense be a reward for at least a decent season if no longer a good season. If a team can't win more than half its games why should they be rewarded with another game?
Everyone that wants to continue to have multiple mediocre bowl games have nothing to worry about. The detroit toilet bowl, idaho crapfest on the putrid blue turf, and many other similar contests will still be played this year. And most likely next year as well.
So you watch every one of these "mediocre" teams' games prior to being .500? Which is, in all likelihood, the first/second game of the season?
What benefit is there of "not rewarding" a 5-7 team?
You are basically saying you won't watch, so why does it bother you that they occur? Are you also upset that losing-record high school teams are in the expanded playoff?
Latest posts
-
-
Another Lackluster Performance Slams Door Shut on Hawkeyes' CFP Dreams- Latest: St. Louis Hawk
-
-
-