Arizona Bowl will not be televised
- Thread starter OnceAhawk
- Start date
No. They got invited with a 5-7 record.
The problem with justifying the proliferation of bowls as pure consumerism is just that. It's consumerism in place of what was once the showcase of the ideals of sport and team competition.
These new bowls are the junk food of football consumerism. They make many of us happy and sated but are harmful in the long run. Rewarding mediocrity can not be self-sustaining.
These new bowls are the junk food of football consumerism. They make many of us happy and sated but are harmful in the long run. Rewarding mediocrity can not be self-sustaining.
I agree lets cut out at least 10 games and make bowl eligibility 7 wins. 6 games was fine when teams played 11 games, it meant that teams were a .500+ team. I think 25-30 bowls would be perfect and would require a team to win 7 games and if there were not enough teams with 7 wins it would be more understandable to fill with 6-6 teams then the 5-7 teams who didn't even finish with a winning record
Think of the money they can save by playing at a high school stadium!
I'm almost positive lil bro could make history being the only 5-8 team in CFB history! I almost hope they win. We'll never hear the end of it. Them being the only team in the record books @ 5-8. Good luck telling them that's a bad thing.
It was never "a showcase of the ideals of sport and team competition." Every bowl that ever existed has been a commercial enterprise created to benefit the locale and its backers. This includes your precious Rose Bowl.
If you don't like it, don't tune in. It's the same as it ever was. If you support the Rose Bowl, you support the ideals of capitalism and your local rotary club.
We went to the Alamo with a 6-5 record in 1993 so this has been going on for quite awhile.
Sure, GPRHawk.
Probably more examples even further back.
At least the Hawks had a winning record that year. One of the criteria that I would set.
But, I think we can only expect more bow(e)l games with sub .500 teams.
Of course, if we don't like them we don't have to watch.
Probably more examples even further back.
At least the Hawks had a winning record that year. One of the criteria that I would set.
But, I think we can only expect more bow(e)l games with sub .500 teams.
Of course, if we don't like them we don't have to watch.
I could be wrong, but if no one shows up or tunes into these lower-tier bowls, won't that make them go away?? Natural selection: It works for mother nature. It can work for bowl games.
As recent as 2007 we were shut out of a bowl with a 6-6 record. Cutting 10 bowls out gets us back to where 6-6 teams can easily be left out of playing in a bowl.
You're gonna hate me for saying this. But I would've loved a game in 2007. With the current structure we don't ever have to worry about 07 happening again.
Most of the lower tier bowls are more or less owned by ESPN. The ratings are relatively paltry, but a Tuesday night bowl game in late December absolutely crushes their alternative programming such as poker. So ESPN has been satisfied with their return.
The newest books were actually pushed through by conferences like the MWC which were not happy when their 7-5 teams didn't make a bowl game. They wanted to create a landing spot for those teams, which they felt would help them competitively. They may find it backfires as the schools lose money. So some of the newest may fold, but it seems there are always new bowls willing to take their place.
From your analysis it sounds like they aren't going away. That's bad news for many. But for a silly boy like me who wants a guarantee that Iowa will be in a bowl every year . . . it's manna from heaven.
There may be too many bowl games, but it's not the "participation trophy" mentality that's driving this. It's local business groups deciding their members can make money by hosting a game. It's nothing more or less than that. It's not just about butts in seats, it's about an uptick in hotel bookings, restaurant reservations, etc.
Ah, the "good ol' days" when we were so anti- the participation trophy mentality that you didn't get to go to a bowl game if you were the team that won the league and went to the bowl the previous year. Back in those awesome days, you could win your league every year, but only go to a bowl every other so that it would be more fair.
I know that with this many bowl games the match ups are not ideal but you guys can go ahead and watch basketball. I would rather be watching football year round.
Maybe they could cut out a dozen or so bowls and just have one bowl game on at a time. That way I could have a football game on almost every night.
Maybe they could cut out a dozen or so bowls and just have one bowl game on at a time. That way I could have a football game on almost every night.
Is this even true? Obviously there were a lot less bowls and they took the best teams ... because that was where the money/fans were.
Do we really think that had college football been this popular and there were this many tv broadcasts that it would have remained this "award"?
I don't think so, more sponsors are interested than ever before. These are neutral site football games, they have them at the beginning of the year too, even in the middle.
This bowl appears to be a bad one, certainly shouldn't be a conference matchup, but enough already with the "you don't deserve it" nonsense. They aren't in the f****** rose bowl or NY6.
Did you watch their regular season matchup? Was it on tv?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_Bowl_Game
Originally titled the "Tournament East–West football game",[5] the first Rose Bowl was played on January 1, 1902, starting the tradition of New Year's Day bowl games. The football game was added in 1902 to help fund the cost of the Rose Parade.[6]
The game was so lopsided that for the next 13 years, the Tournament of Roses officials ran chariot races, ostrich races, and other various events instead of football.
Originally titled the "Tournament East–West football game",[5] the first Rose Bowl was played on January 1, 1902, starting the tradition of New Year's Day bowl games. The football game was added in 1902 to help fund the cost of the Rose Parade.[6]
The game was so lopsided that for the next 13 years, the Tournament of Roses officials ran chariot races, ostrich races, and other various events instead of football.
I would like to see a system with out bowl tie ins. I think its stupid that a 6-6 team goes to a better bowl than a team with 9-3 record.
I think they should cut the bowls to 30. Take the top 60 teams and match-up. Rank them somehow with the old BCS formula or whatever and put them together. I would love to see some of these smaller schools match-up with the mid level schools. Then you also could get some good match-ups.
I am getting sick of the Big 10 vs SEC all the time. And then Big 12 vs whoever. Just pair them up randomly.
Also another thing I would like to see is games not being played in a teams home state. I mean Iowa playing Stanford in the Rose Bowl is somewhat unavoidable. But all those years we played in the Outback Bowl or Capital One Bowl in FLORIDA vs FLORIDA. That makes no sense.
Why not have a bowl game in Indy or St Louis. Those are controlled environments and that way we can spread the "bowl travel" love. Iowa fans have to travel it seems like 20+ hours to any bowl game, while the team their playing is a short bus ride away. Not fair.
I think they should cut the bowls to 30. Take the top 60 teams and match-up. Rank them somehow with the old BCS formula or whatever and put them together. I would love to see some of these smaller schools match-up with the mid level schools. Then you also could get some good match-ups.
I am getting sick of the Big 10 vs SEC all the time. And then Big 12 vs whoever. Just pair them up randomly.
Also another thing I would like to see is games not being played in a teams home state. I mean Iowa playing Stanford in the Rose Bowl is somewhat unavoidable. But all those years we played in the Outback Bowl or Capital One Bowl in FLORIDA vs FLORIDA. That makes no sense.
Why not have a bowl game in Indy or St Louis. Those are controlled environments and that way we can spread the "bowl travel" love. Iowa fans have to travel it seems like 20+ hours to any bowl game, while the team their playing is a short bus ride away. Not fair.
This. There are frequently charities associated with these bowls as well...so again...everyone wins!
Lotsa bowls has nothing to do with "everyone getting a ribbon" so stop thinking its a symptom of society's downfall.
(And the Arizona Bowl is not a rematch. Those teams are in different divisions and didn't play during the regular season.)
The bowls should be cut down to 30 bowls + the playoff, meaning the playoff games do not take place at one of the bowls. No more 5-7 teams going to a bowl....and raise the win requirement to 7.
The MW Commissioner is making a stink, he was pushing for all the traditionally bowl eligible teams be selected before the 5-7 crowd got invites. But schools like MN and Nebraska got bowls over his schools with a .500 or better record.
If Kuhmo Tires and Planters Peanuts and Poulin Weedeaters want to put out money to host bowls, then there will always be too many bowls.
