Chun speaks out
- Thread starter CougPatrol
- Start date
Yes and no. Happy he did his job and went to bat for us.
But, his answers seem a little too diplomatic in that he didn't poke holes in the schools above, etc. He also didn't comment about the Pac's terrible scheduling times. No one east of Medford saw us dismantle Arizona. So, he didn't really address the institutional failures of the Pac due to his joint lobbying effort with Scott. The committee members weren't going to change their minds by a reevaluation of our merits, but rather circumstances changing in the team's above us (bad Pitt loss reflecting poorly on Penn St, etc.)
At the end of the day, most likely nothing he said or could have said would have mattered, so whatever ...
But, his answers seem a little too diplomatic in that he didn't poke holes in the schools above, etc. He also didn't comment about the Pac's terrible scheduling times. No one east of Medford saw us dismantle Arizona. So, he didn't really address the institutional failures of the Pac due to his joint lobbying effort with Scott. The committee members weren't going to change their minds by a reevaluation of our merits, but rather circumstances changing in the team's above us (bad Pitt loss reflecting poorly on Penn St, etc.)
At the end of the day, most likely nothing he said or could have said would have mattered, so whatever ...
I found the second article on that page about Rashan Gary very interesting as well. Goes to show if your not in the top 4, does it really matter. Now a win by Florida in the Peach bowl will be tarnished. I know this is the new fad for top picks, but no shot at a Natty. Why play.
Chun has to be diplomatic. He got the criticism out there, which is all he was supposed to do.
Let's hope more players do it and half of these bowls go away. Sponsors might start getting cold feet if the top players pull out en mass
That's a slippery slope.
I think you actually said it earlier - what exactly are the kids playing for to begin with? Outside of the NC/ Playoff, they are making money for the bowl organizers/ sponsors and maybe a couple of shekels for the conference. There is no prestige, or not enough prestige, for an NFL bound player to compete in a lower tier bowl (basically all bowls not NY6/ playoff.) Then you have the whole "so and so got snubbed" every year, so those kids are checked out/ disincented as well.
Curious as to why you want bowls to go away? How do they really affect you? I can tell you that they don't affect me at all. I don't watch games that I don't want to watch.
I mentioned this a few weeks ago....and I can't speak for Orange Gravy....but I have a philosophical aversion to rewarding mediocrity. There are teams in bowls that don't have a winning record. To me, that devalues the entire season's body of work. It doesn't affect me, it's just a personal preference to make all bowl games more meaningful. My opinion is no more or no less valid than yours....and I'm pretty sure the proliferation of bowl games won't be going away anytime soon.
Glad Cougar
Glad Cougar
I agree. Even worse, there's enough bowls now that sometimes we need to let teams that win less than half of their games go. Nobody should get a bowl at 5-7.
I'll go even farther than that - remember a few years ago when UCLA was 6-6 and qualified for the Pac-12 championship, and needed an exemption to play in a bowl at 6-7 after losing? Denied. In fact, since you're only 6-6, you don't get to play in the conference championship either.
Some of the bowls should be eliminated. Only teams that are 8-4 or better should be eligible. And, just to put a little "student" back in "student-athlete", the 8-4 teams are slotted in bowls based on APR...just like they do when 5-7 teams are needed. Side benefit of that is it'll probably eliminate a lot of the lower bowls for SEC teams.
I think we should do it just like the Big 12.... Best two teams in the conference play in the championship game, guaranteed.
I agree. The idea of the north getting shut out or the south getting shut out, is completely acceptable. I want the best teams in the conference playing the championship game, not the best among the crap
I'd like that idea this year. It would have given us a rematch with UW a week after AC.
College football doesn't affect anyone that doesn't draw a paycheck from it personally. The bowl expansion has gone hand in hand with the increased profiteering of the sport and both have been detrimental as far as I'm concerned. I just hate how much money has taken over this entire system.
Nobody watches games they don't want to watch by the way. It would be interesting to survey a bunch of past players who've played in some of these low level bowls and get an honest opinion of how they felt about the experience.
I work with an Iowa State grad who played for the Cyclones. He said that both bowl trips he went on were awesome in their own way. He said that location matters because the Pinstripe Bowl in NYC was the better trip even though they lost the game.
Im fine with 7-5.... but your conference record has to be .500 or better.... and you cant count wins against FCS.... and when it comes to picking those with the most wins in P5 play, then BCS go first...
