More sad examples of where college football is headed.

[GrayOnGray]

For right now anyway, nothing on espn's front page mentions the holiday bowl, despite the fact that it is today. Instead there are plenty stories about games that are not today. Oh, but on the pac-12 blog there is a story about Gabe Marks who, according to the headline, plays for "Washington."

 

[dgibbons]

For right now anyway, nothing on espn's front page mentions the holiday bowl, despite the fact that it is today. Instead there are plenty stories about games that are not today. Oh, but on the pac-12 blog there is a story about Gabe Marks who, according to the headline, plays for "Washington."

The bowl games have almost gotten to the point where they are advertisements for the playoff. I guess ESPN needs to hype them to produce the required ratings.

 

[Glad Cougar]

Nothing in the Oregonian today either despite the fact there are a hell of a lot of us Cougars down here in the Beaver State. I would expect a smallish article on Page 5 tomorrow lumped in with the Boise State-Baylor, Wake Forest-Temple, and Army-North Texas games....but I could be wrong (and surprised!).

Glad Cougar

 

[CougPatrol]

I don't think it's a sign of what's wrong with college football. With expanded TV coverage, twitter, social media, etc., the entire sporting world has become diluted.

Do fans outside of WSU and Minnesota really care about the Holiday Bowl? I'm a huge P12 fan, but I can take or leave the Foster Farms Bowl between Utah and Arizona. The Colorado/Okie St. Alamo Bowl is good matchup, but I don't particularly care about it. Same with Stanford vs. UNC.

The Big-6 bowls (Rose, Sugar, Cotton, Orange, Peach, and Fiesta) are in a different category, as they should be. Outside of those games, the smaller bowls are rewards for the players, coaches, and alumni of the participating schools.

We'll eventually move to an expanded playoff, and that will help mitigate a lot of these problems. A 32 team playoff would feature 31 games. Currently there are 41 bowl games.

Unfortunately, corporate greed will sour things, but in a perfect world, I'd love to see the smaller conferences get re-aligned geographically so that the playoff would include a mix of schools from all regions.

P5 conferences (P12, B12, B10, ACC, SEC) get 4 teams into the playoff (20 teams)
MWC - 2 teams
CUSA - 2 teams
American Athletic - 2 teams
Sun Belt - 1 team
WAC or a modified BigSky - 1 team
At Large bids - 4 teams

 

[GrayOnGray]

I don't think it's a sign of what's wrong with college football. With expanded TV coverage, twitter, social media, etc., the entire sporting world has become diluted.

One of the things that makes something news is timeliness. Your point is well taken when it comes to the earlier bowls from non-P5 conferences. Bowls like the Holiday or Alamo, and their parallel equals in the other major conferences, used to get more respect.

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

For right now anyway, nothing on espn's front page mentions the holiday bowl, despite the fact that it is today. Instead there are plenty stories about games that are not today. Oh, but on the pac-12 blog there is a story about Gabe Marks who, according to the headline, plays for "Washington."

to be fair, this is a story about Minnesota and a petition to get Claeys fired... so yeah, there's that.

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

Do fans outside of WSU and Minnesota really care about the Holiday Bowl?

Not sure how old you are, but before there were bowl games for losing teams - lets say 20 years ago, that would be mid 90's and about the time the bowl system really started going down hill (prob a little earlier, but hey...)

ALL the bowl games were A) extra football to watch B) a chance to see the teams and kids you'd heard about all year but couldn't watch and C) a chance to see some players you knew would play on Sundays that you normally couldn't see.

So yeah, I USED to care about a lot of the bowls because they were matches of talented teams with talented players that I would probably see playing on Sundays within the next year to two.

But to your point: 41 bowl games? Really? Between the Seahawks, the Cougs, and the occassional other game I don't watch 41 games during and entire SEASON. These games are not made to be watched or paid attention to, obviously, which is why I bang the drum so hard against the cross bar of "hey, we're bowl eligible." Outside of the practice, who the fck cares? McCaffery proved that the players don't - not so much - anymore. They payout for most of them puts most teams/ universities in the red just to attend.

I know its pie in the sky, but I'd love to see the NCAA step up and stop whoring out these football teams. I'm not sure where the line should be drawn, but it has to start with the $$$.

 

[Fab5Coug]

I hate being "there's too many bowls" guy, but man, it's hard to ignore. I get in the car this morning and hear an update that Army is leading North Texas mid way through the 1st quarter. Jeez, who is watching a bowl game at 9:30 am on a Tuesday?

I have to think, at some point, the putrid TV ratings these games must have, are going to kill off some of these bowls.

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

I hate being "there's too many bowls" guy, but man, it's hard to ignore. I get in the car this morning and hear an update that Army is leading North Texas mid way through the 1st quarter. Jeez, who is watching a bowl game at 9:30 am on a Tuesday?

I have to think, at some point, the putrid TV ratings these games must have, are going to kill off some of these bowls.

I would love to see a REAL balance sheet for a bowl like the one on this morning. You know that SOMEONE is making money, but who and how? How much ad revenue is really generated by a 9am bowl on a Tuesday between two teams no one cares about?

 

[Glad Cougar]

No doubt there are way too many bowls. I would eliminate at least a dozen of them, then hopefully there will be no more teams at or below .500 being rewarded with post season play. The idea of a 32-team playoff also turns me off....way too many teams, in my opinion, and turning college football into the NBA playoffs. Eight teams is about as high as I'd like to go for FBS football playoffs. I also would accept a return to a no-playoff system and let the pollsters make the final decision. Yeah, pretty reactionary on my part, but college football seemed to be more exciting to me under that format than it does now.

Glad Cougar

 

[longtimecoug]

No doubt there are way too many bowls. I would eliminate at least a dozen of them, then hopefully there will be no more teams at or below .500 being rewarded with post season play. The idea of a 32-team playoff also turns me off....way too many teams, in my opinion, and turning college football into the NBA playoffs. Eight teams is about as high as I'd like to go for FBS football playoffs. I also would accept a return to a no-playoff system and let the pollsters make the final decision. Yeah, pretty reactionary on my part, but college football seemed to be more exciting to me under that format than it does now.

Glad Cougar

I agree, I was happy with the old bowl system. who cares if there is a little controversy over the true number 1 team? it gave a topic for conversation over the winter

 

[425cougfan]

What I don't understand about the "too many bowls" guys is ... what's the harm? Is it that you don't find the matchups compelling? If so, don't tune in.

Is it that bowls now are "watered down," which somehow harms the prestige or meaning of "real" bowl games? OK, I guess I could see that, but it doesn't really make a lot of sense ... everyone knows there are a lot of bowl games now, and I don't really see what the harm is in some crappy 6-6 MAC or Sun Belt teams playing in a bowl game to, say, a WSU program that's playing in a "real" bowl game. Even if there is harm, does that outweigh the positives, meager as they might be? I don't really see it.

For the first time this year, I'll agree that I tuned into a couple of the lower-tier bowl games and thought "man, these teams both are pretty bad," but again, I don't really see the harm.

I'd much rather have the option to tune in and watch some teams like Idaho and Colorado State play, or even the previously alluded-to 6-6 MAC or Sun Belt teams play, than whatever else might be on ESPN if some of the lower-tier bowl games went away. Do you really want to watch an infomercial, a Norwegian curling tournament, some ESPN special on a social justice warrior cause, or whatever else they'd throw on during a weekday at 2pm instead of a couple decent teams playing some football, all before we have to go 8 months without it? I just don't get it.

 

[Glad Cougar]

You make some good points and I actually find myself watching some of these lower tier games. My objection is really only as a purist who wants to eliminate teams with .500 or worse records getting into post season. Sure, it doesn't really hurt anybody but I'd like to think the regular season should mean something and you should at least win more games than you lose if you want to be rewarded. Axing a dozen games is likely to eliminate that possibility.

Glad Cougar

 

[fingerdisco]

What I don't understand about the "too many bowls" guys is ... what's the harm? Is it that you don't find the matchups compelling? If so, don't tune in.

Is it that bowls now are "watered down," which somehow harms the prestige or meaning of "real" bowl games? OK, I guess I could see that, but it doesn't really make a lot of sense ... everyone knows there are a lot of bowl games now, and I don't really see what the harm is in some crappy 6-6 MAC or Sun Belt teams playing in a bowl game to, say, a WSU program that's playing in a "real" bowl game. Even if there is harm, does that outweigh the positives, meager as they might be? I don't really see it.

For the first time this year, I'll agree that I tuned into a couple of the lower-tier bowl games and thought "man, these teams both are pretty bad," but again, I don't really see the harm.

I'd much rather have the option to tune in and watch some teams like Idaho and Colorado State play, or even the previously alluded-to 6-6 MAC or Sun Belt teams play, than whatever else might be on ESPN if some of the lower-tier bowl games went away. Do you really want to watch an infomercial, a Norwegian curling tournament, some ESPN special on a social justice warrior cause, or whatever else they'd throw on during a weekday at 2pm instead of a couple decent teams playing some football, all before we have to go 8 months without it? I just don't get it.

6-6 or 5-7 vs. the same is the equivalent of a participation trophy. Bowls are supposed to be the reward for a successful season, not for being mediocre, or worse. What's the harm? I don't know there's "harm", but bowl season just seems to drag on forever before any relevant games begin, and when you're seeing several of these sub-par games starting at 9 or 10 in the morning mid-week, that tells you the interest level. I'll flip the question on you: what are the positives of watching two .500-or-less teams play? Do people really have so little to do that it's either Middle Applachian South vs. Northeastern-SouthCentral Carolina or a Norwegian curling tournament? I guess if you're forced to watch one of the other, pick your poison, I'm just not that excited about watching poor teams play poor football.

 

[425cougfan]

6-6 or 5-7 vs. the same is the equivalent of a participation trophy. Bowls are supposed to be the reward for a successful season, not for being mediocre, or worse. What's the harm? I don't know there's "harm", but bowl season just seems to drag on forever before any relevant games begin, and when you're seeing several of these sub-par games starting at 9 or 10 in the morning mid-week, that tells you the interest level. I'll flip the question on you: what are the positives of watching two .500-or-less teams play? Do people really have so little to do that it's either Middle Applachian South vs. Northeastern-SouthCentral Carolina or a Norwegian curling tournament? I guess if you're forced to watch one of the other, pick your poison, I'm just not that excited about watching poor teams play poor football.

Not sure flipping the question is valid here, since I think the benefits are pretty self-evident (giving kids a chance to play again, giving fans a chance to travel to a destination if they want, benefiting the local economy, giving general fans something to watch, extra practices for the teams, etc., with all of this just being off the top of my head).

As pertinent to the "don't you have something better to do" question, at least in my family, it's not all that uncommon to have a lot of football games on at family gatherings around the holidays. You still can (and should) talk to relatives, etc., but having the game on is something to watch and talk about, even if it's a couple of crappy teams, and there are times in hour 4, when you've heard all about Aunt Margaret's gall bladder surgery, when it's nice to just sit down for a second and banter with the old man about whether a random player made a catch or not.

I won't shed many tears if some of these games go away because they're not economical or nobody tunes in. I just don't get the high level of antipathy toward many of them. It's some mediocre teams playing football before we're deprived for almost 3/4 of the year. Let me watch some directional schools and big-conference underachievers play some football instead of listening to Aunt Margaret, having to watch the NBA, or whatever.

 

[BiggsCoug]

When everyone gets a ribbon, eventually the ribbons lose their value and no one cares.

I used to think that 7 wins should be minimum, now I think 8 wins should be minimum. Manufacture a way to create demand. Make going to a bowl game a big deal again. Not a participation ribbon.

 

[fingerdisco]

Not sure flipping the question is valid here, since I think the benefits are pretty self-evident (giving kids a chance to play again, giving fans a chance to travel to a destination if they want, benefiting the local economy, giving general fans something to watch, extra practices for the teams, etc., with all of this just being off the top of my head).

As pertinent to the "don't you have something better to do" question, at least in my family, it's not all that uncommon to have a lot of football games on at family gatherings around the holidays. You still can (and should) talk to relatives, etc., but having the game on is something to watch and talk about, even if it's a couple of crappy teams, and there are times in hour 4, when you've heard all about Aunt Margaret's gall bladder surgery, when it's nice to just sit down for a second and banter with the old man about whether a random player made a catch or not.

I won't shed many tears if some of these games go away because they're not economical or nobody tunes in. I just don't get the high level of antipathy toward many of them. It's some mediocre teams playing football before we're deprived for almost 3/4 of the year. Let me watch some directional schools and big-conference underachievers play some football instead of listening to Aunt Margaret, having to watch the NBA, or whatever.

Ok, so how about 1-11, 0-12 teams getting into bowls? Gives the kids a chance to play more and fans a chance to travel, so we should basically have a bowl for every FBS team, all 128 of them....right?

 

[425cougfan]

Ok, so how about 1-11, 0-12 teams getting into bowls? Gives the kids a chance to play more and fans a chance to travel, so we should basically have a bowl for every FBS team, all 128 of them....right?

You're making this tough on me, man. I can't decide whether to cite the slippery slope or straw man fallacies here. I'll go with straw man.

 

[fingerdisco]

You're making this tough on me, man. I can't decide whether to cite the slippery slope or straw man fallacies here. I'll go with straw man.

Your argument is bowl games are good regardless even for bad teams, so it's not a straw man, it's just applying your logic to other teams. Why not 1-11 teams?

 

[425cougfan]

Your argument is bowl games are good regardless even for bad teams, so it's not a straw man, it's just applying your logic to other teams. Why not 1-11 teams?

Sorry, I've written enough. I'll allow any reasonable person to judge the topic based on what I and others already wrote. They also can take a look at your arguments about 1-11 and 0-12 teams playing and give those all the consideration they deserve.

 

[fingerdisco]

Sorry, I've written enough. I'll allow any reasonable person to judge the topic based on what I and others already wrote. They also can take a look at your arguments about 1-11 and 0-12 teams playing and give those all the consideration they deserve.

What a cop out. You obviously have a threshold of what constitutes a bowl-worthy team, so where is it? You're OK with 5-7, so 4-8, 3-9, 2-10, 1-11? What's your cutoff? And when you come up with that, I'll ask you what you initially asked, what's your problem with more bowl games?