Low tier bowls be gone

[VFL-82-JP]

I'm with you, @SoddyAllVol . This many bowl games make the bulk of the post-season feel utterly pedestrian. We used to celebrate the bowls as a rite of passage of sorts for good teams. Now it is a tip of the hat for mediocrity. It is the college football version of the participation trophy.

And for all the folks who say, "you're arguing against more football?" I would respond, no. Not against more football. If we're gonna have 80 or 90 teams out of 130 play an extra game, let's instead add a game to the regular season. Let all 130 teams play 13, and then have just 15 or 20 bowl games for the top 30 or 40 teams. Make it exceptional again. Make it a prize worth celebrating. And still have more games. Have our cake and eat it, too.

You're outnumbered here, OP, but you're not alone. A few of us agree with you.

 

[hog88]

I'm with you, @SoddyAllVol . This many bowl games make the bulk of the post-season feel utterly pedestrian. We used to celebrate the bowls as a rite of passage of sorts for good teams. Now it is a tip of the hat for mediocrity. It is the college football version of the participation trophy.

And for all the folks who say, "you're arguing against more football?" I would respond, no. Not against more football. If we're gonna have 80 or 90 teams out of 130 play an extra game, let's instead add a game to the regular season. Let all 130 teams play 13, and then have just 15 or 20 bowl games for the top 30 or 40 teams. Make it exceptional again. Make it a prize worth celebrating. And still have more games. Have our cake and eat it, too.

You're outnumbered here, OP, but you're not alone. A few of us agree with you.

I'd be good with a 13th or 14th game and get rid of most of the bowls.

 

[vollygirl]

I'm with you, @SoddyAllVol . This many bowl games make the bulk of the post-season feel utterly pedestrian. We used to celebrate the bowls as a rite of passage of sorts for good teams. Now it is a tip of the hat for mediocrity. It is the college football version of the participation trophy.

And for all the folks who say, "you're arguing against more football?" I would respond, no. Not against more football. If we're gonna have 80 or 90 teams out of 130 play an extra game, let's instead add a game to the regular season. Let all 130 teams play 13, and then have just 15 or 20 bowl games for the top 30 or 40 teams. Make it exceptional again. Make it a prize worth celebrating. And still have more games. Have our cake and eat it, too.

You're outnumbered here, OP, but you're not alone. A few of us agree with you.

So the players don't deserve to travel and do fun things. And neither do the fans who support them all year. Got it.

 

[hog88]

So the players don't deserve to travel and do fun things. And neither do the fans who support them all year. Got it.

Deserve? How many players do you think want to go to Boise, Albuquerque, Shreveport, Mobile, Montgomery, Detroit, Birmingham and ext none are exactly holiday destinations.

 

[GAVol]

I'm with you, @SoddyAllVol . This many bowl games make the bulk of the post-season feel utterly pedestrian. We used to celebrate the bowls as a rite of passage of sorts for good teams. Now it is a tip of the hat for mediocrity. It is the college football version of the participation trophy.

And for all the folks who say, "you're arguing against more football?" I would respond, no. Not against more football. If we're gonna have 80 or 90 teams out of 130 play an extra game, let's instead add a game to the regular season. Let all 130 teams play 13, and then have just 15 or 20 bowl games for the top 30 or 40 teams. Make it exceptional again. Make it a prize worth celebrating. And still have more games. Have our cake and eat it, too.

You're outnumbered here, OP, but you're not alone. A few of us agree with you.

You agree with the OP . . . but not really. To me, your suggestion makes a ton more sense than the simple "there are too many bowl games". The participation trophy argument is hollow to me since it's been literally 40 years since a bowl was a true accomplishment. 6 and 7 win teams have been making bowl games due to economics and politics since bowl games started proliferating in the 80s.

I think they should stop adding bowls and just give those that don't qualify for a bowl a crossover game that they play on campus against another non-qualifier. That would give everybody extra practices and there would be some interesting matchups.

 

[vollygirl]

Deserve? How many players do you think want to go to Boise, Albuquerque, Shreveport, Mobile, Montgomery, Detroit, Birmingham and ext none are exactly holiday destinations.

You don't think the players can enjoy the trips to those places?

 

[GAVol]

Deserve? How many players do you think want to go to Boise, Albuquerque, Shreveport, Mobile, Montgomery, Detroit, Birmingham and ext none are exactly holiday destinations.

Those games matter to the players. It's one more trip, one more chance to play with their teammates, some swag from the bowl committee, a chance to see a place they probably wouldn't get to see, a chance to play on ESPN etc.

 

[hog88]

You don't think the players can enjoy the trips to those places?

Some might, most would probably rather be at home.

 

[hog88]

Those games matter to the players. It's one more trip, one more chance to play with their teammates, some swag from the bowl committee, a chance to see a place they probably wouldn't get to see, a chance to play on ESPN etc.

A couple more regular season games would probably matter more. For the vast majority of the players I'd say they don't really GAS about these 3rd-4th tier bowl games.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

So the players don't deserve to travel and do fun things. And neither do the fans who support them all year. Got it.

You know that's not what I'm saying, Vollygirl. I know you just gave an off-the-cuff response, but you know I wasn't saying that.

If we add a 13th game during the regular season, it can be OOC, and it can be to a nice destination against a team that's roughly the same tier as us. It can be huge fun. It can even come around Christmas time. AND it can be given to all 130 teams, not just 80 or 90 of them.

 

[orangerush]

The proliferation of bowls is about $. It has very little to do with what players and fans think.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

The proliferation of bowls is about $. It has very little to do with what players and fans think.

Absolutely.

And to sleuth out where the majority of those $$$ are going, and therefore where the biggest impetus comes from for more and more bowls, one need only notice what channel we're on while watching 90% of the games.

Sure, the take is split several ways. The host venues profit. The host cities and their hotels and restaurants, too, indirectly. The teams who play get a cut (not always enough to cover costs, but sometimes a tidy profit). The NCAA gets its share, off the backs of the conferences.

And so, on the surface it may look like lots of entities are benefitting equally.

But only one of them is getting a major cut from just about every bowl played. Well, two if you count the NCAA, but their % is tiny in comparison to the other.*

Yep, ESPN is the primary force behind the proliferation of bowl games. And you're absolutely right; it's all about the $$$.



* p.s. Don't know if I was clear in meaning, there. Here's what I meant, using fictional bowls and numbers:

Billy Joe Bob Bowl -- 20% to Vandy and 20% to Duke...20% to the BJB Bowl...20% to Lynchburg's restaurants & hotels...20% to ESPN.
Mary Lou Sue Bowl -- 20% to Rutgers and 20% to Nevada...20% to the MLS Bowl...20% to Bucksnort's businesses...20% to ESPN.
Behr is Cool Bowl -- 20% to Hawaii and 20% to NC State...20% to the BiC Bowl...20% to Sarasota businesses...20% to ESPN.
..and so on...41 more times.

ESPN's name is on the list 44 times, total. Everyone else is on that list once. That's the almost unfathomable economic power behind all of this, and ESPN's impetus to keep adding more bowls.

 

[vollygirl]

You know that's not what I'm saying, Vollygirl. I know you just gave an off-the-cuff response, but you know I wasn't saying that.

If we add a 13th game during the regular season, it can be OOC, and it can be to a nice destination against a team that's roughly the same tier as us. It can be huge fun. It can even come around Christmas time. AND it can be given to all 130 teams, not just 80 or 90 of them.

It wasn't off the cuff at all.

I like the fact the players get to do events and competitions against the other team that aren't related to football. I like the players getting a chance to travel somewhere out of the ordinary, visit a new city, be around new people, and have that experience with their teammates.

I like traveling as a fan, running into fans of the other team at the hotel, or a restaurant, or the airport. I like looking forward to the trip, anticipating where the game is going to be, figuring out if there is anything else we want to do besides the game, maybe in a nearby town or something.

I like everything about the bowl games that come after the season is over.

Also, what are the 65 nice destinations you're proposing? And who pays for it? And who decides which cities benefit from it?

 

[hog88]

What does UT bring in for each home game? $2-4 million per game so adding an extra game or two to the regular season and dumping 1/2 the bowl games would be more profitable for most schools.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

It wasn't off the cuff at all.

I like the fact the players get to do events and competitions against the other team that aren't related to football. I like the players getting a chance to travel somewhere out of the ordinary, visit a new city, be around new people, and have that experience with their teammates.

I like traveling as a fan, running into fans of the other team at the hotel, or a restaurant, or the airport. I like looking forward to the trip, anticipating where the game is going to be, figuring out if there is anything else we want to do besides the game, maybe in a nearby town or something.

I like everything about the bowl games that come after the season is over.

Also, what are the 65 nice destinations you're proposing? And who pays for it? And who decides which cities benifit from it?

You can hop in your car, or onto a plane, and take a trip to Los Angeles, if we schedule a (13th regular season game) home-and-home against UCLA. Or to Chicago on the shore of the Great Lakes (preferably in balmy September) if we schedule our 13th match against Northwestern. Or Baltimore. Or Miami. Or Houston. Or any of about 113 different cities, all across the land.

You and your family can make a big trip of it, build a week vacation around it, if you wish. And the schools involved can plan a few days of activities for the lads. Doesn't have to be a bowl game for them to do this, they can do it any time. They can even spread the bowl-like fun events (battle of the bands, cheer competition, team-v-team go kart races, whatever) across several games of the regular season. None of that has to be tied to a bowl.

So I do not see any downside to a 13th regular season game for all 130 FBS teams, followed by a more narrowly-drawn bowl season for a smallish number of them.

What am I missing?

 

[BenGrimm]

I’ll never understand this line of thinking. I have a serious question to anyone who thinks that there are “too many” bowl games….why not just watch something else instead? Why do you care?

Personally I don’t watch 99% of the bowls. Even the first round playoffs are not must-see for me. Partly because I think the whole bowl season is watered down. I don’t care about 6-6 teams playing a final exhibition game.

That said I will always enjoy getting an extra TN game and I’m sure most fan bases would agree with that.

 

[vollygirl]

You can hop in your car, or onto a plane, and take a trip to Los Angeles, if we schedule a (13th regular season game) home-and-home against UCLA. Or to Chicago on the shore of the Great Lakes (preferably in balmy September) if we schedule our 13th match against Northwestern. Or Baltimore. Or Miami. Or Houston. Or any of about 113 different cities, all across the land.

You and your family can make a big trip of it, build a week vacation around it, if you wish. And the schools involved can plan a few days of activities for the lads. Doesn't have to be a bowl game for them to do this, they can do it any time. They can even spread the bowl-like fun events (battle of the bands, cheer competition, team-v-team go kart races, whatever) across several games of the regular season. None of that has to be tied to a bowl.

So I do not see any downside to a 13th regular season game for all 130 FBS teams, followed by a more narrowly-drawn bowl season for a smallish number of them.

What am I missing?

So this is different from corporate sponsored bowl games how? Is it the sponsorship you're against?

 

[VFL-82-JP]

So this is different from corporate sponsored bowl games how? Is it the sponsorship you're against?

Most importantly, it is different because it counts. As part of the regular season, it contributes to determining conference and national rankings, with playoff implications. So it becomes a game that "means something."

I'm not against companies making a buck. Even ESPN, though I'm no huge fan of the direction they've gone. I certainly cringe when I hear bowls called the Dukes Mayonnaise Car Care Gasparilla Gator Bowl, but that's a quibble. Kind of like how one cringes when discovering that Kentucky sold their playing field naming rights to a grocery store.

But it's not like ESPN is going to make less $$ if we switch to this model; they're probably broadcasting the game on one of their many channels regardless. Bowl game, regular season, whatever, they're still airing it.

Again, the money, who profits, is really just a quibble. Let's not allow it to distract us.

For me, it's mostly about making things matter more. The 13th game will mean more, for all 130 teams (not just 85 or 90), if it is part of the regular season. And the relatively few bowls that remain (say 15, maybe 20) after the season will mean more to the teams who are selected for them, because it will have been an uncommon accomplishment to merit inclusion.

Seems like a win-win, for me.

 

[vollygirl]

Most importantly, it is different because it counts. It is part of the regular season, so it contributes to determining conference and national rankings, with playoff implications. So it "means something."

I'm not against companies making a buck. Even ESPN, though I'm no huge fan of the direction they've gone. I certainly cringe when I hear bowls called the Dukes Mayonnaise Car Care Gasparilla Gator Bowl, but that's a quibble. Kind of like how one cringes when discovering that Kentucky sold their playing field naming rights to a grocery store.

But it's not like ESPN is going to make less $$ if we switched to this model; they're probably broadcasting the game on one of their many networks regardless. Bowl game, regular season, they're still airing it.

Again, the money, who profits, is really just a quibble. Let's not allow it to distract us.

For me, it's mostly about making things matter more. The 13th game will mean more, for ALL 130 teams, if it's part of the regular season. And the relatively few bowls that remain after the season will mean more to the teams who are selected for them, because it will have been an uncommon accomplishment to merit them.

Seems like a win-win, for me.

Well, maybe they'll come up with something to suit you. Meantime, I'm just gonna enjoy this bowl game.

Go Vols!

 

[Orange_Crush]

I’ll never understand this line of thinking. I have a serious question to anyone who thinks that there are “too many” bowl games….why not just watch something else instead? Why do you care?

That was my thought as well. "Save us the torture..."? Turn it off. If someone enjoys the game, they'll watch it.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

Well, maybe they'll come up with something to suit you. Meantime, I'm just gonna enjoy this bowl game.

Go Vols!

I will enjoy our bowl game, certainly.

I'm yawning through everything that has come so far, though. Even the games I've watched have been lackluster. With more apathy to follow. Only real highlight so far (and I didn't even watch it live) was Florida losing to UCF.

 

[Delmar]

I'm with you, @SoddyAllVol . This many bowl games make the bulk of the post-season feel utterly pedestrian. We used to celebrate the bowls as a rite of passage of sorts for good teams. Now it is a tip of the hat for mediocrity. It is the college football version of the participation trophy.

And for all the folks who say, "you're arguing against more football?" I would respond, no. Not against more football. If we're gonna have 80 or 90 teams out of 130 play an extra game, let's instead add a game to the regular season. Let all 130 teams play 13, and then have just 15 or 20 bowl games for the top 30 or 40 teams. Make it exceptional again. Make it a prize worth celebrating. And still have more games. Have our cake and eat it, too.

You're outnumbered here, OP, but you're not alone. A few of us agree with you.

I do as well. I hadn’t watched one minute of a bowl until I watched a little of Auburn and Ms St. And that totaled about 10 minutes. Will watch the Vols and the two playoff games and that’s about it. No interest in watching a bunch of 6 and 6 teams or G5 teams. Would rather watch paint dry.

 

[Orange_Crush]

You ever speak ill of cheddar Bo biscuits again we are meeting at waffle house to fight in real life. Try me, punk.

"Nevermind. I thought you meant 'Ched Dar Bowl Biscuits'." Now, THOSE are horrible.

 

[vollygirl]

I will enjoy our bowl game, certainly.

I'm yawning through everything that has come so far, though. Even the games I've watched have been lackluster. With more apathy to follow. Only real highlight so far (and I didn't even watch it live) was Florida losing to UCF.

I got to watch aubren lose. And I got to watch floriduh lose. It's been great for me so far!

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

Most importantly, it is different because it counts. As part of the regular season, it contributes to determining conference and national rankings, with playoff implications. So it "means something."

I'm not against companies making a buck. Even ESPN, though I'm no huge fan of the direction they've gone. I certainly cringe when I hear bowls called the Dukes Mayonnaise Car Care Gasparilla Gator Bowl, but that's a quibble. Kind of like how one cringes when discovering that Kentucky sold their playing field naming rights to a grocery store.

But it's not like ESPN is going to make less $$ if we switch to this model; they're probably broadcasting the game on one of their many channels regardless. Bowl game, regular season, whatever, they're still airing it.

Again, the money, who profits, is really just a quibble. Let's not allow it to distract us.

For me, it's mostly about making things matter more. The 13th game will mean more, for all 130 teams (not just 85 or 90), if it is part of the regular season. And the relatively few bowls that remain after the season will mean more to the teams who are selected for them, because it will have been an uncommon accomplishment to merit inclusion.

Seems like a win-win, for me.

I agree about adding another regular season game for another reason: you make "opting out" a non-issue for almost all situations because it's a regular season game and a player truly would be "abandoning" the team to skip a game.

My issue with ESPN is the endless pimping of "bowl mania" like it's a huge thing. It's not. They've got college football already by the.....uh, throat.... and I resent them squeezing.

They milk football and are largely responsible for the conference realignment we're seeing. I'm not a fan of a corporation having that kind of power over a market.