Six Wins Required to get to a Bowl?

#128
#128
VFL-82-JP said:
Boca, you're right.

Objectively, the bar keeps being lowered.

Once upon a time, there was one bowl game. It wasn't even a regular thing, just a promotional. Then the Rose Bowl became annual. Then a couple others joined in. Before a generation passed, we were up to 8-12; it seemed to vary every year.

But one thing was true in all that growth: only good teams got invited. To any of them. Every team was a competitor in its own conference, if not an outright conference champ. Being invited to a bowl and being among the Top 25 were rough equivalents.

Then it expanded again. And again. It stopped being about bringing champions together, and became more about bringing all winners together. Winners meaning, you won more games than you lost.

Finally, we crossed the double barrier: the one into non-winning seasons (6-6), and finally the one into losing seasons (5-7).

So sure. It's just an objective fact. The bar continues to be lowered.

Whether you LIKE the existence of 39-40 bowl games a year, or NOT, that's an objective fact. The bar keeps getting lower.
Click to expand...

This is true, but it has always been something different that college football did, and I think has helped to make it unique. You could say that any team not playing for a national title was in a participation game. Basically these games are exhibitions for fans to watch football, seems like a good idea to me.
 
#129
#129
VFL-82-JP said:
Oh, you're right. I'm not saying my perspective is the most logical on the planet. *shrug* it's just how I feel.

As an example: I try to watch every single bowl game, every year. Even if I get distracted, it's playing on the screen. And as others have pointed out, some of the bottom-tier bowls turn out to be very interesting football games!

How's that for idiosyncratic? :)
Click to expand...

Haha, on the flip side, I don't see as many as you.
But even the lower tier bowls, I watch those over - The Bachelor has got voice Talent just ask Honey Boo Boo's mom who's struggling to survive in Alaska being a hoarder-..
Everytime, given the xhoice.

Maybe they should just call the smaller matchups cross-divisional contests or whatever and leave the Bowl title to the major players.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#130
#130
I do agree that the bowls are watered down now but I still watch as many as I can. Anytime a game is on its a good thing whether or not its a marquee matchup or a Naia game,but that's just me,I'm a football fan.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#131
#131
I don’t mind all the bowls but I rarely make an effort to view more than a few. At least you have something to watch while you’re at those Christmas parties.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#132
#132
GAVol said:
Lol... You and I are clearly part of the problem. ESPN is like our crack dealer.
Click to expand...

Amen, brother.

If they'd just space out the tiers so there's always football (maybe high school in the fall, college in spring, and pros in the summer?), we would be in crack heaven. That would be like the crack house we could live in all the time. Never have to work. Just live in the crack house. It sounds strangely attractive, in spite of the objective misery. :)
 
#133
#133
I know there are a lot of bowl games and most of them are meaningless..but for some of these young men going to a bowl game no matter which one is a dream come true for them..
it is a great experience for these young men..and rewards the hard work they have put in all season long...

GBO
 
#136
#136
One thing I hate is having certain bowls for each Conference. It used to be fun to wait and find out where each team was going. Now, they are slotted and you have a good idea weeks before. 5-7 / 6-6 teams shouldn't go to Bowls. JMO
 
#137
#137
MyBloodRunnethOrange said:
That happened long before the playoff became a thing
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't think any of the bowls are "worthless." Each bowl has value to (1) ESPN (for $$), (2) ESPN's advertisers (for exposure), (3) the hosting city and stadium (for $$ and exposure), (4) all the people who work directly or indirectly to run the bowl (for jobs), and (5) all the players, coaches, cheerleaders, bands, family members, and friends (for excitement, fun, exposure, more practices, swag, etc., etc.).

So to declare any bowl "worthless" is pretty far off the mark.

But to declare many of the bowls "meaningless," that's perhaps a stronger argument. And probably the one meant by the guy to whom you responded (and you as well, MBRO).

Because if you define "meaning" as achieving something important, well, you could argue that the ONLY important result of the post-season is declaring a national champion. After all, all the conference champions have already been decided, as well as all the individual awards. What's left but the national #1?

But then, perhaps even that argument is tough to defend logically. Because being #1 is really just an ephemeral bragging point, gone a year later. Which makes it not that much different than making the Top 10, or the Top 25, or being declared "Peach Bowl Champion" or even "Cap'n Crunch Bowl Champion".

They're all just entertainment, for bragging rights.

So yeah, I get that they're really all meaningless when comparing them to the important parts of life ... and I get that they're all very meaningful and worthwhile to the folks involved.

I guess that's what makes this such an eternal debate. Both perspectives are equally valid.

*shrug*



p.s. btw, we really do need a "Cap'n Crunch Bowl," or maybe a "Cheerios Bowl". Please make that happen one day, breakfast cereal companies!
 
Last edited:
#138
#138
VFL-82-JP said:
Yeah, I don't think any of the bowls are "worthless." Each bowl has value to (1) ESPN (for $$), (2) ESPN's advertisers (for exposure), (3) the hosting city and stadium (for $$ and exposure), (4) all the people who work directly or indirectly to run the bowl (for jobs), and (5) all the players, coaches, cheerleaders, bands, family members, and friends (for excitement, fun, exposure, more practices, swag, etc., etc.).

So to declare any bowl "worthless" is pretty far off the mark.

But to declare many of the bowls "meaningless," that's perhaps a stronger argument. And probably the one meant by the guy to whom you responded (and you as well, MBRO).

Because if you define "meaning" as achieving something important, well, you could argue that the ONLY important result of the post-season is declaring a national champion. After all, all the conference champions have already been decided, as well as all the individual awards. What's left but the national #1?

But then, perhaps even that argument is tough to defend logically. Because being #1 is really just an ephemeral bragging point, gone a year later. Which makes it not that much different than making the Top 10, or the Top 25, or being declared "Peach Bowl Champion" or even "Cap'n Crunch Bowl Champion".

They're all just entertainment, for bragging rights.

So yeah, I get that they're really all meaningless when comparing them to the important parts of life ... and I get that they're all very meaningful and worthwhile to the folks involved.

I guess that's what makes this such an eternal debate. Both perspectives are equally valid.

*shrug*



p.s. btw, we really do need a "Cap'n Crunch Bowl," or maybe a "Cheerios Bowl". Please make that happen one day, breakfast cereal companies!
Click to expand...
Yeah, I think meaningless or irrelevant are more appropriate terms than worthless, and that was what I was responding to. I think the vast majority of bowls became irrelevant even before the BCS era. I can remember in the late 80s we had a 10 win team that went to the Peach Bowl against, I think it was Indiana, and I remember feeling let down because we didn't get a better bowl.

I personally like the idea of the Campbell's Tomato Soup Bowl!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#143
#143
I doubt players on a 7-5 team look at an extra month of practices as a gift. The starters might benefit from extra exposure, but I also doubt any tape generated in the insignificant bowls changes many draft situations. Now if the players were employees of the schools and were getting paid for their efforts on the field, then we would be talking legitimate benefits and not the fake kind that involve mental gymnastics and hollering about the wonderful "free education" opportunity upon which most players are unwilling and/or unable to capitalize.
 
#144
#144
utvolpj said:
The game would be in every record book and media guide (and a win would put a trophy in the case). The kids would get their swag and a free trip to a warm place in the winter. Fans would get to watch their team play another game. There are no losers in this scenario
Click to expand...

The only losers are the Archie Bunkers of bowl season.
 
#145
#145
GVF said:
NCAA baseball and basketball is 64 teams. Same should be for football, then you'd have interesting and quality post season play.
Click to expand...

There’s also somewhere around 250+ schools in D1 basketball...
 
#146
#146
OnlyGodForgives said:
I doubt players on a 7-5 team look at an extra month of practices as a gift. The starters might benefit from extra exposure, but I also doubt any tape generated in the insignificant bowls changes many draft situations. Now if the players were employees of the schools and were getting paid for their efforts on the field, then we would be talking legitimate benefits and not the fake kind that involve mental gymnastics and hollering about the wonderful "free education" opportunity upon which most players are unwilling and/or unable to capitalize.
Click to expand...

Most players actually graduate with a BS or BA degree these days, OGF. Your perspective is about 20 years behind the times.

College athletes continue to earn degrees at record rates

In 2017, the going rate was about 78% for FBS football players getting degrees; it was a bit lower, 73%, for football players at all levels of the NCAA.

Still, somewhere between three-fourths and four-fifths of football players get a degree, depending on how you count them.

And I think that's within a couple of percentage points of the student populations at large.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#147
#147
If Bowl Season is now "watered down", then didn't that technically occur as soon as the next bowls were implemented after the Granddaddy Of Em' All? So to get back to competitive purity and a bypass of all other participation trophy's, we need to eliminate everything except the Rose Bowl. Let's see, take the top 2 teams and go to Pasadena. The rest of the rec league should stay home.
 
#149
#149
MyBloodRunnethOrange said:
Yeah, I think meaningless or irrelevant are more appropriate terms than worthless, and that was what I was responding to. I think the vast majority of bowls became irrelevant even before the BCS era. I can remember in the late 80s we had a 10 win team that went to the Peach Bowl against, I think it was Indiana, and I remember feeling let down because we didn't get a better bowl.

I personally like the idea of the Campbell's Tomato Soup Bowl!
Click to expand...

This. I was a kid but I remember that Peach Bowl. It wasn't even nationally broadcast on a major network, and it was on January 2, after all the major bowl games had been played. It seems like an afterthought for everyone.
 
#150
#150
utvolpj said:
The game would be in every record book and media guide (and a win would put a trophy in the case). The kids would get their swag and a free trip to a warm place in the winter. Fans would get to watch their team play another game. There are no losers in this scenario
Click to expand...

Pissing about minor bowls is like pissing about the sky not being the right color of blue. The bowls hurt no one, they bring in money, they give kids an opp to travel, they give non-P5 schools a chance to beat the big boys and brag, and if one doesn't like them one can simply NOT WATCH. PJ I don't understand why this is so hard to get for some folks.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top