NCAA approves 3 year moratorium on new bowls

[cm husker]

What number of bowls is too many then? Are we really okay with 60+ so EVERY team gets post season play? I'm not.

60 sounds good to me.
How many bowl games do you think there should be? As recently as 1996 there were only 18 of them. Is that what you want?

Or should we go back to the 70s when the Big Ten only allowed 1 team to go to a bowl each year? I mean that made going to a bowl "mean something".

25-30 is plenty in my oppinion.Why should an 0-12 team face a 1-11 team in front of 1,500 fans in a 70,000 seat arena? Are you going to watch it? Hell, are the fans of those teams really gonna watch it?

If advertisers/corporations are dumb enough to sponsor a game like that, let them do it. If you don't like it, then don't watch it. Obviously they think somebody will watch it. Why begrudge others an opportunity to experience a bowl game? What do you have against those players, band, family members and friends?

See page 1, the negatives far outweigh the bad.And why should a team that won 0 games go bowling? This is exactly my point from before. If you don't have to actually win X amount of games to go bowling what the hell is the point?

what list on page one? Are you referring to your quotes from a book about the BCS, which have little to do with this?

Yes, the ones that outline how it harms the actual university by sending a team. How does it have very little to do with it? Oh, because it actually outlines the issue, got it.

That's an incomplete analysis, because those universities still end up net positive, from what I've heard. I.e., they lose money on an individual game but the overall bowl payouts catch them up. I'll look for the link.

Most of your list was about how the BCS didn't work or major bowls are corrupted.

That has nothing to do with expanding lower bowls.

And as I said, I'm all for fixing corruption. But we don't need to cut off opportunities to college players to do it.

 

[commando]

by the time this ban is over 3 or 4 of the current bowls will likely be bankrupt.......and 12 or so will be waiting to take their place.

 

[Redux]

What number of bowls is too many then? Are we really okay with 60+ so EVERY team gets post season play? I'm not.

60 sounds good to me.
How many bowl games do you think there should be? As recently as 1996 there were only 18 of them. Is that what you want?

Or should we go back to the 70s when the Big Ten only allowed 1 team to go to a bowl each year? I mean that made going to a bowl "mean something".

25-30 is plenty in my oppinion.Why should an 0-12 team face a 1-11 team in front of 1,500 fans in a 70,000 seat arena? Are you going to watch it? Hell, are the fans of those teams really gonna watch it?

If advertisers/corporations are dumb enough to sponsor a game like that, let them do it. If you don't like it, then don't watch it. Obviously they think somebody will watch it. Why begrudge others an opportunity to experience a bowl game? What do you have against those players, band, family members and friends?

See page 1, the negatives far outweigh the bad.And why should a team that won 0 games go bowling? This is exactly my point from before. If you don't have to actually win X amount of games to go bowling what the hell is the point?

I'm not arguing for a winless team to go bowling. I'm just saying don't be so elitist.

Well that's just it, where is the cutoff then? Eventually winless teams will be eligible.

 

[Redux]

1) that wasn't at all responsive to my very specific question.

Your very specific question is worded so that any answer I give will be met with immediate dissmissal.Who am i to say who should have won? That's the giant flaw with the BCS, we never got to see who should have been champion because the matchups were typically wrong and only included 2 of 3, 4, or 5 teams. Sometimes it got it right, but that isn't a good system.

I can verbatim say Alabama did not deserve tow in their title over LSU. They didn't even win their division and had an identical record as conference winner Okie State. I'm not interested in debating that game, point is Alabama shouldn't have been there. Neither should have we been there in 2001 against Miami.

You can now make the predictable rebbuttal of "well they won so clearly they deserved it". It's hogwash.

I actually agree that Alabama shouldn't have been there. That could have been fixed with a simple rule that you have to win your conference to be eligible for the NC game. The problem is, in your playoff world, they are there no matter what. Why is it so much more tragic then for the BCS to seed them #2 despite over an identical record team?

My issue is, people freak about the BCS letting FSU in over Miami in 2000. But again, the one undefeated team that year was Oklahoma and they ended up winning it all. Therefore, no real controversy in the end.

I don't really care how many times KSU got screwed or a non-P5 school didn't get a BCS game. The playoff isn't going to fix those controversies anyway.

P.s. I know you're too young to remember most games and seasons in Husker history, but you lose a lot of credibility when you argue NU shouldn't have been in the NC game in '01.

Your first point is bunk. How do you know Oklahoma beats FSU? You don't because they didn't play. Exactly why the BCS was a sham. Thanks for proving it.Nebraska didn't deserve to be in that game, if you think they did you are one of the few I've met. Using your BCS logic, Nebraska proved it by getting embarassed.

How do I know? Because they beat FSU.

But I know what you meant to write, and my response is: I have no sympathy for that one loss Miami team. Why would it be any more fair if a one loss Miami team beats undefeated Oklahoma by 1 point on a fumbled punt snap, ala Michigan state? How do I know that Oklahoma wouldn't have won 9 of 10 games? You don't know because they wouldn't have played them.

Point is: there is no perfect system. But, in terms of rewarding the best overall season, the BCS did a better job than they are credited for.

Many people I know think NU, among the eligible candidates, had as good or better credentials than the rest.

The BCS picks the favorite and the team they think is the best based off whatever credentials it wanted to use to promote the matchup that would generate the most viewers. That's not a good system and it screwed over teams every year.

Nebraska played itself out of that game and still got in, come on.

 

[Red Dead Redemption]

What number of bowls is too many then? Are we really okay with 60+ so EVERY team gets post season play? I'm not.

60 sounds good to me.
How many bowl games do you think there should be? As recently as 1996 there were only 18 of them. Is that what you want?

Or should we go back to the 70s when the Big Ten only allowed 1 team to go to a bowl each year? I mean that made going to a bowl "mean something".

25-30 is plenty in my oppinion.Why should an 0-12 team face a 1-11 team in front of 1,500 fans in a 70,000 seat arena? Are you going to watch it? Hell, are the fans of those teams really gonna watch it?

If advertisers/corporations are dumb enough to sponsor a game like that, let them do it. If you don't like it, then don't watch it. Obviously they think somebody will watch it. Why begrudge others an opportunity to experience a bowl game? What do you have against those players, band, family members and friends?

See page 1, the negatives far outweigh the bad.And why should a team that won 0 games go bowling? This is exactly my point from before. If you don't have to actually win X amount of games to go bowling what the hell is the point?

what list on page one? Are you referring to your quotes from a book about the BCS, which have little to do with this?

Yes, the ones that outline how it harms the actual university by sending a team. How does it have very little to do with it? Oh, because it actually outlines the issue, got it.

That's an incomplete analysis, because those universities still end up net positive, from what I've heard. I.e., they lose money on an individual game but the overall bowl payouts catch them up. I'll look for the link.
Most of your list was about how the BCS didn't work or major bowls are corrupted.

That has nothing to do with expanding lower bowls.

And as I said, I'm all for fixing corruption. But we don't need to cut off opportunities to college players to do it.

+1

 

[Redux]

What number of bowls is too many then? Are we really okay with 60+ so EVERY team gets post season play? I'm not.

60 sounds good to me.
How many bowl games do you think there should be? As recently as 1996 there were only 18 of them. Is that what you want?

Or should we go back to the 70s when the Big Ten only allowed 1 team to go to a bowl each year? I mean that made going to a bowl "mean something".

25-30 is plenty in my oppinion.Why should an 0-12 team face a 1-11 team in front of 1,500 fans in a 70,000 seat arena? Are you going to watch it? Hell, are the fans of those teams really gonna watch it?

If advertisers/corporations are dumb enough to sponsor a game like that, let them do it. If you don't like it, then don't watch it. Obviously they think somebody will watch it. Why begrudge others an opportunity to experience a bowl game? What do you have against those players, band, family members and friends?

See page 1, the negatives far outweigh the bad.And why should a team that won 0 games go bowling? This is exactly my point from before. If you don't have to actually win X amount of games to go bowling what the hell is the point?

what list on page one? Are you referring to your quotes from a book about the BCS, which have little to do with this?

Yes, the ones that outline how it harms the actual university by sending a team. How does it have very little to do with it? Oh, because it actually outlines the issue, got it.

That's an incomplete analysis, because those universities still end up net positive, from what I've heard. I.e., they lose money on an individual game but the overall bowl payouts catch them up. I'll look for the link.

Most of your list was about how the BCS didn't work or major bowls are corrupted.

That has nothing to do with expanding lower bowls.

And as I said, I'm all for fixing corruption. But we don't need to cut off opportunities to college players to do it.

It fits because adding those lower tier bowls allows for the bowl execs to play who can bid the lowest, that's who we invite so we don't have to pay them jack squat.

I think it's fantastic players in the Sun Belt get their bowl moment, I actually love that. But it comes ar a price.

 

[Red Dead Redemption]

What number of bowls is too many then? Are we really okay with 60+ so EVERY team gets post season play? I'm not.

60 sounds good to me.
How many bowl games do you think there should be? As recently as 1996 there were only 18 of them. Is that what you want?

Or should we go back to the 70s when the Big Ten only allowed 1 team to go to a bowl each year? I mean that made going to a bowl "mean something".

25-30 is plenty in my oppinion.Why should an 0-12 team face a 1-11 team in front of 1,500 fans in a 70,000 seat arena? Are you going to watch it? Hell, are the fans of those teams really gonna watch it?

If advertisers/corporations are dumb enough to sponsor a game like that, let them do it. If you don't like it, then don't watch it. Obviously they think somebody will watch it. Why begrudge others an opportunity to experience a bowl game? What do you have against those players, band, family members and friends?

See page 1, the negatives far outweigh the bad.And why should a team that won 0 games go bowling? This is exactly my point from before. If you don't have to actually win X amount of games to go bowling what the hell is the point?

I'm not arguing for a winless team to go bowling. I'm just saying don't be so elitist.

Well that's just it, where is the cutoff then? Eventually winless teams will be eligible.

Not likely, but so what?Let the market decide.

 

[Redux]

What number of bowls is too many then? Are we really okay with 60+ so EVERY team gets post season play? I'm not.

60 sounds good to me.
How many bowl games do you think there should be? As recently as 1996 there were only 18 of them. Is that what you want?

Or should we go back to the 70s when the Big Ten only allowed 1 team to go to a bowl each year? I mean that made going to a bowl "mean something".

25-30 is plenty in my oppinion.Why should an 0-12 team face a 1-11 team in front of 1,500 fans in a 70,000 seat arena? Are you going to watch it? Hell, are the fans of those teams really gonna watch it?

If advertisers/corporations are dumb enough to sponsor a game like that, let them do it. If you don't like it, then don't watch it. Obviously they think somebody will watch it. Why begrudge others an opportunity to experience a bowl game? What do you have against those players, band, family members and friends?

See page 1, the negatives far outweigh the bad.And why should a team that won 0 games go bowling? This is exactly my point from before. If you don't have to actually win X amount of games to go bowling what the hell is the point?

I'm not arguing for a winless team to go bowling. I'm just saying don't be so elitist.

Well that's just it, where is the cutoff then? Eventually winless teams will be eligible.

So what?

Let the market decide.

I have no real response to this. If that's what people want, then fine. Forgive me for thinking it would actually be plausible to turn the corruption around and reestablish some prestige to the bowl system.

 

[Red Dead Redemption]

What number of bowls is too many then? Are we really okay with 60+ so EVERY team gets post season play? I'm not.

60 sounds good to me.
How many bowl games do you think there should be? As recently as 1996 there were only 18 of them. Is that what you want?

Or should we go back to the 70s when the Big Ten only allowed 1 team to go to a bowl each year? I mean that made going to a bowl "mean something".

25-30 is plenty in my oppinion.Why should an 0-12 team face a 1-11 team in front of 1,500 fans in a 70,000 seat arena? Are you going to watch it? Hell, are the fans of those teams really gonna watch it?

If advertisers/corporations are dumb enough to sponsor a game like that, let them do it. If you don't like it, then don't watch it. Obviously they think somebody will watch it. Why begrudge others an opportunity to experience a bowl game? What do you have against those players, band, family members and friends?

See page 1, the negatives far outweigh the bad.And why should a team that won 0 games go bowling? This is exactly my point from before. If you don't have to actually win X amount of games to go bowling what the hell is the point?

I'm not arguing for a winless team to go bowling. I'm just saying don't be so elitist.

Well that's just it, where is the cutoff then? Eventually winless teams will be eligible.

So what?Let the market decide.

I have no real response to this. If that's what people want, then fine. Forgive me for thinking it would actually be plausible to turn the corruption around and reestablish some prestige to the bowl system.

Are you ranting against corruption and fiscal irresponsibility, or are you ranting against posers not deserving of the prestige of playing in a bowl game?

Make up your mind please.

 

[Redux]

What number of bowls is too many then? Are we really okay with 60+ so EVERY team gets post season play? I'm not.

60 sounds good to me.
How many bowl games do you think there should be? As recently as 1996 there were only 18 of them. Is that what you want?

Or should we go back to the 70s when the Big Ten only allowed 1 team to go to a bowl each year? I mean that made going to a bowl "mean something".

25-30 is plenty in my oppinion.Why should an 0-12 team face a 1-11 team in front of 1,500 fans in a 70,000 seat arena? Are you going to watch it? Hell, are the fans of those teams really gonna watch it?

If advertisers/corporations are dumb enough to sponsor a game like that, let them do it. If you don't like it, then don't watch it. Obviously they think somebody will watch it. Why begrudge others an opportunity to experience a bowl game? What do you have against those players, band, family members and friends?

See page 1, the negatives far outweigh the bad.And why should a team that won 0 games go bowling? This is exactly my point from before. If you don't have to actually win X amount of games to go bowling what the hell is the point?

I'm not arguing for a winless team to go bowling. I'm just saying don't be so elitist.

Well that's just it, where is the cutoff then? Eventually winless teams will be eligible.

So what?Let the market decide.

I have no real response to this. If that's what people want, then fine. Forgive me for thinking it would actually be plausible to turn the corruption around and reestablish some prestige to the bowl system.

Are you ranting against corruption and fiscal irresponsibility, or are you ranting against posers not deserving of the prestige of playing in a bowl game?

Make up your mind please.

Both, pay attention.

If the college football world wants ECU vs UNLV in the first of 55 bowls, fine. Just don't expect many to watch it or for it to be run on the up and up.

 

[Red Dead Redemption]

What number of bowls is too many then? Are we really okay with 60+ so EVERY team gets post season play? I'm not.

60 sounds good to me.
How many bowl games do you think there should be? As recently as 1996 there were only 18 of them. Is that what you want?

Or should we go back to the 70s when the Big Ten only allowed 1 team to go to a bowl each year? I mean that made going to a bowl "mean something".

25-30 is plenty in my oppinion.Why should an 0-12 team face a 1-11 team in front of 1,500 fans in a 70,000 seat arena? Are you going to watch it? Hell, are the fans of those teams really gonna watch it?

If advertisers/corporations are dumb enough to sponsor a game like that, let them do it. If you don't like it, then don't watch it. Obviously they think somebody will watch it. Why begrudge others an opportunity to experience a bowl game? What do you have against those players, band, family members and friends?

See page 1, the negatives far outweigh the bad.And why should a team that won 0 games go bowling? This is exactly my point from before. If you don't have to actually win X amount of games to go bowling what the hell is the point?

I'm not arguing for a winless team to go bowling. I'm just saying don't be so elitist.

Well that's just it, where is the cutoff then? Eventually winless teams will be eligible.

So what?Let the market decide.

I have no real response to this. If that's what people want, then fine. Forgive me for thinking it would actually be plausible to turn the corruption around and reestablish some prestige to the bowl system.

Are you ranting against corruption and fiscal irresponsibility, or are you ranting against posers not deserving of the prestige of playing in a bowl game? Make up your mind please.

Both, pay attention.
If the college football world wants ECU vs UNLV in the first of 55 bowls, fine. Just don't expect many to watch it or for it to be run on the up and up.

Then both should have oversight and will also be self-correcting.

A moratorium on new bowls may help stem the corruption of the bowls and naivety/irresponsibility of the schools, but get over yourself with your prestige complex. Bowls ain't what they used to be and it's not coming back. Get used to it.

 

[cm husker]

You can fix corruption and make sure people are "paying their own way" (ie, the bowls are self sustaining) without limiting them.

It's disingenuous to claim to be fighting corruption when really, you're fighting against a "watered down" bowl line up.

 

[Redux]

What number of bowls is too many then? Are we really okay with 60+ so EVERY team gets post season play? I'm not.

60 sounds good to me.
How many bowl games do you think there should be? As recently as 1996 there were only 18 of them. Is that what you want?

Or should we go back to the 70s when the Big Ten only allowed 1 team to go to a bowl each year? I mean that made going to a bowl "mean something".

25-30 is plenty in my oppinion.Why should an 0-12 team face a 1-11 team in front of 1,500 fans in a 70,000 seat arena? Are you going to watch it? Hell, are the fans of those teams really gonna watch it?

If advertisers/corporations are dumb enough to sponsor a game like that, let them do it. If you don't like it, then don't watch it. Obviously they think somebody will watch it. Why begrudge others an opportunity to experience a bowl game? What do you have against those players, band, family members and friends?

See page 1, the negatives far outweigh the bad.And why should a team that won 0 games go bowling? This is exactly my point from before. If you don't have to actually win X amount of games to go bowling what the hell is the point?

I'm not arguing for a winless team to go bowling. I'm just saying don't be so elitist.

Well that's just it, where is the cutoff then? Eventually winless teams will be eligible.

So what?Let the market decide.

I have no real response to this. If that's what people want, then fine. Forgive me for thinking it would actually be plausible to turn the corruption around and reestablish some prestige to the bowl system.

Are you ranting against corruption and fiscal irresponsibility, or are you ranting against posers not deserving of the prestige of playing in a bowl game? Make up your mind please.

Both, pay attention.If the college football world wants ECU vs UNLV in the first of 55 bowls, fine. Just don't expect many to watch it or for it to be run on the up and up.

Then both should have oversight and will also be self-correcting.

A moratorium on new bowls may help stem the corruption of the bowls and naivety/irresponsibility of the schools, but get over yourself with your prestige complex. Bowls ain't what they used to be and it's not coming back. Get used to it.

Lmao, prestige complex.

And great attitude btw. "Yeah the system is corrupt and they will make more and more, oh well"

 

[cm husker]

The only two pieces of corruption that need to be fixed are:

1. Remove tax support from bowls (we can have a separate discussion as to whether tax support should be removed from all sports).

2. Make sure the athletes whose productivity generates the money are fairly compensated for their production.

The seedy stories about bowl execs don't move me. that's fixable by the party on the other side of each deal.

 

[Redux]

You can't fix corruption and make sure people are "paying their own way" (ie, the bowls are self sustaining) without limiting them.

It's disingenuous to claim to be fighting corruption when really, you're fighting against a "watered down" bowl line up.

The watered down bowl lineup is a seperate issue, why do you keep trying to respond like I'm clumping it together?