Time to make the requirement you must have a winning season instead of .500. Rewarding too many teams for having a mediocre season. too many bowl games that most don't care about but as usual it's all about money. How bout we reward the 118th and 119th team with a bowl game so now we can see who is the worst team in the FBS.
14 6-6 teams play in bowls this year
- Thread starter husker_99
- Start date
Omaha-Husker
All-Conference
I don't see a single negative from having .500 teams in bowl games.
default_28
Starter
I understand your feeling about too many bowl games, but I would say they're somewhat important. The point of them is not to reward a team for a mediocre season, but to give them the extra practices that are the most valuable part of bowl season. Most would agree that having traditional schools be good is important for college football to stay popular, and having less traditional schools rise up for a good run every once in while is important too. The way that teams stay competitive or take the next step is often found in those extra practices. While nobody thinks 6-6 is a great season worthy of celebrating if that team uses the extra reps to go 9-3 the next year its worth it.
Just a little look at the teams that got a bowl at 6-6
Don't get to bowls very often:
Wake Forest
Iowa State
Northwestern
Illinois
Purdue
Marshall
Vanderbilt
Mississippi State
Teams that need the extra reps to get better:
Texas A&M
Ohio State
Pitt
Florida
Arizona State
UCLA
Just a little look at the teams that got a bowl at 6-6
Don't get to bowls very often:
Wake Forest
Iowa State
Northwestern
Illinois
Purdue
Marshall
Vanderbilt
Mississippi State
Teams that need the extra reps to get better:
Texas A&M
Ohio State
Pitt
Florida
Arizona State
UCLA
Bowls should be rewarded not handed out on who needs more reps. I understand for the schools that don't go often is a bigger deal but i also am part of if you reward everyone no one gets rewarded concept. You should want to go to a bowl thus play harder during the season. In this day and age of firing and hiring coaches between bowls that hurts the process even more cause if the new coach is coaching then he doesn't really know what he's got(likely a blowout loss) and if the old coach is coaching then it won't matter. Players are more loyal to coaches than to schools. Spring is to analyze and more reps and what you have, not during a bowl game.
Excel
All-American
It's a give/take. In some way it detracts from the meaning of getting a bowl while at the same time its not so bad since we get more games to watch on TV. :dunno
Michiganball
Special Teams Player
I had mixed feelings on this myself. On one hand Bowls used to be something that rewarded a team for a good enough season by playing a national foe you would normally not play, it felt somewhat special. On the other hand it does give us fans more match ups from teams we either don't hear much about or those who happen to have a meh type of season.
In the end none of them feel special to me(yes this includes the Rose bowl), they are still games, so that's enjoyable enough, but it makes no difference to how I perceive any of them. It's all hype, advertising(seriously, how sad do these bowls names sound these days), TV revenue and getting the most bodies into the stadiums, the whole excitement and the game itself takes second seat to all that hoopla, speaking of hoopla, at least B ball still has some excitement in march madness.
In the end none of them feel special to me(yes this includes the Rose bowl), they are still games, so that's enjoyable enough, but it makes no difference to how I perceive any of them. It's all hype, advertising(seriously, how sad do these bowls names sound these days), TV revenue and getting the most bodies into the stadiums, the whole excitement and the game itself takes second seat to all that hoopla, speaking of hoopla, at least B ball still has some excitement in march madness.
VA Husker Fan
All-Conference
I challenge anyone to find a player or coach who feels less rewarded because of the presence of 6-6 teams in bowls. Some may not be too excited to be in bowls, but I would bet that's because of the disappointment of their own season, falling from a BCS contender to a lesser bowl. What happens to other schools doesn't cheapen or diminish it. And if it doesn't matter to them, why should it matter to the fans?
In any case, there's always going to be a pecking order for pride. Championship game > BCS Bowl > mid level bowl > minor bowl. We made the Cap One bowl. How does the presence of Purdue in the Little Caesars bowl affect us in any way? If that games is not there and Purdue is out, we're still in the Cap One bowl, a nice bowl, but not a BCS bowl that we'd really rather be in. For those of you who say 6-6 teams should be out, please explain how it would feel any different for us?
In any case, there's always going to be a pecking order for pride. Championship game > BCS Bowl > mid level bowl > minor bowl. We made the Cap One bowl. How does the presence of Purdue in the Little Caesars bowl affect us in any way? If that games is not there and Purdue is out, we're still in the Cap One bowl, a nice bowl, but not a BCS bowl that we'd really rather be in. For those of you who say 6-6 teams should be out, please explain how it would feel any different for us?
Bowl games don't have that special feel anymore because nowadays most teams are going to a bowl game. Take Illinois, they won their first 6 games and then lost their last 6 games. Baiscally awarding a team that couldn't win a game since September. I know money is driving the increase in bowls and thus cheapening these bowls because a decade ago a lot of these bowls wouldn't have existed.
I want to see good matchups not terrible ones and a lot of these bowls do have terrible matchups.
Last edited by a moderator:
JoeHuskers!
Five-Star Recruit
Agreed, we could call it the Toilet Bowl and it could be sponsored by Scrubbing Bubbles or something lol
