NCAA approves 3 year moratorium on new bowls

[cm husker]

Because you have been clumping them together.

 

[Red Dead Redemption]

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?

Because when someone argues in one issue, you counter-argue by bringing up the other.

 

[Redux]

I'm done with both of you.

IMO, we have too many bowls. I liked that they used to mean somethinga and wish they would again. I think the corruption behind the scenes is a real issue that needs to be addressed. The two problems are not mutually exclusive but are related.

There, now you two can follow eachother around and +1 eachother.

 

[Red Dead Redemption]

LOL

 

[Redux]

Yup, laugh it up

 

[Stumpy1]

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.

Yep...I believe a majority of the conferences pool the bowl money together and divide it amongst the teams. That is why it is always great to have more teams in bowl games, especially the bigger ones.

 

[Red Dead Redemption]

Yup, laugh it up

+1

Feel better?

Or is our records not prestigious enough to justify participation in this discussion? Perhaps the "+1"'s aren't deserved. (Btw, I hadn't been +1'ing his posts, so your angst is misdirected)

No matter. Nobody is watching this thread anyway.

 

[Saunders]

I like, no, love college football.

The more I can watch, the better.

My absolute favorite times of the year are the Thursday before Labor Day, through Labor Day evening and the 10 days leading up to New Years. The Labor Day weekend is like a breath of fresh air after a long, slow, plodding offseason. And the Christmas break period is always a great time for family, and since my family (even my 3 and 5 y/o boys) loves football, we spend that time flipping between bowl games and Christmas movies. It's perfect.

 

[Mavric]

I think the tension of the regular season is overrated.

I don't. There are two reasons I don't like watching the NFL. One of them is that so many of the teams make it to the playoffs, so they really only need to win 8 or 9 games during the season. I would hate it if 16 teams made the NCAA Playoffs. When I was a kid I used to actually pray for teams ahead of Nebraska to get knocked off. I watched every game between teams ranked ahead. I even figured out after we lost to Colorado which teams needed to lose to who for us to still make it to the championship game. All of that goes away if the playoffs expand that far. I'm okay with a 6 team playoff but not more. Last year I watched 1 NFL football game.

I like the NFL but agree that the playoffs don't need to get too big. Football is a physically taxing sport. You should be rewarded for winning almost every regular season game and not have to prove you're better than the 16th team in the nation again in a playoff.

I've long been a proponent of a playoff because there is simply not enough cross-over games in the regular season and too much difference in strength of schedule to say with any certainty that one team is definitely #2 and another is #3. Same argument - to a lesser extent - with the #4 and #5 team, as we've seen the last two years. I've had 8 as the number for years. I think six would work but I don't think giving two teams a bye will ever fly.

But no more than 8 teams. That catches all the one-loss teams so you aren't completely penalized for one game. But you still have to win basically all your games to get in. If there would have been a 16 team playoff this year, the last teams in would have been Northwestern, Michigan, Oregon and Oklahoma State. Not bad teams but there was nothing about their regular season that said they should still have a shot at the national championship - or making Alabama and Clemson play an extra game to prove they were better than them. But I do think Stanford and Ohio State have a argument that they were championship-caliber and deserved a shot on the field, which they would have had with an 8 team playoff.

I'm a fan of college football. I love seeing more games. But that's what the bowls are for - not too big of a playoff.

The prestige of the bowls has been diluted and isn't coming back. But I don't see the need for more. I still think it should be somewhat of a reward so I'd like to see (mostly) teams that are at least .500 getting the invites.

 

[MichiganDad3]

The reason anyone makes ridiculous amounts of money on collegiate sports is because they don't have to pay their talent. I don't know how the mechanism would work, but jesus 490,000 to run the cottonbowl?

And I disagree with the assertion that the NCAA doesn't profit off the bowls. While the basketball tournament is their money maker, advertisers still have to pay the ncaa to the the "officially licensed ..." for the bowl games. Limiting the number of games decreases the amount of advertising spots which artificially limits the supply and increases the demand - am I the only one that sees this?

I will run the Cotton Bowl for $475,000. That's a $15,000 savings right of the top. I also pledge to only eat at Taco Bell, so that will probably save another $10,000 is steaks and scotch.

 

[BigRedBuster]

The reason anyone makes ridiculous amounts of money on collegiate sports is because they don't have to pay their talent. I don't know how the mechanism would work, but jesus 490,000 to run the cottonbowl?

And I disagree with the assertion that the NCAA doesn't profit off the bowls. While the basketball tournament is their money maker, advertisers still have to pay the ncaa to the the "officially licensed ..." for the bowl games. Limiting the number of games decreases the amount of advertising spots which artificially limits the supply and increases the demand - am I the only one that sees this?

I will run the Cotton Bowl for $475,000. That's a $15,000 savings right of the top. I also pledge to only eat at Taco Bell, so that will probably save another $10,000 is steaks and scotch.

I'll do it for $475,000 and still spend $10,000 on steaks and bourbon. I'll pay for it myself.

 

[MichiganDad3]

I think the tension of the regular season is overrated.

I don't. There are two reasons I don't like watching the NFL. One of them is that so many of the teams make it to the playoffs, so they really only need to win 8 or 9 games during the season. I would hate it if 16 teams made the NCAA Playoffs. When I was a kid I used to actually pray for teams ahead of Nebraska to get knocked off. I watched every game between teams ranked ahead. I even figured out after we lost to Colorado which teams needed to lose to who for us to still make it to the championship game. All of that goes away if the playoffs expand that far. I'm okay with a 6 team playoff but not more. Last year I watched 1 NFL football game.

I like the NFL but agree that the playoffs don't need to get too big. Football is a physically taxing sport. You should be rewarded for winning almost every regular season game and not have to prove you're better than the 16th team in the nation again in a playoff.

I've long been a proponent of a playoff because there is simply not enough cross-over games in the regular season and too much difference in strength of schedule to say with any certainty that one team is definitely #2 and another is #3. Same argument - to a lesser extent - with the #4 and #5 team, as we've seen the last two years. I've had 8 as the number for years. I think six would work but I don't think giving two teams a bye will ever fly.

But no more than 8 teams. That catches all the one-loss teams so you aren't completely penalized for one game. But you still have to win basically all your games to get in. If there would have been a 16 team playoff this year, the last teams in would have been Northwestern, Michigan, Oregon and Oklahoma State. Not bad teams but there was nothing about their regular season that said they should still have a shot at the national championship - or making Alabama and Clemson play an extra game to prove they were better than them. But I do think Stanford and Ohio State have a argument that they were championship-caliber and deserved a shot on the field, which they would have had with an 8 team playoff.

I'm a fan of college football. I love seeing more games. But that's what the bowls are for - not too big of a playoff.

The prestige of the bowls has been diluted and isn't coming back. But I don't see the need for more. I still think it should be somewhat of a reward so I'd like to see (mostly) teams that are at least .500 getting the invites.

One of the worst thing about the current system is that the non-playoff bowls are meaningless now. Lets have an 8 team playoff with all 5 power conference champions and 3 teams from other conferences. No team gets in without winning their conference.

 

[BigRedBuster]

I think the tension of the regular season is overrated.

I don't. There are two reasons I don't like watching the NFL. One of them is that so many of the teams make it to the playoffs, so they really only need to win 8 or 9 games during the season. I would hate it if 16 teams made the NCAA Playoffs. When I was a kid I used to actually pray for teams ahead of Nebraska to get knocked off. I watched every game between teams ranked ahead. I even figured out after we lost to Colorado which teams needed to lose to who for us to still make it to the championship game. All of that goes away if the playoffs expand that far. I'm okay with a 6 team playoff but not more. Last year I watched 1 NFL football game.

I like the NFL but agree that the playoffs don't need to get too big. Football is a physically taxing sport. You should be rewarded for winning almost every regular season game and not have to prove you're better than the 16th team in the nation again in a playoff.

I've long been a proponent of a playoff because there is simply not enough cross-over games in the regular season and too much difference in strength of schedule to say with any certainty that one team is definitely #2 and another is #3. Same argument - to a lesser extent - with the #4 and #5 team, as we've seen the last two years. I've had 8 as the number for years. I think six would work but I don't think giving two teams a bye will ever fly.

But no more than 8 teams. That catches all the one-loss teams so you aren't completely penalized for one game. But you still have to win basically all your games to get in. If there would have been a 16 team playoff this year, the last teams in would have been Northwestern, Michigan, Oregon and Oklahoma State. Not bad teams but there was nothing about their regular season that said they should still have a shot at the national championship - or making Alabama and Clemson play an extra game to prove they were better than them. But I do think Stanford and Ohio State have a argument that they were championship-caliber and deserved a shot on the field, which they would have had with an 8 team playoff.

I'm a fan of college football. I love seeing more games. But that's what the bowls are for - not too big of a playoff.

The prestige of the bowls has been diluted and isn't coming back. But I don't see the need for more. I still think it should be somewhat of a reward so I'd like to see (mostly) teams that are at least .500 getting the invites.

One of the worst thing about the current system is that the non-playoff bowls are meaningless now. Lets have an 8 team playoff with all 5 power conference champions and 3 teams from other conferences. No team gets in without winning their conference.

In the 1980s all bowls other than 2-3 were meaningless. Nothing has changed.

In 1985, there were 18 bowls. Other than the Orange Bowl, Sugar Bowl....and maybe the Rose bowl, the rest of the bowl games didn't mean squat other than giving the players and fans a place to vacation over the holidays.

 

[MichiganDad3]

I think the tension of the regular season is overrated.

I don't. There are two reasons I don't like watching the NFL. One of them is that so many of the teams make it to the playoffs, so they really only need to win 8 or 9 games during the season. I would hate it if 16 teams made the NCAA Playoffs. When I was a kid I used to actually pray for teams ahead of Nebraska to get knocked off. I watched every game between teams ranked ahead. I even figured out after we lost to Colorado which teams needed to lose to who for us to still make it to the championship game. All of that goes away if the playoffs expand that far. I'm okay with a 6 team playoff but not more. Last year I watched 1 NFL football game.

I like the NFL but agree that the playoffs don't need to get too big. Football is a physically taxing sport. You should be rewarded for winning almost every regular season game and not have to prove you're better than the 16th team in the nation again in a playoff.

I've long been a proponent of a playoff because there is simply not enough cross-over games in the regular season and too much difference in strength of schedule to say with any certainty that one team is definitely #2 and another is #3. Same argument - to a lesser extent - with the #4 and #5 team, as we've seen the last two years. I've had 8 as the number for years. I think six would work but I don't think giving two teams a bye will ever fly.

But no more than 8 teams. That catches all the one-loss teams so you aren't completely penalized for one game. But you still have to win basically all your games to get in. If there would have been a 16 team playoff this year, the last teams in would have been Northwestern, Michigan, Oregon and Oklahoma State. Not bad teams but there was nothing about their regular season that said they should still have a shot at the national championship - or making Alabama and Clemson play an extra game to prove they were better than them. But I do think Stanford and Ohio State have a argument that they were championship-caliber and deserved a shot on the field, which they would have had with an 8 team playoff.

I'm a fan of college football. I love seeing more games. But that's what the bowls are for - not too big of a playoff.

The prestige of the bowls has been diluted and isn't coming back. But I don't see the need for more. I still think it should be somewhat of a reward so I'd like to see (mostly) teams that are at least .500 getting the invites.

One of the worst thing about the current system is that the non-playoff bowls are meaningless now. Lets have an 8 team playoff with all 5 power conference champions and 3 teams from other conferences. No team gets in without winning their conference.

In the 1980s all bowls other than 2-3 were meaningless. Nothing has changed.

In 1985, there were 18 bowls. Other than the Orange Bowl, Sugar Bowl....and maybe the Rose bowl, the rest of the bowl games didn't mean squat other than giving the players and fans a place to vacation over the holidays.

Yeah, I was thinking back to when there were no playoffs, just the MNC game. Then only one bowl had meaning. Before that, you often had to wish someone would lose their bowl for your team to win the MNC. I still remember all the games going our way and all we had to do was beat Georgia Tech to win the MNC, then we lost. It made the bowl games very interesting to me, when otherwise I wouldn't have cared.