The BIG in Bowls

ColoradoHusk said:
The original intent of the bowl game was to be a meaningless exhibition. 
Click to expand...
I would imagine it had more to do with making money for schools, bowl committees, and host cities, giving student athletes good experiences with all the pre-game activities, etc. and allowing a team to finish the season with a win.  I think the bowls are becoming more meaningless with the playoffs, bad attendance and athletes choosing to sit them out, etc.  So maybe it's time to re-evaluate their value.  

 
Decoy73 said:
I would imagine it had more to do with making money for schools, bowl committees, and host cities, giving student athletes good experiences with all the pre-game activities, etc. and allowing a team to finish the season with a win.  I think the bowls are becoming more meaningless with the playoffs, bad attendance and athletes choosing to sit them out, etc.  So maybe it's time to re-evaluate their value.  
Click to expand...




I think the requirement should be 7 wins, but they're going to keep doing a lot of bowls as long as they're profitable.

 
Decoy73 said:
I would imagine it had more to do with making money for schools, bowl committees, and host cities, giving student athletes good experiences with all the pre-game activities, etc. and allowing a team to finish the season with a win.  I think the bowls are becoming more meaningless with the playoffs, bad attendance and athletes choosing to sit them out, etc.  So maybe it's time to re-evaluate their value.  
Click to expand...


ESPN actively owns 14 bowl games and airs 35 of the 40.  Bowls aren't about the schools or student athletes or fans or attendance.  They are about live content for the ESPN family around the holidays where a lot of people have time off and will watch just about any football you let them.  The talking heads that slam these student athletes for sitting out a meaningless game to protect their future are simply toeing the company line looking out for their employer.  They want the big name players playing in these games that they are heavily invested in is all.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Omaha-Husker said:
ESPN actively owns 14 bowl games and airs 35 of the 40.  Bowls aren't about the schools or student athletes or fans or attendance.  They are about live content for the ESPN family around the holidays where a lot of people have time off and will watch just about any football you let them.  The talking heads that slam these student athletes for sitting out a meaningless game to protect their future are simply towing the company line looking out for their employer.  They want the big name players playing in these games that they are heavily invested in is all.
Click to expand...
That’s probably how it is now, but the conversation I was replying to was about the original intent of bowl games. They’ve been around longer than ESPN. 

 
Moiraine said:
I think the requirement should be 7 wins, but they're going to keep doing a lot of bowls as long as they're profitable.
Click to expand...
It’s hard to believe they’re still profitable, but the majority must still be.  I agree they’ll keep them going as long as there’s money to be made.  

 
I used to root for the other teams in the Big 8. Then I rooted against all the non-Husker teams in the B12 after the old B8 teams stupidly voted in lockstep with the SWC castoffs. I've always rooted against the B10 and SEC, and I will continue to root against all the non-Husker teams. Who gives a crap if Minnesota goes to a bowl game or never wins another game?

And I don't buy the perception arguments that somehow the conference being better means anything.

 
RedDenver said:
I used to root for the other teams in the Big 8. Then I rooted against all the non-Husker teams in the B12 after the old B8 teams stupidly voted in lockstep with the SWC castoffs. I've always rooted against the B10 and SEC, and I will continue to root against all the non-Husker teams. Who gives a crap if Minnesota goes to a bowl game or never wins another game?

And I don't buy the perception arguments that somehow the conference being better means anything.
Click to expand...


Meanwhile, Notre Dame continues to be embarrassed by Clemson and justify its double digit underdog status as well as its inability to win a huge game.  You're saying this game means nothing for future ND chances or its opponents' quality wins?

In a perfect world every Husker team has one loss, to Nebraska.  They win every other game by 100 further validating Husker dominance.  In more reality, '95 is the best you have not with three two-losses having round-robin'ed each other.

Why give any deciding committee ammunition too argue against a BIG team playing in a most meaningful game through bad SoS or losses?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Decoy73 said:
It’s hard to believe they’re still profitable, but the majority must still be.  I agree they’ll keep them going as long as there’s money to be made.  
Click to expand...
Part of the "profit" is forcing the competing Universities to buy a specific number of tickets at a much higher price than the open market.

 
Comish said:
Part of the "profit" is forcing the competing Universities to buy a specific number of tickets at a much higher price than the open market.
Click to expand...
Many bowl games are partly run by cities in an effort to boost their travel and tourism. Those cities can better absorb a loss if the game isn’t profitable. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nebhawk said:
How can you root for Harbaugh?  How?  Didn't like Urban either, but Harbaugh is even more a buttonhole acting guy. 
Click to expand...


I can't stand Harbaugh and delight in any time he gets his a$$ handed to him, but if we're going to compare him directly to Meyer, at least Harbaugh has no history or evidence of trying to cover up domestic abuse. So if I had to pick between the two or evaluate them against each other Harbaugh wins every time.

 
Landlord said:
I can't stand Harbaugh and delight in any time he gets his a$$ handed to him, but if we're going to compare him directly to Meyer, at least Harbaugh has no history or evidence of trying to cover up domestic abuse. So if I had to pick between the two or evaluate them against each other Harbaugh wins every time.
Click to expand...
He did sign and defend a rapist while he coached the 49ers 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcsports.com/bayarea/49ers/harbaugh-embattled-cox-good-addition%3famp

 
Jason Sitoke said:
He did sign and defend a rapist while he coached the 49ers 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcsports.com/bayarea/49ers/harbaugh-embattled-cox-good-addition%3famp
Click to expand...




I'm not interested in defending Harbaugh but three things:

1. Cox was acquitted

2. Harbaugh didn't defend him as a person or defend him in the sense of, "He's not a rapist". At least not per your article.

3. Professional football is very different ideologically to college.

4 (Bonus). Still can't stand Harbaugh so screw that guy :lol:

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top