3 more bowls added, now up to 42

BGSU33 · Post by **BGSU33** » Tue May 05, 2015 11:04 pm

While I was excited that the number of bowls increased over the years, I really think it has now gotten a little ridiculous. That means 82 teams will now make a bowl. Let's face it, if you don't make a bowl game nowadays, you basically suck.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/sto ... in-orlando" target="_blank

MarkL · Post by **MarkL** » Wed May 06, 2015 5:14 am

I can only expect this means some bowl games are on their way out. Bowl games end sometimes. I enjoyed our game this past year, but no telling how long it will last as Montgomery is not exactly a top destination. If it weren't for having a local team, attendance would have been dismal.
The Bahamas Bowl may also have a short life because it is hard for fans to get there. The WKU/CMU game drew basically no fans and I can't think the bowl will last long unless the fans start traveling. Just like the International Bowl.

Falcon137 · Post by **Falcon137** » Wed May 06, 2015 6:52 am

MarkL wrote:I can only expect this means some bowl games are on their way out. Bowl games end sometimes. I enjoyed our game this past year, but no telling how long it will last as Montgomery is not exactly a top destination. If it weren't for having a local team, attendance would have been dismal.
The Bahamas Bowl may also have a short life because it is hard for fans to get there. The WKU/CMU game drew basically no fans and I can't think the bowl will last long unless the fans start traveling. Just like the International Bowl.

Attendance doesn't matter. ESPN, CBS, Fox, just want football to show on TV. If the Bahamas folds it will be replaced by another bowl, ESPN will find another city and another sponsor. The bowls may not be money makers for schools, but ESPN is stacking cash from them....and that's all that matters.

Now CBS wants in on the action, I'm sure Fox is trying to figure out a way to get bowl games on FS1. Live sports is basically keeping cable TV intact and football is the easiest way to make people happy.

mscarn · Post by **mscarn** » Wed May 06, 2015 4:14 pm

Great news. The more the merrier. I'm a college football fan, and more games means more college football. Those that watched the Bahamas game last year were treated to one of the best games and best finishes they'll ever see at any level. They're a great reward for coaches and players that put in massive hours of time and dedication to their craft.

Schadenfreude · Post by **Schadenfreude** » Wed May 06, 2015 7:57 pm

BGSU33 wrote:That means 82 teams will now make a bowl.

Does it? As it is, only a couple of FBS schools are eligible but uninvited each year. What are they going to do with six more openings? Start letting sub .500 schools go? Start inviting FCS schools?

(I hope not.)

I tend to agree with MarkL; some of these bowl may not survive. And that's fine.

Life was a lot worse for us when only the MAC champion got to go to a bowl game. I remember how awful that was; I'm not wringing my hands bowl inflation.

Better a couple too many bowls than forcing a 9-2 Bowling Green team to sit at home in December.

Falconfreak90 · Post by **Falconfreak90** » Wed May 06, 2015 10:15 pm

mscarn wrote:Great news. The more the merrier. I'm a college football fan, and more games means more college football. Those that watched the Bahamas game last year were treated to one of the best games and best finishes they'll ever see at any level. They're a great reward for coaches and players that put in massive hours of time and dedication to their craft.

I still have that game DVR'ed and watch it every once in a while. Just an incredible comeback!

transfer2BGSU · Post by **transfer2BGSU** » Thu May 07, 2015 8:12 am

[quote="Schadenfreude
What are they going to do with six more openings? Start letting sub .500 schools go? [/quote]

BINGO! They're looking at waivers for teams that go 5-7.

BGSU33 · Post by **BGSU33** » Thu May 07, 2015 9:14 am

transfer2BGSU wrote:[quote="Schadenfreude
What are they going to do with six more openings? Start letting sub .500 schools go?

BINGO! They're looking at waivers for teams that go 5-7.[/quote]

And if that happens, think about this for a second.....most of the teams that finish 5-7 do so with a win vs an FCS team (many schools play one) meaning most of them have a record of just 4-7 vs FBS competition. That's a win percentage in the 30's! SMH

hammb · Post by **hammb** » Thu May 07, 2015 11:37 am

Can I ask why the hell it matters to anyone if a 2-10 BCS team plays in a bowl game?

This isn't a title shot. This isn't a playoff where winning actually gets you something meaningful.

Bowl games are largely meaningless exhibitions that get teams extra practices, gives a team another shot to play (oftentimes in a different venue/region), and are a money maker for the television networks.

Now if there are 20 bowls and the 7 win BCS teams are going over 9 & 10 win MAC teams? THAT is a problem. But where we are now with their being enough bowls that all teams with winning records pretty much make it, what's the problem if they add more and take even more teams? Hell, create enough bowls that every single team gets to play one...doesn't take any skin off my ass, and puts more football out there to watch if you're so inclined. And if you're not inclined, then don't watch.

As is, I don't watch many bowl games. College football outside of BG is crap for the most part and I don't really care. I'll also watch if there are games that have intriguing NFL prospects playing in them. But it doesn't cause me one bit of harm if they play another 20-30 bowl games...don't see the issue.

kdog27 · Post by **kdog27** » Thu May 07, 2015 12:42 pm

Well I guess some people still view bowl games as a reward for a good season. That's not why they exist anymore and I'm OK with it. I'm not going to watch any of the games that don't feature BG but I'm sure someone will.

Lord_Byron · Post by **Lord_Byron** » Thu May 07, 2015 12:47 pm

I think what a city like San Diego or Orlando or Las Vegas should do is schedule a "Bowl Week" and have five bowl games in the same stadium on consecutive nights Dec 26 through Dec 30. That way, people could make plans to go to one site; see multiple games, if so inclined; be in a tourist-friendly city.

hammb · Post by **hammb** » Thu May 07, 2015 3:25 pm

Lord_Byron wrote:I think what a city like San Diego or Orlando or Las Vegas should do is schedule a "Bowl Week" and have five bowl games in the same stadium on consecutive nights Dec 26 through Dec 30. That way, people could make plans to go to one site; see multiple games, if so inclined; be in a tourist-friendly city.

Interesting concept.

It would have to be with lower tier bowls. I don't think most cities would have the hotel infrastructure to host the teams/staffs/fans of multiple big draw bowl games on back to back nights like that. I could see doing it with several of the lesser tier bowls though. Could sell it as ticket packages to see multiple games too.

I'm not big on traveling to watch games that are on TV anyhow, but I could see it appealing to the sorts of people that will fly across country to watch their team play. I mean if I WERE going to fly to someplace cool to watch a BG game, I might be inclined to watch another game the next night.

MarkL · Post by **MarkL** » Thu May 07, 2015 5:29 pm

I think we need to let a few bowls die off. We have more than enough. And in the meantime, prepare for fewer bowl games by setting a few rules for picking at-large bids ...
- priority is given to winning records over 6-6 teams, regardless of conference
- priority is given to teams with winning conference records, regardless of conference
- teams with losing records and/or losing conference records only get in if all teams with 6+ total wins and winning conference records have bids, regardless of conference

In a few years when some bowl games die off and are not replaced, keep these rules in place. The goal is to put teams who have winning records and winning conference records in above the SEC and ACC teams who go 6-6 (2-6).

Maybe not realistic but that is what I would do if I were in charge ...

zete · Post by **zete** » Fri May 08, 2015 6:38 am

Good. I would like to see Eastern Michigan in a bowl game.

Falcon137 · Post by **Falcon137** » Fri May 08, 2015 7:53 am

MarkL wrote:I think we need to let a few bowls die off. We have more than enough. And in the meantime, prepare for fewer bowl games by setting a few rules for picking at-large bids ...
- priority is given to winning records over 6-6 teams, regardless of conference
- priority is given to teams with winning conference records, regardless of conference
- teams with losing records and/or losing conference records only get in if all teams with 6+ total wins and winning conference records have bids, regardless of conference

In a few years when some bowl games die off and are not replaced, keep these rules in place. The goal is to put teams who have winning records and winning conference records in above the SEC and ACC teams who go 6-6 (2-6).

Maybe not realistic but that is what I would do if I were in charge ...

I'm with Hammb...why do more bowls diminish anything? They are exhibition games. To be perfectly honest a 6-6 ACC team is probably better than a 7-5 MAC team. Should BG (7-6) have been ahead of Virginia Tech (6-6) in the pecking order last year?

I know people get hard-ons about playing P5 schools, but, outside of the playoff last year, the bowl I was looking forward to the most was NIU vs Marshall. That's the only thing I wish they would do more of. MAC overall champ vs CUSA, loser of MAC title game vs Sun Belt, AAC vs MWC / BYU, etc.

In my perfect bowl world, I'd like to see 4 conference champs from the group of 5 have their own playoff. The 5th conference sends their team to one of the New Years Bowls. So last year you would have had, Marshall vs NIU. in one bowl. Memphis vs La Lafayette in the other bowl. Winners play each other in Miami. Boise would have played in the Fiesta.

As long as bowls keep their tax exempt status they will never die off.

3 more bowls added, now up to 42

3 more bowls added, now up to 42

Re: 3 more bowls added, now up to 42

Re: 3 more bowls added, now up to 42

Re: 3 more bowls added, now up to 42

Re: 3 more bowls added, now up to 42

Re: 3 more bowls added, now up to 42

Re: 3 more bowls added, now up to 42

Re: 3 more bowls added, now up to 42

Re: 3 more bowls added, now up to 42

Re: 3 more bowls added, now up to 42

Re: 3 more bowls added, now up to 42

Re: 3 more bowls added, now up to 42

Re: 3 more bowls added, now up to 42

Re: 3 more bowls added, now up to 42

Re: 3 more bowls added, now up to 42