Bowls = joke

**cycloneworld** · 12-08-2008, 09:02 AM

The bowl games are becoming more and more meaningless each year.

1. There are way too many.
Now, over 1/2 of the teams make one. You don't even need a winning record anymore.

2. The selection process is a joke.
Only in this crappy system can a 9-4 team make a BCS game yet a 12-0 team makes the Poinsetta Bowl. Teams that "travel well" jump teams that won more games and/or beat them in the regular season.

3. Some teams get penalized and must play more games than others.
Some teams play 12 games, some play 13. Ie. If Alabama played in the Big 10, they would be in the national title game. But since the SEC has a championship game, they are not.

4. There are now 12 games played on or after January 1st. The GMAC Bowl is played on January 6th...enough said.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to be playing in one but as a college football fan...I think they are becoming a bigger and bigger joke each year.

**garn91** · 12-08-2008, 09:03 AM

The BCS has all but rendered non-BCS bowls meaningless. Last night's show on ESPN was nothing but a Florida love-fest and it's only going to get worse when the new SEC & BCS TV deals kick in on ESPN.

I'd just assume go back to the days when the Big 8/12 Champ went to the Orange Bowl, SEC champ to the Sugar Bowl, etc.

**cyfanatic** · 12-08-2008, 09:09 AM

Originally Posted by cycloneworld

The bowl games are becoming more and more meaningless each year.

1. There are way too many.
Now, over 1/2 of the teams make one. You don't even need a winning record anymore.

2. The selection process is a joke.
Only in this crappy system can a 9-4 team make a BCS game yet a 12-0 team makes the Poinsetta Bowl. Teams that "travel well" jump teams that won more games and/or beat them in the regular season.

3. Some teams get penalized and must play more games than others.
Some teams play 12 games, some play 13. Ie. If Alabama played in the Big 10, they would be in the national title game. But since the SEC has a championship game, they are not.

4. There are now 12 games played on or after January 1st. The GMAC Bowl is played on January 6th...enough said.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to be playing in one but as a college football fan...I think they are becoming a bigger and bigger joke each year.

DITTO!!!

**ISUFan22** · 12-08-2008, 09:13 AM

Originally Posted by garn91

The BCS has all but rendered non-BCS bowls meaningless. Last night's show on ESPN was nothing but a Florida love-fest and it's only going to get worse when the new SEC & BCS TV deals kick in on ESPN.

I'd just assume go back to the days when the Big 8/12 Champ went to the Orange Bowl, SEC champ to the Sugar Bowl, etc.

It did certainly seem simpler back then.

**iowast8fan** · 12-08-2008, 09:14 AM

Originally Posted by cycloneworld

Some teams play 12 games, some play 13. Ie. If Alabama played in the Big 10, they would be in the national title game. But since the SEC has a championship game, they are not.

This argument would hold more ground if a big 10 team made the championship. Thank God Iowa beat Penn State (I think I threw up just now).

This year's chamionship game has two teams that play a conference championship game as well. Personally, it is my opinion that IF the current BCS setup stands without a playoff, they should require a conference championship game to enter the BCS title game.

**Clonefan94** · 12-08-2008, 09:21 AM

I still like watching the bowls. I don't think the BCS has mad the other bowls as irrelevant as much as the sheer number of bowls. I wonder, with the economy, if this will continue or if we'll see a drop in a lot of sponsorships, therefore a reduction in the number of bowls. IMO, 7-5 really should be the worst record to get a bowl. For most teams, I wouldn't consider 6-6 a successful year, therefore I see no reason to reward with a bowl. On the other hand, it offers you another month of practice you normally wouldn't get, a month we could really use. In the end, my opinion is basically that if someone is willing to pay for you to come play in a game, why not do it. The revenue generated will ultimately decide how many bowls there are.

**jbhtexas** · 12-08-2008, 09:30 AM

When a game like this happens among what is supposed to be the top 5 bowl games in the country, I think we can confirm all rumors and officially declare the BCS to have failed:

Orange Bowl
No. 19 Virginia Tech vs. No. 12 Cincinnati
January 1, 2009
Miami, Florida

**CRAZYGREG** · 12-08-2008, 09:38 AM

What exactly is the point of a bowl? One more meaningless game? If I was an AD from a non-BCS conference school I would call for another division in college football. Look at Utah, great season, 2nd undefeated season in the last few. Their reward a BCS bowl!! Great job Utah. A national championship? No sorry but you are not from a BCS conference. How can Utah and Boise state EVER be crowned the best football team in America? They CAN'T!!!! In order to accomplish this they would have to play their 4 non conference games against the top BCS conference schools. This is never going to happen because those teams would not take those games. Just plain stupid!

**hansen55** · 12-08-2008, 09:39 AM

I'm glad Penn State is not playing in the national title game. They are bad, really bad. The Big 10 needs a championship game, NOW! Pit the two best/highest ranked (whatever it takes) teams in the conference against each other! They don't even need to have an even number of schools to make it work. Either Penn State or Ohio State should NOT be playing in a BCS bowl game because they are both terrible this year. Pick one and send them. We shouldn't have to be subjected to such football if you can even call it that this season.

**TxCycloneFan** · 12-08-2008, 10:06 AM

Originally Posted by iowast8fan

This argument would hold more ground if a big 10 team made the championship. Thank God Iowa beat Penn State (I think I threw up just now).

This year's chamionship game has two teams that play a conference championship game as well. Personally, it is my opinion that IF the current BCS setup stands without a playoff, they should require a conference championship game to enter the BCS title game.

I, for one, would have LOVED to see (Fill in the Big 10 school here)get hammered by Ou or Florida or tu or TTech.

I'll have to settle for Penn State getting hammered by SoCal. That's almost as sweet.

**huntt26** · 12-08-2008, 10:22 AM

Bowls = money

But they're not a joke cuz i wish we played in one

**Indyclone** · 12-08-2008, 10:24 AM

Originally Posted by Clonefan94

I still like watching the bowls. I don't think the BCS has mad the other bowls as irrelevant as much as the sheer number of bowls. I wonder, with the economy, if this will continue or if we'll see a drop in a lot of sponsorships, therefore a reduction in the number of bowls. IMO, 7-5 really should be the worst record to get a bowl. For most teams, I wouldn't consider 6-6 a successful year, therefore I see no reason to reward with a bowl. On the other hand, it offers you another month of practice you normally wouldn't get, a month we could really use. In the end, my opinion is basically that if someone is willing to pay for you to come play in a game, why not do it. The revenue generated will ultimately decide how many bowls there are.

The reason a Boise St or Utah doesn't get a chance at the national title is because if they played Florida or Oklahoma's schedule they would have a loss and probably more than one where as Florida and Oklahoma would both go undefeated like those 2 did with the Utah or Boise St schedule.

Sure Utah or Boise St could hold their own in one game against top teams but week after week they don't have the depth to compete in these BCS conferences.

**CRAZYGREG** · 12-08-2008, 10:28 AM

The entire Bowl system is just a joke. Look at the teams from the Big 11 for example. Wisconsin and Minnesota in particular. Both 3-5 in conference!!!!! Signature win for Minnesota this year - Illinois (who finished 5-7 3-5). For Illinois - Minesota!! Why do these teams deserve to be in a bowl? What is the point?

**mj4cy** · 12-08-2008, 10:28 AM

Why do we even play the games, they obvioulsy are played on paper. (Iowa getting a bowl over NWestern.)

**ISU_Alum_2000** · 12-08-2008, 10:31 AM

The bowls are supposed to be a reward for the players for a good season, and a chance to play another similarly-talented team from another region of the country. For this reason, the bowls are still great.

The BCS, while flawed, is a major improvement on the pre-BCS system. Without the BCS, we would have the following games:

Orange Bowl: Oklahoma vs. Virginia Tech
Sugar Bowl: Florida vs. Cincinnati
Rose Bowl: USC vs. Penn State (same)
Fiesta Bowl: Texas vs. Alabama

How would we sort things out after those games?