think its kind of ridiculous that .500 teams are eligible, but it means less bowl games for Iowa State, which I would be against, heck the article specifically calls us out
7-5 new requirement for a bowl?
- Thread starter cyman05
- Start date
It does seem slightly odd that a mediocre season gets you into postseason play. I don't know if raising the requirement to 7 games is the answer, but letting 6-6 teams into bowl games is just to make them feel good, which speaking as an ISU fan it obviously does, but losing as many games as you win isn't exactly a good thing.
You can bet that the University and Athletic Department got a lot more than $80,000 of marketing value out of the bowl and media coverage.
In general, this makes the most sense — or some application of the concept.
I don't like the idea of a bowl team finishing 6-7 (after a bowl loss) because it doesn't feel as much like a "bowl season." And I thought that way even before ISU became one of those teams (it only made it closer to home).
Conversely, if I thought a team with a 6-6 record (or even 5-7, for that matter) had some meaningful, competitive legitimacy for inclusion in postseason, then it changes.
As you suggested: If BCS formula (or some kind of formula) continues to play a role, it has to be used all the way down the line, not simply to determine the title game (or final 4) candidates. Schedule strength should matter.
I'm still fine with all conferences getting at least one representative in any kind of bowl/postseason scenario. An arbitrary W-L threshold (whether it's 6, 8, whatever) isn't the answer. Find a selection process that makes competitive sense, and that would take care of itself in most cases anyway.
There are those who aren't lousy though. And playing in a conference that is much tougher than your average Mac team who will now go at 7-5 while playing half the competition some 6-6 and 5-7 teams played. All the while, probably losing to everyone they play from a BCS conference.
You don't have to wach the games if you don't want to. They aren't coming to your house and taking money out of your pocket to play the game, so change the channel and STFU.
I do kind of agree with this. Although I don't see much difference in that than what they've done to New Years Day. Remember when a New Years Day bowl really meant something? My argument to this is that I like watching college football, the more I get, the happier I am. A bad college game is always better than a re-run of NCIS, which is what my wife would have me watching if football weren't on.
This I don't agree with. Someone is making money off of these bowls. I agree, it's probably not the teams, but someone is. Maybe they should look into that a little more. These are all big business entities and no one puts these bowls on out of the goodness of their heart. Maybe the NCAA should require a minimum payment to each school to cover costs, then, if the bowl can't survive, it doesn't.
And at the same time, the schools can choose to not go. They aren't forced to take the bid. IMO, this is what college football is all about. If it costs the team a few bucks to get to a bowl. so be it. When you are pulling in 10s of millions a year, you can spend 5 or 6 figures to get your team to a bowl. Again though a simple requirement to pay expenses would help.
In the end, I look at it as advertising for your team. If it costs a few bucks to get there, it's worth the money you spent to have your name talked about on ESPN. It means a lot to recruits and fans alike. It beats the **** out of watching poker, billiards or another NBA game I could care less about, which is probably what would fill the spot at that time of year.
This. What's wrong with MORE football? Here are the options:
1. Don't watch.
2. Watch because you actually care about one of the teams.
3. Watch because you bet on one of the teams.
Pretty simple. No one is forcing the world to watch crappy bowl games.
They had a few games on Tuesday nights last year and those were a couple of the most entertaining games I watched all year (non ISU games).
But seriously how does the Beef O'Brady's bowl affect the Rose Bowl? Nothing is diluted by lower tier bowls.
I feel like all this would do is create more space between the football have's and football have not's. Those teams that really need the exposure, in their case the ISU's and Vanderbilt's of the world, would continue to get less money and exposure and the rich (Alabama, Mich, ND) would continue to get richer.
Competitively teams can't match up with the big dogs anymore and fall off the map. Donations dry up and universities like ISU die off and all the sudden no one is there to educate people about agriculture, engineering, etc... No one regulates the beef industry, everyone gets mad cow disease and, boom, we are at zero hour of the Zombie apocalypse.
Don't be at zero hour of the Zombie apocalypse. (said in Directv commercial voice)
It's bad for all parties.
I feel like all this would do is create more space between the football have's and football have not's. Those teams that really need the exposure, in their case the ISU's and Vanderbilt's of the world, would continue to get less money and exposure and the rich (Alabama, Mich, ND) would continue to get richer.
Competitively teams can't match up with the big dogs anymore and fall off the map. Donations dry up and universities like ISU die off and all the sudden no one is there to educate people about agriculture, engineering, etc... No one regulates the beef industry, everyone gets mad cow disease and, boom, we are at zero hour of the Zombie apocalypse.
Don't be at zero hour of the Zombie apocalypse. (said in Directv commercial voice)
It's bad for all parties.
Yeah, I think it's odd that in the article they call 6-6 teams lousy. Every team ISU lost to last year going into the Rutgers game was top 25 except their loss at Missouri (who was top 25 at one point). And giving Okla St their only loss in addition can't mean ISU was a lousy team last year (although many still said so).
I think it would've been a shame if last years team didn't get the bowl experience because they play murder's row in the Big 12 plus 2 BCS opponents.
It is a shame when a Big10 or SEC school plays 4 non-conference nobodys and then beats some combination of Minnesota/Indiana/Purdue or Vandy/Ole Miss/Kentucky to get to 6-6.
I think it would've been a shame if last years team didn't get the bowl experience because they play murder's row in the Big 12 plus 2 BCS opponents.
It is a shame when a Big10 or SEC school plays 4 non-conference nobodys and then beats some combination of Minnesota/Indiana/Purdue or Vandy/Ole Miss/Kentucky to get to 6-6.
Upping the requirement to 7 wins would lead to a LOT more teams scheduling the biggest patsies available for non-con. We would be hard pressed to play anyone with a pulse other than Iowa non-con.
I still don't understand anyones reasoning as to why there are too many bowls. It seems like most who think that are purists who think only the bowls that have been around for 30+ years are real bowls.
Let supply and demand dictate how many bowls there are. If the Beef O Brady bowl ceases to be financially stable, it can go bye bye. Two more teams and fanbases going to a lesser bowl does nothing to hurt the blue bloods in teh BCS bowls.
I still don't understand anyones reasoning as to why there are too many bowls. It seems like most who think that are purists who think only the bowls that have been around for 30+ years are real bowls.
Let supply and demand dictate how many bowls there are. If the Beef O Brady bowl ceases to be financially stable, it can go bye bye. Two more teams and fanbases going to a lesser bowl does nothing to hurt the blue bloods in teh BCS bowls.
It would suck for us, but I think it would be better for college football in general.
Should we really be rewarding having as many wins as losses? No.
Should we really be rewarding having as many wins as losses? No.
I would like to know who this is. Businesses are not charities and if these bowls can't make money 2 out of 3 years then I doubt they would keep getting sponsors.
I am not a fan of the requirement because I am a fan of having a bunch of bowl games to watch at the end of the year. If I don't want to watch one I don't. Now they just need to condense because I would rather watch a bunch in one day than only one a night.
like another poster said they need to make it like College bball and have a formula and base it off more than a record. Making it 7 wins just makes every team add 1 more fcs or awful team to their schedule to get that 7th win. While basing it on the overall body of work and SOS would make teams add quality opponents to up their chances. last year, even tho ISU was JUST 6-6 we were ranked anywhere from 29-35 in computer rankings, while a 7-5 big ten team like Iowa was ranked in the 40's or 50's.... who was the better team? Pretty obvious.
Maybe we can just change the name of the bowls to something less lame. I mean really, how fired up does someone get about watching the San Diego Credit Union bowl, or the PapaJohns.com bowl?
Why would it be better for college football? How do more bowls hurt college football?
Why shouldn't we reward teams that play a really tough schedule and still get to 6-6?
It doesn't make sense to me to reward an 8-4 Sunbelt team over a 6-6 Big12 team that beat the number 2 team in the nation.
Anyone who isn't on the short bus would know that a Sunbelt team has played and beat next to no one and that 6-6 Big12 team has had multiple tough games and is the better team and more deserving of recognition?
