Discussion in 'Colorado Football Message Board' started by hokiehead, Apr 11, 2016.
Finally! Saving college football one ****ty bowl game at a time.
Now they need to cut at least 5-6. I like the bowls but seeing a 6-6 Sun Belt team lose to a 5-7 B12 team doesn't do it.
Why do they need to cut them, though? Seems that the cable sports networks see value in that programming above just about anything else they can put on while the players get a nice trip and the programs get some extra practice & exposure. Where's the bad in it?
This is the reason we have so many to start with but it looks like the saturation point has been reached. For the first time in at least a decade we had a bowl last season (the one CSU ended up in against Nevada if I'm not mistaken) that the sports cable networks passed on picking up. It is also hard to see how the low fees paid for some of the games justify holding the game when expenses get factored in and viewership is low enough to not provide a real benefit.
The sheer quantity of games may be causing fans to turn games off, once seeing the games becomes unimportant it is easier to not watch more of them.
You actually watched that?
I think I only watched about 6-7 bowls and the playoffs.
I watched most of them, missed 2-3.
I need a life.
Too many watered down bowl games, nobody watches, stadiums half empty.
No, everyone doesn't deserve a ribbon.
30 bowls/60 teams would be fine by me.
Y'all will love these bowl games when we make one at 5-7 this year
This. Go APR!!
About time. The bowl games need to increase the perceived value of their games in a hurry to keep from becoming the NIT of CFB.
I'm curious as to how the NCAA, who supposedly has no direct tie ins to the bowl games, is able to put a moratorium on them.
Sanctions them and postseason is paid through them iirc.
5-7 and a bowl game tells me too many bowl games and that we need a new coach.
I can't decide which is worse for the Buffs' bowl prospects, this announcement, or Webb looking at Auburn.
To answer @Buffnik's question as to what the negative is: a lot of bowl games, especially the lower tier bowl games, actually end up costing the participating schools money. This is yet another case of the haves getting more and the have nots getting less.
This article is several years old, but similar ones show up every year. It's obviously something that no one wants to talk about, so it's understandable that not much print is wasted on it, but it's a problem. Here's the money quote talking about the 2010 bowl season:
Yeah, but it helps the below average teams like CU with recruiting and extra practice time. I wouldn't mind the Buffs being 5-7 and going to a bowl game this year.
The extra practice would be good but another losing season and recruiting wouldn't get much of a boost. Besides, how many fans would go to new mexico for a 5-7 team?
Kind of missing the point. Yes it helps - but it comes with a cost. Sometimes a big cost - after the 2014-15 bowl season, I read that the one school's bowl appearance ended up costing the school north of $1 million. But ultimately, the question isn't about is it good or bad for CU for there to be more bowl games, but whether it is good or bad for the NCAA to have more bowl games.
To answer that question, you have to look at who would be playing in the additional games. If the answer is that the teams playing will be traditionally good P5 teams having a bad 5-7 year, then it's probably good for everyone involved. But if it involves a 6-6 MWC vs a 6-6 MAC team, well some parties may make money, but chances are that it will cost the schools money, and those are frequently schools whose AD budget is already stretched.
This is why schools cut football: at the time the Bloomberg article I linked was written, Rutgers had had one of their most successful football seasons ever - and they were rewarded with a giant hole in the AD's budget. They came very close to cutting football - and I think that if the B1G hadn't come calling, they probably would have.
Kill em all. Except the playoffs. Expand the playoffs.
If u don't win 7, u don't deserve to go. I could care less what the networks make.
Agreed, CFB bowl games are watered down with 6 & 6 teams that don't get anywhere near the fan attention the larger bowl games get. IMO, The real benefit comes from the teams getting extra practices.
I think teams that don't make a bowl should be allowed at least some December practice time. It's certainly a double whammy against teams that aren't in a bowl. Why should a ****ty team like CSU who play a ****ty schedule and ekes out six wins get rewarded while, I'll admit, a ****ty team like CU, who plays a killer schedule and gets 4 or 5 wins, get punished?
Interesting point Dbt but logic and the Ncaa don't work very often.
In a perfect world, no teams with fewer than 8 wins would be bowl eligible, and the number of bowl games would decrease accordingly. When every team that wins 6 games goes to a bowl it cheapens ALL the bowls.
I'm willing to be as cheap as a $10 hooker at this point.
I won't go to a mid-December bowl game featuring a 6-6 CU and a 6-6 East Carolina in the Viagra Ortho-Grow Weed-B-Gone Bowl in Louisville, KY. I might not even watch it. Unless I'm drunk or stoned. Well, maybe if I was in prison and the game was on in the Day Room. But then someone might get shanked because he tried to switch the channel to the CU game from CSU Bowl game. Against New Mexico. In El Paso. Because the convict's cousin was a UNM linebacker with tattoos on his neck. But I digress. You get the point.
So let me see if I have this straight.
Auburn can pay players, ****bailer hides murderers and rapists, North Carolina has found creative ways to apply academics for athletes, etc....
But the ncaa puts bowl games on 3 years probation.
Yeah, that makes sense.
Kill Burrito. Expand the playoffs.
Separate names with a comma.