Do all the bowl tie-ins bother anyone else?

RamblinPeck

RamblinPeck

Jolly Good Fellow
Joined
Dec 7, 2003
Messages
1,928
I guess its all for the best in the end, to keep a good team from getting shut out because its fans don't travel well, but I don't like the idea of a bowl being obligated to pick from a certain conference. The bowl game are supposed to be post season fun, a way to reward the players and to see interesting matchups that couldn't happen during the regular season. Seems to me that its being made far too much like a playoff system (and for those of you who favor a college playoff, NO! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugher.gif college football is the last great american game that hasn't been completely whore'd out, though she's done a lot of things that she shouldn't be proud of), where everyone feels like they deserve something. I'm all for tradition, and the bowls would generally stay within that (sec/sugar, pac-10,big10/rose, etc) but why should any city/bowl commision be forced to pick South Florida? Or UConn is they be UoL this weekend?
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rant.gif

Just thought I'd stir up a new topic.
 
Good question RP.

To me, this is just another indication of having too many bowls and hence, too many "bowl eligible" teams.

Way back when the Gator was seen as a minor bowl game, it was still a big deal. Today's minor bowl games are just that: minor, except for the players.
I am all for rewarding players for a winning season but unfortunately, tickets have to be sold.
 
You make a good point but when you say something like "college football has not been whored out", you are plain wrong.

College football is the single biggest whore is sports. Most of the big schools have truly sold their soul to worship at the alter of football wins. Football runs most schools. Simply put, most schools simply could care less about their reputation or the players long term future. Just win and nothing else matters. That may not be a whore but it is at least a prostitute.

As for the tie ins, it is the lesser of two evils. It was not so long ago that schools would accept bowl bids with three games remaining. Bowls were so anxious to get a game locked in they would extend invites way to early. We really had some stinkers then. This at least puts some honestly back in the selection process.

You normally have some good points but I must respectfully disagree with this one.
 
Lets say I just refuse to let myself believe it. Theres a lot of bad thing in college football, but theres a lot of great things in it too. For every high school dropout who gets dragged through a football program theres 2 more who got the chance of a lifetime to get a degree (note, these kids are normally not at the highest teir programs) and make contacts that help him so much. Plenty to not be proud of, but thats a more recent set of problems (last 25 or so, maybe more) theres a lot of greatness before that where good schools could field stellar programs, and that time will come again, though it will probably take the American economy breaking down for it to happen, but thats a whole other topic. At least they havent went on strike/steroids yet like another sport I know. Let me have my delusion, I know its not 100% true, or even close to it, but sometimes you gotta believe in the best and that the bad programs are outliers.

Like I said about all for the best with the bowls, I know invites used to go out crazy early, but with the pecking order more established now, I think theres more room to go towards less bowl tie ins, but its hard with things happening like the Peach bowl wanting to get bumped up and trumping the Gator. Makes for a complicated situation.
 
And, mostly about whore'd out, I meant the history of the bowl system, not so much the state of NCAA programs, went off on a little tangent above. More than a few guinness' tonight got the blood flowing. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/drinking.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
but why should any city/bowl commision be forced to pick South Florida? Or UConn is they be UoL this weekend?
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rant.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

If bowls weren't "forced" to take schools like S. Florida and UConn, how would those schools ever get a chance? I love to see the lesser regarded schools get to go, its exciting to see how much they care about games that big programs would care less about.

I don't think every bowl should have two conference tie-ins though, every bowl (except the Rose) should have an opening for an at-large selection.
 
Why shouldn't the Rose also have an opening for an 'at-large' bid? I get so sick of the Pac10/Big10 whining that we're taking away these kids chance of playing in the Rose Bowl when the BCS holds the Natl Championship game there. Why is the 'Granddaddy of them All' now only for two conferences?

Edit - WillSting, that wasn't a flame at you btw, I was just venting about Rose Bowl setup.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Why shouldn't the Rose also have an opening for an 'at-large' bid? I get so sick of the Pac10/Big10 whining that we're taking away these kids chance of playing in the Rose Bowl when the BCS holds the Natl Championship game there. Why is the 'Granddaddy of them All' now only for two conferences?

Edit - WillSting, that wasn't a flame at you btw, I was just venting about Rose Bowl setup.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a sucker for tradition and the Rose Bowl has at least stuck to their guns. When people complain about the ACC's bowl tie-ins I can't help but remember when the Citrus Bowl was reserved for the ACC champ, I respect the Rose Bowl's respect for itself and its tradition.
 
The problem with all the tie ins is that you have only a few bowls your conference is tied to and no chance to go to other bowls. If bowls are a reward to players first and fans second, there needs to be more variety in the bowl trips a school takes.

Some simple changes could increase options. The 3 Florida bowls - Tampa, Orlando, and Jacksonville, currently have 2 Big 10, 1 ACC, 1 Big East, and 2 SEC teams. Would it not be more fun to drop the Big East team, give the ACC 2 slots, and let the bowls choose their matchups between the #2 and #3 finishers in ACC, SEC, and Big 10? If the #2 team in any of those conferences gets an at-large BCS slot, then their place could be taken by a Notre Dame, a school from another conference, or the #4 from one of the three conferences.

It would be nice for a perennial #2 finisher in the ACC to get a shot at Orlando or Tampa and not Jacksonville each year and to not always play a #2 Big East every year.

On down the line other bowls of similar payout and status could choose from their pool of teams.
 
I agree that tradition is great, but how long has it been a tradition that the Pac10 and Big10/11 had a lock on the Rose Bowl? We won ours a looooong time ago, so I don't know.

Didn't Texas join the ranks of those teams that have won the 4 biggies last year by winning the Rose? Without BCS busting up their monopoly on the game it wouldn't have happened.

It just irks me that it's treated like the greatest bowl of them all when they really only want teams from two conferences to play there. And I laugh every time I hear someone from the Big 10/11 say that the kids 'deserve' to go to the Rose Bowl for winning the Big 10 and that the BCS is 'taking that away from them'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top