A 3-7 team is "devastated" that they aren't going to a bowl

[Pyle]

They should be "disappointed" in the way the season went. They shouldn't be "devastated" that, as a 3-7, they can't go to a bowl. My point is that the current system turns making a bowl into a thing of desperation. You're trying not to be one of the excluded teams. There was never that feeling in the old days when a bowl was a reward for an excellent season and you could still feel good about your season is you had a good record, even if you didn't get invited to a bowl.

As I said, when you dramatically increase those who get rewarded, you've turned it from an acknowledgement of them to an insult to those who get left out.

I like the bowl system. I have the NFL for highly selective playoffs and now college football too. The Bowls are already taking a backseat to the playoff. And I like turning on the TV to see Northwestern playing Hawaii followed by Georgia Tech playing the Cornhuskers, etc. Bowl games are great, playoffs are better. Besides without all the bowls do you know what's on at my house? Lifetime Christmas movies or The Grinch for the 30th time. Bowl games are a Dad's lifeline to freedom during December.

 

[JoeSU]

Except for the top tier bowls with NC implications, I view most bowls in the same light that I view the numerous pre-season college basketball tournaments. They allow teams to travel to unique destinations and provide some interesting OOC match-ups for the fans. It also allows me to watch teams or players that normally aren't televised where I live. I admit that some of the early bowls are real dogs and aren't worth watching, but I can't imagine the holiday season without them.

The good news is that as long as the currently qualifying standards aren't relaxed, I think we have maxed-out on the number of 6-win teams that the bowls will support.

 

[orangezen]

One of he main perks of getting into a bowl is the extra 15 practices especially for your younger players. Unfortunately it rewards the already better teams rather than the ones that really need them .Maybe they should let ALL schools have the same number of practice days.

 

[Lou_C]

Your perspective on the changing meaning of bowl games is totally accurate.

However...I don't have a problem with that at all. I LOVE the system that more than one team can end the season on a high and feeling great. Like Syracuse did after beating Minnesota last year. Sure didn't seem like those kids thought it was meaningless. I like seeing happy kids and happy fans. I like the way Oklahoma and Clemson finished the season last year.

It's the only sport where more than one team leaves the season happy.

Sure, there are plenty of scenarios where a team like Miami or Texas goes 6-6 or 7-5 and is playing in a bowl way beneath them, but for each of them there are five teams truly excited to play a bowl, get a trip, and end on a positive note and set up enthusiasm for next year.

I'll never get the real problem with the bowls that people have. There is no obligation to watch them. They don't do anything to screw up the bigger bowls. I just don't get why people are so hard-pressed to take the game away from kids, and insist that they are punished for not winning 9-10 games. When a team like Syracuse or Duke or Baylor comes out of a long funk, and defies the odds to get to 6-7 wins, I've got no problem with a reward.

 

[SWC75]

I'm not against bowls. I'm against there being 38 of them instead of 10-12.

And a playoff won't displace the bowls because it really doesn't compete with them. The early rounds will be in two January 1st bowls. The championship game will be after the bowls. The other bowls had nothing to do with the national championship anyway.

 

[xc84]

I'm not against bowls. I'm against there being 38 of them instead of 10-12.

And a playoff won't displace the bowls because it really doesn't compete with them. The early rounds will be in two January 1st bowls. The championship game will be after the bowls. The other bowls had nothing to do with the national championship anyway.

I don't like anchovies so I avoid them.

 

[007]

I'm not against bowls. I'm against there being 38 of them instead of 10-12.

And a playoff won't displace the bowls because it really doesn't compete with them. The early rounds will be in two January 1st bowls. The championship game will be after the bowls. The other bowls had nothing to do with the national championship anyway.

You are in favor of reducing the current number of bowls by nearly 75% (from 38 to 10)? And you think that would be good for the state of college football?

 

[Cheriehoop]

You are in favor of reducing the current number of bowls by nearly 75% (from 38 to 10)? And you think that would be good for the state of college football?

Teams would start playing for "next year" after 3 losses?

 

[DoctorBombay]

Great OP, SWC- and the analogy fits...somewhat.
As others have pointed out, the team's reaction to missing out on a bowl, meaningless or otherwise, is totally appropriate.
The over saturated scenario you describe is prevalent in all major sports nowadays. The NHL seems to have a playoff spot for most every team, but that keeps the season exciting for much longer than it used to.
MLB has expanded to several wildcards over the years, and no one can argue it hasn't helped the postseason.
Should a team aspire for more than a weirdly named bowl to highlight their season? Of course. But reaching a bowl has become a benchmark of progress, and every program should at the very least "expect" to make one.
Once the reality hit that they wouldn't do it this year, officially, the team was in fact "devastated", as they should be. JMHO

 

[JoeSU]

Teams would start playing for "next year" after 3 losses?

You raise a good point. Like the wild card races in MLB, competing for bowl eligibility (or improving their bowl standing) adds some interest and excitement to otherwise meaningless games at the end of the season. Our win against BC last year would not have been nearly as dramatic if our bowl eligibility wasn't on the line.

 

[SWC75]

My opinion of the baseball wild card is contained in these posts:

http://syracusefan.com/threads/east-vs-west.81259/#post-1158252

http://syracusefan.com/threads/they-didnt-win-their-division.81646/

 

[SWC75]

Teams would start playing for "next year" after 3 losses?

Teams didn't define their season just by whether they made a bowl game in the old days. Now they do.

 

[Pyle]

Teams didn't define their season just by whether they made a bowl game in the old days. Now they do.

Sorry but I gotta do this....Here's some other great things from the good old days that don't pass muster anymore either....

60's swimsuits...

Billy Beer...

Clickers...

 

[Pyle]

Teams didn't define their season just by whether they made a bowl game in the old days. Now they do.

In all seriousness, it's the defining mark between a .500+ season or a losing season. That's what's being defined, not just what bowl you go to. You can call it being upset about not going to a bowl but the reality is that they are upset they are going to have a losing season. Semantics.

 

[Scooch]

Teams didn't define their season just by whether they made a bowl game in the old days. Now they do.

No, they don't. Many program are competing for a national title. Others are trying to win their conference championship.

I don't undertatand this thread.

Presumably people like football. More bowl games means more football to watch. None of these meaningless extra 20-25 bowl you propose abolishing has any negative impact on, well, anything or anyone.

What the heck is the problem?

Because you decided that it, whatever it might be, was better in the 1970s?

 

[Cheriehoop]

Teams didn't define their season just by whether they made a bowl game in the old days. Now they do.

True but universities didn't spend like drunken sailors on leave to just remain competitive nor did they have to finance their entire sports programs by their team's success/failure like they have to now either.

 

[SWC75]

There are many things from the old days that were better than what we have now, including my waistline. Change is often good, but not always.

 

[SWC75]

No, they don't. Many program are competing for a national title. Others are trying to win their conference championship.

I don't undertatand this thread.

Presumably people like football. More bowl games means more football to watch. None of these meaningless extra 20-25 bowl you propose abolishing has any negative impact on, well, anything or anyone.

What the heck is the problem?

Because you decided that it, whatever it might be, was better in the 1970s?

If the extra bowls games are meaningless and yet players have to practice for them instead of studying and can get injured in them- and 'devastated' because they won't be in one of them, that's a negative impact.

 

[SWC75]

True but universities didn't spend like drunken sailors on leave to just remain competitive nor did they have to finance their entire sports programs by their team's success/failure like they have to now either.

Teams that go to any but the major bowls lose money on them so if that's the consideration, it's one more reason to limit them.

 

[SWC75]

In all seriousness, it's the defining mark between a .500+ season or a losing season. That's what's being defined, not just what bowl you go to. You can call it being upset about not going to a bowl but the reality is that they are upset they are going to have a losing season. Semantics.

That's always been defined. You don't need bowl games to do it.

 

[SWC75]

Sorry but I gotta do this...Here's some other great things from the good old days that don't pass muster anymore either...

60's swimsuits...

Billy Beer...

Clickers...

It depends on who's in the swimsuit:

...and what channel you're switching to:

 

[Pyle]

That's always been defined. You don't need bowl games to do it.

We don't need 66 teams in a NCAA tournament either but it's fun to have it. Seriously what is the lowest seed to win the tourney? Nova in '85 as an 8 I think and that was before the shot clock. So essentially every 9 seed or higher is getting a reward they do not deserve and their games are for the most part pointless in the overall tournament.

 

[SWC75]

You are in favor of reducing the current number of bowls by nearly 75% (from 38 to 10)? And you think that would be good for the state of college football?

Yes, for the reasons stated.

I actually have the gall to suggest that some things used to be better than they are now.

 

[SWC75]

We don't need 66 teams in a NCAA tournament either but it's fun to have it. Seriously what is the lowest seed to win the tourney? Nova in '85 as an 8 I think and that was before the shot clock. So essentially every 9 seed or higher is getting a reward they do not deserve and their games are for the most part pointless in the overall tournament.

That's another subject I may wax poetic on in the spring.

A preview would be that we wait all year to see the confrontations between the top teams and then set it up so that they often don't happen.

(Instead you get Connecticut winnings the national championship again. :bang

 

[Pyle]

It depends on who's in the swimsuit:

...and what channel you're switching to:

LOL as awesome as she is...I like this better....

And I wasn't dissing what was on the TV, just how you interact with it lol...this is WAAAAAAY BETTER...