Why not go all the way?

[SWC75]

There are 41 bowl games this year, requiring 82 teams, not all of which made it to 6-6. There are 128 teams in the division. Why not just have 64 bowl games? GoSU96 once suggested we look at them as the equivalent of high school's "cross-over games" scheduled by non-playoff teams to give them an extra game while the playoffs are going on. Maybe they don't all need to be played on a neutral field. Maybe some of them could just be played in the stadium with the largest capacity. I'd much rather see 0-12 Kansas vs. 0-12 Central Florida than 7-5 Akron vs. 6-6 Utah State anyway. We might as well take it all the way to the bottom and give everyone those extra weeks of practice that are supposed to be all-important. The losing teams probably need that more than the winning team.

Of course what I'd really like is a dozen bowls with an 8 win or Top 25 minimum so the bowls could return to be a reward for an excellent season and all be between top teams we've been reading about all year. But you know what happened that ship.

 

[xc84]

Let the market decide.

 

[PAcuse]

Make it 8 win minimum for a bowl, BUT all teams get the extra practices.

 

[CuseTroop]

Make it 8 win minimum for a bowl, BUT all teams get the extra practices.

What happens if only 40 teams have at least 8 wins. Who decides which of the other 21 bowl games goes bye bye that year?

 

[TheCusian]

What happens if only 40 teams have at least 8 wins. Who decides which of the other 21 bowl games goes bye bye that year?

The ones that payout the least

 

[reedny]

There are 41 bowl games this year, requiring 82 teams, not all of which made it to 6-6. There are 128 teams in the division. Why not just have 64 bowl games? GoSU96 once suggested we look at them as the equivalent of high school's "cross-over games" scheduled by non-playoff teams to give them an extra game while the playoffs are going on. Maybe they don't all need to be played on a neutral field. Maybe some of them could just be played in the stadium with the largest capacity. I'd much rather see 0-12 Kansas vs. 0-12 Central Florida than 7-5 Akron vs. 6-6 Utah State anyway. We might as well take it all the way to the bottom and give everyone those extra weeks of practice that are supposed to be all-important. The losing teams probably need that more than the winning team.

Of course what I'd really like is a dozen bowls with an 8 win or Top 25 minimum so the bowls could return to be a reward for an excellent season and all be between top teams we've been reading about all year. But you know what happened that ship.

The problem is ... the bowl "system" is intended to drive revenue, not (until recently) crown a champion or set up a legitimate post-season tournament. So all those schools and conferences with teams outside the top 25 bubble will lose bowl revenue if we do a top 25 tournament. They're going to drag their feet... which is why your "cross-over" bowl suggestion is a good one. It could work in the near term while the playoff system is expanded beyond the top 4.

 

[orange79]

 

[SWC75]

The problem is ... the bowl "system" is intended to drive revenue, not (until recently) crown a champion or set up a legitimate post-season tournament. So all those schools and conferences with teams outside the top 25 bubble will lose bowl revenue if we do a top 25 tournament. They're going to drag their feet... which is why your "cross-over" bowl suggestion is a good one. It could work in the near term while the playoff system is expanded beyond the top 4.

I'm not even talking about an expanded playoff, (although I'd like to see it go to 8 teams- and stop). What i don't understand is what revenue is generated by so many bowls, most of which don't produce full stadiums or big ratings. I've heard for years that schools lose money on most bowls, so where is the revenue?

 

[reedny]

I'm not even talking about an expanded playoff, (although I'd like to see it go to 8 teams- and stop). What i don't understand is what revenue is generated by so many bowls, most of which don't produce full stadiums or big ratings. I've heard for years that schools lose money on most bowls, so where is the revenue?

I'm assuming it's mostly from TV rights. Either way, revenue from the 35 (FBS) post-season games is half a billion this year. Probably the lion's share of this is the better teams. But still, that's a lot of money being thrown around. Yes, schools have participation expenses, but also exposure and extra practices as well. Linkage: http://espn.go.com/college-football...0-million-first-year-college-football-playoff

 

[wooddoc]

Everybody gets a trophy!

 

[longtimefan]

I'm not even talking about an expanded playoff, (although I'd like to see it go to 8 teams- and stop). What i don't understand is what revenue is generated by so many bowls, most of which don't produce full stadiums or big ratings. I've heard for years that schools lose money on most bowls, so where is the revenue?

Many of the schools that go to the lower-paying bowls lose money. The bowls themselves don't; otherwise, they would just shut down.

 

[reedny]

Many of the schools that go to the lower-paying bowls lose money. The bowls themselves don't; otherwise, they would just shut down.

Probably for the lower-end schools, the exposure and extra practices are worth a modest loss .. there are recruiting benefits too. Hopefully, this will be a problem soon.

 

[JoeSU]

Nobody complains about the plethora of early-season basketball tournaments. They provide some interesting OOC match ups that would otherwise never occur. Some of them (like the Paradise Jam and Gulf Cost Showcase) involve teams that have minimal national significance.

Personally, I look forward to some of the football bowl games around the holidays. The minor bowls provide some intriguing match-ups... Temple-Toledo...Pitt-Navy...UNC-Baylor... and the list goes on. I think the prestige of the bowls speak for themselves. I also fear that if you raise the bar for bowl eligibility (to say, 8 games) it will encourage teams to water-down their OOC schedules.

Just my opinion...

 

[SWC75]

Many of the schools that go to the lower-paying bowls lose money. The bowls themselves don't; otherwise, they would just shut down.

But how do those bowls make money with poor crowds and low ratings?

 

[upperdeck]

Many of the schools that go to the lower-paying bowls lose money. The bowls themselves don't; otherwise, they would just shut down.

define losing money. its a cost benefit thats hard to define.. schools spend money all the time in marketing too that this replaces

 

[OrangeTarheel]

I like the idea but I'd love to see something like what they have in the Premier league added to the equation. Just imagine teams duking it out to avoid being relegated to a lower class. Teams could work their way up from being second or third tier and into national relevance.

This would likely work better without conferences but those are just relevant for the current bowl system anyway.

 

[jekelish]

I would be fascinated watching an 0-12 team against an 0-12 team. Especially if they just went all in and named it the Scrubbing Bubbles Toilet Bowl.

 

[FAL]

I would be fascinated watching an 0-12 team against an 0-12 team. Especially if they just went all in and named it the Scrubbing Bubbles Toilet Bowl.

Great idea! We can even have one at the Dome: "The Don't Replace the Pee Troughs Bowl".

 

[SWC75]

I would be fascinated watching an 0-12 team against an 0-12 team. Especially if they just went all in and named it the Scrubbing Bubbles Toilet Bowl.

Or the Ty-D-Bowl.

 

[SUFaninNJ]

Much to my chagrin, that line didn't work nearly as well as I'd hoped in high school.

 

[IHeartSUFball]

Love all the bowls these players deserve get some type of reward but 6 wins or can't go

 

[KaiserUEO]

thats the Kaiser plan.

give everyone 13 games.

set it up as

- the P4

then

- the top tier bowls
- the lower tier bowls

- the 13th game at alternating home sites between conference agreements

 

[SaltineWarrior]

They essentially do that at the high school level in many areas. Even teams that don't get a win or only win once then either host or visit another team with a similar record. Granted it is only 1 more week of practice but both teams have a "bowl" game while the more successful teams enter the playoffs.

I don't think its a bad idea for college teams like this to play the game, it probably would have to be hosted at one of the schools, primarily to drive attendance from at least one side. Those games would be played in empty stadiums if it was at a neutral site.

 

[ThruWayWest]

This board is probably the wrong audience but would you want to watch this Syracuse team play again this season? By the Boston College game I personally was ready for the 2015 season to end and for the search for the new coach.

What if we did play another game..would it be with Dino Babers as the head coach? That would create an unfair situation where he would have to install a offense in a short period of time and it would just be ugly.

 

[KaiserUEO]

They essentially do that at the high school level in many areas. Even teams that don't get a win or only win once then either host or visit another team with a similar record. Granted it is only 1 more week of practice but both teams have a "bowl" game while the more successful teams enter the playoffs.

I don't think its a bad idea for college teams like this to play the game, it probably would have to be hosted at one of the schools, primarily to drive attendance from at least one side. Those games would be played in empty stadiums if it was at a neutral site.

yep, you are giving 'winning' teams an advantage by getting 15 more practices and a game over those more in need of practice.

everyone plays 13.

if they only get another 5-10 practices...so be it.

its better than none.

lets even this up a bit.