42 bowl games
- Thread starter ATLScarletKnight
- Start date
If you don't like it, don't watch them.
It's not like we are making it to elite bowls.
I just don't under stand the fascination with Rutgers fans complaining about too many bowl games all the time.
If a mid major team like UConn has a 10 win season and gets the satisfaction of playing the 14th best ACC team or whatever, who are we to deny their fans that?
It's not like we are making it to elite bowls.
I just don't under stand the fascination with Rutgers fans complaining about too many bowl games all the time.
If a mid major team like UConn has a 10 win season and gets the satisfaction of playing the 14th best ACC team or whatever, who are we to deny their fans that?
People always ask that question when new Bowls get added -------- but it has yet to become an issue.
Key word: yet.
In 2014, there were 6 Bowl eligibles that missed Bowls (Temple, MTSU, ODU, Texas State, Ohio University, UAB). Plus App State and Georgia Southern, who each won 6+ but weren't eligible given it was their first year in FBS.
Given those #s above, adding 3 Bowl games is arguably one too FEW: there's theoretically room for four new Bowl games.
Since 2005, the # of bowls has increased by 50%:
2005-06: 28
2006-07, 2007-08: 32
2008-09, 2009-10: 34
2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14: 35
2014-15: 39
2015-16: 42
A similar trend occurred previously when 10 new bowls were added from the 18 in the 1995-96 season to the 28 in the 2005-06 season which was an increase of 56%. Since 1995, the # of bowls has increased by 133%. 42 seems like too many. 28-30 is what it should be.
2005-06: 28
2006-07, 2007-08: 32
2008-09, 2009-10: 34
2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14: 35
2014-15: 39
2015-16: 42
A similar trend occurred previously when 10 new bowls were added from the 18 in the 1995-96 season to the 28 in the 2005-06 season which was an increase of 56%. Since 1995, the # of bowls has increased by 133%. 42 seems like too many. 28-30 is what it should be.
Last edited:
Pretty sure I watched (at least part) of every bowl last year.... was awesome.
As you mentioned, college football is a business. A smart business will try to put out as much product as the market will support so long as it is profitable. Somebody's making money with all these additional bowls. It's like the NBA playoffs. More than half the teams make the playoffs. Is that an ideal situation from a competitive standpoint? Not really. But they're making money on it so don't expect them to cut back.
He may be right in his basic facts, but plenty of CFB fans disagree with the implication that "too many bowls" is a problem. I spent more time at home than usual last holiday season, and I loved every minute of watching bowl games day after day - some great games that never would have been if they started dropping bowls.
Well, one thing this shows is that IF you can't make a bowl game, you really suck!
I am old enough to remember when, as the OP states, making a bowl game was a real achievement, today it is just another game in front of empty seats. The old BCS games were obviously big bowls along with a hand full of the old guard like the Rose Bowl.
The argument always seems to be that this is a "reward" for the players. I'm not all that sure that's always true,
I am old enough to remember when, as the OP states, making a bowl game was a real achievement, today it is just another game in front of empty seats. The old BCS games were obviously big bowls along with a hand full of the old guard like the Rose Bowl.
The argument always seems to be that this is a "reward" for the players. I'm not all that sure that's always true,
I watch pretty much every game and thoroughly enjoy bowl season. With that said, the quality of football the first week is just awful. But hey, its football. Even when its bad its good.
Except for the fact that he isn't. There have been bowl eligible teams that haven't played in bowl games because there were not enough bowl spots available for all who qualify. The fact is there will be too many bowls when the condition exists where there are not enough teams who earn spots (and must get a waiver from the NCAA) or the games lose money because not enough people are interested. You are agreeing with his opinion, which is not factual and therefore cannot be considered "correct", much less "100% correct" and clearly NOT "absolutely, 100% correct".
Quality of football was often excellent. WKU v Western Michigan at the Bahamas Bowl might have been the best game all bowl season. The BYU Bloodbath? Riveting TV and pretty good football! The more the merrier!
way too many bowls....about 20 of them...they should have meaning, 20 of them are the equivalent of making the NIT or CBI. Dilution of what is considered a successful season. You have to truly suck to make a bowl and many teams at 6-6/7-5 are garbage as well
Does this 42 include the semi-finals of the playoffs and the championship, because obviously that adds two extra teams to the count.
If there are 42 bowls including the semis and final, then you have 82 teams in bowls, not 84. Not that it really matters. Basically anyone that is 5-6 or better against D1A competition will make a bowl.
If there are 42 bowls including the semis and final, then you have 82 teams in bowls, not 84. Not that it really matters. Basically anyone that is 5-6 or better against D1A competition will make a bowl.
Many of the new games are for G5 teams and are likely helping somewhat keep the peace, since the P5's pretty much have a stranglehold on the more lucrative games. I think if the NCAA didn't allow the creation of some new games (I remember reading about 7 years ago the games were supposed to be capped at 35) there'd probably be some sort of legal action being brought on by the G5's.
...also, what's old is new again. Some of these newer games are probably no different than some defunct smaller bowls from years passed (Glass Bowl, Boardwalk Bowl in AC, etc) that matched up usually smaller schools from non-power leagues.
Joe P.
...also, what's old is new again. Some of these newer games are probably no different than some defunct smaller bowls from years passed (Glass Bowl, Boardwalk Bowl in AC, etc) that matched up usually smaller schools from non-power leagues.
Joe P.
Lol at some ITT.
As exciting as the NCAA tourney is, pretty sure not all 1v16 30 point drubbings are must see tv.
Same here. Yeah some bowls are stinkers, such is the nature of sports. But there's a plus to having more, increases the opportunity to seeing a good game.
As exciting as the NCAA tourney is, pretty sure not all 1v16 30 point drubbings are must see tv.
Same here. Yeah some bowls are stinkers, such is the nature of sports. But there's a plus to having more, increases the opportunity to seeing a good game.
I think people would care less if it were a tournament format, instead of 39 exhibition games and a 3 game tournament. Which is kind of weird - you would thik that people would be less concerned about who gets to play in exhibition games than in games that actually determine the eventual champion.
The more the merrier.
This is like complaining that "Air travel used to be so much more civilized, before the masses could afford to travel". Pure snobbery.
This is like complaining that "Air travel used to be so much more civilized, before the masses could afford to travel". Pure snobbery.
Why stop at 42? I say everyone should be able to play in a bowl game. That way you all can watch plenty of bad football during the holidays that you apparently love to watch and the schools can be stuck trying to sell $85 tickets to their fans, begging them to attend the "Insert Corporate Sponsor Bowl" vs "a team most have never heard of" in "warm weather city with little to do".
They need to cap it at 30-32.
They need to cap it at 30-32.
Yeah, they would probably care less, but ironically the games would probably be worse due to seeding. For the most part, the bowls are setup to have competitive matches, unlike any tourney seeding.
Agree about the exhibition games. Kinda like GS said, the bowl is a reward for the players. They get to take a trip, get some goodies, and play on national TV. There might be less bitching if everyone looked at the bowls like that. Or maybe not.
Not really. It makes it easier for mediocre G5 teams, but it doesn't change things much for us. We PROBABLY still need to go 6-6.
BTW, the NCAA already has contingency plans in place if there isn't enough qualifying teams. There are five rules which are applied sequentially. (There used to be six, one of which was if a 6-6 team won its division and then lost its conference championship to go 6-7. But now such teams are automatically eligible.)
If there are not enough eligibles, the following teams become eligible, in the following order:
- Teams that went 6-6 with a win over a non-qualifying FCS team, such as an Ivy.
- Teams that went 6-6 with two FCS wins.
- Teams that went 6-7 in a 13 game season, not counting conference championships. This would include Hawai'i or teams that play at Hawai'i.
- Teams in the second year of their two year transition from FCS to FBS, if they are 6-6 or better.
- 5-7 teams who are in the top five in APR rates. If more 5-7 teams are needed, then they continue down the APR list sequentially.
Taking Rutgers fandom out of the equation, I really enjoy college football. I am in that group of people who enjoy college football enough that I am perfectly content watching two teams from a smaller conference I have never heard of play on a random Thursday evening. I don't think I am alone in that category; otherwise, why would there be so many bowl games? I mean, they would not have them - and the networks (ESPN?) wouldn't finance them if they did not turn a profit in ratings and advertising sales, right?
So, purely from a football perspective, more bowl games = more opportunities to watch football. What's wrong with that?
As a Rutgers fan, the plethora of bowl games means that the team I love has a good opportunity to play an extra game every year. Often, this game is against an intriguing opponent in maybe in a city I would like to visit for the game. Would I love RU to win the national championship and/or compete in "meaningful" bowl games every year? Of course! But if that does not happen, I am still glad to have the chance for one more game each year. The only thing worse than no RU football from January through August would be no RU football from December through August!
So, purely from a football perspective, more bowl games = more opportunities to watch football. What's wrong with that?
As a Rutgers fan, the plethora of bowl games means that the team I love has a good opportunity to play an extra game every year. Often, this game is against an intriguing opponent in maybe in a city I would like to visit for the game. Would I love RU to win the national championship and/or compete in "meaningful" bowl games every year? Of course! But if that does not happen, I am still glad to have the chance for one more game each year. The only thing worse than no RU football from January through August would be no RU football from December through August!
Bowl games are fun. Different matchups, different locations. I don't mind the number, it means more opportunities to watch.
It is almost comical to see college football fans want less games to watch. Who cares if it is somewhat watered down? And quite honestly, during our run, maybe only 2013 is a year that we can look back and say we were one of the watered down teams. Every other year, we had at least 7 wins going into our bowl.
Yeah- I understand that is not the greatest thing to brag about but it sort of is when you see how many of our "equals" have not even done that.
Give me more games to watch please because it really sucks when there is no College FB games on.
And yes, it is a wonderful reward for the players and getting 6 wins is not as easy as many make it out to be.
Yeah- I understand that is not the greatest thing to brag about but it sort of is when you see how many of our "equals" have not even done that.
Give me more games to watch please because it really sucks when there is no College FB games on.
And yes, it is a wonderful reward for the players and getting 6 wins is not as easy as many make it out to be.
I think that the argument here, "There are too many bowls!" needs to be re-examined. You can now think about it this way: ALL of the bowls (with exception to the CFP itself) are now unnecessary -- as none will yield a "college football champion." All conferences met and agreed that only the CFP will decide that. Thus, who cares who wins the Cotton Bowl (in a non-CFP bowl year)? Just like, who cares who the winner is in the Magic Jack St. Petersburg Bowl, or whoever is sponsoring that one now?
You're living in that old way of the thinking - when big/major bowls (i.e. Rose, Cotton, Orange) - decided college football's champion. That doesn't exist anymore. Now, all bowl games (with exception to those related to the CFP, itself) are back again on the same footing. Except, of course, the name itself. We want RU to play in the Rose Bowl. But, in a year when the Rose Bowl isn't hosting the CFP? Naahhh, I'd rather RU play in the CFP.
You're living in that old way of the thinking - when big/major bowls (i.e. Rose, Cotton, Orange) - decided college football's champion. That doesn't exist anymore. Now, all bowl games (with exception to those related to the CFP, itself) are back again on the same footing. Except, of course, the name itself. We want RU to play in the Rose Bowl. But, in a year when the Rose Bowl isn't hosting the CFP? Naahhh, I'd rather RU play in the CFP.
I get the watering down bowl games anglet but I also do not understand College Football fans wanting to watch less college football games.
It's not a matter of not watching if you don't agree. I enjoy watching the bowl games. However, they are suppose to be a reward for a good season. The fact that 6-6 teams are in bowl games is bad enough...unless a school had a very difficult strength of schedule. We're heading toward under .500 teams being in bowl games...what's the point of it? It's just adding another game to the season ...weeks later. The whole thing is getting ridiculous.
yet the thousands of fans who made the trip out to Detroit had a great time as did the players and their families.
do you take issue with the number of teams the NBA and NHL allow in the playoffs? How about barely 500 NFL team making the playoffs?
Yeah. He's still 100% correct. You think that "bowl eligibility" is the threshold for a post season game? Wow. A .500 record. What a bowl-worthy accomplishment.
So, basically, "I watched a lot more entertaining reality television programming last year than I otherwise would have."
The 5th item is good for Rutgers since we have done well with APR. If we end up 5-7 we will get an opportunity ahead of many other schools.
I'll
Yes I do..why not let 2-10 schools in as well...match them up together and ooh its just more quality games to watch oh yes yes
In the "way too early" bowl projections department.... ESPN's Mark Schlabach has us in the Lockheed Martin Armed Forces Bowl vs. Colorado State and Brett McMurphy has us in the Zaxby's Heart of Dallas Bowl vs. Rice.
http://espn.go.com/college-football...bowl-projections-2015-college-football-season
Obviously hoping for better...
http://espn.go.com/college-football...bowl-projections-2015-college-football-season
Obviously hoping for better...
Similar threads
