StatTiger 3,188 Posted May 28, 2006 Share Posted May 28, 2006 In 1960, 18 of the 67 teams eligible for a bowl game made it to one (26.9%). 1965: 27.7% 1970: 30.5% 1975: 30.9% 1980: 52.6% (1978, teams were separated into D1AA) 1985: 78.3% 1990: 63.1% 1995: 64.3% 2000: 86.2% 2005: 94.9% (56 of 59) I like bowl season but there has to be a limit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarTiger 3,909 Posted May 28, 2006 Share Posted May 28, 2006 I agree...Its not a special thing anymore. There are so many they had to lower the standards required to get considered for a bowl. Now, until this season, it was 6 wins....with the 12th game added, does 6 wins still get you "bowl eligible"....that means we could have 6-6 teams playing in bowl games??? That's stupid.... We need FAR less of these, so we can reward the teams that have EARNED it.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quietfan 233 Posted May 28, 2006 Share Posted May 28, 2006 I completely agree! Unfortunately, the schools, NCAA, and TV networks see only one thing: $$$$ ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronin 2 Posted May 28, 2006 Share Posted May 28, 2006 There's only one thing we can do about it. If Auburn ever gets into a bowl with that kind of record we have to refuse to buy tickets and watch it on TV. Then, if every other team's fans do the same thing the NCAA and networks will change the rules. While I agree with the principle, I'm not sure I'll refuse to watch an Auburn game because of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argo 8 Posted May 28, 2006 Share Posted May 28, 2006 I agree...Its not a special thing anymore. There are so many they had to lower the standards required to get considered for a bowl. Now, until this season, it was 6 wins....with the 12th game added, does 6 wins still get you "bowl eligible"....that means we could have 6-6 teams playing in bowl games??? That's stupid.... We need FAR less of these, so we can reward the teams that have EARNED it.... 237314[/snapback] I don't have a link, but I'm almost certain that I remember hearing that teams HAD to win 7 Div 1A games to be eligible in the 12 game format, with 1 Div 1AA game allowed to count toward a bowl eligible victory once every 4 years. I have no link for that, but I remember it being that way a few years ago. That still doesn't change the fact that 7-5 teams are making bowls, when they don't deserve it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StatTiger 3,188 Posted May 28, 2006 Author Share Posted May 28, 2006 I don't have a link, but I'm almost certain that I remember hearing that teams HAD to win 7 Div 1A games to be eligible in the 12 game format, with 1 Div 1AA game allowed to count toward a bowl eligible victory once every 4 years. I have no link for that, but I remember it being that way a few years ago.That still doesn't change the fact that 7-5 teams are making bowls, when they don't deserve it. 237342[/snapback] You are correct sir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auburn910 0 Posted May 29, 2006 Share Posted May 29, 2006 I dont write much, but the discussion on this topic is ivory tower nonsense. 1) What is wrong with a program making a little money? After all is said and done most "lose" money on these bowl trips by staying in huge hotels and lavish this and that for the players. I see nothing wrong with this. For thoes that dont know, bowl expenses are taken out, rest of money funded to confernece to be split among teams. 2) players and fans have something to look forward to and work towards. Not everyone can make the Sugar Bowl. What is wrong with the Akron Zips going to a bowl game? If you say nobody cares, well why not pull a Hitler and say Akron should not play at all? 3) It underminds other teams going to a bowl game with better records. This is just plain silly. What is next? No JP and regional games because they run over into the main game and undermind teams who deserve to be on TV? Auburn is on 7 or 8 games a year, and half of thoes are JP or ESPN2 or something another. Is this bad? This logic can go on and on. It is nonsense plain and simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tigerdude 0 Posted May 29, 2006 Share Posted May 29, 2006 I dont post a lot either,, but i do agree with Auburn910. If a city wants to support a bowl, then why should some young men who have worked their butts off all year to represent their school, not have some reward and fun? No one HAS to watch these games, just as Auburn910 says no one has to watch Auburn 6 or 7 times on tv. Everyone knows that the better teams usually go to the more prestigious bows. I see little dimunition of these in having a number of other newer, lesser bowls for less successful teams to enjoy and use to help grow their own program. I can recall times when i would have been glad for one of these bowls to be available for an Auburn team that was on the rebound. Thoughts??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDM4AU 332 Posted May 29, 2006 Share Posted May 29, 2006 There ARE too many bowl games. Why don't we just stop keeping score while we are at it. Let's have 59 bowl games and send everyone to a bowl. We can give every player a trophy, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,949 Posted May 29, 2006 Share Posted May 29, 2006 I dont write much, but the discussion on this topic is ivory tower nonsense.1) What is wrong with a program making a little money? After all is said and done most "lose" money on these bowl trips by staying in huge hotels and lavish this and that for the players. I see nothing wrong with this. For thoes that dont know, bowl expenses are taken out, rest of money funded to confernece to be split among teams. 2) players and fans have something to look forward to and work towards. Not everyone can make the Sugar Bowl. What is wrong with the Akron Zips going to a bowl game? If you say nobody cares, well why not pull a Hitler and say Akron should not play at all? 3) It underminds other teams going to a bowl game with better records. This is just plain silly. What is next? No JP and regional games because they run over into the main game and undermind teams who deserve to be on TV? Auburn is on 7 or 8 games a year, and half of thoes are JP or ESPN2 or something another. Is this bad? This logic can go on and on. It is nonsense plain and simple. 237351[/snapback] Agreed. All the problems in the world, and this is what some folks choose to whine about? So the fans of a 6-5 team get one more game. A city gets a little business. A couple of conferences get a bit more revenue and some players who have worked hard get one more game before hanging up their cleats. Sounds like a win, win, win, win, win... I don't think Longhorn fans and players are feeling too diminished by the Poulan Weedeater Bowl or whatever it is these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StatTiger 3,188 Posted May 29, 2006 Author Share Posted May 29, 2006 Agreed. All the problems in the world, and this is what some folks choose to whine about? 237363[/snapback] Last time I checked, this was a "football" forum and bowl games would fall under the subject of football. If it's all about making money, why restrict teams to having winning records in order to qualify for a bowl game? Perhaps it was to insure a quality matchup and to reward the "better" teams an opportunity to play an additional game and to vacation. If money is the primary issue, why not allow a team who can afford it, to play in a bowl game even if they are 3-8? If the fans are willing to travel and people will watch it, what difference does a record make? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDM4AU 332 Posted May 29, 2006 Share Posted May 29, 2006 Agreed. All the problems in the world, and this is what some folks choose to whine about? 237363[/snapback] Last time I checked, this was a "football" forum and bowl games would fall under the subject of football. 237370[/snapback] Exactly. I guess with the price of gasoline, the War in Iraq, trouble in Darfur, Iran's Nuclear Program, The party in power in Washington, etc., we should just shut down the sports forums until we have World Peace. Then and only then does it make sense to have an opinion on something as trivial as College football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,949 Posted May 29, 2006 Share Posted May 29, 2006 Agreed. All the problems in the world, and this is what some folks choose to whine about? 237363[/snapback] Last time I checked, this was a "football" forum and bowl games would fall under the subject of football. If it's all about making money, why restrict teams to having winning records in order to qualify for a bowl game? Perhaps it was to insure a quality matchup and to reward the "better" teams an opportunity to play an additional game and to vacation. If money is the primary issue, why not allow a team who can afford it, to play in a bowl game even if they are 3-8? If the fans are willing to travel and people will watch it, what difference does a record make? 237370[/snapback] Yeah, and you'll notice I didn't bring up what all those other non-football problems are here, but if this if THE football problem you're worked up over, maybe you need other hobbies in the off-season. Six division one wins is a minimal standard. Granted the bar ain't that high. Some years, as an Auburn fan, I've been glad about that. You totally distort what I said and created a straw argument. Perhaps you should spend more time on the political forum. You'd have plenty of company. Never said "money is the primary issue". I said: So the fans of a 6-5 team get one more game. A city gets a little business. A couple of conferences get a bit more revenue and some players who have worked hard get one more game before hanging up their cleats. Sounds like a win, win, win, win, win... The fans get another game and since most college players never go pro, they get one more shot to play on ESPN2. If you don't want to watch, spend those three hours looking up obscure statistics. Frankly, for these bowls the money ain't much, but it helps with their expenses to travel there. If you want to complain about money in college sports start a thread and I'll agree with you. It's ridiculous to pay a college coach 2.1 million dollars. It's ridiculous to pay a healthy fee for the privilege of paying another large sum of money to buy season tickets so you can take your kid to see a game. With academic programs suffering from a lack of state funding, it is ridiculous that so much alumni money goes into things like a 70 million dollar basketball arena. Money has distorted almost everything about college football, including the current 12 team SEC structure that ended traditional rivalries-- no more Wreck Tech Pajama Parade. But if a town wants to have a bowl game and a sponsor is willing to support two team playing, who cares? Do you honestly feel that the Rose Bowl was diminished by the Podunk Bowl? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WinCrimson 61 Posted May 29, 2006 Share Posted May 29, 2006 I dont write much, but the discussion on this topic is ivory tower nonsense.1) What is wrong with a program making a little money? After all is said and done most "lose" money on these bowl trips by staying in huge hotels and lavish this and that for the players. I see nothing wrong with this. For thoes that dont know, bowl expenses are taken out, rest of money funded to confernece to be split among teams. 2) players and fans have something to look forward to and work towards. Not everyone can make the Sugar Bowl. What is wrong with the Akron Zips going to a bowl game? If you say nobody cares, well why not pull a Hitler and say Akron should not play at all? 3) It underminds other teams going to a bowl game with better records. This is just plain silly. What is next? No JP and regional games because they run over into the main game and undermind teams who deserve to be on TV? Auburn is on 7 or 8 games a year, and half of thoes are JP or ESPN2 or something another. Is this bad? This logic can go on and on. It is nonsense plain and simple. 237351[/snapback] Agreed. All the problems in the world, and this is what some folks choose to whine about? So the fans of a 6-5 team get one more game. A city gets a little business. A couple of conferences get a bit more revenue and some players who have worked hard get one more game before hanging up their cleats. Sounds like a win, win, win, win, win... I don't think Longhorn fans and players are feeling too diminished by the Poulan Weedeater Bowl or whatever it is these days. 237363[/snapback] I agree. Who gives a flying fig? I, for one, am glad that Mobile and Birmingham have bowl games. How does it hurt AU or UA for Toledo to get to go play in a freezing city in mid-December? Yeah, I might not watch it. But still........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ProgRock 0 Posted May 30, 2006 Share Posted May 30, 2006 I ALWAYS say more football not less.FOOTBALL GOOD no FOOTBALL BAD...it's simple.The special teams go to the real dance and the ugly guys well they get to dance too....everybody wins. If you really want to cut back on something how about the dreadful lonnnnnggg season of baseball....April to October...1227 games or something to that effect, s snore ZZZzzzzzz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jumbo 0 Posted May 30, 2006 Share Posted May 30, 2006 yes there are too many bowl games but it gives us something to watch and i love football so ill still watch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dyebama 2 Posted May 30, 2006 Share Posted May 30, 2006 IF you want to have all these Bowl Games, then make them mean something More.. LET THE PLAY OFF's BEGIN !!!! for a Sure Enough National Title.. Its nice to see 1 vs 2 play but I see if your gonna have a lot of bowl games make them mean something...That way if the Akron Zips make it to a bowl and win let them have a chance to move up the latter and play until they loose or make it to the College Super Bowl. So i say let the Bowls mean something more than just a money bowl for conferences and Teams. Just my Humble opinion... Peace Out!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.