Cleveland Plain Dealer: Bowl controversy looms with 5-7 teams being rewarded

Donate To GopherHole
Jike Spingleton

Jike Spingleton

Traveling Champ
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
6,509
Reaction score
72
Points
48
Found these quotes interesting, though we all know money always wins:

"Having bowls go dark may be the way to slow the process down,'' Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby told CBS Sports. He is also chairman of the Football Oversight Committee. "There are people who absolutely want bowls to go dark."

"When we get through this cycle of bowl contracts (which ends in 2019), I hope we look very hard at making 7-5 the standard for bowl eligibility, and not 6-6,'' said Mid-American Conference Commissioner Jon Steinbrecher, who is also a member of the Football Oversight Committee.

http://www.cleveland.com/sports/college/index.ssf/2015/11/bowl_controversy_looms_with_ta.html
 

If they're going to keep the same number of bowls around- and they might because of TV money and exposure- then I would
favor expanding the FBS to lend a greater pool of potential teams. Consider some of the hungry FCS leagues, like the
MVC, CAA, Southland, or Big Sky. That's just my two cents, that's worth about a penny! lol

There are plenty of schools in those leagues that can make the jump if given the opportunity. Its said that the top 15-20
or so of the FCS each season can compete quite well with mid-majors, and I agree.
 

I don't get the hand wringing over 5-7 teams in bowl games. People long for the days when only elite teams made bowls, and I agree with them. But it doesn't matter to me at all whether there are 6-6 or 5-7 teams in bowls. That's missing the point. An average team is an average team.
 

Section2 said:
I don't get the hand wringing over 5-7 teams in bowl games. People long for the days when only elite teams made bowls, and I agree with them. But it doesn't matter to me at all whether there are 6-6 or 5-7 teams in bowls. That's missing the point. An average team is an average team.
Click to expand...

Agree. it is such a straw man. If they cared to make bowls relevant, drop the total number of bowls to about 15 but give every team the practices.
 

You win your division or your conference, you get a high profile "reward" bowl. If you go 5 and 7 and still get an extra game, its good for the fans and the programs who get the extra time in practice. I do not see the controversy. Don't call them bowls, call them bonus games. They that obviously make money.
 


Yeah, they're going to eliminate some bowls. The NCAA Tourney is also going to go back down to 32 teams.
 

I'm all for lengthening the college football season any way possible (more fun than NFL for me), so if it means 5-7 teams go to bowl games, so be it.
 

Winnipegopher said:
Agree. it is such a straw man. If they cared to make bowls relevant, drop the total number of bowls to about 15 but give every team the practices.
Click to expand...

True there is not a huge difference between the quality of a 6-6 and a 5-7 team but you have to draw the line somewhere. A 5-7 team is a losing team that will still be a losing team even if they win a bowl. A 6-6 team will have a winning record if they win a bowl, losing record if they lose a bowl. That's a pretty big difference. I agree that it would be best to cut it down to 7-5 teams, which would still be winning teams at 7-6 if they lose a bowl n
 

Catechol said:
True there is not a huge difference between the quality of a 6-6 and a 5-7 team but you have to draw the line somewhere. A 5-7 team is a losing team that will still be a losing team even if they win a bowl. A 6-6 team will have a winning record if they win a bowl, losing record if they lose a bowl. That's a pretty big difference. I agree that it would be best to cut it down to 7-5 teams, which would still be winning teams at 7-6 if they lose a bowl n
Click to expand...

Totals wins irrelevant. Compare Indiana to Minnesota. Indiana four cupcakes and 2-6 conference and Minnesota 3-1 with loss to TCU. There is no reason to schedule decent non-conference games. In my mind, they need to look at conference standings. No 2-6 team should go to a bowl.
 




I don't care. I like college football and I like bowl games. If it is on and if the matchup is intriguing, I'll watch it. If it's boring, I won't. I'll probably end up watching about 75% of the bowl games this year. The more the merrier.
 

Bowl eligible list

badgergopher said:
Anyone know how many 7-5 teams there are/will be?
Click to expand...

Bowl Eligible (need 80 to fill 40 bowls)
1 Clemson (12-0)
2 Iowa (12-0)

3 Alabama (11-1)
4 Houston (11-1)
5 Michigan State (11-1)
6 North Carolina (11-1)
7 Ohio State (11-1)
8 Oklahoma (11-1)

9 Florida (10-2)
10 Florida State (10-2)
11 Northwestern (10-2)
12 Notre Dame (10-2)
13 Oklahoma State (10-2)
14 Stanford (10-2)
15 Temple (10-2)
16 TCU (10-2)
17 Western Kentucky (10-2)

18 Appalachian State (9-2)
19 Baylor (9-2)
20 Navy (9-2)
21 Toledo (9-2)

22 Bowling Green (9-3)
23 BYU (9-3)
24 Georgia (9-3)
25 Marshall (9-3)
26 Memphis (9-3)
27 Michigan (9-3)
28 Ole Miss (9-3)
29 Oregon (9-3)
30 San Diego State (9-3)
31 Southern Miss (9-3)
32 Utah (9-3)
33 Wisconsin (9-3)

34 Arkansas State (8-3)
35 Georgia Southern (8-3)
36 LSU (8-3)

37 Air Force (8-4)
38 Boise State (8-4)
39 Louisiana Tech (8-4)
40 Miami (8-4)
41 Mississippi State (8-4)
42 Northern Illinois (8-4)
43 Ohio (8-4)
44 Pitt (8-4)
45 Tennessee (8-4)
46 Texas A&M (8-4)
47 UCLA (8-4)
48 USC (8-4)
49 USF (8-4)
50 Washington State (8-4)

51 West Virginia (7-4)

52 Akron (7-5)
53 Arkansas (7-5)
54 Cal (7-5)
55 Central Michigan (7-5)
56 Cincinnati (7-5)
57 Colorado State (7-5)
58 Duke (7-5)
59 Louisville (7-5)
60 Middle Tennessee (7-5)
61 New Mexico (7-5)
62 NC State (7-5)
63 Penn State (7-5)
64 Texas Tech (7-5)
65 Western Michigan (7-5)

66 Arizona (6-6)
67 Arizona State (6-6)
68 Auburn (6-6)
69 Connecticut (6-6)
70 Indiana (6-6)
71 Nevada (6-6)
72 Tulsa (6-6)
73 Utah State (6-6)
74 Virginia Tech (6-6)
75 Washington (6-6)

Need 1 Win
Georgia State (5-6)
Kansas State (5-6)
South Alabama (5-6)

Picking Up The Scraps? (2 to 5 bids)
Buffalo (5-7)
East Carolina (5-7)
FIU (5-7)
Illinois (5-7)
Kentucky (5-7)
Louisiana (4-7) -- if it beats Troy
Minnesota (5-7)
Missouri (5-7) -- will decline bowl bid if offered
Nebraska (5-7)
Old Dominion (5-7)
Rice (5-7)
San Jose State (5-7)
Texas (4-7) -- if it beats Baylor
UTEP (5-7)
 

ESPN, NBCSN, FOX SPORTS ONE, etc., all need bowl games.

What will more people watch?
7-5 NE Louisiana vs 7-5 Central Michigan
or 5-7 Nebraska vs 4-8 Missouri / Tennesssee, or random Big 12 school.
 



Face The Facts said:
ESPN, NBCSN, FOX SPORTS ONE, etc., all need bowl games.

What will more people watch?
7-5 NE Louisiana vs 7-5 Central Michigan
or 5-7 Nebraska vs 4-8 Missouri / Tennesssee, or random Big 12 school.
Click to expand...

No, ESPN literally controls the bowl games. This is why there are so many. Cheap programming that will still get better ratings than just about anything else, including decent college basketball games.

Looking at the list, I found only two that aren't on ESPN/ESPN2/ABC.

The Sun Bowl, which has been on CBS for years, and something called the Cure Bowl, which is on CBSSN.
The last bowl of any note that wasn't on the Leader was the Cotton Bowl, which Fox had for a while until it was absorbed into the Playoffs.
 

Winnipegopher said:
Agree. it is such a straw man. If they cared to make bowls relevant, drop the total number of bowls to about 15 but give every team the practices.
Click to expand...


I don't know what would make the right number of bowl games but in no case should a team be allowed to participate unless they have a winning record (i.e., 7-5). I agree 100-percent with the last part of your statement! The teams with losing records probably need the practices much more than the winners. I know it won't happen but I sure wish we had enough class to turn down a bowl invitation this year.
 

Winnipegopher said:
Totals wins irrelevant. Compare Indiana to Minnesota. Indiana four cupcakes and 2-6 conference and Minnesota 3-1 with loss to TCU. There is no reason to schedule decent non-conference games. In my mind, they need to look at conference standings. No 2-6 team should go to a bowl.
Click to expand...

Love this comment. I hate 2-6 teams in bowl games more than I hate 5-7 teams in them.
 

Look at the cable tv ratings for the last two weeks of December. It will be full of ESPN listings. That is the reason these Bowls exist. Clearly many of people moaning about this are also watching the games.
 

discochris said:
No, ESPN literally controls the bowl games. This is why there are so many. Cheap programming that will still get better ratings than just about anything else, including decent college basketball games.

Looking at the list, I found only two that aren't on ESPN/ESPN2/ABC.

The Sun Bowl, which has been on CBS for years, and something called the Cure Bowl, which is on CBSSN.
The last bowl of any note that wasn't on the Leader was the Cotton Bowl, which Fox had for a while until it was absorbed into the Playoffs.
Click to expand...

The Arizona Bowl is on the All Sports Network.
 

I, for one, have ALWAYS enjoyed bowl games- going way back to the 70's. I love to see odd matchups, although with TV being
so prevalent there are no strange teams anymore. Still, I try to at least catch a couple minutes of each if I can. Its a holiday
tradition for me.

That said, it is a funny feeling having 5-7 teams get in. I've seen teams with losing records in bowls before, of course. Sometimes
its been because a team won its league title with one. At the very least they have attached academic achievement as a criteria, so in a way it was earned as
opposed to being just a door prize.

I have thought for a few years now that there needs to be just a few more FBS schools/leagues. That would ensure that better records
find their way in. The MVC and CAA are the likely first two, any maybe the Southland. The Ivy League, too, although they don't play in bowls.
 

I'm still trying to catch my breath over seeing Iowa--the team we absolutely destroyed in Minneapolis just 12 short months ago--in the #2 slot above, NATIONALLY. Wow, what a difference a year can make.

I hope the kids get another game because more practice can only help our maturity, and it gives us a chance to shed the awful bowl game monkey on the back with relatively little at stake.
 

If you stop and think about it, how many "good" bowl games are there?
National Championship - Cotton (semifinal) - Orange (semifinal) - then the so-called "new Year's 6" group of games: Rose - Sugar - Fiesta - Peach.
Those are arguably the top 7 games.

next group: Outback & Citrus (New Year's Day) - that's 9.

After that, your guess is as good as mine for ranking. I would put the Holiday, Alamo, and TaxSlayer in the next rung.

Bottom line - if you're a top-25 team, you will be going to a bowl game that is 'decent' or better.
Anything after that is a crap shoot, and not worth arguing over.
 

Some of you people act like you think this is an issue that's actually important. Upset that a 5-7 team can play in a meaningless bowl game but a 7-5 team playing in an equally meaningless bowl game is okay? Oh, the scandal of it!!!!!!!! I'm not sure I'll ever wear any Gopher gear again since it would be so embarrassing if they go bowling this year.
 

Mor football plz. Thx.

Sent from my KFFOWI using Tapatalk
 

Alright then, we need 63 bowl games. This should make everyone happy except one team.
 

Thanks SS. I'd be totally ok with raising the bar to 7-5 and limiting bowls to 32.
 

A lot of he people who piss and moan about the 5-7 teams don't watch these games anyway, regardless of record. I don't get what the big deal is. Most of these games are not very relevant anyway so is does not matter to me if the teams have five wins for seven.

I think some people are so irrationally angry about this that they are somewhat brainwashed. They sort of remind me of anti Stadium nuts, or even the "Bird" people.

PS. Does anyone working downtown know if there are piles dead birds rising yet? After all, the glass is mostly in.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom