at the Bowl lineup the other day, it is truly garbage, more so than any year I can remember. Some of the conference affilation changes have hurt things quite a bit, 3 SEC v. B1G matchups at the same time and on the same day become redundant and frankly kind of boring while it is going on. The Alamo was a much better watch with a B1G team and that bowl has lost a little steam and now is just the Holiday Bowl II. And even some of the typically fun ones like the Sun Bowl, USC v. Georgia Tech? Puke. Michigan State v. TCU is one of the more attractive matchups before January 1, and that is not saying much.
Hokepoints of the Yushityu 2007 Mimetic-Resolution-Cartridge-View-Motherboard-Easy-To-Install-Upgrade For Infernatron/InterLace TP Systems For Home, Office Or Mobile (sic)
We're just a few days away from the start of bowl season, which means I get make my annual appeal against subsidized hell. But first a short message from Billy…
Tired of being an unwitting accomplice to some company's branding campaign every time you mention a bowl? Are you constantly struggling to get readers and listeners to know which the hell game you're talking about? Then let me tell you about the latest in idea-exchanging technology from MGoBlog: THE COMMUNICATION COLLECTION™.
Using our one-of-a-kind, industry-leading, low-fat, blogger-approved line of sponsor-free bowl names and logos, you too will be able to immediately convey accurate information to other humans. Using special shared experiences technology and our copyrighted, non-ambiguous terminology, our scientific logos and bowl names are precisely calibrated to provide you with information-sharing vehicles that are recognizable, representative, and syllabically economical. Just look at our happy customers:
- : "I told my friend I'm thinking of attending the 'Citrus Bowl' this year and he knew exactly what I meant! Thanks, MGOBLOG!"
- : "My readers kept asking why I'm so excited over some fast food joint. Then I switched to MGOBLOG's Peach Bowl logo; now they all immediately register that I'm talking about a crazy-off between Dabo and Les Miles!"
- : "People at my office thought I was going around saying a crappy buffalo wings chain will be a 'real defensive snoozer.' But as soon as I showed them MGOBLOG's 'Copper Bowl' logo our shared experiences helped me convey I was really talking about MSU-TCU in Arizona!"
See for yourself what your friends are buzzing about (click on each logo to get at the full-sized, sponsor-free versions):
I'm not against branding. We do plenty of it, and I plan to do more. Sponsoring a nice thing so people can have it for free is one of the most polite ways folks have yet found to introduce themselves to customers. Marketing is subject to the same rules of propriety as all other intra-species communication. Polite: Your banner over the entrance to the guest lecture you're sponsoring. Impolite: making the lecturer interrupt his spiel to talk about the fantastic deals you're currently offering. Polite: Leaving your business card on the restaurant's bulletin board. Impolite: Renaming all the meats in the sandwiches after your products. Also impolite: naming your kid "Need School Supplies? Call 1-800-555-PENS and We'll Deliver!" so that every time the teacher does roll call you're drumming up business.
So yeah, my real beef is with naming rights that become a barrier to communication. The Rose Bowl doesn't need to remind anybody where it takes place or who's supposed to be in it because years of tradition have made it apparent. Outback Steakhouse annoyed me at first, but over a decade of having the name plus the smart decision to leave out the second half of their name (thus actually being easier to say than "Hall of Fame") allowed it to settle. Plus the Outback is a place on Earth; it is conceivable in the imagination that a bowl might be played amidst the gumnuts and wallabies. Bowls for causes annoy me less if they're nouns (Liberty, Independence) than adjectives (Humanitarian), which in turn is better than sentence fragments (Fight Hunger). Synonyms (Military*/Armed Forces) shouldn't be allowed. I'd prefer if newer bowls include the city name for the first five to ten years (e.g. San Francisco Fight Hunger Bowl). Anyway these are all things people might name an event without obviously having to get paid to do so.
That's where I draw the line. Adding "presented by ___" as part of the name makes it easier to ignore but still as disingenuous as if I changed my blogging handle to "Seth Presented by Iowa Corngrowers Association of America." Calling a young event the "Brelk" or "Breef-o-Ladies" means we'll never figure out where the hell it is. Letting that tire company with a name that sounds like a German salute name a second bowl after themselves when they lost the naming rights to the first is borderline criminal. Even more criminal is allowing a terribly named company to take over a well-established brand. The Copper Bowl can't claim the history of the Copper Bowl if it's no longer called the Copper Bowl. And here's where I bring up how the chicken people want to get rid of peaches:
I am guessing this is what the protests were about earlier this year.
*Since the one in D.C. is newer it should be told to change to something that differentiates it from the Fort Worth bowl. How about "The Great Big U.S.O. Show" since it's the U.S.O. that sponsors it anyway.
Half the bowls need to die. This year's lineup will feature 70 teams in 35 bowl games. For reference, the 71st-best team according to FEI this year is 3-8 Arkansas. Teams much worse than John L. Smith'd Arkansas are in bowl games. East Carolina and Louisiana-Lafayette will have a bowl game for a $500,000 payout provided by the title sponsor, who is a trucking company from Wilmington, Ohio. Somebody will broadcast it, and TV crews will show that one ECU fan dressed like a pirate and a few Cajun fans while studiously avoiding angles that show the 90% of Superdome currently unoccupied. And ultimately many people—especially those schools who'll be shelling out way more than 500k to settle their entourage in bowl-approved New Orleans hotels—will ask "why are we even having this?" And the only answers are "because to somebody this is still profitable," and "we need the practices and the swag and the recruit invitations so we can remain competitive."
No I don't think it'll change anything. If someone was going to have a conversation about diluting the concept it would have been had 20 years ago. I am resigned to a future in which the Enterprise Products Partners Bowl matches the 9th Big Ten team vs. the No. 5 Sun Belt team (you are not sure if I just made that one up just now). A win here is if people on this site and others adopt the non-subsidized logos and terminology.
for once, my username is tangentially relevant
Halftime entertainment: the execution of the war criminals Terrence & Phillip!
I totally agree with you, and with the fact that the inflation is inevitable (but that it's still fun to lament what used to be). The other week I wrote a similar piece getting into why the bowls need revising, but a playoff might not be the solution. It's here for anyone interested:
The Chik-Fil-A Bowl is an interesting case, which it may not be possible to talk about in detail given the politics issue.*
But it might be safe to wonder whether the bowl committee targeted the ACC and SEC for its conference partners, knowing that the company already has a presence on the ground in most of those states, rather than being known primarily for its political stances, as in the case with a lot of the country outside those conferences' footprints.
It is also true that the SEC and ACC schools are mostly drivable to Atlanta, and that's attractive in a second tier bowl, and that marketing to the locations where franchises are located is good business. But if, say, Michigan was invitied to the Chick-Fil-A Bowl, I would expect it would create an uncomfortable political situation for the AD.
Anyway, I guess the larger point I'm trying to make is that this may be a case where the sponsor shapes which conferences a bowl affiliates with.
*(I tried to be careful here to stay on the right side of the no politics line but if any mods think this is over the line, please delete.)
I'm pretty sure the Peach is joining the big boys along with the Cotton.
There have been some questions about that based on the politics... along the lines of the BCS organization requiring it go back to being the Chick-Fil-A Peach Bowl to get it's place.
I attempted to do a "pick-em" bowl contest here at work and there were about 10 games that I had absolutely no clue about which way to lean. I mean, Arkansas State vs. Kent State in the GoDaddy.com Bowl? WTF?
I'm like you are, Seth . . . I grew up learning the real names of the bowls (Peach, Copper, etc.) and I now have no idea which one is which. Thanks for the refresher. That said, I was a bit offended at your new name for the Belk Bowl. There are a lot of us down here in Charlotte that still like football more than we like basketball, you know! (Especially since the Charlotte Bobcats are absolute garbage.)
Tickets are going for $7 each on stubhub!
I swear I saw Michigan beat UCLA in the 1981 Bluebonnet bowl.
and then the Bluebonnet Bowl went out of business in the late 80's and Houston was without a bowl for 15 years until the Houston Bowl was formed and also went out of business. And now we have the Texas Bowl, owned by the Houston Texans.
Though if we're going to call bowl games by the names of previous games in that city, I'm totally up for calling the Pizza Bowl the Cherry Bowl
If I ever heard anyone call the Rose Bowl the Citibank Bowl, I will be forced to do unpleasant things to them.
I'm waiting for some organic food company to revive the precursor to the Fiesta Bowl.
The Earthbound Farms Salad Bowl.
Bo played in it!
Amazing. Here's a report of the game.
PHOENIX, Jan. 2- The Larry Grill Memorial Trophy goes back to Ohio today with the Miami University Redskins who slammed out a 34-21 victory over Arizona State College at Tempe in the Salad Bowl yesterday. Norbert Wirkowski filled the Salad Bowl full of passes to lead Miami to a 34-21 win. And the apple of Salt River Valley folks' eyes, Wilford White, came through with a great performance in his final gridiron appearance before the faithful. His running, pass-snagging, and kicking were peerless. The Whizzer walked off the field late in the fourth quarter with his bare head bowed to a standing ovation. Then, in a very un-White-like fashion, the tears came as he stumbled into the arms of Sun Devil team members on the sideline. However, as a certain old-time broadcaster would have said, “It was a great big Miami afternoon."
Remainder of report below. With pictures. No mention of Bo though. And that's not former SC Justice "Whizzer" White, either.
I'm fine with "presented by" because everybody pretty much ignores the "presented by" part of it, while still knowing it exists.
I'm not as big of the fan of geographic bowl names (with the conspicuous exception of the Tampa II, which should only invite teams that actually play the Tampa II) because they're really bland. I'd prefer something with a little more character, so it's neither excessively corporate nor blandly generic. Say the Ozarks Bowl, to be played in Fayetteville (on second thought, that's a terrible idea, but just run with it for now). Or the Palmetto Bowl, to be played in South Carolina.
Also, can we all agree that the Military Bowl and the Armed Forces Bowl are really pathetic ways to out-MURICA each other?
I very much agree about the geographic bowl names. One mini-trend that began about ten years ago and seems to be thankfully playing out is lazily naming the bowl for the location and the location only, presumably to drum up awareness of the area.
There was (and in some cases, still is) the Mobile Alabama Bowl (egregiously clunky), the Birmingham Bowl, the Texas Bowl (as if Texas has nothing distinguishing about it that people can think, hey, Texas), the New Mexico Bowl, the Hawaii Bowl, the St. Petersburg Bowl, the New Orleans Bowl. About the only one I can really tolerate is the Las Vegas Bowl because it's much older and Las Vegas has a gravitas all its own that Mobile, Alabama just can't match.
I think there are reasons for at least two of those (the Texas Bowl is owned by the Houston Texans, the Hawaii Bowl people couldn't get the rights to the Aloha Bowl name after it moved to Seattle).
I agree... look at the classic (ie. pre-1990's) bowl names, they all have a particular theme. Either it's produce the city is known for (Rose, Sugar, Orange, Cotton, Citrus, Peach), something closely associated with the local area (Sun, Liberty*, Gator, Independence) or related to the holidays in general (Holiday, Fiesta). All bowls should conform to those standards. I'm also willing to accept certain sponsored names if they conform to that style... the Insight Bowl was fine, as was the Emerald Bowl and the Potato and Pizza Bowls.
*was originally played in Philadelphia, which is rad
Polite: Your banner over the entrance to the guest lecture you're sponsoring. Impolite: making the lecturer interrupt his spiel to talk about the fantastic deals you're currently offering.
Sponsor note. I get a lot of emails from lawyers and guys with three letter acronym jobs, because it's the internet, where lawyers and blankEOs are everywhere. I assume some of you are big ballers. This Is Michigan, after all, the kind of school that spits out big ballers left and right, often from Ross. If you're one of those people who instantly zips to the end of any paragraph about ticket prices because it's just not relevant, Imay have a watch for you.
I got lunch with Shashi Mara to talk about an advertising relationship and was impressed with the risk he was taking. He dumped a nice job for a pair of crampons he wandered around Switzerland in, finding wizened old men with amazing dexterity and inch-thick glasses to create an exclusive line of officially-licensed watches. He did this with absolutely no idea how it would work out, and still doesn't, but he was clearly thrilled just to have the things he'd set out to make. His attention to detail resonated with me, as did his desire to create something of his own.
If you're a big baller who has gravitated here, you may appreciate the similarities between what this place offers and the ethos behind MaraWatch. If you're at the point where you've rarely got opportunities to turn a number in a bank account into something you love, something you might get excited about handing down to the next generation in your family, a mutual accord to transfer numbers and goods awaits you atMaraWatch. Visit the site, email, or call (617-833-3819) to lock down one of just 50 pieces in this year's collection. You'll have to beat everyone to #16.
The beef you have is only part "you're putting advertorial in editorial space." Mostly it was being impressed with a guy who left a high-paying job to bet there's enough batshit insane Michigan fans to keep him comfortable for the rest of his life, a gambit I know a little about now.
I don't disagree with you that it's hypocritical to sell an editorial mention and then call similar types of advertising "impolite." My best defense I guess is degree; to match the level to which the bowls sell out we'd have to rename the site "Bespoke Watches from Marawatch.com Blog."
We've since revisited our policy on UV mentions for sponsors; it's gotta be something beneficial or of interest to the readers or to charity, and we're keeping it to one a month.
On that note, if you guys are looking for interesting posts to keep everybody's attention (read: advertising revenue) during the offseason, you might consider doing a special meta-type-feature on the blog, the history, policies, stuff like that. I think people might be interested in knowing what goes on "behind the scenes" as it were. In particular, how the site and MGoStaff has changed as the blog has grown and evolved. Just a though...
Hey, I have no problem with you guys making money, and I'd probably not have a problem with the editorial advertisement in most cases.
That said, I think this blog has staked out a pretty clear stance on sponsorship, what with the constant derision directed at Brandon for "The Cold War Sponsored by Ro-Tel" or whatever name Brian made up, and other such things. The thing is, I agree with Brian that the degree to which College Football (and basketball) is monetized is gross, that the money doesn't seem to actually be serving any desirable purpose, and that we should get it out of the way.
But the money doesn't JUST exist in the AD's pocket - if it did, that wouldn't be an issue. The AD sells it's Logo and it's tacit support to an array of businesses - Addidas, ESPN, car dealerships, and, yes, Mara Watch Company so that THOSE companies can make money off the same unpaid athletes that we're presumably worried about Brandon pimping.
So why is it ok for Mara Watch company to trade off the Block-M Logo for profit, but less acceptable for the AD to do it for something preposterous like a billion dollar rowing facility?
Brian's going to have to answer for himself. There's no editorial process between us other than "that was a good article" or "you screwed up ANOTHER star wars reference seriously have you even watched Star Wars ever?" except when there's a sponsor involved, in which case I give Brian the crude stuff and he turns it into what he wants to.
Scale is a major difference. The athletic department is capital-R rich, and are spending copious amounts of money on preposterous things because they're a non-business that acts like the most business-y of businesses. What they charge for just basketball, football, and hockey season tickets is a very sizeable chunk of what I make in a year. What bothers me about U-M is not when they make big deals with Adidas, but that they nickel and dime because they're hardwired to make as much money as possible, and they don't seem to see "having ad free zones" or "not money-grabbing at the fans" as things worth spending their considerable wealth on.
As for this site--the ads are what makes it viable. Except for HTTV you don't pay for anything on here, and we try to keep all the stuff that pays for it as far out of your way as we can. If Michigan Stadium was to switch to an advertising model instead of a ticket model, I'd expect very little red brick to remain visible around the field.
I think there's plenty of room to be okay with advertising up to a certain level, but against intrusive and bad marketing. Outback Bowl or Citrus Bowl is a well thought out sponsorship that doesn't detract from the value--Beef 'o' Brady's Bowl is a guy trying to stretch the outer boundaries of what the market can handle, and in doing so cheapening the product of every other bowl.
With watches--I don't know how to answer because I don't know the value of watches. I think I'd buy one of his watches if I manage to do this until I retire because it would have strong representative value toward my life's work. I think if people buy those things they have to have their own reasons like that. Nobody's going to buy an $8,000 watch because it has a Block M on it.
To be clear: I'm not trying to say you guys shouldn't sell advertising to your blog. I thought the editorial advertisement just felt weird to me, given this blog's stated distasted of corporate sponsorships. There's a difference, I think, between putting someone's ad on some e-space you own, and writing an advertisement into your own content.
It seems pretty obvious to me that if you have an anneurism and start questioning people's intelligence and character because there is an Arby's logo on a t-shirt and then sell your voice and editorial space to a guy that makes $8,000 watches and then keep ranting against commercialism and branding that you will hear about it.
In Seth's case he is being visited by the sins of the business partner but he did make up the rules in this post that Mgo has clearly broken.
I don't know if it helps but we've turned down 90% (18 of 20) front-page mention opportunities since I started full-timing this, and in the overwhelming majority of those cases we lost the entire business for it. Recently we've done the Marawatch thing and those Free Rolls with Draft Street (which will start up again for hoops in January). We're still not that far from drawing the line at editorial--we just draw the line at advertorial that is beneficial in some way to the readers (or a charity).
Aside from possible negative financial impacts to certain schools, which is their business, I've never understood why we as fans object to more football. America is the land of excess, so why in the world would fans be upset about having more football available to watch during an otherwise dead period of time when many of us don't have to be at work, it's cold outside, and.... FOOTBALL. I just don't get it.
Diluted value? I have no idea how the Rose Bowl is diluted because I watched the Pinstripe Bowl or whatever the week before. The $18M payout of the Rose Bowl sure isn't diluted. I am thrilled that I am offered a large number of bowl games, and if any of them don't strike my fancy, I simply won't tune in and will watch whatever godawful special holiday programming is on the other channels. Be careful what you wish for, football fans. More football is still more football.
It's not like in the non-conference portion of the season when good teams COULD be playing other good teams. There are only so many good teams to go around now, and yes, some of the matchups feature mediocre-at-best teams. So? Bowl season presents a whole lot more in the way of even matchups than the non-conference.
Besides, who are we to begrudge thousands of college kids -- who we all supposedly bemoan that they don't get paid -- a nice little vacation during winter break? Let em have their trip to Disney or whatever, and if the only negative outcome is that their AD is a little more in the red because of other issues, then so be it. That's my opinion on this.
I will rue the day when the complainers get their way, and instead of watching Texas Tech v Minnesota, I have to watch some 2-hour special of The Voice or some crap. God forbid we watch Texas Tech v Minnesota. Worst. Thing. Ever.
Its not that we object to football, per se, but that we object to BAD football. Personally, I don't go to the local high school to watch a rivalry game on a Friday night because (a) I don't have time and (b) its bad football. The same goes for watching the Ohio vs. ULM matchup. Sure its football. But its bad football and there's no time for 99% of people to watch it. Why not curtail the number of bowls and create good matchups that more people will watch? I think that is the opposing argument to your thoughts.
Would you match up Ohio and ULM with other teams to create 'good football'? the majority of teams are mediocre or worse. There are no matchups other than teams that are ranked that would create 'good football' in your opinion. If you're really so concerned about good football, skip college sports altogether and watch the NFL. If two 'bad' teams like Ohio and ULM are evenly matched, it could be great football! Maybe an offensive shootout! Or yes, maybe a turnover-laden mistake-fest. But as long as the teams are somewhat evenly matched, I don't care what level they play at, it could be a close, competitive, fun game. And bowl season tries to make somewhat even matchups. Count me in.
I like bowls and don't mind have an excess of them.
I think that what people forget is that bowls themselves are essentially exhibitions and the trips were intended as a kind of reward for a good season (used to typically be championship) by the players & coaches and gave the fans a nice excuse to do something fun too. Until the mid-1960s, the polls even did their voting in early December (well before bowl season) to settle the national championship (which is part of the reason we've got controversies these days now that some teams try to retroactively claim national titles in the old days).
At any rate, if you simply keep in mind that the bowls are our modern version of Romans pitting tigers vs. bears & exotic shit like that in the Colosseum just to see what would happen, then the whole spectacle certainly remains more fun.
If it's football that you don't want to watch, and you don't have time to watch it, what's the problem? Don't watch it. Half the bowls doesn't create better match-ups, because the best match ups are already in the top half of the bowls.
And you've probably missed out on some really good high school games. The other poster is right- by that reasoning you should only watch the NFL. And probably skipped Michigan Football for a few years there.
Don't know why you care something that you couldn't watch if you wanted to because you don't have time for it is played with you not watching, and exists for other people.
I care because if I can't watch it other people shouldn't either. Joking. But not really.
But seriously, the point is that why have so many f-ing bowls and dilute the product? NFL is arguably great because there are 16 games per weekend that specifically affect regions with millions in each region. In other words, each matchup has broad appeal.** Having so many bowls with terrible matchups devalues the good matchups.
I get the point you all are making. I was just trying to play devil's advocate. MOAR games is fine with me - like the OP said, having crappy football games on is better than watching crappier reality TV or basically any other TV programs.
(** I disagree that NFL football is a better football "product" than college football but we can agree to disagree on that point because its a whole different and long discussion.)
Profit has failed to mention one other possible benefit of fewer bowl games. It doesn't do any good to have MOAR BOWLZ if they're all on at the same time. Look no further than the B1G's ridiculous bowl schedule -- what is it now, 4 games at the same time on New Year's Day? In the olden days, some of the games now played on New Year's Day were spread out over the days leading up to New Year's. If we got down to 15-20 bowl games, we could still have college football to watch most days from mid-December to early January, and all we'd "lose" is crappy games and some good games played at the same time.
If there is multiple bowls on at the same time then you can switch channels if one of the games sucks. For example, in the olden days you'd have the big bowls all on New Year's Day. If the Fiesta Bowl sucked then you could change the channel & watch the Orange Bowl or maybe the Sugar Bowl instead. Then the BCS dragged them out over several days and if the game stunk you were compelled to watch because there was really no other choice.
But not one that really has to do with the amount of bowls there are. They didn't really create any new bowls to put on NYD. They were all already there. They just moved them to the same time. (Sometimes ridiculously stupidly, like moving up the Outback Bowl instead of starting it at 11am to start the day...wasn't their "thing" that you start off NYD Bowls with them?). And otherwise some poorly chosen ($$$) bowl agreements that caused bowls we didn't notice before now causing conflict. The Gator Bowl has been a January 1st bowl mostly since 1989. We just didn't care because the Big Ten didn't go to it much. It was on then, it just wasn't a conflict of interest. (Losing the Alamo Bowl was a mistake).
As also just said, used to be the Orange and Sugar were on at the same time, and the Fiesta overlapped with the Rose. The day was always bombed with bowls...just more teams from different areas got into it.
Not that it's not a legit complaint. Much like the stuff Seth brings up below, there's a LOT wrong with how the bowls are ran. It just doesn't get fixed by having less bowls; it gets fixed by fixing the bowls. Though even the biggest admirer could say the loss of a few of them wouldn't exactly be a bad thing. It's just that it's maybe 34th on the list of things wrong with the bowls behind all the other stuff you and others point out.
I know, I know, low blow.
I don't know...even with 16 games, you look at some of the dogs they put on Thursday night, and I don't know if there's a lot of anticipation for them all. There are good teams and there are bad team. And even in the NFL you could argue they let too many into the playoffs.
What it says to me is that we then need the super conferences where the crappola teams are sent away and there's an NCAA-BCS and NCAA-everyone else. Because then we only get pretty good match-ups. Of course, when you invite ND, Texas, FSU, and USC to your conference instead of Maryland and Rutgers, everyone wins less, and I'm not sure how Michigan fans or fans of those other programs are going to like NFL style "parity".
The NCAA Tournament gives us at least 4-12 horrid match-ups every year, and people love that. And there are upsets, sure; but 1 vs. 16 is just bad. Let's go back to 32 teams so only really good teams get in. Make the reward of a good season MEAN something.
And I do think NCAA is a better product, actually. For various attachment reasons, and players, and such. But as a football product too. But truth be told it's getting more and more NFL like. And not just in the dreaded marketing sense, but actual football. It's just going in a different direction- the spread. Nothing against the spread. I just liked it when it was one of many offenses. When you had spread teams, and MANBALL teams, and pro style passing teams, and wishbone/option teams. The variety made it exciting. The spread is basically the Pro Style offense now in college, where almost everyone runs it. The differences are more nuanced now, rather than huge changes of style week to week. You're either passing out of it or running out of it primarily. Kinda like NFL teams do in their style of offense. I miss when teams were really known for the style of football they play. But that's long gone and they're all looking the same now and that's very NFL like.
You are right that the second-tier bowls actually being played don't affect anyone - if I'm not excited about watching Arkansas State, I won't watch them.
But bowls also serve as a season-long goal and reward. I think the entire season would be more exciting if a major-conference team had to go 8-4 or 9-3 to make a bowl, and a minor-conference team had to go 10-2 or 11-1. Then a bowl would be an actual sign of accomplishment, rather than "oh, you won as many games as you lost." It would put a lot of meaning into late-season matchups for teams (like Michigan this year) who weren't going to win their conference, but could still be fighting for a bowl.
I realize this might be a further incentive to schedule creampuffs, so maybe straight W-L isn't the way to go here. But if there were only enough bowls to take the equivalent number of teams, and they could pick, I think the regular season would be much more interesting. And at what cost? The GoDaddy.com Bowl? I'll pay that.
More football that creates interesting matchups: great. But blow up the bowl system and do that then. The plausibility without getting into super-annoying has to be there and it isn't. The NCAA ought to have the restraint to say "you can't name something the 'Belk Bowl' unless you agree to agree to call it that for 30 years." And the bowls shouldn't be allowed to take kickbacks for forcing schools to pay exhorbitant prices for housing their teams. I like that there's more than one bowl. But right now anybody can buy the naming rights to one of these games, invite the next MAC and Mtn West teams availalble, and then scam those schools and the TV networks for oodles of cash to put on a totally non-interesting game in an empty pro stadium.
The money isn't coming from nowhere. Your ridiculous cable bill is a lot of it. For the schools in toilet bowls who are taking huge losses (that is most bowl teams), the value in providing their football players a free trip to a soulless southern franchise farm of a city is way offset by having to drop other sports to cover their losses.
My regular-season viewing time each week is limited to the Michigan game, maybe another B1G game, and posssssssibly one more game. In almost every circumstance for the non-Michigan games, I find a reason to pick one side over the other and root.
During bowl season, though, I'll get the chance to watch many games, and half the time I won't have *anything* to pin fandom-for-a-day on. So those are the games where I end up learning more, because I can focus on different details of the game without being having to pay much attention to the overall flow.
So, yeah, I'm OK with more football even if it isn't Finest Kind.
I agree with this. For 3 weeks, there is college football on every single night... be it background noise for Christmas and New Year's parties or really good matchups we all want to watch. It's both a holiday tradition and a really great time for college football fans.
I mean, yeah, we could cut about ten of the bowls. But otherwise people who are like rawr death to bowls annoy me. First of all, it doesn't dilute shit... the presence of the Poinsettia Bowl effects the Rose Bowl in the same way Kia effects Mercedes. And yes, there needs to be controls on the fleecing of schools absolutely. But there's not a single person on this blog who would rather see our season over than see us play SCar on New Year's Day with a shot at 9 wins.
I also agree that many of these bowls are hard to understand. I will say that Louisiana-Lafayette played in the New Orleans bowl last year and the French Quarter streets were packed with Rajin' Cajun clad fans. The Superdome is just plain huge and getting it packed full is a chore. I attended the Sugar Bowl last year and there were quite a few empty seats for that game as well. I think these lesser bowls do themselves a favor by picking a team that is local and can easilly travel to the game, such as the Motor City Bowl picking Central Michigan University. I guess as long as there is a sponsor willing to pay and the bowl exposure helps get the school's name out there, then why not let them go on? There is definitely something that needs to change to get better teams and matchups in the New Years games though.
Florida Citrus Bowl is actually one of the first sponsored bowl names...it was called the Tangerine Bowl for 35 years (1947-1982). What you call the Tangerine Bowl was barely ever called that (only a couple of times a decade ago) when there were interim sponsors (Visit Florida & Mazda). It's actually the old Blockbuster Bowl (sponsor) or before that was called the Sunshine Classic. Why not call it the Sunshine Bowl?
I like how you bring back Bluebonnet for the Houston in the same way I'm recommending for Tangerine. The classic name in the same city, even if it is technically a different bowl game.
Belk is crap...should have gone by its original name, the Queen City Bowl. Likewise, the San Francisco Bowl should be the Bay City Bowl (like Music City or Motor City or Queen City).
Worst is Meineke Car Care since it is not only clunky, it's been in Charlotte and now Houston. Lame.
I avoid all sponsors in the bowl names. I love a name like Pinstripe because it's perfect.
That's an Ace-Plus deserving response and I'm changing some of the stuff above to match your suggestions.
(I just realized I'm wearing the same shirt right now that Ace is)
I made mention last year on my reasoning for calling the Citrus the Citrus (and then having the Tangerine be the Citrus II). I don't mind a local industry so much as I do an obvious corporate moniker. If they put a bowl in Iowa City and called it the Corn Bowl that's easy to communicate. The Citrus was the Citrus long enough to be that but it's probably my age biases working here. I figure if we're all fine with calling that one the Citrus then Tangerine is open, and calling the other game played at the same spot and put on by the same organizers the Tangerine reminds us that it's associated with the Citrus. Ultimately a name needs to accurately communicate the most information in the most memorable package and I think that's accomplished here.
I actually liked the Emerald Bowl for San Francisco. I realize it was named that only because Emerald Nuts sponsored it, but I've heard SF referred to as the Emerald City before, and I think it's a great name for a bowl. But Bay City Bowl's not bad either.
I consider the bowl in Charlotte to be the Tire Bowl, because it started life as the Continental Tire Bowl, and if you leave off Continental it both ignores sponsors and rolls off the tongue quite nicely. Of course, the Tire Bowl really should be played in Akron, and a bowl in Charlotte be called the Queen City Bowl or the Carolina Bowl, but we can't have everything.
Also, I don't think the Military Bowl is technically sponsored by the USO. Its sponsor is Northrup Grumman, which then uses some of the proceeds to benefit the USO, since Northrup Grumman, being a defense contractor and all, has like one customer and probably doesn't need to sponsor anything.
Also also, Beef O'Brady's should be banned from sponsoring anything until they learn to do it right. Their ads last year during that game (which was among the shittiest football games ever played) were clearly written by a cut-cut-cut-rate ad agency, whom nobody ever told that when you're advertising food, you should make the food look appetizing. Not like it just came out of the freezer and was heated with a blowtorch. /rant
Is internet-winning. Nicely done.
FWIW, Continental Tire used to be headquartered in Charlotte, NC which is why they sponsored that bowl game. Of course, the company moved its headquarters down into South Carolina (which is just a few miles south of Charlotte) because they got tax incentives, etc. Good times.
I went to the Beef O'Brady bowl because it's right down the street from me at Tropicana Field. It costs $5 or $10 for a ticket on the street. The organizers put a set of bleachers on one side of the stadium like a high school game, and then cordon off that entire half.
At the East West Shrine game, it was even worse: not only did they put up the bleachers and cut off half of the stadium, but then they closed the entire upper deck, cramming everyone into about 30% of the stadium.
So, not only is the stadium not full, but they try to create an artificial experience of a "full" stadium by cramming everyone into the same sections. The bowls are worth the street price, and still fun, but I certainly wouldn't pay full price for a dog game to get treated like cattle.
I don't want to be right.
What? No mention of the Cherry Bowl?
In general I despise the sponsor names and have never used them. Having said that, I don't mind calling it the Pizza Bowl or the Little Caesar's Bowl just because of how much money the Illitches have sunk into the Tigers. If the free advertising helps us pay for players like Prince, Miggy & Verlander, then I'm all in. Also, I never really cared for the sound of "Motor City Bowl" either. If they had drawn their heritage back to the Cherry Bowl maybe I'd feel differently. So in a round-about way, I've got no beef with calling it the Pizza! Pizza! Bowl.