There WILL be 2 and as many as five 5-7 bowl teams!!
Good lord. It has begun.
One bowl projection has 5-7 Illinois vs USC.
It’s official: there will be at least two 5-7 bowl teams this year! And perhaps as many as five! Plan accordingly
— Brett McMurphy (@McMurphyESPN) November 29, 2015November 29th, 2015 at 3:57 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 29th, 2015 at 3:59 PM ^
Nothing new but obviously there are way too many bowl games. The Poulan Weed Eater Bowl brought to you by Blue Diamond nuts - always a classic.
November 29th, 2015 at 3:59 PM ^
This is so stupid. They need to RAISE the minimum for bowl eligability to at least 7-5, if not 8-4. Those games below that are just terrible and no one want to go to them and no one wants to watch them.
November 29th, 2015 at 4:00 PM ^
Pretty soon, my annual slotting of punishment bowls will become a real thing.
The worst two teams in the country meet annually in the Kendall Auto Bowl in Barrow, Alaska.
It would be UCF (0-12) vs Kansas (0-12)
November 29th, 2015 at 4:05 PM ^
November 29th, 2015 at 4:02 PM ^
Awful.
November 29th, 2015 at 4:14 PM ^
STILL going to 'wager'...
November 29th, 2015 at 4:02 PM ^
November 29th, 2015 at 4:02 PM ^
November 29th, 2015 at 4:03 PM ^
November 29th, 2015 at 8:59 PM ^
Games where both teams are 6-6 are some of the hardest fought, entertaining games there are. Bowl games are a nice chance for teams and fans trying to redeem themselves, and look forward to next season.
More importantly, it's not about you or me (except as viewers, which I am glad to be, especially considering what else is on). (Yeah, I know, it's about the $$). But I think if you pollled players and asked them if, after a less than stellar season, they would prefer to just go home or go on a trip and play a game, close to 100% said they'd rather go. For them it's not about rewarding mediocrity- it's about something for the sacrifices they've made for the previous 11 months.
November 29th, 2015 at 4:06 PM ^
November 29th, 2015 at 4:07 PM ^
November 29th, 2015 at 4:10 PM ^
November 29th, 2015 at 4:13 PM ^
BUT THINK OF THE STUDENT ATHLETE!!
What's that? Division III has a 32 team tournament? FCS has a 24 team tournament?
November 29th, 2015 at 5:44 PM ^
It's coming.
November 29th, 2015 at 6:42 PM ^
You're an odd duck, WD. Sometimes you're a traditionalist and sometimes you're arguing for things like this.
I could maybe get behind an eight-team playoff but that is it. Beyond that and you're asking fans to go to too many playoff games and watering down the regular season to ridiculous levels.
I do also think we should pause before asking collegiate players to play basically an NFL-length schedule. Yeah, the lower levels do it, but 1) I'm not sure that's a good thing either and 2) they aren't nearly as hard-hitting as this level. There aren't too many future NFL players in D-II and III.
November 29th, 2015 at 6:49 PM ^
Strawman argument is made of straw
November 29th, 2015 at 9:20 PM ^
It's playoff games that are a week apart that are the problem. Very little time for preparation (for payers and fans), rest and recuperation, or studying. No reason to follow the pro-football model: if playoff games were 2 weeks or so apart, there would be more time for (mandatory) rest, recovery, and studying, as well as preparation for teams and fans interested in attending.
November 29th, 2015 at 9:09 PM ^
Was against the playoff. but I will say: with 5 Power conferences, a 6 or 8-team playoff makes more sense.
6: One spot for each Power 5 champion; at least 1 spot for the highest ranked non-Power 5 champ. [That would make 6, which would be interesting.]
If 8, same 6 as above (plus an additional highest ranked Power 5 conference champ/or independent); plus on at-large team.
Nowadays, college football television is mostly about "Which 4?", all season long, ignoring the conference races, often the game in front of us.
November 29th, 2015 at 4:17 PM ^
November 29th, 2015 at 4:20 PM ^
It's all about the money.
And it's true, people WILL watch, either way.
The NFL has already learned that they can drum up year-round attention (hence, pushing back NFL Combine, the idiotic Pre-Season (more games = $$$), and the supposed "scandals"--I have a close friend who works for a major PR firm who says that they now ADVISE companies to have a "scandal", just so they can get attention, and try to "make it right" and look good on the apology).
I love football. I love bowl games. And I LOVE to watch different conferences square off. But, it's getting a little Tostitos-ridiculous to see this many bowl games with TERRIBLE teams.
C.R.E.A.M.
Only plus-side to this, is that it means CFB is having some decent parity, YAY FOR THE LITTLE GUYS!!!(brought to you by Vizio)
November 29th, 2015 at 4:21 PM ^
November 29th, 2015 at 4:21 PM ^
More football in December, seniors on these teams get to play one last game. Fans will get to travel places they might not have gone. I've never understood the negativity about which teams make bowls. It has very little to do with you. If you don't want to watch two 5-7 teams play, don't watch. To those teams and fans, it might mean a whole bunch more.
November 29th, 2015 at 4:33 PM ^
November 29th, 2015 at 5:13 PM ^
And you're right.
Attendance is down around the country, over the past 3-4 years. In almost all major sports (save for Hockey), not just College Football.
November 29th, 2015 at 4:26 PM ^
do not deserve to go to bowl games. Exception: Nebraska this year. I don't think I've ever seen a 5-7 team that I thought truly deserved a better fate before that snake-bitten team.
November 29th, 2015 at 4:43 PM ^
November 29th, 2015 at 4:28 PM ^
The loser has to become a Division II team.
So does the winner.
November 29th, 2015 at 4:54 PM ^
November 30th, 2015 at 9:51 PM ^
Hackett wouldn't have accepted the bowl invitation.
November 29th, 2015 at 5:19 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 29th, 2015 at 5:29 PM ^
November 29th, 2015 at 6:48 PM ^
We probably would have regained promotion after one season in the MAC. But that one season would have been really crappy, especially for the senior class.
Promotion/relegation sounds cool in theory until you realize that it could actually happen to your own team.
November 29th, 2015 at 4:29 PM ^
I'm not sure which is worse, the epicly stupid "Toilet Bowl" quip or the bitching about "too many bowl games." If you don't want to watch them, then don't watch them. I don't get why people get so emotionally invested in the mere existence of those lower tiered bowls.
Just about all of the seniors on those teams will never play football again. For a lot of them, this is the first time their families have seen them on national TV since maybe their bowl game a year ago. So shut the eff up and don't watch if it gets that you that emotional.
If a bowl game looks like a dud, we should choose not to watch, not bitch about its very existence.
November 29th, 2015 at 4:36 PM ^
November 29th, 2015 at 4:38 PM ^
Going to a bowl game used to mean something.
Now it's just turning into a participation reward.
November 29th, 2015 at 5:45 PM ^
So you and I subsidize the chucky cheese bowl game every year. Kinda sucks IMO
November 29th, 2015 at 9:14 PM ^
Because it seems so unfair to the winners!
Like the well-off (in their own minds) complaining about the scraps that are fed to the poor, it denies them the satisfaction of seeing the unsuccesful spared some disappointment and degradation.
November 29th, 2015 at 4:46 PM ^
You know bitch all you want, for good reason, but between Xmas and New Year's there isn't much on TV and I watch someof these awful bowl games. Give me the Humanitarian Bowl over Kardashian reality TV anyday.
November 29th, 2015 at 4:46 PM ^
November 29th, 2015 at 5:01 PM ^
anyway. Some of the more major bowls don't sell out. We all know there are too many bowls and not enough deserving teams. There should about 10 less bowl games, but then so many of these second-tier schools have nothing to play for.
Catch 22, much like top tier schools scheduling FCS teams; if they don't, those schools drop football cuz they can't afford it otherwise. Heck that $500k-600k payday keeps the athletic depts of some of these schools going.
For many of those kids, it's the only way they are going to get a college education, but it looks terrible on the big boy schedules. Might as well be a bye week.
November 29th, 2015 at 5:10 PM ^
While I understand that people are concerned that the proliferation of bowl games leads to the diffusion of their overall quality, making the ebb and flow of bowl season a little less consistent (and it can be from a quality standpoint), I also see where these are opportunities for teams who in other circumstances would not sniff a bowl but perhaps once in a blue moon. That being said, I don't see a problem with giving a lot kids - some of whom might be playing their last year of eligibility - well, one more game.
Admittedly, I am a bit of a junkie - I will watch the ones that I can usually.
November 29th, 2015 at 5:15 PM ^
I grew up in a era where ONLY the Big Champ went to a bowl game...I Remember 1971-72 and 73 when Michigan went 30-2-1 and sat HOME......I hated when our bowl streak was broken and it wouldve been longer had the BIG allowed more than one team a year to go to bowls...we missed out another 30 bowls probably...anyways I digress...if its on TV Ill generally watch most not all of the early bowls..I dont get into it till late Dec and New Years Day
November 29th, 2015 at 10:00 PM ^
Remember, before they changed the rule, there was the No Repeat rule. (Not to go to the same bowl two years in a row, which frankly I think is a nice rule).
The Big Ten champ went to the Rose Bowl game, if they had not gone the year before. Then they changed the rule.
It wasn't until after the 10-10 vote disgrace, that the Big Ten opened up to more than one team from the conference going to a bowl game.
November 29th, 2015 at 5:18 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 29th, 2015 at 5:24 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 29th, 2015 at 5:39 PM ^
Bowls dumb, playoffs better.
November 29th, 2015 at 5:49 PM ^
I like seeing good nonconference match ups. I'd love to scrap the conference championship weeks and instead the first weekend of December have the major conferences take on each other en masse. (#1 big ten team vs #1 SEC team; #2 big ten vs. #2 SEC; etc.). Could rotate conferences every year. It would be exciting to have these massive conference battles.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 29th, 2015 at 9:57 PM ^
How about the teams not involved the conference championship games (unlikely they will give those up), have a "conference challenge" (based on standings and which teams are due a home or away slot) played that weekend between the others in the conference?
(or the week before or after).
e.g. Michigan (B1G East #3 would play SEC West #3 Arkansas or LSU; or ACC Coastal #3 Miami), allowing for a little leeway to avoid rematches, and to make sure that teams had home and away games in alternating years.
The results could impact seedings for any playoff (and bowl games, if they still exist) to come.