OT: 3 year moratorium on new bowls

Submitted by olm_go_blue on April 11th, 2016 at 12:56 PM

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/15181015/ncaa-approves-t…

As most know, there were 3 college football teams with a sub-500 record that were able to participate in bowls (Nebraska and Minnesota were 2 of the 3), and 63% of D1 teams participated in a bowl last year. 

I know there are mixed feelings on restricting bowls. On the one side, it'd be nice for a bowl to mean something, and not have it be all about the sponsors (with schools often losing money). OTOH, why not let student athletes get rewarded with a nice warm weather vacation. If you don't like a bowl, you don't have to watch it, right?

I actually don't mind all the bowls, but then again, I've been known to watch Tuesday night Mac-tion games, so I may be in the minority.

Perhaps the most interesting part of the article:

"Sources said the council will continue to "study the postseason issue" and evaluate bowl-eligibility criteria. The council also plans to determine whether the minimum requirement of a "deserving" bowl team is a winning record or finishing .500, a source said.

Obviously, requiring a winning record would also limit the number of bowl participants.

Comments

Mr. Elbel

April 11th, 2016 at 1:06 PM ^

If nothing changes between now and 2019, then history will just repeat itself and we'll just get a bunch of new bowls all at the same time in three years. As the article points out, when the last three year moratorium was lifted in 2014, 6 new bowls were added between 2014 and 2015.

If all they do is push back the process three years, all they're doing is delaying the inevitable. Actually change something this time, please.

ijohnb

April 11th, 2016 at 1:12 PM ^

have an impact on the quality of play I think.  I am not saying that UCLA was super good or even better than Nebraska, but how much could they really even care about playing a bowl game against a 5-7 team?  I think in some ways it is unfair to the teams that are playing the sub-500 teams.  It literally makes the bowl game mean nothing.

Darker Blue

April 11th, 2016 at 1:14 PM ^

Not only do I think that no more bowl games is a good idea, I wish they would reduce the current number of bowl games by 10 or 15. 

I love football but I don't  need to see watered down football between a couple of 5-7 teams at the end of December. 

 

ijohnb

April 11th, 2016 at 1:24 PM ^

of the changes to the bowl game season and the BCS/playoff have been staggered and for various different reasons.  It has resulted in a bowl season that really does not make a whole lot of sense and it lessens the dramatic effect greatly.  They have the playoff in place, now they need to take a step back and determine how they need to orchestrate the bowl season as one big event to maximize the presentation.   There should be no meaningless bowl games played after the playoff (and this is not even including the Citrus/Rose/Outback), I am talking about like really low tier games that are played on like January 5th.  Why?  I love bowl season but it is a mess.  I don't even know if they have to eliminate games, they just have to rethink how and when the games are presented.

CRISPed in the DIAG

April 11th, 2016 at 1:29 PM ^

I've reached a completely cynical stage with the NCAA, much like I have with the NFL, as an administrative entity. If they think it's a good idea, I will pivot in the other direction.

Gentleman Squirrels

April 11th, 2016 at 1:34 PM ^

The number of bowl games now is ridiculous. Nobody really cares about the early bowl games. They should decrease the number of games and actually allow teams that deserve to go (as in teams with a winning record)

Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

LSAClassOf2000

April 11th, 2016 at 2:11 PM ^

I think the only thing that perturbs me about this is that it means I will have to wait htat much longer for my dream of the One Hour Martinizing Bowl to become a reality. I mean, the only argument that I have in favor of such a thing is that the uniforms could very well be spotless throughout the game, but I want to see this tribute to the ridiculous expansion of bowls come to fruition all the same. 

Gr1mlock

April 11th, 2016 at 2:28 PM ^

I find the D list bowls boring and pointless, but then, I also choose not to watch them.  That said, I think they should exist.  There's nothing inherently magical about calling a game a bowl, and it's not like the Rose, Orange, or other iconics bowls are really cheapened by a couple group of five schools playing in the Belk Bowl, or a 5-7 team in the Kraft Fight Hunger bowl.  But these bowls do have value to the players - they get a trip, they get some free swag, and for players that aren't going to the NFL, they get one more opportunity to play competitive football, which is something with a very limited number of chances.  Yeah, the bowls seem kinda dumb, but they're generally good for the players, and they're not really hurting anything (yes, i know, some schools lose money on the crappy bowls, but...idk, i just find it hard to be bothered by that - if you don't want to go, turn down the invite).  These bowls are really for the players, not the fans. I say have as many bowls as you can fill - just don't expect me to watch or give a crap about most of them.  

Kevin13

April 11th, 2016 at 3:55 PM ^

can't finish the regular season with at least a .500 record then they don't belong in a bowl game. So saying that and knowing we had 3 teams with worse records then that, it tells me we already have too many bowl games.

I like seeing kids get the chance to play in a bowl game and I enjoy watching most of them, but a bowl game should be a reward for a good season and a 5-7 record is not a good season.