(04-17-2014 10:41 AM)Afflicted Wrote:  Twenty years ago, bowl games were a reward for having a good season. Now, many of them are just rewards for not having a bad season.

Wrong....

20 years ago there were still 6-6 schools bowling well 6-5 but only a school in a BCS conference. Don't know about the others on this list because I never checked but I did check uk's record and they were 6-5 and such a exciting team to watch. ....

they scored 13 points over their last 3 games. So I'm sure we all want to go back to that where teams that might win 9 games and play exciting football are left sitting at home. While a SEC school that could only score 13 points (7, 6...a 6-3 win over ECU,0) over their last 3 regular season games goes bowling.

Honestly it makes me question if some people even know anything about college football......

(04-17-2014 01:37 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(04-17-2014 10:41 AM)Afflicted Wrote:  Twenty years ago, bowl games were a reward for having a good season. Now, many of them are just rewards for not having a bad season.

Wrong....

20 years ago there were still 6-6 schools bowling well 6-5 but only a school in a BCS conference. Don't know about the others on this list because I never checked but I did check uk's record and they were 6-5 and such a exciting team to watch. ....

they scored 13 points over their last 3 games. So I'm sure we all want to go back to that where teams that might win 9 games and play exciting football are left sitting at home. While a SEC school that could only score 13 points (7, 6...a 6-3 win over ECU,0) over their last 3 regular season games goes bowling.

Honestly it makes me question if some people even know anything about college football......

I remember quite well that USM rarely went bowling back then... but USM going to real, meaningful bowls in 81, 89, and 90 is better than USM and every penny-ante urban U in the South competing for meaningless crap bowls. At least we could legitimately claim to be playing major ball.

I remember in the sixties when there were really only four bowls that counted -- Orange, Sugar, Cotton and the granddaddy of the all, the Rose Bowl. The Southwest Conference champion hosted the Cotton Bowl. The PAC-8 champion and the Big 10 champion played in the Rose Bowl. I don’t think it was an official tie-in for the Orange Bowl, but the Big 8 Champion seemed to always play in that game (usually Nebraska or Oklahoma). The Sugar Bowl was always a good game with top-rated teams from two of the major conferences with one of the teams traditionally from the Southeast Conference.

This was an era when bowl games were true rewards and had real meaning. Regardless of what bowl a team went to, there was a real probability the game would have national championship implications.

The plethora of "bowls" being foisted on the American public today is nothing more than a morass of mediocrity from which a 6-6 team can have the bragging rights of winning a “bowl” game. Television, ESPN, and corporate sponsors have expanded post season opportunities and increased general public awareness of college football. But in doing so, they have degraded the allure and uniqueness of college football’s greatest spectacle -- the New Year’s Day bowl game.

(04-17-2014 02:54 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  

(04-17-2014 01:37 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(04-17-2014 10:41 AM)Afflicted Wrote:  Twenty years ago, bowl games were a reward for having a good season. Now, many of them are just rewards for not having a bad season.

Wrong....

20 years ago there were still 6-6 schools bowling well 6-5 but only a school in a BCS conference. Don't know about the others on this list because I never checked but I did check uk's record and they were 6-5 and such a exciting team to watch. ....

they scored 13 points over their last 3 games. So I'm sure we all want to go back to that where teams that might win 9 games and play exciting football are left sitting at home. While a SEC school that could only score 13 points (7, 6...a 6-3 win over ECU,0) over their last 3 regular season games goes bowling.

Honestly it makes me question if some people even know anything about college football......

I remember quite well that USM rarely went bowling back then... but USM going to real, meaningful bowls in 81, 89, and 90 is better than USM and every penny-ante urban U in the South competing for meaningless crap bowls. At least we could legitimately claim to be playing major ball.

If it was so meaningful you would think you would at least get the year of the bowl correct....

'88 instead of '89

Not only that one of those meaningful bowls you played a school (McNeese State) that is no longer FBS. And who did they beat to make that bowl game....

about half of the current SBC, ASU, ULL, ULM, Texas-Arlington, along with a couple MAC schools.

Yes, I agree that sounds really meaningful

(04-17-2014 05:01 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(04-17-2014 02:54 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  

(04-17-2014 01:37 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(04-17-2014 10:41 AM)Afflicted Wrote:  Twenty years ago, bowl games were a reward for having a good season. Now, many of them are just rewards for not having a bad season.

Wrong....

20 years ago there were still 6-6 schools bowling well 6-5 but only a school in a BCS conference. Don't know about the others on this list because I never checked but I did check uk's record and they were 6-5 and such a exciting team to watch. ....

they scored 13 points over their last 3 games. So I'm sure we all want to go back to that where teams that might win 9 games and play exciting football are left sitting at home. While a SEC school that could only score 13 points (7, 6...a 6-3 win over ECU,0) over their last 3 regular season games goes bowling.

Honestly it makes me question if some people even know anything about college football......

I remember quite well that USM rarely went bowling back then... but USM going to real, meaningful bowls in 81, 89, and 90 is better than USM and every penny-ante urban U in the South competing for meaningless crap bowls. At least we could legitimately claim to be playing major ball.

If it was so meaningful you would think you would at least get the year of the bowl correct....

'88 instead of '89

Not only that one of those meaningful bowls you played a school (McNeese State) that is no longer FBS. And who did they beat to make that bowl game....

about half of the current SBC, ASU, ULL, ULM, Texas-Arlington, along with a couple MAC schools.

Yes, I agree that sounds really meaningful

Look at that list of schools above your post and tell me it doesn't mean something to sneak into it. And consider that the Independence Bowl still exists and wouldn't touch CUSA with a ten-foot pole.

Thanks for looking up our bowl history, though.

(04-17-2014 03:43 PM)ODU AGGIE Wrote:  I remember in the sixties when there were really only four bowls that counted -- Orange, Sugar, Cotton and the granddaddy of the all, the Rose Bowl. The Southwest Conference champion hosted the Cotton Bowl. The PAC-8 champion and the Big 10 champion played in the Rose Bowl. I don’t think it was an official tie-in for the Orange Bowl, but the Big 8 Champion seemed to always play in that game (usually Nebraska or Oklahoma). The Sugar Bowl was always a good game with top-rated teams from two of the major conferences with one of the teams traditionally from the Southeast Conference.

This was an era when bowl games were true rewards and had real meaning. Regardless of what bowl a team went to, there was a real probability the game would have national championship implications.

The plethora of "bowls" being foisted on the American public today is nothing more than a morass of mediocrity from which a 6-6 team can have the bragging rights of winning a “bowl” game. Television, ESPN, and corporate sponsors have expanded post season opportunities and increased general public awareness of college football. But in doing so, they have degraded the allure and uniqueness of college football’s greatest spectacle -- the New Year’s Day bowl game.

It's funny how often I find myself using the word "foist" these days. I think I lived the first 30 years of my life without it, but lately it's been my best friend.

(04-17-2014 10:41 AM)Afflicted Wrote:  Twenty years ago, bowl games were a reward for having a good season. Now, many of them are just rewards for not having a bad season.

^^^This. Unless you're a really crappy team, pretty much everyone goes to a bowl these days. The proliferation of new bowl games has watered down the bowl system immensely. It's a really crappy rewards system, and I equate it to a 4-yr old kid's soccer team giving EVERYBODY a trophy at the end of the season.

(04-17-2014 03:43 PM)ODU AGGIE Wrote:  I remember in the sixties when there were really only four bowls that counted -- Orange, Sugar, Cotton and the granddaddy of the all, the Rose Bowl. The Southwest Conference champion hosted the Cotton Bowl. The PAC-8 champion and the Big 10 champion played in the Rose Bowl. I don’t think it was an official tie-in for the Orange Bowl, but the Big 8 Champion seemed to always play in that game (usually Nebraska or Oklahoma). The Sugar Bowl was always a good game with top-rated teams from two of the major conferences with one of the teams traditionally from the Southeast Conference.

This was an era when bowl games were true rewards and had real meaning. Regardless of what bowl a team went to, there was a real probability the game would have national championship implications.

The plethora of "bowls" being foisted on the American public today is nothing more than a morass of mediocrity from which a 6-6 team can have the bragging rights of winning a “bowl” game. Television, ESPN, and corporate sponsors have expanded post season opportunities and increased general public awareness of college football. But in doing so, they have degraded the allure and uniqueness of college football’s greatest spectacle -- the New Year’s Day bowl game.

These bottom tier bowls are ok for what they are---a place for a 6-6 or 7-5 team to play one last game against another squad with a winning record. Most of these low end junk bowls are in fun locations, so at least it can be a fun roadie.

The thing ALL the G5 conferences really screwed up on was not setting aside some of the 85 million dollars to insure that every G5 conference champion had a chance to go to a quality bowl against at least a #3/#4 selection from a P5 conference or another G5 champ. If we had put aside 10 million dollars of that money each year, we could have set up 3 new bowls. We would have been able to pay enough money to attract #3/#4 selections form power conferences.

Every conference needs a signature bowl that is the prize that schools play for. It draws together the conference and if give the conference race context and importance to general public. The casual college football fan would know the CUSA winner plays the SEC #4 in the Liberty. Or the MAC champ goes to the Indy Bowl to play the #4 Big-10 selection.

That's the kind of thing that builds tradition within a conference and none of the G-5 conferences have that. To me, having a true anchor bowl for your conference is a hell of a lot more important than the dividing that 10 million among 65 G5 schools. Would you rather your school have a real quality guaranteed bowl for your champ---or would rather each of your schools get an extra $156,000. Personally, I'd pay the $156,000 in a heartbeat to be in a conference that could guarantee its champion would be in a quality bowl regardless of what its rating was. I remember the old days of the SWC. I never thought much about the national championship. All I cared about was getting to the Cotton Bowl.

(04-18-2014 01:07 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-17-2014 03:43 PM)ODU AGGIE Wrote:  I remember in the sixties when there were really only four bowls that counted -- Orange, Sugar, Cotton and the granddaddy of the all, the Rose Bowl. The Southwest Conference champion hosted the Cotton Bowl. The PAC-8 champion and the Big 10 champion played in the Rose Bowl. I don’t think it was an official tie-in for the Orange Bowl, but the Big 8 Champion seemed to always play in that game (usually Nebraska or Oklahoma). The Sugar Bowl was always a good game with top-rated teams from two of the major conferences with one of the teams traditionally from the Southeast Conference.

This was an era when bowl games were true rewards and had real meaning. Regardless of what bowl a team went to, there was a real probability the game would have national championship implications.

The plethora of "bowls" being foisted on the American public today is nothing more than a morass of mediocrity from which a 6-6 team can have the bragging rights of winning a “bowl” game. Television, ESPN, and corporate sponsors have expanded post season opportunities and increased general public awareness of college football. But in doing so, they have degraded the allure and uniqueness of college football’s greatest spectacle -- the New Year’s Day bowl game.

These bottom tier bowls are ok for what they are---a place for a 6-6 or 7-5 team to play one last game against another squad with a winning record. Most of these low end junk bowls are in fun locations, so at least it can be a fun roadie.

The thing ALL the G5 conferences really screwed up on was not setting aside some of the 85 million dollars to insure that every G5 conference champion had a chance to go to a quality bowl against at least a #3/#4 selection from a P5 conference or another G5 champ. If we had put aside 10 million dollars of that money each year, we could have set up 3 new bowls. We would have been able to pay enough money to attract #3/#4 selections form power conferences.

Every conference needs a signature bowl that is the prize that schools play for. It draws together the conference and if give the conference race context and importance to general public. The casual college football fan would know the CUSA winner plays the SEC #4 in the Liberty. Or the MAC champ goes to the Indy Bowl to play the #4 Big-10 selection.

That's the kind of thing that builds tradition within a conference and none of the G-5 conferences have that. To me, having a true anchor bowl for your conference is a hell of a lot more important than the dividing that 10 million among 65 G5 schools. Would you rather your school have a real quality guaranteed bowl for your champ---or would rather each of your schools get an extra $156,000. Personally, I'd pay the $156,000 in a heartbeat to be in a conference that could guarantee its champion would be in a quality bowl regardless of what its rating was. I remember the old days of the SWC. I never thought much about the national championship. All I cared about was getting to the Cotton Bowl.

The " casual college football fan" couldn't tell you who played in the National Championship game two months after it's played without looking it up. The "casual college football fan" probably can't name every team in the conference their school plays for.

We (message board fans) are not the "casual college football fan" we are the junkie and probably make up less than 25% of all football fans. With that most of us can't tell you without looking it up who we played OOC two seasons ago (a large % couldn't name last year). So what makes you think they care who we play in a bowl game.

If everything was equal then you would have a point of there being too many bowls. But that's not the case because no one is playing on a level playing field in college football. If it was level a 8-4 SBC/MAC/C-USA conference team that was 3-1 OOC with wins over 2 of the Armed Services and a SEC school should have a bowl game over a 6-6 SEC team or one from the BigEast or ...

That's not the case so till that changes there's no need to say there are too many bowls. If I had to guess most people that say this are probably the fans that keep their butts planted in front of a TV instead of going out and enjoying the experience of watching your team in a bowl game...

any bowl game. Or maybe closet fans of one of the "state schools"

Just what we don't need another bowl game. We have too many bowl games already.

(04-14-2014 07:14 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  So, to summarize.

Sun Belt Board = Great News!

AAC Board = Trash/Turd Bowl

C-USA Board - Should be who cares?

(04-18-2014 07:19 AM)winston70 Wrote:  

(04-14-2014 07:14 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  So, to summarize.

Sun Belt Board = Great News!

AAC Board = Trash/Turd Bowl

C-USA Board - Should be who cares?

Think this is about right. The cure bowl initially was to be a CUSA bowl when UCF was a member.

I would bet good money that the Miami, Cure, Bahamas and Boca Bowls don't last 3-4 years.

(04-18-2014 08:58 AM)SVHerd Wrote:  I would bet good money that the Miami, Cure, Bahamas and Boca Bowls don't last 3-4 years.

That doesn't make the sports vacation any less enjoyable...

If Memphis gets to 6-6 I'll find a way to not get upset about a trip to Orlando, Bahamas, Tampa, etc.

(04-18-2014 02:18 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(04-18-2014 01:07 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-17-2014 03:43 PM)ODU AGGIE Wrote:  I remember in the sixties when there were really only four bowls that counted -- Orange, Sugar, Cotton and the granddaddy of the all, the Rose Bowl. The Southwest Conference champion hosted the Cotton Bowl. The PAC-8 champion and the Big 10 champion played in the Rose Bowl. I don’t think it was an official tie-in for the Orange Bowl, but the Big 8 Champion seemed to always play in that game (usually Nebraska or Oklahoma). The Sugar Bowl was always a good game with top-rated teams from two of the major conferences with one of the teams traditionally from the Southeast Conference.

This was an era when bowl games were true rewards and had real meaning. Regardless of what bowl a team went to, there was a real probability the game would have national championship implications.

The plethora of "bowls" being foisted on the American public today is nothing more than a morass of mediocrity from which a 6-6 team can have the bragging rights of winning a “bowl” game. Television, ESPN, and corporate sponsors have expanded post season opportunities and increased general public awareness of college football. But in doing so, they have degraded the allure and uniqueness of college football’s greatest spectacle -- the New Year’s Day bowl game.

These bottom tier bowls are ok for what they are---a place for a 6-6 or 7-5 team to play one last game against another squad with a winning record. Most of these low end junk bowls are in fun locations, so at least it can be a fun roadie.

The thing ALL the G5 conferences really screwed up on was not setting aside some of the 85 million dollars to insure that every G5 conference champion had a chance to go to a quality bowl against at least a #3/#4 selection from a P5 conference or another G5 champ. If we had put aside 10 million dollars of that money each year, we could have set up 3 new bowls. We would have been able to pay enough money to attract #3/#4 selections form power conferences.

Every conference needs a signature bowl that is the prize that schools play for. It draws together the conference and if give the conference race context and importance to general public. The casual college football fan would know the CUSA winner plays the SEC #4 in the Liberty. Or the MAC champ goes to the Indy Bowl to play the #4 Big-10 selection.

That's the kind of thing that builds tradition within a conference and none of the G-5 conferences have that. To me, having a true anchor bowl for your conference is a hell of a lot more important than the dividing that 10 million among 65 G5 schools. Would you rather your school have a real quality guaranteed bowl for your champ---or would rather each of your schools get an extra $156,000. Personally, I'd pay the $156,000 in a heartbeat to be in a conference that could guarantee its champion would be in a quality bowl regardless of what its rating was. I remember the old days of the SWC. I never thought much about the national championship. All I cared about was getting to the Cotton Bowl.

The " casual college football fan" couldn't tell you who played in the National Championship game two months after it's played without looking it up. The "casual college football fan" probably can't name every team in the conference their school plays for.

We (message board fans) are not the "casual college football fan" we are the junkie and probably make up less than 25% of all football fans. With that most of us can't tell you without looking it up who we played OOC two seasons ago (a large % couldn't name last year). So what makes you think they care who we play in a bowl game.

If everything was equal then you would have a point of there being too many bowls. But that's not the case because no one is playing on a level playing field in college football. If it was level a 8-4 SBC/MAC/C-USA conference team that was 3-1 OOC with wins over 2 of the Armed Services and a SEC school should have a bowl game over a 6-6 SEC team or one from the BigEast or ...

That's not the case so till that changes there's no need to say there are too many bowls. If I had to guess most people that say this are probably the fans that keep their butts planted in front of a TV instead of going out and enjoying the experience of watching your team in a bowl game...

any bowl game. Or maybe closet fans of one of the "state schools"

I never said there were too many bowls. The G5 was smart to create some extra bowls. My point was that the G5 shouldnt have created all lower end bowls. They should have spent some money and created 2 or 3 higher payout bowls capable of landing an some attractive power conference opponents as well as some lower end bowls. It's all about money. If the payout is high enough, the P5 will eventually sign on. It would have been better if the G5 had created 2-3 nice bowls that would be good destinations for G5 champs as well as 2-3 low end bowls for 6-6 or 7-5 type G5 schools.

I remember back in 1996 ECU going 8-3 with wins over Miami South Carolina and NC State and not going to a bowl. I'll take it like this instead.

(04-18-2014 08:58 AM)SVHerd Wrote:  I would bet good money that the Miami, Cure, Bahamas and Boca Bowls don't last 3-4 years.

Maybe but it these bowls are mainly for tv inventory and are propped up by espn then they can survive without much fan support.

(04-19-2014 02:59 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I never said there were too many bowls. The G5 was smart to create some extra bowls. My point was that the G5 shouldnt have created all lower end bowls. They should have spent some money and created 2 or 3 higher payout bowls capable of landing an some attractive power conference opponents as well as some lower end bowls. It's all about money. If the payout is high enough, the P5 will eventually sign on. It would have been better if the G5 had created 2-3 nice bowls that would be good destinations for G5 champs as well as 2-3 low end bowls for 6-6 or 7-5 type G5 schools.

Any bowl with any serious payout would end up being taken by the P5 in the next realignment - other bowls previously started by conferences have ended up in the hands of other conferences. The payouts are based on TV money and sponsorship -- not how much a conference is willing to spend. It would be silly for a conference to take money out of the pockets of its members and share that with other conferences, especially to attract a P5 opponent considering they already make so much more per conference/member too.

(04-19-2014 08:14 PM)IceJus10 Wrote:  

(04-19-2014 02:59 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I never said there were too many bowls. The G5 was smart to create some extra bowls. My point was that the G5 shouldnt have created all lower end bowls. They should have spent some money and created 2 or 3 higher payout bowls capable of landing an some attractive power conference opponents as well as some lower end bowls. It's all about money. If the payout is high enough, the P5 will eventually sign on. It would have been better if the G5 had created 2-3 nice bowls that would be good destinations for G5 champs as well as 2-3 low end bowls for 6-6 or 7-5 type G5 schools.

Any bowl with any serious payout would end up being taken by the P5 in the next realignment - other bowls previously started by conferences have ended up in the hands of other conferences. The payouts are based on TV money and sponsorship -- not how much a conference is willing to spend. It would be silly for a conference to take money out of the pockets of its members and share that with other conferences, especially to attract a P5 opponent considering they already make so much more per conference/member too.

Well, the only reason the bowls would pay that well is because the G5 was contributing money to increase the payout. To be clear, these bowls would be owned jointly by the G5 and any profits from the bowls would be split by the G5. By the way, starting a bowl is different from owning a bowl. Nobody can take it away if you own it.

As for it being silly for conferences to put money into bowls---my question is why would you say that? Every conference already finances their bowls to some extent one way or another. Most teams LOSE money playing in bowls. So, either the individual conference schools are directly subsidizing the bowls---or in the case of CUSA, the conference uses a pool of money to make sure its schools don't lose too much--so the conference is indirectly subsidizing the bowls.

On the other hand, the bowls themselves MAKE money. Seems to me, owning the bowls is a significantly better proposition than simply playing in the bowls.

(04-19-2014 07:08 AM)Bleeds_Purple Wrote:  I remember back in 1996 ECU going 8-3 with wins over Miami South Carolina and NC State and not going to a bowl. I'll take it like this instead.

USM's 1996 was similar... one of my favorite teams, they won 9 games but spent the holidays at home.