Its fine the way it is. Most years there will be enough legit bowl qualified teams to fill the bowls. The only thing that needs to change is any "extra" teams added to the bowl pool due to insufficient 6-win teams being available ARE NOT counted toward filling any conference's bowl ties. In other words, all the bowls will be filled with legit bowl qualified teams per conference ties and backup agreements. Then, all remaining bowl with open slots, must choose from the remaining 6-win+ "at large" teams that are available. The bowls will select based on payout (highest pay out picks first). Once all the legit bowl qualified teams are all assigned slots, then--and only then--are the 5-7 teams approved by the NCAA available for selection. The 5-7 teams should get the low end slots---not the better slots.

As a college football fan I have a hard time seeing what the problem is. If I turn on the TV and there are two 3-9 teams facing off in the Sioux City Sham-Wow Bowl I'm probably going to watch it because it's college football.

Someone please explain to me what all the heartburn is all about.

(04-11-2016 02:29 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  As a college football fan I have a hard time seeing what the problem is. If I turn on the TV and there are two 3-9 teams facing off in the Sioux City Sham-Wow Bowl I'm probably going to watch it because it's college football.

Someone please explain to me what all the heartburn is all about.

Let the free market decide it. Lot of lower tier bowls are the most exciting games.

(04-11-2016 02:29 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  As a college football fan I have a hard time seeing what the problem is. If I turn on the TV and there are two 3-9 teams facing off in the Sioux City Sham-Wow Bowl I'm probably going to watch it because it's college football.

Someone please explain to me what all the heartburn is all about.

Because in the mind of the majority of fans (casual and followers) the bowl is a perception of a reward for a winning season. It is a post season game and not a regular season game.

(04-11-2016 02:32 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 02:29 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  As a college football fan I have a hard time seeing what the problem is. If I turn on the TV and there are two 3-9 teams facing off in the Sioux City Sham-Wow Bowl I'm probably going to watch it because it's college football.

Someone please explain to me what all the heartburn is all about.

Let the free market decide it. Lot of lower tier bowls are the most exciting games.

Exactly!

I would have paid to see Kansas v. UCF last season.

(04-11-2016 03:17 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I would have paid to see Kansas v. UCF last season.

Same here.

Hell, when my knees swell up and hurt so bad it's hard to sleep at time I'll go on Youtube and search for full games to watch. Doesn't matter who it is....just for the football.

(04-11-2016 09:59 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  I think each bowl should have a minimum level of payout to where the teams playing in the bowl make at least 100k each. That way there isn't any addition cost to the teams participating. Bowls like the Potato Bowl that only offer $325k each where the teams still have to pay some money out of their pocket or the conference's coffers shouldn't be allowed unless they make a the schools involved get a minimum of a small profit from the bowl directly.
If the Potato Bowl can't afford it then it should close down or move to a different location where it could be supported better for the payout necessary to meet the payout standard.

When NIU went to the Potato Bowl they came out ahead and didn't lose money. That bowl didn't require a lot of expenditures from the school, so even the low payout was not bad. So the payout is only part of the picture.

(04-11-2016 03:53 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 09:59 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  I think each bowl should have a minimum level of payout to where the teams playing in the bowl make at least 100k each. That way there isn't any addition cost to the teams participating. Bowls like the Potato Bowl that only offer $325k each where the teams still have to pay some money out of their pocket or the conference's coffers shouldn't be allowed unless they make a the schools involved get a minimum of a small profit from the bowl directly.
If the Potato Bowl can't afford it then it should close down or move to a different location where it could be supported better for the payout necessary to meet the payout standard.

When NIU went to the Potato Bowl they came out ahead and didn't lose money. That bowl didn't require a lot of expenditures from the school, so even the low payout was not bad. So the payout is only part of the picture.

Actually, when NIU played in Boise (2010) it was under the Humanitarian Bowl and the payout was $725k/team. So, that is why you made money.

(04-11-2016 02:39 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 02:29 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  As a college football fan I have a hard time seeing what the problem is. If I turn on the TV and there are two 3-9 teams facing off in the Sioux City Sham-Wow Bowl I'm probably going to watch it because it's college football.

Someone please explain to me what all the heartburn is all about.

Because in the mind of the majority of fans (casual and followers) the bowl is a perception of a reward for a winning season. It is a post season game and not a regular season game.

To me, postseason implies the thing you play in to determine a champion. Now that we have a College Football Playoff ™ ®, that's the postseason. Every other game, from the other NY6 bowls to the Scratch 'n Sniff Diaper Co. Iowa Bowl is an after-the-season exhibition. If the exhibition featuring two top-10 teams appeals to you, then you watch it. If the exhibition featuring two 6-6 G5 randos doesn't, then you don't watch it.

The market will determine how many of those exhibitions we need. If it's 30, so be it. If it's 10, so be it. If it's whatever the number of FBS schools there are at any given time divided by 2, so be it.

(04-11-2016 03:17 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I would have paid to see Kansas v. UCF last season.

I'd go so far as to say that Kansas v. Central Florida would have been a more intriguing matchup than 2/3rds of last season's bowls. Not sure what kind of game it would have been, but "the last two winless programs in FBS get one last chance at avoiding the goose egg" is a hell of a lot better hook than "these two teams exist."

(04-11-2016 12:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The 5-7 teams should get the low end slots---not the better slots.

None of the three 5-7 bowl teams were in "better" bowl games. The only beef anyone could really have with the bowl placement last season was that two MWC teams had to play in the Arizona Bowl. The MWC tried to get other teams to switch into that bowl but couldn't, probably due to the almost non-existent TV exposure offered by that game. If the game had been on an ESPN channel, other teams would have been happy to play in Tucson instead of a less desirable location.

I mean, c'mon: "I wish they'd have let our team play in the Quick Lane Bowl in Detroit, instead of sending 5-7 Minnesota there" is something said by no one, ever.

(04-11-2016 02:29 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  As a college football fan I have a hard time seeing what the problem is. If I turn on the TV and there are two 3-9 teams facing off in the Sioux City Sham-Wow Bowl I'm probably going to watch it because it's college football.

Someone please explain to me what all the heartburn is all about.

Because they feel their level of privilege may diminish. I mean would you rather watch two 5-7 teams or The Grinch Stole Christmas for the 11th time that year.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...hree-years

Interesting to note that they decided to put a 3 year ban since 2019 is when the vast majority of bowls are set to renew their contracts. It could reset several bowls or takes some away.....(looking at you Potato Bowl)

(04-11-2016 04:15 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 02:29 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  As a college football fan I have a hard time seeing what the problem is. If I turn on the TV and there are two 3-9 teams facing off in the Sioux City Sham-Wow Bowl I'm probably going to watch it because it's college football.

Someone please explain to me what all the heartburn is all about.

Because they feel their level of privilege may diminish. I mean would you rather watch two 5-7 teams or The Grinch Stole Christmas for the 11th time that year.

I'd rather watch two losing teams play in a bowl game than the average regular season college basketball game.

(04-11-2016 04:15 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 12:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The 5-7 teams should get the low end slots---not the better slots.

None of the three 5-7 bowl teams were in "better" bowl games. The only beef anyone could really have with the bowl placement last season was that two MWC teams had to play in the Arizona Bowl. The MWC tried to get other teams to switch into that bowl but couldn't, probably due to the almost non-existent TV exposure offered by that game. If the game had been on an ESPN channel, other teams would have been happy to play in Tucson instead of a less desirable location.

I mean, c'mon: "I wish they'd have let our team play in the Quick Lane Bowl in Detroit, instead of sending 5-7 Minnesota there" is something said by no one, ever.

5-7 Nebraska lined up against 8-4 UCLA in California. Ill bet you both of those MW teams would have considered playing 8-4 UCLA in California a better bowl.

(04-11-2016 05:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 04:15 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 12:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The 5-7 teams should get the low end slots---not the better slots.

None of the three 5-7 bowl teams were in "better" bowl games. The only beef anyone could really have with the bowl placement last season was that two MWC teams had to play in the Arizona Bowl. The MWC tried to get other teams to switch into that bowl but couldn't, probably due to the almost non-existent TV exposure offered by that game. If the game had been on an ESPN channel, other teams would have been happy to play in Tucson instead of a less desirable location.

I mean, c'mon: "I wish they'd have let our team play in the Quick Lane Bowl in Detroit, instead of sending 5-7 Minnesota there" is something said by no one, ever.

5-7 Nebraska lined up against 8-4 UCLA in California. Ill bet you both of those MW teams would have considered that a better bowl.

Wasn't one of them 5-7 San Jose State though? They really can't say squat.

And yet the Spartans won their bowl game.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(04-11-2016 05:06 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 05:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 04:15 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 12:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The 5-7 teams should get the low end slots---not the better slots.

None of the three 5-7 bowl teams were in "better" bowl games. The only beef anyone could really have with the bowl placement last season was that two MWC teams had to play in the Arizona Bowl. The MWC tried to get other teams to switch into that bowl but couldn't, probably due to the almost non-existent TV exposure offered by that game. If the game had been on an ESPN channel, other teams would have been happy to play in Tucson instead of a less desirable location.

I mean, c'mon: "I wish they'd have let our team play in the Quick Lane Bowl in Detroit, instead of sending 5-7 Minnesota there" is something said by no one, ever.

5-7 Nebraska lined up against 8-4 UCLA in California. Ill bet you both of those MW teams would have considered that a better bowl.

Wasn't one of them 5-7 San Jose State though? They really can't say squat.

NO - SJSU did not play in the Arizona Bowl

(04-11-2016 05:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 04:15 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 12:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The 5-7 teams should get the low end slots---not the better slots.

None of the three 5-7 bowl teams were in "better" bowl games. The only beef anyone could really have with the bowl placement last season was that two MWC teams had to play in the Arizona Bowl. The MWC tried to get other teams to switch into that bowl but couldn't, probably due to the almost non-existent TV exposure offered by that game. If the game had been on an ESPN channel, other teams would have been happy to play in Tucson instead of a less desirable location.

I mean, c'mon: "I wish they'd have let our team play in the Quick Lane Bowl in Detroit, instead of sending 5-7 Minnesota there" is something said by no one, ever.

5-7 Nebraska lined up against 8-4 UCLA in California. Ill bet you both of those MW teams would have considered playing 8-4 UCLA in California a better bowl.

Ok, so you're conceding (as you have to, really) that Santa Clara in December is not a better destination than Tucson.

But now you want 6-6 teams to be able to select not only a bowl location, but also the opponent, regardless of what the bowl or the opponent wants? That's way too much privilege to confer on a team just for having a .500 record. If a ranked 9-3 or 8-4 team is being denied a quality bowl opponent, that would be a valid gripe. 6-6, though, shouldn't entitle anyone to complain that they "deserve" a "better" opponent.

And the bottom line is still that if the Arizona Bowl had not failed so miserably in lining up a TV deal, there would have been at least a couple of non-MWC teams who would have been happy to play in Tucson instead of someplace else.