Maybe I have misinterpreted the conversation here. I thought the dismissive attitude toward "garbage bowls" meant that there were too many. I'm older than most and remember when there were not many bowls, and it took (generally) an 8-2 record to get invited. I thought the garbage bowl comments meant that a return to higher standards to go to a bowl was desired.

Not much different in high school here in Texas, where you can get in playoffs with 2-8 record. All in the name of money supposedly/ most playoff teams even through state title game lose money once you pay for band cheer and drill squads and freebie tickets to school board members 3rd cousins. Baylor bought a 1000 tickets and ate the rest for last nights game. January 26 bowl teams were 35-37?? ESPN sponsors these bowls for eyeballs in a dead time- let's see what happens as they keep losing money- bowls will disappear

(12-27-2016 06:02 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  The Football Championship Subdivision (formerly known as Division I-AA) has a playoff as follows:
- 24 teams (11 conference champions and 13 at-large)
- Team must have at least 7 wins to be eligible for an at-large spot (and the regular season is only 11 games)
- Top 8 seeds receive first-round byes
- First round is Thanksgiving weekend
- Octafinals, quarterfinals, and semifinals are on the first three weekends of December
- Final is on first weekend of January (two weeks after the semifinals)
- All games are at campus sites except the final, which is at an MLS stadium


So, neither the first round nor the final game interfere much with school.

bracket:http://i.turner.ncaa.com/sites/default/files/external/gametool/brackets/football_fcs_2016.pdf

Youngstown St. will be playing its 5th post-season game this season in the Jan. 7 finals. Quite a run for Jim Tressel's school.

(12-28-2016 11:52 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Maybe I have misinterpreted the conversation here. I thought the dismissive attitude toward "garbage bowls" meant that there were too many. I'm older than most and remember when there were not many bowls, and it took (generally) an 8-2 record to get invited. I thought the garbage bowl comments meant that a return to higher standards to go to a bowl was desired.

I didn't mean to direct my reply to you, even though I quoted your post since it seemed relevant. I guess I am in agreement with you in general that while bowls seem a bit watered down, it is still good for the players and can be good publicity for the school.

(12-28-2016 12:53 PM)owl95 Wrote:  

(12-28-2016 11:52 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Maybe I have misinterpreted the conversation here. I thought the dismissive attitude toward "garbage bowls" meant that there were too many. I'm older than most and remember when there were not many bowls, and it took (generally) an 8-2 record to get invited. I thought the garbage bowl comments meant that a return to higher standards to go to a bowl was desired.

I didn't mean to direct my reply to you, even though I quoted your post since it seemed relevant. I guess I am in agreement with you in general that while bowls seem a bit watered down, it is still good for the players and can be good publicity for the school.

Under the current arrangement, and all others I can think of, bowl > no bowl. But there seems to be a prejudice here about making the lower level bowls. That's why I asked what level of bowl would be seen as an accomplishment.

(12-28-2016 10:43 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  Yet that is exactly what seems to happen when fans opine on the bowl system: they are not merely disagreed with; they are treated as outcasts just for having the opinion, as if the opinion is not merely wrong but illegitimate.

Clever rhetorical device but I'm not falling for it.

It is an accomplishment to get to a bowl where the school makes money going to it instead of losing money. Much of the money for HRS and Autry came from going to the Cotton Bowl on 1/1/50.

(12-28-2016 01:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-28-2016 12:53 PM)owl95 Wrote:  

(12-28-2016 11:52 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Maybe I have misinterpreted the conversation here. I thought the dismissive attitude toward "garbage bowls" meant that there were too many. I'm older than most and remember when there were not many bowls, and it took (generally) an 8-2 record to get invited. I thought the garbage bowl comments meant that a return to higher standards to go to a bowl was desired.

I didn't mean to direct my reply to you, even though I quoted your post since it seemed relevant. I guess I am in agreement with you in general that while bowls seem a bit watered down, it is still good for the players and can be good publicity for the school.

Under the current arrangement, and all others I can think of, bowl > no bowl. But there seems to be a prejudice here about making the lower level bowls. That's why I asked what level of bowl would be seen as an accomplishment.

(12-28-2016 02:05 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(12-28-2016 10:43 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  Yet that is exactly what seems to happen when fans opine on the bowl system: they are not merely disagreed with; they are treated as outcasts just for having the opinion, as if the opinion is not merely wrong but illegitimate.

Clever rhetorical device but I'm not falling for it.

What is the rhetorical device?

(12-28-2016 03:30 PM)75src Wrote:  It is an accomplishment to get to a bowl where the school makes money going to it instead of losing money. Much of the money for HRS and Autry came from going to the Cotton Bowl on 1/1/50.

(12-28-2016 01:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-28-2016 12:53 PM)owl95 Wrote:  

(12-28-2016 11:52 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Maybe I have misinterpreted the conversation here. I thought the dismissive attitude toward "garbage bowls" meant that there were too many. I'm older than most and remember when there were not many bowls, and it took (generally) an 8-2 record to get invited. I thought the garbage bowl comments meant that a return to higher standards to go to a bowl was desired.

I didn't mean to direct my reply to you, even though I quoted your post since it seemed relevant. I guess I am in agreement with you in general that while bowls seem a bit watered down, it is still good for the players and can be good publicity for the school.

Under the current arrangement, and all others I can think of, bowl > no bowl. But there seems to be a prejudice here about making the lower level bowls. That's why I asked what level of bowl would be seen as an accomplishment.

Certainly a legitimate view point, but it is no long 1950, and I womder which bowls would make us a cash profit.

Personally, I would consider the deficit to be advertising and PR. we want the athletic department to spend more on marketing, so is this not a good use of our dollars?

(12-28-2016 03:30 PM)75src Wrote:  It is an accomplishment to get to a bowl where the school makes money going to it instead of losing money. Much of the money for HRS and Autry came from going to the Cotton Bowl on 1/1/50.

(12-28-2016 01:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-28-2016 12:53 PM)owl95 Wrote:  

(12-28-2016 11:52 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Maybe I have misinterpreted the conversation here. I thought the dismissive attitude toward "garbage bowls" meant that there were too many. I'm older than most and remember when there were not many bowls, and it took (generally) an 8-2 record to get invited. I thought the garbage bowl comments meant that a return to higher standards to go to a bowl was desired.

I didn't mean to direct my reply to you, even though I quoted your post since it seemed relevant. I guess I am in agreement with you in general that while bowls seem a bit watered down, it is still good for the players and can be good publicity for the school.

Under the current arrangement, and all others I can think of, bowl > no bowl. But there seems to be a prejudice here about making the lower level bowls. That's why I asked what level of bowl would be seen as an accomplishment. http://library.la84.org/SportsLibrary/CF...v08n3a.pdf

That team (1949 Rice Owls) was 10-1, 6-0 in conference, Cotton Bowl champs, and finished #5 in the country. Any comparison with, say, our Armed Forces Bowl champions of a few years back is strictly ridiculous. We lost to LSU 14-7 in the second game of the season, in case you were curious.

I believe I read that Michigan lost money on their last trip to the Rose Bowl. I guess that's what happens when you only make $12MM for the game.

I realize that Bowl games, regardless of how many there are in a given season, can be very meaningful to the participants. To take an example from my own life, I was once a member of an intramural basketball team at Rice (mostly WRC) during the 66/67 Academic year that is a case in point. We were 0-5 that year, having lost our previous game by 100 points (Thanks a lot, David Gibbs), heading into our last game against the only other 0-5 team ( Mostly Baker boys). We dubbed the game the Toilet Bowl and there was quite a lot of excitement over who would lose to claim the anti-championship. The last five minutes of a close game saw both teams shooting at the other team's basket in a last ditch effort to lose. We had a huge celebration when my team emerged unvictorious. Pride is a relative thing. Perspective, gentlemen.

(12-28-2016 05:30 PM)elf owl Wrote:  

(12-28-2016 03:30 PM)75src Wrote:  It is an accomplishment to get to a bowl where the school makes money going to it instead of losing money. Much of the money for HRS and Autry came from going to the Cotton Bowl on 1/1/50.

(12-28-2016 01:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-28-2016 12:53 PM)owl95 Wrote:  

(12-28-2016 11:52 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Maybe I have misinterpreted the conversation here. I thought the dismissive attitude toward "garbage bowls" meant that there were too many. I'm older than most and remember when there were not many bowls, and it took (generally) an 8-2 record to get invited. I thought the garbage bowl comments meant that a return to higher standards to go to a bowl was desired.

I didn't mean to direct my reply to you, even though I quoted your post since it seemed relevant. I guess I am in agreement with you in general that while bowls seem a bit watered down, it is still good for the players and can be good publicity for the school.

Under the current arrangement, and all others I can think of, bowl > no bowl. But there seems to be a prejudice here about making the lower level bowls. That's why I asked what level of bowl would be seen as an accomplishment. http://library.la84.org/SportsLibrary/CF...v08n3a.pdf

That team (1949 Rice Owls) was 10-1, 6-0 in conference, Cotton Bowl champs, and finished #5 in the country. Any comparison with, say, our Armed Forces Bowl champions of a few years back is strictly ridiculous. We lost to LSU 14-7 in the second game of the season, in case you were curious.

I agree that from a national perspective, a Top 5 national ranking (before the bowl, IIRC, because that's how it was done in those days, as the bowls were 'exhibitions') is incomparable to anything we've accomplished since, oh say, 1992 for example. I use the pre-2006 date because we did beat UT in 1994 and tie for the SWC championship of teams not on probation.

So from a national perspective the comparison is indeed ridiculous.

You are comparing apples to oranges however.

However, comparing post WW-II era football in the late 1940's (prior to the advent of even modest TV coverage of the sport), to the post-segregation, "modern-day athlete/NFL farm team" version of the sport, where teams are competitively driven by the economic juggernaut of TV, mass media, and being the NFL's farm system . . . . .

well the level of competition is also not comparable. Compare size and speed and athleticism of the athletes between the era.

The Alabama, Tennessee and North Carolina teams we played in our major bowl wins would be absolutely destroyed by their 2016 counterparts.

Ol'Hoss Radbourne, Kid Nichols and Ed Delahanty were all players who dominated their era in baseball.

I'm not prepared to state that any of them could make a major league roster today.

(12-28-2016 10:43 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(12-27-2016 11:06 PM)Seventyniner Wrote:  

(12-27-2016 01:54 PM)tramile12 Wrote:  Who cares if there are so many bowls?? If you don't like it, don't watch it. I personally like watching many of these "irrelevant" bowls. Football is football, and if Rice was in the Potato Bowl, I would watch it. Its often times fun to see a 5-7 or 6-6 team win: it is a nice little slice of redemption for slow start or just a mediocre season.

I agree with the bolded part. Who exactly is harmed by having so many bowls? Some peoples' sense of fairness?

Meanwhile we have bowl organizers and promoters working with the NCAA to bring people what they want, i.e. more football, and trying to make a profit while doing so. In other words, capitalism at its finest. Why shut that down?

On the other hand, fans expressing opinions about more appealing ways to do things, or against what is popular or profitable, is a time-honored part of sports. Artificial turf, the designated hitter, "alternate" uniforms, wild cards, playing football games overseas etc. have all, at one time or another, been "popular" with some segment of the market and profitable for the people implementing them. But it does not follow that fans who don't like those things should be castigated for expressing their opinions.

Yet that is exactly what seems to happen when fans opine on the bowl system: they are not merely disagreed with; they are treated as outcasts just for having the opinion, as if the opinion is not merely wrong but illegitimate.

Who exactly is harmed by someone expressing the opinion that, in his view, there are too many bowls, or that a different post-season system would be more appealing? We have people expressing opinions and trying to persuade others. That is the marketplace of ideas at its finest. Why seek to shut that down -- in an opinion forum, of all places?

Well put. I could (and should) have phrased it better, in a way that expresses my opinion that I'm fine with the current number of bowls, but that doesn't attack those with a differing opinion.

(12-28-2016 05:30 PM)elf owl Wrote:  

(12-28-2016 03:30 PM)75src Wrote:  It is an accomplishment to get to a bowl where the school makes money going to it instead of losing money. Much of the money for HRS and Autry came from going to the Cotton Bowl on 1/1/50.

(12-28-2016 01:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-28-2016 12:53 PM)owl95 Wrote:  

(12-28-2016 11:52 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Maybe I have misinterpreted the conversation here. I thought the dismissive attitude toward "garbage bowls" meant that there were too many. I'm older than most and remember when there were not many bowls, and it took (generally) an 8-2 record to get invited. I thought the garbage bowl comments meant that a return to higher standards to go to a bowl was desired.

I didn't mean to direct my reply to you, even though I quoted your post since it seemed relevant. I guess I am in agreement with you in general that while bowls seem a bit watered down, it is still good for the players and can be good publicity for the school.

Under the current arrangement, and all others I can think of, bowl > no bowl. But there seems to be a prejudice here about making the lower level bowls. That's why I asked what level of bowl would be seen as an accomplishment. http://library.la84.org/SportsLibrary/CF...v08n3a.pdf

That team (1949 Rice Owls) was 10-1, 6-0 in conference, Cotton Bowl champs, and finished #5 in the country. Any comparison with, say, our Armed Forces Bowl champions of a few years back is strictly ridiculous. We lost to LSU 14-7 in the second game of the season, in case you were curious.

Not sure who you are replying to or what your point is, but mine is simple. Bowl > no bowl. But many here think making a bowl at 6-6 pr 7-5 to play a team with a similar record should not be a goal at all, not even an intermediate, because the bowls are garbage. I would rather see us in any bowl than sitting home. Of course, I don't think the goal should be 6-6. The goal should always be more. Then yet more again. But staying home when the likes of UNT and LaTech are getting exposure cannot be be good for us.

The reality is (and GOK why the "powers" can't see this staring them in the face) that an 8 team playoff is where it needs (and likely) to settle. 5 conference champs plus 3 wild cards. First round Dec 31/Jan 1. Second round the Saturday of the weekend when the NFL has the conference championship games. Final the Saturday before the Sunday Bowl. Ok-who do i send my consulting invoice of $250k for as I am sure "they" will spend millions studying this.

But wait, won't this harm the "student athletes"? Amazing how that comes up to justify nonsense and easily overlooked most (all?) of the rest of the time.

Oh yeah, and a freebie. How in the hell can you schedule one of the semis new year's eve night. This is simple 1230 EST and 430 EST.

(12-29-2016 12:46 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-28-2016 05:30 PM)elf owl Wrote:  

(12-28-2016 03:30 PM)75src Wrote:  It is an accomplishment to get to a bowl where the school makes money going to it instead of losing money. Much of the money for HRS and Autry came from going to the Cotton Bowl on 1/1/50.

(12-28-2016 01:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-28-2016 12:53 PM)owl95 Wrote:  I didn't mean to direct my reply to you, even though I quoted your post since it seemed relevant. I guess I am in agreement with you in general that while bowls seem a bit watered down, it is still good for the players and can be good publicity for the school.

Under the current arrangement, and all others I can think of, bowl > no bowl. But there seems to be a prejudice here about making the lower level bowls. That's why I asked what level of bowl would be seen as an accomplishment. http://library.la84.org/SportsLibrary/CF...v08n3a.pdf

That team (1949 Rice Owls) was 10-1, 6-0 in conference, Cotton Bowl champs, and finished #5 in the country. Any comparison with, say, our Armed Forces Bowl champions of a few years back is strictly ridiculous. We lost to LSU 14-7 in the second game of the season, in case you were curious.

Not sure who you are replying to or what your point is, but mine is simple. Bowl > no bowl. But many here think making a bowl at 6-6 pr 7-5 to play a team with a similar record should not be a goal at all, not even an intermediate, because the bowls are garbage. I would rather see us in any bowl than sitting home. Of course, I don't think the goal should be 6-6. The goal should always be more. Then yet more again. But staying home when the likes of UNT and LaTech are getting exposure cannot be be good for us.

What is THAT supposed to mean? Before I accuse you of something you didn't intend, I'll wait for your response.

(12-29-2016 11:08 AM)chuckk3 Wrote:  

(12-29-2016 12:46 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-28-2016 05:30 PM)elf owl Wrote:  

(12-28-2016 03:30 PM)75src Wrote:  It is an accomplishment to get to a bowl where the school makes money going to it instead of losing money. Much of the money for HRS and Autry came from going to the Cotton Bowl on 1/1/50.

(12-28-2016 01:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Under the current arrangement, and all others I can think of, bowl > no bowl. But there seems to be a prejudice here about making the lower level bowls. That's why I asked what level of bowl would be seen as an accomplishment. http://library.la84.org/SportsLibrary/CF...v08n3a.pdf

That team (1949 Rice Owls) was 10-1, 6-0 in conference, Cotton Bowl champs, and finished #5 in the country. Any comparison with, say, our Armed Forces Bowl champions of a few years back is strictly ridiculous. We lost to LSU 14-7 in the second game of the season, in case you were curious.

Not sure who you are replying to or what your point is, but mine is simple. Bowl > no bowl. But many here think making a bowl at 6-6 pr 7-5 to play a team with a similar record should not be a goal at all, not even an intermediate, because the bowls are garbage. I would rather see us in any bowl than sitting home. Of course, I don't think the goal should be 6-6. The goal should always be more. Then yet more again. But staying home when the likes of UNT and LaTech are getting exposure cannot be be good for us.

What is THAT supposed to mean? Before I accuse you of something you didn't intend, I'll wait for your response.

That is supposed to mean that even losing in garbage bowls, they reap the benefits of going - extra practices, national publicity, recruiting edge. We reap none of those benefits staying home and watching them n TV. Bowl > no bowl.

I hope we get back to going to bowls, regardless of who is coaching. That does NOT mean I think the goal is 6-6 and a garbage bowl. At most, that is an intermediate goal, a step up from where we are but not anywhere near where we want to go. At the least, it is salvaging something from the season.

If (and I mean IF), you think staying home is better than what LaTech and UNT went to this year, you will need to explain your reasoning. We have some here who think going to the bowls you went to and the HOD bowl are unimportant.

Some interesting early numbers regarding the "secondary" bowls....

On December 17th, the New Mexico Bowl (UNM v.s UTSA) had 1.48M viewers and was the #5 rated sports program of the day on cable TV. Also the New Orleans Bowl (USM vs. ULL) had 1.33M viewers and was the #6 rated sports program of the day.

On December 20, the Boca Raton Bowl (Memphis vs. Western KY) was the #1 rated sports program of the day with 1.58 M viewers.

On December 21, the Poinsettia Bowl (BYU vs. Wyoming) drew 2.38M viewers and was the #2 rated sports program of the day.

On December 23, the Armed Forces Bowl (La. Tech vs. Navy) drew 2.34 viewers and was the #2 ranked sports program of the day..trailing only the Dollar General Bowl (Troy vs. Ohio) which drew 2.51 M viewers and was the #1 rated sports program of the day.

The only other top-10 sports programs during the period...NFL games, NFL related Monday Night Football programming and Kentucky-Louisville basketball.

These games aren't going away in the near future.

After some digging, I finally found a listing of all the bowls in my paper copy of the Chronicle ("The only paper in town.")

The remaining bowls include only 3 games that are not on ESPN.

As a TV-Luddite who uses an antenna, because I was so tired of paying for services very rarely used, ESPN is unobtainium.

Guess I'll find out how they went here, in my FB feed, and two days later on my dining room table.