(01-14-2012 10:31 PM)justinslot Wrote:  

(01-14-2012 07:54 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(01-14-2012 07:30 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  So you need to go to a school to be a "fan"? Im from NJ and went to a school that didnt play FB. So I shouldnt be able to root for a team? Kind of a weak arguement, but what should I expect.

Wow. This is a can of worms. No, you don't have to attend a school to be a fan. I was an Ohio State fan as a kid (with no connection to that school). And 99% of all Nebraskans root hard for the Cornhuskers, even though a tiny percentage of the population actually graduated from there.

But a fan of a school that they did not attend should not use "we" to describe that team. For example, it's ridiculous when a Texas fan (who did not attend school there) tells me that "We are better than you (UConn)". He can say, "Texas has a better FB team than UConn", but he should never use the term "we" if he didn't attend that school. You don't qualify as "we" unless you are from that school.

This is way too strict for me. If your fandom is pure you can say "we", graduate or not.

It's comical when an Oklahoma fan tells me, "We are better than you", when he's never even been to Oklahoma. He actually graduated from a Division 3 school in Louisiana. I find that to be absurd.

(01-14-2012 11:42 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(01-14-2012 10:31 PM)justinslot Wrote:  

(01-14-2012 07:54 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(01-14-2012 07:30 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  So you need to go to a school to be a "fan"? Im from NJ and went to a school that didnt play FB. So I shouldnt be able to root for a team? Kind of a weak arguement, but what should I expect.

Wow. This is a can of worms. No, you don't have to attend a school to be a fan. I was an Ohio State fan as a kid (with no connection to that school). And 99% of all Nebraskans root hard for the Cornhuskers, even though a tiny percentage of the population actually graduated from there.

But a fan of a school that they did not attend should not use "we" to describe that team. For example, it's ridiculous when a Texas fan (who did not attend school there) tells me that "We are better than you (UConn)". He can say, "Texas has a better FB team than UConn", but he should never use the term "we" if he didn't attend that school. You don't qualify as "we" unless you are from that school.

This is way too strict for me. If your fandom is pure you can say "we", graduate or not.

It's comical when an Oklahoma fan tells me, "We are better than you", when he's never even been to Oklahoma. He actually graduated from a Division 3 school in Louisiana. I find that to be absurd.

So in a conversation one should say "they" instead of we? I mean if i pay my money to root for a team can't I say "we"? Hell, im helping fund the team with my purchases of t-shirts and tickets.

Now every other sport im a SJU fan, but since my school doesnt provide me with my FB needs i subcontract my FB support out to the local team, Rutgers. I dont even have to change the color scheme, its great!

(01-14-2012 11:23 PM)General Mike Wrote:  

(01-14-2012 07:55 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The Fiesta Bowl started the movement away from traiditions, CP. The Fiesta Bowl had to play on Jan. 2nd, so they could be the last bowl game of the year. Other bowls started moving their dates back in an attempt to increase their profile, since the Jan. 2nd date helped the Fiesta Bowl gain popularity over more traditional bowls...

The Fiesta Bowl moved the game back, because if they didn't they weren't getting 1 vs 2 that year. Miami would have played in the Orange Bowl and Penn State was headed to New orleans.

And now you know the rest of the story...

(01-15-2012 08:36 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(01-14-2012 11:42 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(01-14-2012 10:31 PM)justinslot Wrote:  

(01-14-2012 07:54 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(01-14-2012 07:30 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  So you need to go to a school to be a "fan"? Im from NJ and went to a school that didnt play FB. So I shouldnt be able to root for a team? Kind of a weak arguement, but what should I expect.

Wow. This is a can of worms. No, you don't have to attend a school to be a fan. I was an Ohio State fan as a kid (with no connection to that school). And 99% of all Nebraskans root hard for the Cornhuskers, even though a tiny percentage of the population actually graduated from there.

But a fan of a school that they did not attend should not use "we" to describe that team. For example, it's ridiculous when a Texas fan (who did not attend school there) tells me that "We are better than you (UConn)". He can say, "Texas has a better FB team than UConn", but he should never use the term "we" if he didn't attend that school. You don't qualify as "we" unless you are from that school.

This is way too strict for me. If your fandom is pure you can say "we", graduate or not.

It's comical when an Oklahoma fan tells me, "We are better than you", when he's never even been to Oklahoma. He actually graduated from a Division 3 school in Louisiana. I find that to be absurd.

So in a conversation one should say "they" instead of we? I mean if i pay my money to root for a team can't I say "we"? Hell, im helping fund the team with my purchases of t-shirts and tickets.

Now every other sport im a SJU fan, but since my school doesnt provide me with my FB needs i subcontract my FB support out to the local team, Rutgers. I dont even have to change the color scheme, its great!

I guess if you go to the games or donate $$$ to the school, you would qualify as a "we".

But if someone has absolutely no connection to the school (didn't attend there, no family connection, never been to a game, never been to the campus, etc.), they should not say "we". You have to have some link to the school, no matter how tenuous.

(01-15-2012 10:46 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(01-15-2012 08:36 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(01-14-2012 11:42 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(01-14-2012 10:31 PM)justinslot Wrote:  

(01-14-2012 07:54 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Wow. This is a can of worms. No, you don't have to attend a school to be a fan. I was an Ohio State fan as a kid (with no connection to that school). And 99% of all Nebraskans root hard for the Cornhuskers, even though a tiny percentage of the population actually graduated from there.

But a fan of a school that they did not attend should not use "we" to describe that team. For example, it's ridiculous when a Texas fan (who did not attend school there) tells me that "We are better than you (UConn)". He can say, "Texas has a better FB team than UConn", but he should never use the term "we" if he didn't attend that school. You don't qualify as "we" unless you are from that school.

This is way too strict for me. If your fandom is pure you can say "we", graduate or not.

It's comical when an Oklahoma fan tells me, "We are better than you", when he's never even been to Oklahoma. He actually graduated from a Division 3 school in Louisiana. I find that to be absurd.

So in a conversation one should say "they" instead of we? I mean if i pay my money to root for a team can't I say "we"? Hell, im helping fund the team with my purchases of t-shirts and tickets.

Now every other sport im a SJU fan, but since my school doesnt provide me with my FB needs i subcontract my FB support out to the local team, Rutgers. I dont even have to change the color scheme, its great!

I guess if you go to the games or donate $$$ to the school, you would qualify as a "we".

But if someone has absolutely no connection to the school (didn't attend there, no family connection, never been to a game, never been to the campus, etc.), they should not say "we". You have to have some link to the school, no matter how tenuous.

I have no problem with him calling them "we"..however he should put SJU/Rutgers in the teams "I root for" profile for full disclosure.

(01-14-2012 11:46 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  This year was a better day (TV wise) than last year's game as people where more likely off work on a Friday late afternoon holiday weekend vs a Thursday last afternoon (last year).

With Friday the 31st a holiday for most people in 2010, I'd say that last year's was a much better timeslot, as Thursday is a better tv slot thant Friday, with the added benefit of a holiday the next day.

(01-14-2012 11:55 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  So people are off friday the 30th but not thurs the 30th? Why would they be off one day but not the next?

Neither would be a traditional "day off" for most office workers, but both would be the day before a day off.

(01-14-2012 06:54 PM)brista21 Wrote:  Viewership was only down 5% which means considering bowl viewership was down 15% on average we actually did ok.

I agree with this. I mean the BCS games were down almost 20%, and that number is only not worse because of the huge increase the Fiesta Bowl drew. Otherwise it could have been 25%.

(01-15-2012 04:25 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(01-14-2012 11:46 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  This year was a better day (TV wise) than last year's game as people where more likely off work on a Friday late afternoon holiday weekend vs a Thursday last afternoon (last year).

With Friday the 31st a holiday for most people in 2010, I'd say that last year's was a much better timeslot, as Thursday is a better tv slot thant Friday, with the added benefit of a holiday the next day.

(01-14-2012 11:55 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  So people are off friday the 30th but not thurs the 30th? Why would they be off one day but not the next?

Neither would be a traditional "day off" for most office workers, but both would be the day before a day off.

(01-14-2012 06:54 PM)brista21 Wrote:  Viewership was only down 5% which means considering bowl viewership was down 15% on average we actually did ok.

I agree with this. I mean the BCS games were down almost 20%, and that number is only not worse because of the huge increase the Fiesta Bowl drew. Otherwise it could have been 25%.

You are talking about a 3:30pm timeslot...A Friday one would be better as more people would've been released from work on Friday by 3:30pm.

The ratings were down 20% from the figures I had. 2.63 vs 2.1

I just went with the % Brista used.

,

(01-15-2012 09:53 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  I just went with the % Brista used.

I saw something from Nielsen on here that said 5.3% or so.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk

(01-14-2012 07:36 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  Why are people just now realizing bowl games are just exibition games? They always have been for teams to celebrate a great season. Think of it as a vacation for the teams that participate that happens to also have a game involved. Moving games away from Jan 1 really hurt the bowl tradition.

They aren't rewards for great seasons anymore though. They are just given out to any team who can manage to get to .500 (and in UCLA's case not even .500). There's just too many of these games. Very few of them are actually matching up 2 good teams anymore.

(01-16-2012 10:02 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(01-14-2012 07:36 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  Why are people just now realizing bowl games are just exibition games? They always have been for teams to celebrate a great season. Think of it as a vacation for the teams that participate that happens to also have a game involved. Moving games away from Jan 1 really hurt the bowl tradition.

They aren't rewards for great seasons anymore though. They are just given out to any team who can manage to get to .500 (and in UCLA's case not even .500). There's just too many of these games. Very few of them are actually matching up 2 good teams anymore.

Yup 34 or 35 bowls or whatever is too many. We should go back to 20 bowls to theoretically matchup the Top 40 of the 121 FBS teams. Ideally, we'd go to a 10 school playoff with perhaps 8 to 10 Bowls to also reward those teams who had a good but not elite season.

I don't feel that way. If you attend one of the bowls, even the lower ones, you will have a different feeling about them. They are fun times, and a nice farily inexpensive holiday vacation (when you add in alumni events, and sponsored parties, you end up spening a lot less money than you might otherwise if just on vacation and going to touristy spots). For that matter, they aren't bad TV viewing compared to the normal alternatives that time of year. As long as you don't hang on to some romanticized view of what bowls used to be, and just enjoy them for what they are, bowls are a good thing. Doesn't mean I would not welcome a playoff, but I am resigned to the economic factors that will prevent that from happening without some sort of outside intervention and mandation.

(01-16-2012 10:02 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(01-14-2012 07:36 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  Why are people just now realizing bowl games are just exibition games? They always have been for teams to celebrate a great season. Think of it as a vacation for the teams that participate that happens to also have a game involved. Moving games away from Jan 1 really hurt the bowl tradition.

They aren't rewards for great seasons anymore though. They are just given out to any team who can manage to get to .500 (and in UCLA's case not even .500). There's just too many of these games. Very few of them are actually matching up 2 good teams anymore.

Bowls games are just TV shows/programming for ESPN. (which make good $$$ off these "exhibition" games...since its LIVE programming for a niche audience).

Teams enjoy them for the few extra weeks of practice plus a nice way to end a season (plus, bowl games and/or bowl streaks help teams on the recruiting trail too).

(01-16-2012 10:34 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  I don't feel that way. If you attend one of the bowls, even the lower ones, you will have a different feeling about them. They are fun times, and a nice farily inexpensive holiday vacation (when you add in alumni events, and sponsored parties, you end up spening a lot less money than you might otherwise if just on vacation and going to touristy spots). For that matter, they aren't bad TV viewing compared to the normal alternatives that time of year. As long as you don't hang on to some romanticized view of what bowls used to be, and just enjoy them for what they are, bowls are a good thing. Doesn't mean I would not welcome a playoff, but I am resigned to the economic factors that will prevent that from happening without some sort of outside intervention and mandation.

I've been to a few bowl games and they're a lot of fun but the reality is should 70 schools be making a bowl? I just can't see how that's a good thing.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk

Actually, it should be a 140 teams, allowing ESPN to eliminate all soccer, fishing, and poker tournaments from their programming during the holiday season!

(01-16-2012 06:50 PM)brista21 Wrote:  I've been to a few bowl games and they're a lot of fun but the reality is should 70 schools be making a bowl? I just can't see how that's a good thing.

Again, take away the romanticized view of how bowls used to be back in the day, when there were only four or five and only the best teams got to go, and just accept them for what they are. Then you can have a different approach to them. I mean more than half of the teams make the NBA playoffs. 100 teams out of roughly 150 "relavent" team make the NCAA tournament or NIT, not to mention the other two tournaments, so it's not like College football is alone in having a bloated post season.