(11-28-2016 08:00 PM)StillGotIt Wrote:  

(11-28-2016 11:55 AM)AtlantaJag Wrote:  

(11-28-2016 06:54 AM)USAJag2011 Wrote:  

(11-28-2016 01:39 AM)StAteRedWolf Wrote:  Well let me clarify my rule as the NCAA Emperor since some seem to have misunderstood my original post. Bottom line, all I am saying is that "EVERY TEAM that goes at least 7-5 along with .500 in conference play WILL GET A BOWL GAME due to the number of bowls available. If a team can not meet that easy requirement then in my opinion you will stay home because you don't deserve a bowl game. And IF once all teams meeting the 7-5 rule are placed in bowls there are bowls still left over? Guess those bowls won't have games that season.

Sorry but I just don't care to see teams that go 6-6 or even 5-7, heaven forbid, play in a bowl game. They should not be rewarded for mediocrity.

That's not the way that works. Companies put millions of dollars into advertising and preparation work for these bowls, even before the season starts, not to mention the amount of effort the cities put into them. You expect them to just gamble that they may have a bowl game? That's not how business works.

Right on.
I don't get the angst over the numbers of bowls. I've made this comparison before, but I'll repeat it: Just like the old saying "you're worth whatever someone is willing to pay you," you deserve a bowl if someone is willing to invite you. This is all business. And like Arkstfan said, the increased competition for teams has been good for the G5.
Folks who don't like all the bowls just haven't adjusted to the new reality. It reminds me of how upset my dad was about 20 years ago when he was buying a car and discovered he would be forced to get power windows because no one made them with the crank anymore.

Not speaking for anyone other then me, but there is no angst here. I personally don't think 6-6 is a successful season. What's wrong with that? I will still support my team if they go to a bowl at 6-6, but in general I don't think any team should be rewarded for being average. And why is it so hard to imagine fewer bowls when it's been done before? The alternative is we continue to add a couple of bowls each year until 2-10 teams are bowling. Then what's the point? Why not just schedule 13 games because it's not a reward for anything. And please don't assume I haven't adjusted to a new reality. I've adjusted very well, I just disagree with it. And I've been in business long enough to know that the fewer there are, the more valuable they become.

I think the point is that if the market doesn't support them, they'll go away. I doubt the market will bear 2-10 teams. Looks like they've cut it down to the nub of .500 teams and have to dip into the shallow end of the under.500 group to fill spots. I'd be surprised if it went beyond that. There already is a lack of broadcasting space for the newest bowl (Arizona).
And, yes, the bowls become more valuable the fewer there are but the the bargaining position of the teams becomes weaker.
We'll just have to agree to disagree, but at least we know we'll both be pulling for USA when they get their bid in a handful of days.

(11-28-2016 08:00 PM)StillGotIt Wrote:  I personally don't think 6-6 is a successful season.

Well that really depends. If you've been 0-12 and 1-11 for years, 6-6 is a very successful season. Likewise, if you're Alabama, 6-6 will get you fired faster than the speed of light.

(11-28-2016 08:49 PM)TroyFootball05 Wrote:  

(11-28-2016 08:00 PM)StillGotIt Wrote:  I personally don't think 6-6 is a successful season.

Well that really depends. If you've been 0-12 and 1-11 for years, 6-6 is a very successful season. Likewise, if you're Alabama, 6-6 will get you fired faster than the speed of light.

Agree 100%.