Like many here, I've lost track of how many bowls there are, and think there's WAY too many. Here's the bowls I propose we eliminate. Are there enough at-large bids in the non-NY6 bowls to accommodate the truly worthy teams?

Armed Forces
Birmingham
Bahamas
Boca Raton
Camellia
Celebration
Idaho Potato
Fenway
First Responders
Frisco
Gasperilla
Hawaii
Las Vegas
Myrtle Beach
New Mexico
Texas

In case you can't tell, these are the bowls owned and operated by ESPN

(06-09-2020 03:50 PM)Erictelevision Wrote:  In case you can't tell, these are the bowls owned and operated by ESPN

And that's also why those bowls exist. They get better TV ratings than not having those bowls.

John: college hoops has started by the time Bowl "silly season" comes around. I'm sure the gap in ratings between early season hoops and 3rd-tier bowls is small. And obviously you can air NBA games.

I’d love to see a ton of bowls eliminated and the requirements raised to 7 or even 8 wins but unfortunately bowls have turned into a joke—nothing more than ESPN filler content that between the travel costs and crappy ticket allotments that the schools end up having to eat, end up being cash losers for most G5 participants.

If you don't like the bowls, don't watch them. Then if enough people do that, they'll go away.

I think those of you that want bowls eliminated should just switch the ******* channel. There are those of us who will watch any bowl game even the crappy ones before Christmas. There's certainly no reason to eliminate any between Christmas and New Years as that is the glorious time of year where there are multiple bowl games every day to feed a 7 day bowl watching frenzy. The non-P5 bowl games after new years are anti-climactic after the CFP first round and New Year's day bowls but I certainly wouldn't suggest eliminating them for the people that want to watch them. If you don't like them, don't watch. I look forward to the day when their are over 65 bowls and the winless teams face off in the Tiddy bowl toilet bowl.

If you want to eliminate bowls here's an actual idea that actually works:

The "name" historical bowls maintain their association with the playoff. Their name and the history and tradition and prestige that goes with them is more important than even their physical location, so I don't see an expanded playoff featuring on-campus rounds as being a deterrent to this if enough money is at stake.

All bowls not big enough to muscle into playoff lore die. In their stead you are allowed one additional post-season game if you are otherwise eligible regardless of W/L record. I would anticipate this would lead to post-season "challenges" like the basketball challenges. That's made-for-TV stuff and it will have better matchups and less travel for the fans. When you get to this level, most bowls aren't about attendance and tourism impact that much anyway.

Ah yes, the semi-annual "there are too many bowls" post. I never understand why people get worked up about something they're not compelled to consume.

If you don't like sushi, or you only like a specific kind of sushi, does that mean there should be a limit to how many sushi restaurants should be allowed to exist? Of course not. Only when there are too many sushi restaurants, or their quality is so poor that people won't support them, will they go away. The same goes for bowls. If you don't like them, don't watch them. But why should you be the arbiter of whether others who might actually enjoy them are allowed to because you simply think they're oversaturated.

FFS, I think Starbucks are oversaturated, but enough people keep going into them that they keep building them.

USFFan

Oh, I DON'T watch them! IMO, the main viewers of these are:

1) Alumni
2) Degenerate gamblers

(06-09-2020 04:34 PM)Erictelevision Wrote:  Oh, I DON'T watch them! IMO, the main viewers of these are:

1) Alumni
2) Degenerate gamblers

I see, you don't watch them, so that means there's an oversaturation and thus they need to be limited, because what YOU watch and who YOU deem as degenerate is all that matters.

Based on your stated team preference, that actually makes a ton of sense...

USFFan

(06-09-2020 04:34 PM)Erictelevision Wrote:  Oh, I DON'T watch them! IMO, the main viewers of these are:

1) Alumni
2) Degenerate gamblers

They obviously draw enough viewers, regardless of who they are or what they do, to warrant their continued existence. I'm trying to figure out why it bothers you so. There's plenty of sports that I wouldn't watch and so I don't. Seems easy enough.

(06-09-2020 04:34 PM)Erictelevision Wrote:  Oh, I DON'T watch them! IMO, the main viewers of these are:

1) Alumni
2) Degenerate gamblers

Not a degenerate gambler but will watch anything that moves to the point of watching NCAA 14 games on YouTube.

It doesn't bother me, as much as it makes me nostalgic for a time when we could name all the bowls, and making a bowl was a big achievement. Today, 6-5 is good enough.

Bowls put the college football spotlight on places that are big on college football but don't have a team to show for it. So it opens the door for people to visit cities important to the sport's history like Shreveport (Independence), Montgomery (Camellia), etc.

2000 Independence Bowl is one of the epic all-timers.

(06-09-2020 03:50 PM)Erictelevision Wrote:  Like many here, I've lost track of how many bowls there are, and think there's WAY too many. Here's the bowls I propose we eliminate. Are there enough at-large bids in the non-NY6 bowls to accommodate the truly worthy teams?

Armed Forces
Birmingham
Bahamas
Boca Raton
Camellia
Celebration
Idaho Potato
Fenway
First Responders
Frisco
Gasperilla
Hawaii
Las Vegas
Myrtle Beach
New Mexico
Texas

In case you can't tell, these are the bowls owned and operated by ESPN

Those highlighted actually have pretty good Tie ins, they are Autonomous 5 vs AAC, MWC, BYU, and Army matchup combinations.

(06-09-2020 04:46 PM)Erictelevision Wrote:  It doesn't bother me, as much as it makes me nostalgic for a time when we could name all the bowls, and making a bowl was a big achievement. Today, 6-5 is good enough.

I mean, I'm nostalgic for ties but progress marches on

(06-09-2020 04:33 PM)usffan Wrote:  Ah yes, the semi-annual "there are too many bowls" post. I never understand why people get worked up about something they're not compelled to consume.

If you don't like sushi, or you only like a specific kind of sushi, does that mean there should be a limit to how many sushi restaurants should be allowed to exist? Of course not. Only when there are too many sushi restaurants, or their quality is so poor that people won't support them, will they go away. The same goes for bowls. If you don't like them, don't watch them. But why should you be the arbiter of whether others who might actually enjoy them are allowed to because you simply think they're oversaturated.

FFS, I think Starbucks are oversaturated, but enough people keep going into them that they keep building them.

USFFan

They are a ripoff of the colleges and their fans, all for the benefit of a city somewhere else.

ESPN wants to fill the gap between December 16th and Christmas Day.

(06-09-2020 04:14 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  If you don't like the bowls, don't watch them. Then if enough people do that, they'll go away.

With that logic, why not have 65 bowls so that each team can go?
It's called the Law of Diminishing Returns. Too much of a bad thing ruins the good aspects.

(06-09-2020 04:57 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(06-09-2020 04:46 PM)Erictelevision Wrote:  It doesn't bother me, as much as it makes me nostalgic for a time when we could name all the bowls, and making a bowl was a big achievement. Today, 6-5 is good enough.

I mean, I'm nostalgic for ties but progress marches on

Love ties or mandatory 2XP try for team coming back.