Teams
Forum List
Toggle sidebar

3 New Bowl Games Added

4theCYcle

4theCYcle

Well-Known Member
Jul 14, 2013
2,406
1,320
113
Urbandale, IA
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoo...added-to-already-crowded-postseason-landscape

This could help ISU out, but I think there are too many bowl games. This makes 42 altogether with 65% of teams have the possibility of making it. I think it's saturated and making one isn't as meaningful as once was. Although, ISU's drought, our fanbase shouldn't/wouldn't complain.

We all know Rhoads is on the hot seat, even with a more talented offense, defense remains in question. Could be close on whether they make one this year. What's everyone else think? Telltale sign if ISU can't be in that 65% of teams.
 
Still yuck. Who wants to see a 5-7 team bowling. Even if you win you have a losing record.


At least they aren't shy about saying it's about the money.
 
This is a telling detail (my italics):

Austin bowl officials have spoken to University of Texas officials about playing the game in Darrell K. Royal-Texas Memorial Stadium. Playing at a nearby minor league baseball stadium remains a possibility, too.​

There are so many bowls, they can't even find enough venues to host them, apparently.
 
Eh, i dont care that there are lots of bowls, nobody is forcing anyone to watch. I honestly wouldnt care if everyone could be selected for a bowl.

That said, i dont know that it'll help us all that much either. It'll probably just give another spot to a terrible team from the sun belt that managed to get 6 wins even though they lost to anyone decent (or even bad) they played.
 
You must win 6 games to go to a Bowl. This changes nothing for ISU or the Big 12. The only schools that will benefit will be the MAC and the WAC and the Sun Belt and other schools that can finish with 6 wins in their worthless conferences.
 
Bowl games to me are nothing more than a possible destination to somewhere warm and an extra day of tailgating.
 
mj4cy said:
Still yuck. Who wants to see a 5-7 team bowling. Even if you win you have a losing record.


At least they aren't shy about saying it's about the money.
Click to expand...

Where do they say anything about money?

I don't get how they make money on these games. It's widely known that the schools generally LOSE money on these low tier games - when you add in the entourage beyond the team (band, VIPs, etc). I don't know how the bowls themselves make much - the sponsors are meager, the timeslots are iffy at best, viewership is pretty mediocre prior to New Years - and even the lesser games in January don't drawn all that well. And most of those games look like spring game attendance numbers.

I suppose the city can't lose with hotels and restaurants - unless they are sponsoring the event directly.

Only good thing about these games is the extra practice. Frankly - I think they should just allow teams to practice til Dec 25 regardless of participation. IMO - that limitation is just another way for the rich to get richer.
 
I have no problems with more bowl games. More bowl games mean more football to watch. If I don't want to watch them, I'll watch one of my other 150 channels. Teams that aren't very good, but still go to a bowl game know they aren't very good, and teams that are good couldn't care less about these lesser teams, so I don't understand the "watering down" reasoning. Maybe it's not as big of a deal to make a bowl game as it used to be, but it's still a great experience for the kids. Plus, bowl games and extra practices can be a huge boost to teams and give them a chance to get more experience and see younger guys. I really don't see a downside.
 
Only a very small portion of the bowl games are watchable as it is now, I suppose 3 more that nobody will watch won't hurt anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Help Support Us

Become a patron
Top Bottom