Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Again, you're just rehashing the same B.S. I just talked about.
So, just to clear it up for you:
- I in no way said that a 6-6 team should be in a Bowl.
- I want the number of bowls to be trim down for teams with over .500 records.
- Having playoffs DOES NOT mean you just have to get rid of the bowls. You can have both. It's not impossible.
- That money I was talking about goes to the school's program which goes to improvements for that program.
- You completely ignored A LOT of what I said in the previous post (obviously)
- And for the last time, just because you don't like the bowls does not mean that they should be eliminated. And you speak for no one but yourself.
Mediocrity cannot be rewarded. A 6-6 record is not strong enough for a bowl. This is where our communication failure started, you would not draw a line in the sand, so I will. I feel that an 70% winning percentage should be the minimum requirement to garner a bowl.
Finally, turning the channel is an unacceptable approach to solving the problem. Millions of dollars exchange hands for these bowls. Given that amount of money, why can't there be a concerted effort to improvement. Why? I pay a lot of money for my cable connection, for 2 weeks now, only 1 game caught my eye. As a paying subscriber that is poor. Someone has to complain. Matter of fact, there are rumors that Congress was going to get involved. Sitting back maybe your approach while others deal with challenge in a much different manner.
That is an excellent point! We should have two or three (maybe four, five or six tops) more bowls that way we can ensure that everyone who should, can play in one.
Mediocrity cannot be rewarded. A 6-6 record is not strong enough for a bowl. This is where our communication failure started, you would not draw a line in the sand, so I will. I feel that an 70% winning percentage should be the minimum requirement to garner a bowl.
Finally, turning the channel is an unacceptable approach to solving the problem. Millions of dollars exchange hands for these bowls. Given that amount of money, why can't there be a concerted effort to improvement. Why? I pay a lot of money for my cable connection, for 2 weeks now, only 1 game caught my eye. As a paying subscriber that is poor. Someone has to complain. Matter of fact, there are rumors that Congress was going to get involved. Sitting back maybe your approach while others deal with challenge in a much different manner.
Mediocrity is subjective. A team may be just above .500 yet it's a huge improvement over the previous season, and on the other hand, a team may be well above .500 yet be having a **** poor season. Baylor and Florida come to mind as teams on polar opposites on how they view success. Also, there are some great games between average teams. Last years Idaho vs. Bowling Green is a perfect example. You would've thought Idaho won the Rose Bowl if you only watched the celebration. That stuff means something to the fans, players, and program.
Also, college football is huge on conference match ups and history. Miami and Notre Dame is meaningless but I'm looking forward to watching them play because of what these teams represent. That may mean nothing to you, but it makes good viewing for some of us (who are also paying for our cable connection).
Your cable connection means nothing. You're paying to view certain channels, nothing more and nothing less. You may think that what you perceive as your contribution to ESPN to be wasted. Fine, but that's your opinion and millions of other paying subscribers disagree. You're simply paying to access that channel. I have almost zero interest in their NBA coverage and regular season NCAA basketball coverage and really wish they still acknowledged the NHL, but I'm not going to complain about my three dollars a month. On the other hand, I really like all the bowl games they air...different strokes. What would you rather ESPN air instead of the bowls? World Series of Sports Hernias? I get Lifetime, too, and I'm not writting letters "dear Lifetime program director, your channel doesn't address my taste for battered male drama...." It's ridiculous.
Mediocrity is subjective. A team may be just above .500 yet it's a huge improvement over the previous season, and on the other hand, a team may be well above .500 yet be having a **** poor season. Baylor and Florida come to mind as teams on polar opposites on how they view success. Also, there are some great games between average teams. Last years Idaho vs. Bowling Green is a perfect example. You would've thought Idaho won the Rose Bowl if you only watched the celebration. That stuff means something to the fans, players, and program.
Also, college football is huge on conference match ups and history. Miami and Notre Dame is meaningless but I'm looking forward to watching them play because of what these teams represent. That may mean nothing to you, but it makes good viewing for some of us (who are also paying for our cable connection).
Your cable connection means nothing. You're paying to view certain channels, nothing more and nothing less. You may think that what you perceive as your contribution to ESPN to be wasted. Fine, but that's your opinion and millions of other paying subscribers disagree. You're simply paying to access that channel. I have almost zero interest in their NBA coverage and regular season NCAA basketball coverage and really wish they still acknowledged the NHL, but I'm not going to complain about my three dollars a month. On the other hand, I really like all the bowl games they air...different strokes. What would you rather ESPN air instead of the bowls? World Series of Sports Hernias? I get Lifetime, too, and I'm not writting letters "dear Lifetime program director, your channel doesn't address my taste for battered male drama...." It's ridiculous.
Mediocrity cannot be rewarded. A 6-6 record is not strong enough for a bowl. This is where our communication failure started, you would not draw a line in the sand, so I will. I feel that an 70% winning percentage should be the minimum requirement to garner a bowl.
Finally, turning the channel is an unacceptable approach to solving the problem. Millions of dollars exchange hands for these bowls. Given that amount of money, why can't there be a concerted effort to improvement. Why? I pay a lot of money for my cable connection, for 2 weeks now, only 1 game caught my eye. As a paying subscriber that is poor. Someone has to complain. Matter of fact, there are rumors that Congress was going to get involved. Sitting back maybe your approach while others deal with challenge in a much different manner.
I guess you would rather be watching womens rowing playoffs than a College Football game between two mediocre 6-6 teams? You sir are in the minority by a long ways, probably 1,000,000:1.
Mediocrity is subjective. A team may be just above .500 yet it's a huge improvement over the previous season, and on the other hand, a team may be well above .500 yet be having a **** poor season. Baylor and Florida come to mind as teams on polar opposites on how they view success. Also, there are some great games between average teams. Last years Idaho vs. Bowling Green is a perfect example. You would've thought Idaho won the Rose Bowl if you only watched the celebration. That stuff means something to the fans, players, and program.
Also, college football is huge on conference match ups and history. Miami and Notre Dame is meaningless but I'm looking forward to watching them play because of what these teams represent. That may mean nothing to you, but it makes good viewing for some of us (who are also paying for our cable connection).
Your cable connection means nothing. You're paying to view certain channels, nothing more and nothing less. You may think that what you perceive as your contribution to ESPN to be wasted. Fine, but that's your opinion and millions of other paying subscribers disagree. You're simply paying to access that channel. I have almost zero interest in their NBA coverage and regular season NCAA basketball coverage and really wish they still acknowledged the NHL, but I'm not going to complain about my three dollars a month. On the other hand, I really like all the bowl games they air...different strokes. What would you rather ESPN air instead of the bowls? World Series of Sports Hernias? I get Lifetime, too, and I'm not writting letters "dear Lifetime program director, your channel doesn't address my taste for battered male drama...." It's ridiculous.
Outstanding post!
First paragraph, there's no conclusion. Now, I understand your views of mediocrity. Bowl qualifications are still loosely defined. Those grounds would lead to trouble.
I fully understand the rivalry thing but if we start rewarding poor performer just because of a rivalry that will also start a bad trend. Because then we start defining teams by its rivalry which will lead to isolation...college football would fall flat on his face. For example, for decades, the Big Ten thought they were supreme conference; that thought was based on evaluating performers on conference play, alone. In reality, out of conference play identified the true leader. With that said, I am bigger fan of conference battles, not team battles.
I fully agree and great example. At the same time, there are closet males, such as yourself, who love that channel for the beauty tips. I don't complain about lifetime because its a package deal under my plan. Plus, the females in my house are satisfied with the networks performance. Package is the key. My cable provider, who I inadvertently highlighted, is not the source of my anger but rather its the network. ABC, CBS, ESPN and BCS are packaged deal because of multi-million dollar contract. That contract only adds to "no-champion drama" by not leading up to an identified champion. Those BCS games should lead up to a champion, as a playoff system...there's my beef. So, if the mediocrity saps want a bowl due to rivalries or cash, then do it, who cares. But, at a minimum, the top 10 or so teams should be involved in a playoff system. Otherwise, we will continue to bicker on poor scheduling and poor cabling or networking.
- Having playoffs DOES NOT mean you just have to get rid of the bowls. You can have both. It's not impossible.
I think the best way to elaborate on what you're proposing is to look at college basketball. You have the NCAA tournament to crown a legitimate champion. Then, in addition to that, you have the NIT tournament. It is there to recognize that these other teams had decent seasons and give them something else to play for at the end of the season. Many of those players may be moving on after that season, and the NIT is there to provide one last spectacle, as well as bring in some cash to the schools and various other entities.
Having a playoff + bowl system like JJG is suggesting is essentially the same thing. For schools that don't qualify for the playoff but are still good teams with good seasons (perfect example: Alabama this year), they would be able to go to Exhibition Bowl A for the same reasons listed above. Maybe there could be a 16-team playoff, and like 10 or 12 bowls in addition to that.
I personally would like to still see teams in that playoff go to a Bowl game, BUT, if that's how the BCS would want it, and if the NCAA would have it, then YES. Let's have a playoff with like the top 8 or 10 teams in the Nation, then leave the bowls for the rest.
And I think we should at least trim the number of bowl games down a bit.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wrong!
