Is 37 too many?

[Fan Since '54]

Bowl games, that is.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/n ... 267967002/

Well, when I started to check out this list I didn't know where I would have to put this thread. But after you finish checking the article you will know why I put it in the Non-Tulane Sports Discussion. We are not part of this huge guessing game presented to us by USA Today Sports.

But back to the threads query. Absolutely too many. Bowl game season is something you used to look forward to. One reason. You could probably watch all of them. Because all of them were important in the grand scheme of things. But today, there are so many WGAS bowls that it just devalues receiving a bowl invite. Just a bunch of "participation bowls".

Your thoughts?

Fan since '54

[Fan Since '54]

Oops, in the USA Sports, click "Bowl Projections" to access the thread subject. My mistake.

'54

[tulaneoutlaw]

Disagree strongly. There are too many...because watching more football is a bad thing? Bowls are still a rewarding thing for the players to attend and it's a chance for them to play on national TV. Fans still get the enjoyment of watching their team in the postseason. Also more teams get more extra practices under the current system. What's wrong with any of that?

Consider this, 54: In today's world of P5 branding if there were only a dozen bowls, why would any of them take a "lesser" G5 team? They might take 12-0 UCF, but a 9-3 Tulane? Good luck with that. More bowls means at least some post season representation for a lot of schools who wouldn't otherwise get it. Occasionally it might even mean the chance to prove on the field that you are better than the mighty P5 schools. Right now our only hope of ever playing LSU again is in the Birmingham Bowl, a bowl that wouldn't make the cut in a fewer bowl game scenario.

I'm actually in favor of a system that gives every team a "postseason" game because it would give even bad teams the chance to get the extra practices. Show the bowl games for 6-6 and above teams on national TV. For the teams that are under .500, match them with a similar level opponent and let one of those teams host the game. Those games could be streamed or otherwise covered and the bad teams that need the practice get it. One added bonus - teams like Buffalo, WMU, and UTSA that got bowl eligible last year but weren't selected don't get left out. This might be a bridge too far for some folks, but I think the notion of too many bowls is off base.

[GretnaGrn]

People are willing to watch, and the market supports having them. No real reason not to do so IMHO. No one thinks that a Poulan Weedeater Bowl invite is the same as the Sugar Bowl, but both serve a purpose.

[PeteRasche]

So, to summarize this thread: old folks want things "like they used to be" and young folks think everyone should get a fair chance at things regardless of performance.

Got it.

[sr]

So, to summarize this thread: old folks want things "like they used to be" and young folks think everyone should get a fair chance at things regardless of performance.

Got it.

some old folks...

[GretnaGrn]

So, to summarize this thread: old folks want things "like they used to be" and young folks think everyone should get a fair chance at things regardless of performance.

Got it.

We're not young anywhere other than YOGWF....

[Fan Since '54]

Disagree strongly. There are too many...because watching more football is a bad thing? Bowls are still a rewarding thing for the players to attend and it's a chance for them to play on national TV. Fans still get the enjoyment of watching their team in the postseason. Also more teams get more extra practices under the current system. What's wrong with any of that?

Consider this, 54: In today's world of P5 branding if there were only a dozen bowls, why would any of them take a "lesser" G5 team? They might take 12-0 UCF, but a 9-3 Tulane? Good luck with that. More bowls means at least some post season representation for a lot of schools who wouldn't otherwise get it. Occasionally it might even mean the chance to prove on the field that you are better than the mighty P5 schools. Right now our only hope of ever playing LSU again is in the Birmingham Bowl, a bowl that wouldn't make the cut in a fewer bowl game scenario.

I'm actually in favor of a system that gives every team a "postseason" game because it would give even bad teams the chance to get the extra practices. Show the bowl games for 6-6 and above teams on national TV. For the teams that are under .500, match them with a similar level opponent and let one of those teams host the game. Those games could be streamed or otherwise covered and the bad teams that need the practice get it. One added bonus - teams like Buffalo, WMU, and UTSA that got bowl eligible last year but weren't selected don't get left out. This might be a bridge too far for some folks, but I think the notion of too many bowls is off base.

Actually too much of watching bad football can be like too much of a good thing. It could be like eating too much "bad for you" food. Yea, you might be fat & happy, but your body will be giving you a facepalm before you get to 30, like "What was I thinking?" Besides someone has to sponsor these mediocre to awful teams playing in these bowls. Who is gonna pony up dollars to see those games that 5 or 6 hundred folks (too high of an estimate?) actually might want to watch? Yea, it might be a bridge too far, but not only that, an unfinished bridge too far built by ex-cons with no experience in bridge building.

There is already too much of "rewarding mediocrity" in today's world. Not a good thing for tomorrow's world.

Fan since '54

[Fan Since '54]

So, to summarize this thread: old folks want things "like they used to be" and young folks think everyone should get a fair chance at things regardless of performance.

Got it.

We're not young anywhere other than YOGWF....

My screen name says otherwise.


Fan since '54

[tulaneoutlaw]

Disagree strongly. There are too many...because watching more football is a bad thing? Bowls are still a rewarding thing for the players to attend and it's a chance for them to play on national TV. Fans still get the enjoyment of watching their team in the postseason. Also more teams get more extra practices under the current system. What's wrong with any of that?

Consider this, 54: In today's world of P5 branding if there were only a dozen bowls, why would any of them take a "lesser" G5 team? They might take 12-0 UCF, but a 9-3 Tulane? Good luck with that. More bowls means at least some post season representation for a lot of schools who wouldn't otherwise get it. Occasionally it might even mean the chance to prove on the field that you are better than the mighty P5 schools. Right now our only hope of ever playing LSU again is in the Birmingham Bowl, a bowl that wouldn't make the cut in a fewer bowl game scenario.

I'm actually in favor of a system that gives every team a "postseason" game because it would give even bad teams the chance to get the extra practices. Show the bowl games for 6-6 and above teams on national TV. For the teams that are under .500, match them with a similar level opponent and let one of those teams host the game. Those games could be streamed or otherwise covered and the bad teams that need the practice get it. One added bonus - teams like Buffalo, WMU, and UTSA that got bowl eligible last year but weren't selected don't get left out. This might be a bridge too far for some folks, but I think the notion of too many bowls is off base.

Actually too much of watching bad football can be like too much of a good thing. It could be like eating too much "bad for you" food. Yea, you might be fat & happy, but your body will be giving you a facepalm before you get to 30, like "What was I thinking?" Besides someone has to sponsor these mediocre to awful teams playing in these bowls. Who is gonna pony up dollars to see those games that 5 or 6 hundred folks (too high of an estimate?) actually might want to watch? Yea, it might be a bridge too far, but not only that, an unfinished bridge too far built by ex-cons with no experience in bridge building.

There is already too much of "rewarding mediocrity" in today's world. Not a good thing for tomorrow's world.

Fan since '54

Nobody has to sponsor anything. The market already bears the current number of bowls. Teams that don't make it to .500 would either be hosting (with no need for a sponsor) or traveling (ideally) a short distance to play. Nobody sponsors bad regular season games so how is this any different?

As for "too much bad for you"...you more than almost anybody should know that's silly. Why have you been watching mostly bad Tulane football all these years? Nobody is forcing you to watch bad UTEP to play bad Texas St in a postseason exhibition. But the die hards at those fan bases probably would watch just like the few of us here would if Tulane wasn't very good.

I'm with you on too much rewarding mediocrity in the real world, but this is college football. Since when has it ever been anything resembling the real world?

[GretnaGrn]

So, to summarize this thread: old folks want things "like they used to be" and young folks think everyone should get a fair chance at things regardless of performance.

Got it.

We're not young anywhere other than YOGWF....

My screen name says otherwise.


Fan since '54

Well, you are one of the ones who prefers things like they used to be....

[Fan Since '54]

Disagree strongly. There are too many...because watching more football is a bad thing? Bowls are still a rewarding thing for the players to attend and it's a chance for them to play on national TV. Fans still get the enjoyment of watching their team in the postseason. Also more teams get more extra practices under the current system. What's wrong with any of that?

Consider this, 54: In today's world of P5 branding if there were only a dozen bowls, why would any of them take a "lesser" G5 team? They might take 12-0 UCF, but a 9-3 Tulane? Good luck with that. More bowls means at least some post season representation for a lot of schools who wouldn't otherwise get it. Occasionally it might even mean the chance to prove on the field that you are better than the mighty P5 schools. Right now our only hope of ever playing LSU again is in the Birmingham Bowl, a bowl that wouldn't make the cut in a fewer bowl game scenario.

I'm actually in favor of a system that gives every team a "postseason" game because it would give even bad teams the chance to get the extra practices. Show the bowl games for 6-6 and above teams on national TV. For the teams that are under .500, match them with a similar level opponent and let one of those teams host the game. Those games could be streamed or otherwise covered and the bad teams that need the practice get it. One added bonus - teams like Buffalo, WMU, and UTSA that got bowl eligible last year but weren't selected don't get left out. This might be a bridge too far for some folks, but I think the notion of too many bowls is off base.

Actually too much of watching bad football can be like too much of a good thing. It could be like eating too much "bad for you" food. Yea, you might be fat & happy, but your body will be giving you a facepalm before you get to 30, like "What was I thinking?" Besides someone has to sponsor these mediocre to awful teams playing in these bowls. Who is gonna pony up dollars to see those games that 5 or 6 hundred folks (too high of an estimate?) actually might want to watch? Yea, it might be a bridge too far, but not only that, an unfinished bridge too far built by ex-cons with no experience in bridge building.

There is already too much of "rewarding mediocrity" in today's world. Not a good thing for tomorrow's world.

Fan since '54

Nobody has to sponsor anything. The market already bears the current number of bowls. Teams that don't make it to .500 would either be hosting (with no need for a sponsor) or traveling (ideally) a short distance to play. Nobody sponsors bad regular season games so how is this any different?

As for "too much bad for you"...you more than almost anybody should know that's silly. Why have you been watching mostly bad Tulane football all these years? Nobody is forcing you to watch bad UTEP to play bad Texas St in a postseason exhibition. But the die hards at those fan bases probably would watch just like the few of us here would if Tulane wasn't very good.

I'm with you on too much rewarding mediocrity in the real world, but this is college football. Since when has it ever been anything resembling the real world?

That last question is easy to answer. Since about the dawn of the 21st Century. While that is so much "recenty" it certainly coinsides with the subject here. Without getting too political, or exact when it comes to the real world here goes. Kids (being mostly under 25) today are always wanting things on a royal platter (free college for instance...which is probably not what they really want, free partying and putting off getting a job for 4 more years). And the idea of rewarding mediocrity in college football started pretty much at the same time with the growth of the number of college football bowl games. For instance, do you remember of ever hearing of "participation trophys" before about that time in world history? When you make it too easy the prize is devalued. And when you reward it, that is what you get. And mediocraty in college football is not "supposed" to be valued as much as it is. Finally are you ever, unless you are a staunch fan of one of the teams, every really excited about the possibility of watching the 37th best pair of football teams in the country? I don't like college football THAT much. Watching Sam Houston Institute of Technology vs Frankfort University of Central Kentucky isn't on my watch list.

'54

[tulaneoutlaw]

Disagree strongly. There are too many...because watching more football is a bad thing? Bowls are still a rewarding thing for the players to attend and it's a chance for them to play on national TV. Fans still get the enjoyment of watching their team in the postseason. Also more teams get more extra practices under the current system. What's wrong with any of that?

Consider this, 54: In today's world of P5 branding if there were only a dozen bowls, why would any of them take a "lesser" G5 team? They might take 12-0 UCF, but a 9-3 Tulane? Good luck with that. More bowls means at least some post season representation for a lot of schools who wouldn't otherwise get it. Occasionally it might even mean the chance to prove on the field that you are better than the mighty P5 schools. Right now our only hope of ever playing LSU again is in the Birmingham Bowl, a bowl that wouldn't make the cut in a fewer bowl game scenario.

I'm actually in favor of a system that gives every team a "postseason" game because it would give even bad teams the chance to get the extra practices. Show the bowl games for 6-6 and above teams on national TV. For the teams that are under .500, match them with a similar level opponent and let one of those teams host the game. Those games could be streamed or otherwise covered and the bad teams that need the practice get it. One added bonus - teams like Buffalo, WMU, and UTSA that got bowl eligible last year but weren't selected don't get left out. This might be a bridge too far for some folks, but I think the notion of too many bowls is off base.

Actually too much of watching bad football can be like too much of a good thing. It could be like eating too much "bad for you" food. Yea, you might be fat & happy, but your body will be giving you a facepalm before you get to 30, like "What was I thinking?" Besides someone has to sponsor these mediocre to awful teams playing in these bowls. Who is gonna pony up dollars to see those games that 5 or 6 hundred folks (too high of an estimate?) actually might want to watch? Yea, it might be a bridge too far, but not only that, an unfinished bridge too far built by ex-cons with no experience in bridge building.

There is already too much of "rewarding mediocrity" in today's world. Not a good thing for tomorrow's world.

Fan since '54

Nobody has to sponsor anything. The market already bears the current number of bowls. Teams that don't make it to .500 would either be hosting (with no need for a sponsor) or traveling (ideally) a short distance to play. Nobody sponsors bad regular season games so how is this any different?

As for "too much bad for you"...you more than almost anybody should know that's silly. Why have you been watching mostly bad Tulane football all these years? Nobody is forcing you to watch bad UTEP to play bad Texas St in a postseason exhibition. But the die hards at those fan bases probably would watch just like the few of us here would if Tulane wasn't very good.

I'm with you on too much rewarding mediocrity in the real world, but this is college football. Since when has it ever been anything resembling the real world?

That last question is easy to answer. Since about the dawn of the 21st Century. While that is so much "recenty" it certainly coinsides with the subject here. Without getting too political, or exact when it comes to the real world here goes. Kids (being mostly under 25) today are always wanting things on a royal platter (free college for instance...which is probably not what they really want, free partying and putting off getting a job for 4 more years). And the idea of rewarding mediocrity in college football started pretty much at the same time with the growth of the number of college football bowl games. For instance, do you remember of ever hearing of "participation trophys" before about that time in world history? When you make it too easy the prize is devalued. And when you reward it, that is what you get. And mediocraty in college football is not "supposed" to be valued as much as it is. Finally are you ever, unless you are a staunch fan of one of the teams, every really excited about the possibility of watching the 37th best pair of football teams in the country? I don't like college football THAT much. Watching Sam Houston Institute of Technology vs Frankfort University of Central Kentucky isn't on my watch list.

'54

How about 6-6 Tulane vs 8-4 Ohio? Because that's probably what you would have gotten last year had the SMU ref called things different or we made a fg against Cinci. It's not about what you or I would watch necessarily. I never mind turning on a random bowl game in December, but if that's not your cup of tea so be it. But the fans of Ohio and UAB sure enjoyed having the chance to tune into that game.

To repeat, in your world a 9-3 Tulane will get passed over for a bowl because we aren't P5. We would literally have to be the best G5 team a la unbeaten UCF to get a shot at one of the 12 top bowls. And what prize are we talking about here? Is a trip to a new place to play football (which comes with gifts btw) devalued in any way if many other teams also get to do those things? As of 2018 only the 4 teams that make the playoff are actually participating in bowl games that have meaning. Should we just stop playing bowls altogether?

This isn't some grand statement about the world being too soft and too many kids getting trophies. It's just letting players play some glorified exhibitions and some fans enjoy them if they want.

[windywave]

I want "bowl season" condensed. More games per day. I want to wake up hung over new years day and watch football until 2Am Jan 2nd

[Roller]

I'm always excited when Tulane gets into a bowl, even if it were to be after a 0-12 season. One more chance for redemption and improving the record is a good thing. If I have no bowl choices other than to watch non-Tulane teams, then I'm not interested in watching.

If we're left out of a 74-team field, then maybe we could get into a 76-team field. But if we were so bad that we could not get into a 96-team field, then yeah, there should only be 15 bowls--hosting a 16-team playoff tournament.

[Fan Since '54]

tulaneoutlaw, you stated:" As of 2018 only the 4 teams that make the playoff are actually participating in bowl games that have meaning". Well so far since this system has been in place I have watched exactly 0 of the three games each year. I have had no interest of any of those games, since Tulane (and the two other college teams I follow) hasn't played in any of those games. And I also am not enamored with the fact that it is called a playoff. Semifinals and Final don't fit the my defination of a "playoff". And I have also only watched one Super Bowl since '86 (guess which one) since I don't care what happens when my team doesn't qualify. And something else happened in '86. I watched my last NBA game. Just no interest. My reason. But I have been lucky enough to watch quite a few Stanley Cup playoffs & Finals in the last few years which I guess have provided the number of smiles I require on a yearly basis.

Fan since '54

[Roller]

tulaneoutlaw, you stated:" As of 2018 only the 4 teams that make the playoff are actually participating in bowl games that have meaning". Well so far since this system has been in place I have watched exactly 0 of the three games each year. I have had no interest of any of those games, since Tulane (and the two other college teams I follow) hasn't played in any of those games. And I also am not enamored with the fact that it is called a playoff. Semifinals and Final don't fit the my defination of a "playoff". And I have also only watched one Super Bowl since '86 (guess which one) since I don't care what happens when my team doesn't qualify. And something else happened in '86. I watched my last NBA game. Just no interest. My reason. But I have been lucky enough to watch quite a few Stanley Cup playoffs & Finals in the last few years which I guess have provided the number of smiles I require on a yearly basis.

Fan since '54

Same here (to both of you).