Debate: should teams have to win 7 games to go to a bowl.

[shizzle787]

Yes, we haven't won that many games since Randy was last year but in general should teams have to win 7 games to go to a bow. Personally, I believe they should. As it is there are too many middling bowls and going 6-6 shouldn't be rewarded. I believe you should have a winning season to go to a bowl. Currently, there are 39 bowls going forward. If this were implemented, we would probably lose 5, which I would be ok with.

 

[WrenchFan69]

They can't fill all the bowls with 6-6 teams as it is. Cut the bad bowls and then see if you can fill them with 7 win teams.

 

[TheDrifter75]

They can't fill all the bowls with 6-6 teams as it is. Cut the bad bowls and then see if you can fill them with 7 win teams.

What does it matter? If you think there are to many, don't watch them. Bowls do more than just reward teams. They reward fans, they help the communities that host them and give some level of exposure to the team. I guess I just don't get why it's a concern to anyone how many bowls are played. IMO it doesn't take away from from the bigger so play em.

 

[businesslawyer]

Yes, we haven't won that many games since Randy was last year but in general should teams have to win 7 games to go to a bow. Personally, I believe they should. As it is there are too many middling bowls and going 6-6 shouldn't be rewarded. I believe you should have a winning season to go to a bowl. Currently, there are 39 bowls going forward. If this were implemented, we would probably lose 5, which I would be ok with.

I don't disagree with that, but using records to determine any reward is so arbitrary anyway, as 6-6 in the SEC playing a tough OOC is so different than finishing 6-6 in the Sunbelt, that I really can't say I care a lot.

 

[SubbaBub]

These are private exhibitions. It doesn't matter other than the NCAA has an interest in invites being given in a fair merit based manner as opposed to the brand name basis of yore.

The current system for the lower bowls is the best that it will get.

 

[tduconn]

Mediocrity at any level shouldn't be rewarded. Success should........makes everyone else try harder.

Get rid of the so-so bowls playing 0.500 teams and offer more advertising money to bowls with 7-5 or 8-4 records. Those have a better chance of attracting non-fan viewers, so advertisers possibly get more bang for their buck. Everyone wins.

Besides, how many of the 6-6 teams going to bowls actually cover expenses from revenue received?

 

[CL82]

Bowls being a money making venture for the team that participate is largely a myth, they are a recognition of some level of success during the season. Notoriety and more practices are the reward. If you break even, you've done well.

 

[Palatine]

Given the number of bowls, that would leave many slots open. Not a good idea.

 

[BlueMAB]

if teams don't want to risk losing money, they can decline the invite, they aren't forced to play.

if coaches don't want to reward their players for going .500, they can decline the invite, they aren't forced to play.

if you don't want to watch two .500 teams play in a bowl, don't tune in, you aren't forced to watch.

I want to watch as much football as I can. If you think lower bowl games are unimportant..... don't watch.

 

[DCUconnfan]

I'm relatively indifferent to whether it should be 6 or 7 wins. I do think there are too many bowls overall, but I'd hate to not have a fun game to go to with UConn at 6-6, so it's a tossup.

The one thing that I think absolutely should be instituted is that all teams should be able to practice the same total amount. As it currently stands, only teams that make a bowl are afforded extra practice time over the later winter months. While a few extra weeks of practice seems minuscule, it can actually make a difference, and any team that does not make the post season is effectively penalized with the lack of additional practice time.

 

[SubbaBub]

Again, this is the wrong bowl debate. There can be 100 bowls if there is enough support for them. The only question for the NCAA is should a 4-8 big ten team get invited over a 6-6 AAC team. Without the 6-6 rule the former would happen 100% of the time.

There is no harm in the existence of the game itself.

 

[TheDrifter75]

So who decides which bowls go away?

 

[IMind]

I don't really care. If the schools want to play in them, the fans want to go, and somebody wants to put them on... why should we care? I care far more that we're shut out of millions of dollars of TV money and access to a championship than I do if a 5-7 team and a 7-5 team play on December 28th.

 

[EdgewoodNHV]

Let's look at the Pros and Cons of allowing teams with 6 wins to play in bowl games:

Pros:

• Fans can enjoy traveling to tourist locations and watching their team one more time
• Local economies enjoy being a tourist location
• One more football game for everybody
• Often a chance at a new or interesting opponent that you wouldn't normally play
• More practices for teams
• Revenue for TV, conferences, teams

Cons:

• You might accidentally change the channel to a Bowl game you don't care about and remark to yourself, "There's too many damn bowl games these days, why when I was a kid... "

 

[Rocktheworld]

Bowls being a money making venture for the team that participate is largely a myth, they are a recognition of some level of success during the season. Notoriety and more practices are the reward. If you break even, you've done well.

It's really a cash grab for the NCAA. Each bowl, regardless of the live or television audience, offers three hours worth of commercial breaks and of course the constant background advertisement making the bowls look like soccer matches with all the ads, not to mention the money from whoever wanted to put their name on the event

 

[Ldandy]

I'd absolutely draw the line at 6-6. Its always annoyed me when 5-7 Teams go to a Bowl Game.

 

[Afroabe224]

It's really a cash grab for ESPN.

FIFY