No 5-7 teams going bowling this year
- Thread starter vegasgreed
- Start date
It's laughable that a 6-6 team goes to a bowl. 5-7??? LOL!!! What ever happened to standards and not just giving out participation trophies?
Good. I don’t want Pitt in a bowl game.
Let the seniors get ready for the nfl.
Let underclassmen get ready for next year.
Let the seniors get ready for the nfl.
Let underclassmen get ready for next year.
I think 7-5 should be where the line is drawn too. In order to be rewarded you should have to have a winning record.
Agree!
In the 70s there were 11-12 bowl games (pre ESPN) so you had to be top 25 to make any bowl game & teams would not accept bids if they did not think they deserved them.
Oh look
It’s a bunch of Ron Cooks posting
Who gives a shit how many bowls there are?
As a viewer just watch or don’t watch ... putting some pretend line in the sand is silly
Seeing programs playing in bowls with zero emotional investment as a fan can be fun
It’s college football....
It’s a bunch of Ron Cooks posting
Who gives a shit how many bowls there are?
As a viewer just watch or don’t watch ... putting some pretend line in the sand is silly
Seeing programs playing in bowls with zero emotional investment as a fan can be fun
It’s college football....
Do really care to watch Troy vs Akron or two 6-6 teams play? I love college football, but I’m watching something else in those instances.
Watch what?
I’ll watch any bowl I’m near a tube when on air.
Those guys want a win no matter where they’re playing or if they’re 5-7, which such records have produced winner.
6-6 sb The target and a cut off of sorts ....but I couldn’t care if there are few times when that can’t be met.
Just sayin
Agree.
Some of the people who complain about this, should also complain about some of the really crap OOC games that many college teams play so they can achieve the 6-6 record.
HAIL TO PITT!!!!
My only problem with whatever the cutoff is that there is great discrepancies in schedule strength. A team like Pitt that plays 2 top OOC games has a disadvantage to one playing cupcakes. Record doesn’t always indicate team strength, therefore bowl cutoffs will never be a fair criterium.
I like how many bowls there are. I know 85% of them are meaningless, but I enjoy watching players from other programs that I usually don't get to see.
I am fine with going into the offseason riding the momentum of a big win over Miami, and not tempered by a bad loss to a mediocre team in a bad bowl game like we are want to do.
So.....cool. Hit the recruiting trails, have the players enjoy a nice Christmas, come back ready to go in the Spring.
Oh...and STAY OUT OF TROUBLE!
So.....cool. Hit the recruiting trails, have the players enjoy a nice Christmas, come back ready to go in the Spring.
Oh...and STAY OUT OF TROUBLE!
I look at it differently.
IMHO, the only "bowls" that really count are the ones that involve the teams in the Final Four. So rather than looking at the other bowls as a "reward", why not simply call them an "Added-On Game" for teams who want to play another one?
That way, if two 3-9 teams want to get together and play an extra game for their own reasons - whatever their reasons are - then why not let 'em?
6-6 teams...7-5 teams....what difference does it make? Those don't deserve a "reward". Just call it an "Extra Game" and be done with it.
Only about 6 of the bowl games matter anyway, so who cares? So we have a couple of cupcakes instead of 2 top 10 teams on the schedule, and we go 7-5 and to the Toilet Bowl on Christmas day in Newark.
90% of the bowls don't exist to reward teams for achievement-they exist to generate some money and give their local economy a little juice.
Somebody wanted to make money staging a bowl game. if enough games could be staged to make 10 cents profit they'd take 3-9 teams. That's "the standard" can you make a buck.
I'd want them in because I like that TV Show, Pitt football, just to have a bowl game I care about. As it stands there is no game I will watch, I mean besides flipping the channels watching 5-10 minutes of a game and moving on.
Hey I like 'em all, even though 90% of them are totally irrelevant and feature some bad teams. A lot of those games between unranked teams end up being wild and crazy. It's college football--always a sad day when the last college football game is played.
I remember watching a bowl game in the mid 90's between Air Force and some California team that I can't even remember during the family Christmas eve party. I thought it was stupid that some bowl in Idaho or Montana was being aired with such teams. As my cousins and I watched though, we got into it and it turned out to be a fun game. I guess its always fans of bad teams that don't make it into the actual bowls that gripe the loudest. I actually like watching strange new teams in different stadiums. I saw Pumphrey of SD State last year. Without stupid bowls, that wouldn't have been possible. He was unbelievable!
I remember the Bahamas Bowl on Xmas eve a few years ago. Central Michigan v. Western Kentucky. Two 7-5 teams playing in an empty stadium in the Bahamas. WKU up like 50-14 in the late 3rd quarter. CMU scored 5 unanswered TDs including a "Stanford band" type hail Mary with multiple laterals with time expiring. They went for 2 with no time left and lost by one point. We were hosting our big family and everyone was crowded around the TV shouting and yelling for an hour. Good stuff!
Yeah as mentioned above, it's pointless to view non-playoff bowl games as anything other than a chance for local hotel owners and stadium/tourism boards (these are the people who chair most bowl committees) to fill up their seats. That was true before cable TV and then obviously with cable TV and now ESPN it also exists because football TV ratings are high even with medicore teams. It has little to do with football quality. They would probably invite 2 win teams if they thought it would sell seats.
The problem with that is the Bowls are designed as money makers. Often, the bowls have a choice between teams and choose the ones they think will make them the most money. Two teams can't just show up at a city and say, "Hey, we want to plan an extra game. You spend the money to put it on, and we'll show up."
I get that. But here's a partial list of teams that aren't bowl-eligible:
Indiana: 5-7
Minnesota: 5-7
Nebraska: 4-8
Maryland: 4-8
Tulane: 5-7
Cincinnati: 4-8
Why can't some of these teams make match-ups themselves (home team decided by a coin toss, if needed), and play the game at one of the team's stadium without being concerned about the big payout. After all, once we get down to the minor bowls, the "payout" isn't all that great anyway - and if the stories are true, some Pitt prior teams have actually lost money by playing in a minor bowl.
Are you, or anyone else for that matter, going to want to sit in the stands at any of those schools not names Tulane in late December or early January to watch two teams with crappy records play a game?
And, what incentive would the schools have if there is no TV money, and next to no gate money?
Cincinnati at Minnesota (substitute any of the other schools of your choice) is not a game I'd like to watch on TV this season, let alone be in the stands to watch that time of year.
Could you imagine how many yellow seats would show up to view a December 29 game between Pitt and Indiana? And the public outcry if Kenny Pickett, or any other key player had a career ending injury?
You could make the same argument if any of the teams that I listed were 6-6, and therefore bowl eligible.
Few people are gonna watch a crappy bowl, whether the team’s are 6-6 or 5-7. That’s how watered-down the bowls have become.
That’s why I originally said to stop trying to put lipstick on a pig by calling the bad bowls “a reward”. Just call them “an added game” and stop the pretense.
if I was in town and thee tickets where cheap and Pitt was playing, sure, I'd rather watch that than 'Bama in the Final 4. I'd DVR it and watch it twice if it was a decent game.
I would always just watch any Pitt bowl game, where they are 13-0 or 5-7, I'd watch that game over any other game. If Pitt was 5-7, playing 6-6 Eastern Michigan, I'd watch that over Bama vs. Clemson if they where on at the same time.
You and me both, but I think that they’re more concerned about the national level, that advertising dollars might be harder to come by.
But meanwhile, a Pitt-Maryland game, or a Pitt-Nebraska game, would draw more viewers than a lot of the 6-win teams who made bowl eligibility, but it doesn’t matter.
Similar threads
