That is very true! They had to use only one side of the field for conversions because nothing fit! I think Northwestern played there a while ago.
now Cubs want Wrigley Bowl
- Thread starter TIGER-PAUL
- Start date
That is very true! They had to use only one side of the field for conversions because nothing fit! I think Northwestern played there a while ago.
I would rather go to Chicago in late December than Birmingham, Detroit, Boise, Shreveport, Mobile or some of the other horseshit options that were out there.
I never understand the too many bowls argument. I watch games . Its programming. I understand you may not watch any game that your ream or is socalled meaningless but if thats the case why watch any game
My point is I dont like reality shows, Fox News, CNnN etc. What the hell else will I watch. I like football.
Why discourage more bowls? We've been 6-6 quite often, far more often than 9 or 10 wins. Thank goodness there have been so many bowls in those cases.
Performing poorly in most of the bowls in recent years is our own fault, not the bowls'.
And Chicago (in the proper sections of course, with adequate money) is at least as much fun as New York city. Great food and music and shopping. And fairly easy to get to. Even flights are usually reasonable, or the drive isn't intolerable (think a bit more than a ND trip).
Performing poorly in most of the bowls in recent years is our own fault, not the bowls'.
And Chicago (in the proper sections of course, with adequate money) is at least as much fun as New York city. Great food and music and shopping. And fairly easy to get to. Even flights are usually reasonable, or the drive isn't intolerable (think a bit more than a ND trip).
I understand what you are saying, Marty. I have a friend who is a college basketball junkie and he thinks the NIT should include every team that does not make the NCAA tournament – regardless of record. At the very least, in his mind the NIT should double in size. His reasoning is exactly the same as yours.
Why not watch more college basketball?
When Pitt "made" the CBI a few years ago he could not understand why there wasn't more excitement for it locally? He was legitimately shocked that people were making fun of it.
As I told him then, because it devalues what it means to "make" the postseason, that's why? Perhaps I'm a traditionalist but I think making a bowl game should mean something. Going 6–6 or even 5–7 in some cases does not nearly meet that standard, IMO.
It probably doesn't matter anyway because the playoff is already devaluing the other bowl games. That's why you are starting to see all of these players sitting out of games like the Sun Bowl, the Citrus Bowl, etc.
They have figured out that those games don't mean anything - especially for programs that are accustomed to experiencing a high level of success like LSU, Stanford, etc.
Why not watch more college basketball?
When Pitt "made" the CBI a few years ago he could not understand why there wasn't more excitement for it locally? He was legitimately shocked that people were making fun of it.
As I told him then, because it devalues what it means to "make" the postseason, that's why? Perhaps I'm a traditionalist but I think making a bowl game should mean something. Going 6–6 or even 5–7 in some cases does not nearly meet that standard, IMO.
It probably doesn't matter anyway because the playoff is already devaluing the other bowl games. That's why you are starting to see all of these players sitting out of games like the Sun Bowl, the Citrus Bowl, etc.
They have figured out that those games don't mean anything - especially for programs that are accustomed to experiencing a high level of success like LSU, Stanford, etc.
The dimensions were a problem long ago when the Bears played home games at Wrigley. That and the limited capacity of Wrigley caused the Bears to move their home games to Soldier Field in 1971. I'm interested to know how the renovations will expand the field surface. They don't have much foul territory to spare at the Ruins at Clark and Addison.
Your reply actually does give reason to rethink. I stated above that I favor many bowls because they can be fun to put on the tv over the holidays vs yet another showing of the Grinch, etc. And to give Pitt a better chance at post season.
But maybe this glut of games is giving Pitt and many other programs too much of a rescue for fielding mediocre programs. Perhaps there would be more pressure to pony up for better teams if we would have missed out on bowls for most of the last 20 years, rather than squeaking into something for every .500 year.
For example, we all seem to hold Walt Harris in fond regard for that first season of going to a bowl. And given what he inherited, he deserves credit for ANY success, don't get me wrong.
But honestly, that team, and just about all others we had since, wouldn't have sniffed a bowl in the 80s or earlier with the records they put up.
Even the past two years, getting a bowl might have been very iffy.
Given that, what would be the evaluation of the past (and current) coaches, AD and chancellors? (And trustees?)
This era of "everyone gets a trophy" has bought a lot of cover for some frankly very mediocre caretakers (or at least, their results were). Along with allowing 1-AA wins to count.
Would they have felt more pressure to produce winners, knowing 9-3 (against legit opponents) was likely the low bar of making any bowl?
Not likely, I'll say. In fact maybe it would have caused the program to be dropped outright in the 90s.
Which, if just the existence alone of Pitt football is important to you, I guess we should thank the existence of these umpteen bowls after all.
As I said earlier, it's not gonna matter anyway as the playoff is rendering the rest of the bowl games irrelevant anyway.
I was really opposed to a four-team playoff. I basically see it as a rebranded version of the widely panned "plus one" model.
However, I also knew instantly that the existence of a playoff really is a game changer on every level so I hold my nose and wait for the logical next step.
Bowl games were never meant to be anything other than meaningless exhibitions. They were literally designed as a way to get people from cold-weather states to warm weather locales during the winter.
However, as the culture changed in the public's appetite for settling who was the best – the absolute best – team grew, the bowl games grew in importance with them.
Soon, this Frankenstein system became untenable. However, by that point the powers that be were so entrenched and so corrupted by these bowl games that they were going to do whatever they lhad to do to make all these square pegs fit into their round holes.
Bowl games are not good for college football – they are terrible for college football. They've been terrible for college football for many years now.
They do provide moderately better programming than is otherwise on television. However, is anyone really watching the New Orleans Bowl or the Heart of Dallas Bowl ? Is anyone really watching this crap?
I love college football as much as anyone I know and I could care less about 80% of these games – and that is being conservative.
I would love to see the playoff expanded to 32 or even 64 teams to be honest. I think that would make for great entertainment from mid-December to mid-January – much better than the bowl games ever would.
However, I would be happy to start at eight teams and go from there. Four is insufficient. It is better than two but it remains insufficient. I think eight would be much better.
I was really opposed to a four-team playoff. I basically see it as a rebranded version of the widely panned "plus one" model.
However, I also knew instantly that the existence of a playoff really is a game changer on every level so I hold my nose and wait for the logical next step.
Bowl games were never meant to be anything other than meaningless exhibitions. They were literally designed as a way to get people from cold-weather states to warm weather locales during the winter.
However, as the culture changed in the public's appetite for settling who was the best – the absolute best – team grew, the bowl games grew in importance with them.
Soon, this Frankenstein system became untenable. However, by that point the powers that be were so entrenched and so corrupted by these bowl games that they were going to do whatever they lhad to do to make all these square pegs fit into their round holes.
Bowl games are not good for college football – they are terrible for college football. They've been terrible for college football for many years now.
They do provide moderately better programming than is otherwise on television. However, is anyone really watching the New Orleans Bowl or the Heart of Dallas Bowl ? Is anyone really watching this crap?
I love college football as much as anyone I know and I could care less about 80% of these games – and that is being conservative.
I would love to see the playoff expanded to 32 or even 64 teams to be honest. I think that would make for great entertainment from mid-December to mid-January – much better than the bowl games ever would.
However, I would be happy to start at eight teams and go from there. Four is insufficient. It is better than two but it remains insufficient. I think eight would be much better.
