Jump to content

5-7 Bowl Teams are .....

frankdracman23

By frankdracman23
in College Football

 Share

Recommended Posts

The Professor

The Professor

Posted
Posted

I agree. And there's too many Bowl games anyway. I was watching a few minutes of a game a few nights back and it didn't look like there was much more than a couple thousand fans there. I would imagine the TV ratings were low, too. Most people could care less about watching Sawgrass State play Big Bison U.

bugatti

bugatti

Posted
Posted
I agree. And there's too many Bowl games anyway. I was watching a few minutes of a game a few nights back and it didn't look like there was much more than a couple thousand fans there. I would imagine the TV ratings were low, too. Most people could care less about watching Sawgrass State play Big Bison U.

That is the problem, not the fact 5-7 teams are making it. Unless people want teams playing 2 bowl games there is no way to avoid below .500 teams from making it.

gchs_uk9

gchs_uk9

Posted
Posted

I don't get these complaints. They're just football games. All this talk about "deserving" - you won 5 games, I won 6, but one of my wins came against a I-AA school. Both teams probably stink but one team "deserves" to go to Shreveport and the other doesn't? Who cares? And again, who is making you watch?

 

And finally, people are watching - ratings for the worst bowls are higher than top basketball games. People watching means more money for TV, the only reason these games are played in the first place.

bugatti

bugatti

Posted
Posted
Just so I'm clear, problem for who?

 

Not for a person or team, but of the system. It is a principle of mathematics. If there are 10 bowl games (20 teams) but only 18 teams above .500, you have to draw from the below .500 pool to fill the void unless you make teams .500 and above play twice.

bugatti

bugatti

Posted
Posted
I don't get these complaints. They're just football games. All this talk about "deserving" - you won 5 games, I won 6, but one of my wins came against a I-AA school. Both teams probably stink but one team "deserves" to go to Shreveport and the other doesn't? Who cares? And again, who is making you watch?

 

And finally, people are watching - ratings for the worst bowls are higher than top basketball games. People watching means more money for TV, the only reason these games are played in the first place.

I am with you on all of this. I am not sure why a 6-6 team from the Mountain West is more deserving than a 5-7 Pac-12 team or why someone would be more or less offended by the system because of it.

gchs_uk9

gchs_uk9

Posted
Posted
I feel the same way about high school team. If you have a losing record, you should never be allowed to be in the playoffs.

 

But these aren't playoff games. Theoretically, a high school team could finish the regular season 2-8, but win five straight playoff games and win the state title. Every game has the goal of a follow up game if you win.

 

38 of the 40 bowl games are just "games." Win or lose, you go home after it's over. I see them as nothing more than an extended regular season.

MentschTrachtGottLacht

MentschTrachtGottLacht

Posted
Posted
Not for a person or team, but of the system. It is a principle of mathematics. If there are 10 bowl games (20 teams) but only 18 teams above .500, you have to draw from the below .500 pool to fill the void unless you make teams .500 and above play twice.

 

You said "that is the problem", so the problem is "of the system"? So again I ask, who is that a problem for. If you don't want to watch, don't. I understand the math, and I'm not the one that said it is a problem, and while the popular (and lazy) narrative is "too many bowls", I continue to ask...who is that a problem for? Teams get to practice more, TV fills programming around the Holidays, people get vacations to see Tommy play...it shouldn't impact 99% of Americans but yet this narrative is so popular today.

bugatti

bugatti

Posted
Posted
You said "that is the problem", so the problem is "of the system"? So again I ask, who is that a problem for. If you don't want to watch, don't. I understand the math, and I'm not the one that said it is a problem, and while the popular (and lazy) narrative is "too many bowls", I continue to ask...who is that a problem for? Teams get to practice more, TV fills programming around the Holidays, people get vacations to see Tommy play...it shouldn't impact 99% of Americans but yet this narrative is so popular today.

You are reading way too much into my post. People (not me or the teams participating) are saying you should be above .500 to be in a bowl game. That is impossible because there are more bowl game participants than there are teams above .500. People are shouting about a (perceived) "problem" that is unsolvable unless bowl games are eliminated, which ain't happening.

barrel

barrel

Posted
Posted
I feel the same way about high school team. If you have a losing record, you should never be allowed to be in the playoffs.

Not to sidetrack the thread but that isn't as cut and dry as you make it. If you are in a 4 team district you know you'll make the playoffs so you schedule your other 6 games with tough opponents to get ready for the playoffs. If you follow that line of thinking you could very easily end up with a sub 500 record and still be a good team. Maybe we were an outlier but our out of district schedule every year was something like Danville, Boone, Bowling Green, Warren Central, Bell and/or Belfry. We typically played four or so of those out of district in the early 90s. Most of which were ranked in the top 10 in their class and top 20/10 in the state. Sub 500 doesn't mean bad team for sure.

 

To relate the above to the bowls yeah 5-7 in the a good conference and good competition should beat out 6-6 and maybe 7-5 against weak schedules.

 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using the site you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Policies.

  I accept