May 15, 2008
NCAA puts bowl games on notice, 'Legal Bowl' to follow
From Senator Blutarsky, the NCAA has put every bowl on notice that they are not "guaranteed" to get two bowl eligible teams for their games this year.
Mr. College Football has the deets:
The NCAA sent out an interesting letter to all the bowls last week. The letter essentially said that while the NCAA has certified 34 bowls for next season, that certification does not guarantee that a team will be available for any bowl. It is a pre-emptive move by the NCAA to ward off litigation in case there aren’t enough teams with at least six wins to fill the bowls. Some of the bowl execs I talked to want to know: “If you were worried about having enough teams, why did you certify two more bowls?”This could get nasty. Right now a bowl cannot take a team unless it has a 6-6 record or better. This December a bowl could be in a situation where it has to petition the NCAA for a waiver to take a 5-7 team. If that happens the NCAA will get hammered in the court of public opinion. And it should.
So... let me get this straight.
The NCAA has certified 34 bowl games this year, thus opening 68 slots for the 120 Football Bowl Subdivision teams. But... just because a bowl game is approved doesn't mean that the NCAA will let a team play in said bowl. Rrrrrright.
How would you like to be a fly on the wall when the NCAA calls ESPN, the [Insert Name Here] Bowl committee and the corporate sponsor to break the news that there aren't enough six win or better teams to go around?!
What's the Buffett song? Send lawyers, drugs, and money? Yeah, exactly.
Comments:
posted on May 15, 2008 10:10 PM — 67.166.241.225 — link — abuse?War Eagle Atlanta
said:
I thought you sent lawyers, guns, and butter. Oh, wait. That's an example from economics ... Sorry!
I guess mathematically it is possible that not enough teams qualify with enough wins--of course, not like last year, when everyone lost early and often...
Okay, all those in favor of eliminating some of these bowls raise-- Okay. The motion passes unanimously...
Zac said:
posted on May 16, 2008 4:10 AM — 205.188.116.136 — link — abuse?
This has been my point many threads back. While I like the idea of giving kids a chance to play post season (especially those teams which on that rare occasion manage to qualify but still rarely get picked), there still needs to be some sense of achievement. Otherwise, they're kidding themselves. Not to mention, put two 6-6 teams together and one of them walks away with a loosing season. It becomes a little tough for a team to hold its head high afterwards.
I realize bowl games result in an economic boost for the general area within which the game is played. All well and good. That bowl still has to attract fans to the game for it to continue to survive. Not to mention, it still has to fall within a decent TV slot, so as not to be in competition for time against a presumably more popular bowl with a presumably better match-up. Otherwise, it's doomed for failure.
My opinion: 32 bowls were too many. Now there are 34. What next, a for real "Toilet Bowl" to pit the worst 2 teams in the country, that we may actually crown the looser "THE Worst Team In The Country?" That's what it seems like it's coming to.
By the way, ASquared (Post 2, "Hic" 3), that and Werewolves of London, both great tunes!!!
Jeff said:
posted on May 16, 2008 7:08 PM — 12.47.224.8 — link — abuse?
Insert the typical "heard it before" horn here, but...
34 bowls, of which 85 percent of them are meaningless....
Or make them meaningful by instituting a playoff, which encompasses bowl venues, STILL making money (if not more) & giving the fans what they want, excluding a few idiots that are in favor of "keeping the tradition of the bowls"....
Zac said:
posted on May 16, 2008 11:22 PM — 209.36.193.14 — link — abuse?
Jeff, its like anything else. Someone comes up with an idea. The idea is pitched and eventually finds a backer. The idea becomes reality. If said idea, which became reality earns money, the idea becomes an institution; a big, fat, friggen, money-making institution. Someone else sees how it works, realizes they can benefit from the same idea, and boom; now, you got 2. Before long, some disbelievers & nay-sayers realize they were wrong. There really is gold in them thar bowls. First, its 6; then, its 12; suddenly, its 24. Thank God, the geometric progression stopped there, and some people realized they were running out of market space. Otherwise, we just might have 48, + a NC. Wouldnt that be luvly???
Play-off proponents have been calling for it, because they want the NC decided on the field of play. Were this to come about, those teams selected would have proven, during the preceding weeks, to be worthy of play-off contention. I think the bowl committees need to have a similar set of standards; that is candidate teams should have to meet a well defined acceptance criteria. That should be a winning record; i.e. at least one more win than losses. With 32 bowls, some committees are hard pressed to feature two 6-6 teams. With 34, its just plane silly.
posted on May 17, 2008 7:48 AM — link — abuse? said:
I guess I fall in the minority, because I will watch all 34 games.
If you sincerely want a change, vote with your dollars:
1) don't watch the games,
2) write the sponsors letting them know you won't be watching,
3) don't watch the games.I, for one, will be doing the inverse, so maybe a couple of you will balance me out. :)
Please note that all comments are subject to the Fanblogs Comment Policy.
TE
said:
posted on May 15, 2008 5:12 PM — 204.68.245.11 — link — abuse?As if they didn't know taking a conference tie in of the 3rd place team in the Commander in Chief's Cup Standings and the 13th place team in the ACC might not produce two at least .500 teams...
They have no one to blame but themselves...Didn't a 5-7 North Texas team get a waiver a few years ago for the New Orleans Bowl? Who the HECK wants to see that team play in a bowl game?