Colorado pummels North Texas. Now East Carolina is thrashing Marshall 38-8 at halftime. Does anyone (aside from alumni) even care about these games?
I'm all for whittling the bowl season down to 16 games...until they can institute a playoff system in 2007.
I am sooooo tired of the John Deere bowl and the hotjobs.com bowls. Remember the OS/2 bowl (or was that OS/3 or OS/something else)?
The classic will always remain the Poulon Weedeater bowl. Nothing says "classy" like a lawn tool!

What a comeback!....Since very few were probably watching this game (I have to confess I caught the last two minutes of regulation channel surfing past ESPN2) but Marshall rallied from a 38-8 halftime deficit to tie the game at 51-51 with 7 seconds left....however, the Thundering Herd were trailing 51-45 prior to that last second TD (a great grab in the corner of the end zone by the receiver) and all they needed was the extra point to win the game -- and, you guessed it, the kicker missed the extra point which kept the game tied and sent it to OT!....Marshall outscored ECU 43-13 in the second half -- what a rally!

Marshall ultimately defeated East Carolina 64-61 in 2 O.T. (after trailing by 30 at the half)....hopefully this is a good sign for the excitement that is still to come -- only 23 bowl games left to go.

Even with the great finish to tonight's game, that doesn't mean there aren't too many bowl games. Check out this article. The New Orleans Bowl failed to attract 20,000 to the game last night...

Tough sell

And as an addendum to Joe's point, now Na'wlins must face the Sugah Bawl. And do you think the LSU fans will fill the HOTEL rooms for that one?
Helllllll no! The Bayou crowd will drive in to town, see the game...then flee.
Crappy bowl revenues for N.O. this year. Probably the worst they've ever experienced.
Not that I'm cryin', as I do not even like Lousiana.

I am with you guys, that only Alumni from the participating schools care about the minor bowls, and....with only 20,000 on hand in NO last night, not even the Alumni are that escited about the games. I have been a proponent of a playoff system for years, and frankly the excuse about classroom time, etc. is bull. The President's claim to that is only lip service. Dangle a check in front of their noses and they and the respective leagues will take it. Too many games makes the bowl season wimpy. I don't care if there are 24 games sceduled in late November and on into December, do it that way, take a two week break over Christmas for finals, etc. and then move on into the culmination in January for the Championship on New Years Day or some other close date. Trust me, the Alumni will attend. And for my money, make the final game at the Rose Bowl. They have the largest facility, the best outdoor weather in January and the parade is terrific. Just do it!

I have to disagree with the above opinions.

Personally i enjoy the early bowl games and would hate to see them leave. It gives some of the smaller schools out there a chance to be seen. These schools have a hard enough time recruiting as it is if you take away the chance of playing on television at least once from these schools who the hell is going to go there. I personally know that i had not seen Colorado St. play yet this year (and i am a west coast person so if i haven't seen them what are the chances that east coast people have). The smaller bowl games gives these non BCS conferances something to play for.

Say if we go to a playoff system and include 8 teams (6 automatic bids and 2 at large) then what is the point of even having CUSA, the MAC, the WAC, and the MW conferances because there is no way in hell that anyone from these conferances will ever make the playoff. All a playoff would do is further seperate the major conferences from the mid major ones. Personally i would like to go back to the traditional bowl set up and then just argue it out after the bowls are played.

Another aspect of bowl games that people forget about is that these teams get rewarded for a decent season by receiving extra time to practice for the following year. As a spartan I was excited to hear that my team was taken by a bowl not only because i get to see them play again but knowing that we now get three extra weeks of practice that the non bowl teams don't get.

And finally, no one forces you to watch these games or go to them so if you don't have an interest don't go/don't watch. I will be going and watching the games this year.

Well, slap my on the arse, SPartyON. LOL. Look, I have admit that I like the major bowl games. But I also plan to attend my first bowl game in San Jose this year. So, there you go. Out of my mouth came the propositon for a playoff system and then, AND THEN I plan to attend the MSU-Fresno State game. Go figure. Try, just try to figure ME out! LOL

There are entirely WAY too many bowl games when we have this many 6-5 teams playing....and a team that's even 5-6. A losing record team playing a bowl game???????????????????
The cut off should be 7 wins, and 8 wins for some of these teams that are now scheduling 13 games.

Though not an avid college football fan, I like the great number of bowl games. Think of the athletes who play for smaller schools (such as last night's GMAC game with Marshall and ECU) who might never get an invitation to a bowl game. In particular the seniors who may not be going on to the NFL and will be leaving football following a final game. This becomes their super bowl as well as allowing a national audience to see these teams.

~Adam

Is it really a "national audience" if no one cares to watch? Somehow I doubt the ratings are very high for these early bowl games.

[quote]Another aspect of bowl games that people forget about is that these teams get rewarded for a decent season by receiving extra time to practice for the following year. As a spartan I was excited to hear that my team was taken by a bowl not only because i get to see them play again but knowing that we now get three extra weeks of practice that the non bowl teams don't get.

---

Extra time to practice for next year? If you mean the weeks between the last regular game and the bowl game, that's not really for next year, is it?

If they actually get extra practice sometime next year (like during the spring), that's wrong. The non-bowl teams are the ones that ought to get extra practice time to help them improve.

[ December 20, 2001: Message edited by: Joe in Philly ]

Entering the bowl games, here were this year’s tributes to mediocrity.

Tangerine – Pitt 6-5
New Orleans – North Texas 5-6, Colorado State 6-5. Quite possibly the worst bowl matchup in history.
GMAC – E Carolina 6-5
Vegas – USC 6-5
Gallerfurniture.com – TCU 6-5
Independence – Bama 6-5. Bowl passed over a 7-4 Ole Miss team to slot a NCAA penalty deathwatch squad. There is no justice. Especially considering that Ole Miss beat Bama.
Alamo – Iowa 6-5
Humanitarian – Clemson 6-5. The truly humanitarian thing to do would have been to cancel this game.
Insight – KSU 6-5
Sun – Purdue 6-5
Silicon Valley – Michigan St 6-5


And so 11 out of 25 bowls feature teams that entered at 6-5 (or worse). That’s pretty close to half. And 12 of the 50 teams featured are 6-5 or worse. That’s pretty close to a quarter.

People bemoan the lack of a playoff system. Nothing’s gonna change in that area, so I’m not prone to bitching about it. But I can get pissed that the bowls schedule teams of this caliber. I do believe that the number 1 and 2 teams from minor conferences benefit from getting a bowl slot. Fine. Let ‘em.
But allowing 6-5 teams from power conferences into the mix is a joke.
Minus a playoff system, a bowl should be a reward. It should not be some flippant award to teams that barely avoided a losing season, doled out by virtue of their conference alignments.

<<Extra time to practice for next year? If you mean the weeks between the last regular game and the bowl game, that's not really for next year, is it?>>

Have to disagree with you here because Yes a lot of teams in the lower bowls do use this time to bring next years team together. They can get a look at a lot of people that they hadn't had a chance to see before and allow the younger players extra time. For example look at MSU, this extra practice time will allow the young offensive line (no seniors -- all players returning) to continue to jell together and learn each other tendencies. Also considering that our leading receiver and quarterback are both coming back-the extra practice will help them keep their timing down. And lastly any extra games has got to help the coaching staff out when it comes to game time decisions -- bowl games can give you certain situations that you hadn't been in previously.


<<<<
Tangerine – Pitt 6-5
Vegas USC 6-5
Independence – Bama 6-5. Bowl passed over a 7-4 Ole Miss team to slot a NCAA penalty deathwatch squad. There is no justice. Especially considering that Ole Miss beat Bama.

>>>>
Just showing records doesn't really do things justice. Anyone can show stats but lets actually look at these teams and see if they desearve a bowl bid.

Pitt -- started the season on a rough note by opening 1-5 with a new coach and system in place. Finished the season 5-0 including a thrashing over new years day bowl bound V-tech.

USC -- Also started season poorly under a new coach and then finished the year with 4 straight wins the biggest being over a ranked UCLA squad.

Alabama -- you can say that ole miss should have been taken over bama but you would be wrong. Once again records are misleading look at the wins and loses and see who is more impressive while Ole Miss was beating the sisters of the blind alabama was losing to the likes of UCLA. I would much rather see a team get rewarded for playing a tough schedule.

I am not saying that all 6-5 teams should be in bowls but just looking at records and saying none of them should be is wrong. They won more than they lost and that should really continue to be the cutoff. The thing that is ruining the bowl system aren't the 6-5 teams its the bowl tie-ins for the conferances. A better question would be why is a 9-3 Hawaii team (who beat Fresno St. and BYU) sitting at home while a 6-5 Purdue team is playing in a bowl. At most there should only be the top three spots in each conferance allowed to be tied into a bowl and then the rest should be able to take the best available teams -- teams will still get screwed (a 8-3 bowling green team who boasts three wins over BCS conference opponents still probably wouldn't get choosen) but it would be a start.

[ December 24, 2001: Message edited by: sparty on ]

Sparty, In defense of Ole Miss who definetly got shafted by Roy Kramer and the SEC honchos, by getting sanctioned bound 6-5 Alabama a bowl bid instead of the Rebels. Ole Miss did beat Alabama and soundly beat SEC Champion LSU at Baton Rouge.

I realized that but there wins out of conference are enough to not warrent a bowl bid.

Murray State. -- They are not even Div 1
Arkansas State -- They shouldn't be Div 1
Mid Tenn St. -- They shouldn't be Div 1 (yes i know they went 8-3 but given their schedule they should have been 10-1 if they were Div 1 caliber)

Plus they lost 3 of their last 4 and almost got beat by vanderbilt while Alabama won 3 of their last 4 -- Sorry MiamiDr but Alabama was the better team at the end and played a much tougher schedule and I agree with the bowl committee's choice of taking the Tide over the Rebels!

Sparty, I appreciate your points. And you've given it some thought...which is more than some of the impassioned/biased posts that other folks ocassionally throw on the boards.
That said, I agree that we will simply have to disagree.
Hawaii is a perfect example of how stupid the bowl committees are.
Ultimately, there are 50 bowl bound teams...and only 117 schools play, which means 42.7% of division 1 makes the grade. That figure is WAY too high. And even with Hawaii losing its 2 bowls due to finances, the sensible thing would have been to let those beasts die a quiet death.
But no. Instead we are left with Son of Oahu and Revenge of Aloha sequals.

AU Tiger, thanks for bringing up that number of 42.7%. The NCAA has a mandate that the normal percentage is only....
14-16% of teams that get picked for NCAA tournaments. That's right...we have a moratorium on increases because ALL sports have to meet that rage criteria (there are a FEW exceptions before someone notices them, but they are far and few between.) For football to have a 43% postseason participation rate is I think not very consistent. I know that the NCAA does not mandate nor supervise nor really have anything to do with the bowls, but I think they should think about maybe requesting a percentage of the money (like 5%). It certainly would ease some of the money woes I know they are having with the rest of the championship budgets.