The Rose Bowl can go DIAF

[puffff]

Originally posted by: Syringer

Originally posted by: puffff

Originally posted by: SampSon
Of course they don't want it, they would stand to lose advertising revenue.

Bowl games have become such a joke. Do we need 32 bowl games?

The bowl system has come down to nothing more than a advertising dollar frenzy. Look at the names of the bowl games, papajohns.com bowl, Meineke Car Care bowl, Chick-fil-A bowl etc.
That's something to tell your kids in the future, "hey son, your daddy played in the papajohns.com bowl when he was in school. Papa Johns doesn't exist anymore, but boy did they have some shitty pizza and a bowl game!". A bunch of money grubbing sell outs.

Bowl games should be a reward for excellence, not a reward for mediocrity.

Why do you care how many bowl games there are? If you don't care about the chick-fil-a bowl, then dont watch it.

Bowl games are a nice change of pace from the conference schedule. It allows for some top to bottom (ok, middle) conference comparisons. It gives fans of more than one school per conference something to root for at the end of the season... If we only had an 8 team playoff, USC would be the only team from the Pac10 that had anything to play for by the last couple games.

Think of it this way. BCS bowls are rewarded for excellence. Regular bowl games are rewarded for good seasons.

You need to pay more attention to football--USC up until the final regular season game was still playing for a spot in the Rose Bowl. If they had lost Arizona St would've been crowned Pac-10 champs and gone to the Rose Bowl, or if ASU lost then magically UCLA would've been to the Rose Bowl..

Ok, I was exaggerating. But my point is there would be less teams with meaningful games at the end of the season.

 

[puffff]

Originally posted by: bignateyk

Originally posted by: puffff

Originally posted by: SampSon
Of course they don't want it, they would stand to lose advertising revenue.

Bowl games have become such a joke. Do we need 32 bowl games?

The bowl system has come down to nothing more than a advertising dollar frenzy. Look at the names of the bowl games, papajohns.com bowl, Meineke Car Care bowl, Chick-fil-A bowl etc.
That's something to tell your kids in the future, "hey son, your daddy played in the papajohns.com bowl when he was in school. Papa Johns doesn't exist anymore, but boy did they have some shitty pizza and a bowl game!". A bunch of money grubbing sell outs.

Bowl games should be a reward for excellence, not a reward for mediocrity.

Why do you care how many bowl games there are? If you don't care about the chick-fil-a bowl, then dont watch it.

Bowl games are a nice change of pace from the conference schedule. It allows for some top to bottom (ok, middle) conference comparisons. It gives fans of more than one school per conference something to root for at the end of the season... If we only had an 8 team playoff, USC would be the only team from the Pac10 that had anything to play for by the last couple games.

Think of it this way. BCS bowls are rewarded for excellence. Regular bowl games are rewarded for good seasons.

And there is no reason there have to be any less bowls with a playoff system. Hell, they could even rotate the big bowls around each year as to which one hosted the championship game.

I could buy the playoff with satellite bowls system. I was mainly responding to Sampson's gripe about 32 bowls.

 

[SampSon]

Originally posted by: puffff

Originally posted by: SampSon
Of course they don't want it, they would stand to lose advertising revenue.

Bowl games have become such a joke. Do we need 32 bowl games?

The bowl system has come down to nothing more than a advertising dollar frenzy. Look at the names of the bowl games, papajohns.com bowl, Meineke Car Care bowl, Chick-fil-A bowl etc.
That's something to tell your kids in the future, "hey son, your daddy played in the papajohns.com bowl when he was in school. Papa Johns doesn't exist anymore, but boy did they have some shitty pizza and a bowl game!". A bunch of money grubbing sell outs.

Bowl games should be a reward for excellence, not a reward for mediocrity.

Why do you care how many bowl games there are? If you don't care about the chick-fil-a bowl, then dont watch it.

Bowl games are a nice change of pace from the conference schedule. It allows for some top to bottom (ok, middle) conference comparisons. It gives fans of more than one school per conference something to root for at the end of the season... If we only had an 8 team playoff, USC would be the only team from the Pac10 that had anything to play for by the last couple games.

Think of it this way. BCS bowls are rewarded for excellence. Regular bowl games are rewarded for good seasons.

I don't watch most of them, only the classic ones like the rose bowl, sugar, orange bowl etc.

I care because 32 bowl games takes up more TV time than I'd like them to. Constant media hype, coverage, commericals, sports tv/radio news constantly talking about them. There is so much now that it's now called "bowl season"?. Overkill. With so many games and so much hype that the bowl games lost their charm or spark. They are barely about post season play or having a good team. Calling .500 a good season is hilarious. Having a .500 season is basically the definition of mediocre. Having over half of the Div I teams play in bowl games is hardly a "reward". When the MAJORITY of teams get a reward, how much is that reward really worth?

Why not just tack on an extra game or two on to the season and have these types of match-ups that you say everyone is "dying" to see.

As for USC being the only team from the Pac 10, that's a crock. USC was still fighting for a spot in the Rose bowl up until the last game. Do you actually watch college football?

Bowl games are a reward for student athletes, not to the fans. I agree that there are too many of them. Although they may seem meaningless to you, I would bet that they mean a great deal to the players on a team like Bowling Green or New Mexico.

I'm sure it does mean more to them than it does to me. Though with over half the teams playing in bowl games and requiring only .500 to play, it seems like little league batting, where everyone gets to bat once an inning. There are so many now that you barely have to show any sort of domination to play in a bowl game. Hell the UB Bulls (college in my area) were one win away from being bowl eligable (ironically they lost that important game to Bowling Green). I know that half the people in this city don't even know that UB has a football program.

Since 1990 the number of bowl games has almost doubled and as more bowl games get added the less wins a team needs to play in a bowl game. Soon teams that can't even manage a winning record will be in a bowl game. Why not just have every team play in a bowl game, just so the athletes can feel good about themselves. Give everyone a little trophy and pat them on the head. Sports are about competition, not everyone "having a meaningful game to play for" at the end, or everyone winning and feeling good.

I think my main gripe is with the explosion of the number of bowl games primarily due to advertising money and the renaming of bowl games just to pander to whatever company throws a couple million at the organizations. There are so many bowl games that they have lost most of their importance. The number of bowl games will continue to rise until just about every team in every conference gets to play in some sort of game at the end of the season. The more bowl games there are, the less they mean. I'm sure the players understand this, regardless if the games mean something to them or not.

College bowl games, more about making everyone feel like a winner, less about actually being a winner.

 

[Svnla]

Originally posted by: mpitts

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: jmebonner
Rose bowl sucks and that's why they had a crappy game this year. Should've picked Mizzou.

Or Georgia...

You can blame the Sugar Bowl selection committee just as much as the Rose Bowl committee for Georgia not being there.

They were the SEC champs and were tied to the Sugar Bowl. The Bowl committee did not let them out of the agreement. Even if they did, Rose Bowl would have never picked Georgia because they like to preserve the traditional Big Ten / Pac-10 matchup.

Correction... LSU were the SEC Champs this season but they were in BCS Championship, that's how UG got in the Sugar bowl with HI.

UG never were SEC Champs this season, they didn't even win their own division. TN did and lost to LSU at the SEC Championship game.

 

[MotionMan]

Originally posted by: SSSnail
The Rose Bowl is already DIAF since they moved it from January 1st.

It is still on January 1, with two exceptions:

1. If January 1 is a Sunday, the game is moved to the 2nd;
2. If the Rose Bowl is the designated BCS Championship Game ('02 and '06).

BTW, what is wrong with tradition? I think the Rose Bowl should match up the best teams from the Pac 10 and Big 10 who are not involved in the BCS games/play-offs except for the years that it is designated as the BCS Championship Game.

MotionMan

 

[slsmnaz]

Originally posted by: MotionMan
BTW, what is wrong with tradition? I think the Rose Bowl should match up the best teams from the Pac 10 and Big 10 who are not involved in the BCS games/play-offs except for the years that it is designated as the BCS Championship Game.

MotionMan

sure got a stellar game out of that tradition this year huh?

 

[MotionMan]

Originally posted by: slsmnaz

Originally posted by: MotionMan
BTW, what is wrong with tradition? I think the Rose Bowl should match up the best teams from the Pac 10 and Big 10 who are not involved in the BCS games/play-offs except for the years that it is designated as the BCS Championship Game.

MotionMan

sure got a stellar game out of that tradition this year huh?

Every bowl game is subject to having their share of blowouts (and close games).

It is all cyclical.

MotionMan

 

[MotionMan]

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: slsmnaz

Originally posted by: MotionMan
BTW, what is wrong with tradition? I think the Rose Bowl should match up the best teams from the Pac 10 and Big 10 who are not involved in the BCS games/play-offs except for the years that it is designated as the BCS Championship Game.

MotionMan

sure got a stellar game out of that tradition this year huh?

Every bowl game is subject to having their share of blowouts (and close games).

It is all cyclical.

MotionMan

Also, what makes you think that any other system would guarantee (or even reduce the likelihood) that there would never again be a boring, blowout Rose Bowl?

MotionMan

 

[kalster]

Originally posted by: slsmnaz

Originally posted by: MotionMan
BTW, what is wrong with tradition? I think the Rose Bowl should match up the best teams from the Pac 10 and Big 10 who are not involved in the BCS games/play-offs except for the years that it is designated as the BCS Championship Game.

MotionMan

sure got a stellar game out of that tradition this year huh?

and the NC game and other big bowl games were interesting?

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: Nitemare
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.c...plus.one.ap/index.html



"Rose Bowl officials have said they are wary of any change to the BCS that would lessen the significance of their game or make it more difficult for them to line up the their traditional Big Ten-Pac-10 matchup."

The Rose Bowl isn't that significant now. The BCS has already done away with any significance they might have had in the past.
Now, they're only significant to the two teams' fans that play there, or when they host the BCS championship. Otherwise, they're just another big bowl.

And they should have invited Georgia to play USC this year.

 

[dudeman007]

I love the rose bowl as I've grown up beside it the majority of my life and been to many games too. That aside I think the whole nonsense concerning Big10 v Pac10 games is stupid. It's hardly a very beneficial tradition in my opinion. If they open it up to more conferences surely the bowl can only get bigger. It's nice to have local teams like USC come play there every year, but what would be so bad about letting a few outsiders in?

 

[sciencewhiz]

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: SSSnail
The Rose Bowl is already DIAF since they moved it from January 1st.

It is still on January 1, with two exceptions:

1. If January 1 is a Sunday, the game is moved to the 2nd;
2. If the Rose Bowl is the designated BCS Championship Game ('02 and '06).

BTW, what is wrong with tradition? I think the Rose Bowl should match up the best teams from the Pac 10 and Big 10 who are not involved in the BCS games/play-offs except for the years that it is designated as the BCS Championship Game.

MotionMan

#1 has always applied, and #2 no longer applies, now that there is a separate BCS Championship game

 

[MotionMan]

Originally posted by: sciencewhiz

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: SSSnail
The Rose Bowl is already DIAF since they moved it from January 1st.

It is still on January 1, with two exceptions:

1. If January 1 is a Sunday, the game is moved to the 2nd;
2. If the Rose Bowl is the designated BCS Championship Game ('02 and '06).

BTW, what is wrong with tradition? I think the Rose Bowl should match up the best teams from the Pac 10 and Big 10 who are not involved in the BCS games/play-offs except for the years that it is designated as the BCS Championship Game.

MotionMan

#1 has always applied, and #2 no longer applies, now that there is a separate BCS Championship game

True.

MotionMan

 

[BrokenVisage]

It's great USC can just play their bowl game at home when they do good, how convenient for them.

 

[sciencewhiz]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
The Rose Bowl isn't that significant now. The BCS has already done away with any significance they might have had in the past.
Now, they're only significant to the two teams' fans that play there, or when they host the BCS championship. Otherwise, they're just another big bowl.

The Rose bowl has had the 4 highest ratings of any non-championship game in the BCS era. All 4 of those have been traditional Pac 10 Big 10 matchups. When they have non traditional matchups, their ratings are in line with any other BCS bowl.

Based on that, I think they rightly believe that a traditional Rose Bowl still has significance.

 

[chuckywang]

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: SSSnail
The Rose Bowl is already DIAF since they moved it from January 1st.

It is still on January 1, with two exceptions:

1. If January 1 is a Sunday, the game is moved to the 2nd;
2. If the Rose Bowl is the designated BCS Championship Game ('02 and '06).

BTW, what is wrong with tradition? I think the Rose Bowl should match up the best teams from the Pac 10 and Big 10 who are not involved in the BCS games/play-offs except for the years that it is designated as the BCS Championship Game.

MotionMan

(2) will never happen as their is a separate BCS National Championship Game now.

 

[MotionMan]

Originally posted by: chuckywang

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: SSSnail
The Rose Bowl is already DIAF since they moved it from January 1st.

It is still on January 1, with two exceptions:

1. If January 1 is a Sunday, the game is moved to the 2nd;
2. If the Rose Bowl is the designated BCS Championship Game ('02 and '06).

BTW, what is wrong with tradition? I think the Rose Bowl should match up the best teams from the Pac 10 and Big 10 who are not involved in the BCS games/play-offs except for the years that it is designated as the BCS Championship Game.

MotionMan

(2) will never happen as their is a separate BCS National Championship Game now.

True.

But for the sake of accuracy, it still belongs on the list (you know how some people can nitpick on ATOT).

MotionMan