Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

Pac-12 passes rule that 5-7 teams can't go to bowl game

ahoelsken said:
We're falling farther and farther behind in terms of revenue.......so let's pass a silly rule that costs us money. That makes about as much sense as starting half your football games at 10pm ET. Larry Scott probably came up with this one too.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure 5-7 bowl teams really make much money from those games, so the financial aspect is whatever. It's the self-imposed ban on extra practices and exposure that is the real issue.
 
I wish the NCAA would require a winning record to be bowl eligible (7-5). There are too many bowls and it would make it worthwhile for the fans, many of whom see no value in most of the bowl games today.

But, a conference making their own rule is stupid.
 
For everything that is wrong with the Pac 12, I can't for the life of me understand why this got thrown to the front? There is not one good reason to do this.
 
goalline said:
I wish the NCAA would require a winning record to be bowl eligible (7-5). There are too many bowls and it would make it worthwhile for the fans, many of whom see no value in most of the bowl games today.

But, a conference making their own rule is stupid.
Click to expand...

Disagree with that-The New Mexico State story from last year is proof there aren't too many of these games-look at what a victory in the only bowl game they could afford to go to (I remember hearing them saying we can only afford to accept an invite to the Arizona Bowl) meant to those people.
 
TSchekler said:
I'm not sure 5-7 bowl teams really make much money from those games, so the financial aspect is whatever. It's the self-imposed ban on extra practices and exposure that is the real issue.
Click to expand...

Its not the money itself as much as it is the optics here..........We're the same conference who lost 7 of the 8 bowl games we played-This is more fuel to the fire for people like me who think Larry Scott is an idiot.
 
Last edited:
ahoelsken said:
Disagree with that-The New Mexico State story from last year is proof there aren't too many of these games-look at what a victory in the only bowl game they could afford to go to (I remember hearing them saying we can only afford to accept an invite to the Arizona Bowl) meant to those people.
Click to expand...
Yep. Though I'd put it a bit differently. The market's appetite for bowl games is equal to the number of bowl games we have. If these games and stories didn't interest us enough for them to be profitable, they wouldn't exist.

Similarly, in basketball I see people arguing about how the NCAA tournament is too many teams every time it increases. Yet we have an appetite as the MBB consumer for a 32-team NIT plus the CBI and CIT tourneys.

We, as sports entertainment consumers, are the ones who have decided that we want over half the D1 teams playing in the post-season. ESPN isn't starting or buying new bowl games because their mission is to lose money trying to force something we don't want upon us.
 
Buffnik said:
Yep. Though I'd put it a bit differently. The market's appetite for bowl games is equal to the number of bowl games we have. If these games and stories didn't interest us enough for them to be profitable, they wouldn't exist.

Similarly, in basketball I see people arguing about how the NCAA tournament is too many teams every time it increases. Yet we have an appetite as the MBB consumer for a 32-team NIT plus the CBI and CIT tourneys.

We, as sports entertainment consumers, are the ones who have decided that we want over half the D1 teams playing in the post-season. ESPN isn't starting or buying new bowl games because their mission is to lose money trying to force something we don't want upon us.
Click to expand...

Yeah-look at how big a deal UNC's CIT run was for Greeley as a city......I know they sold the championship game out, and I think they sold the semifinal out as well.
 
Does anybody know why they made this decision? I did not see a reason in the article.
 
CUFan said:
Does anybody know why they made this decision? I did not see a reason in the article.
Click to expand...
It is a decision that makes a lot of sense in terms of the message it sends about too many bowl games and the principle that a team with a losing season should not be rewarded with post season play but absoloutely a huge mistake not getting the other power 5 conferences to do the same thing. The thing is that there are a certain amount of bowl games every year so you can't just cancel 2-3 of them because not enough teams become bowl eligible.
 
If you are someone who thinks there are too many bowl games, then don’t watch the bowl games.
 
FM-Buff said:
If you are someone who thinks there are too many bowl games, then don’t watch the bowl games.
Click to expand...
Trust me, I love bowl games and watch as many as I can but I can see the other side of the argument that these teams that go below .500 should not be rewarded for doing so, especially when some of these schools are absolute garbage institutions academically that inflate their APR scores.
 
The NCAA is becoming like MLB...the haves and have nots. One remedy is to allow all teams to practice post-season...not just bowl teams.

And for a conference with such academic elites as Stanford and Berkeley...this is dummmm.
 
Buffnik said:
Yep. Though I'd put it a bit differently. The market's appetite for bowl games is equal to the number of bowl games we have. If these games and stories didn't interest us enough for them to be profitable, they wouldn't exist.

Similarly, in basketball I see people arguing about how the NCAA tournament is too many teams every time it increases. Yet we have an appetite as the MBB consumer for a 32-team NIT plus the CBI and CIT tourneys.

We, as sports entertainment consumers, are the ones who have decided that we want over half the D1 teams playing in the post-season. ESPN isn't starting or buying new bowl games because their mission is to lose money trying to force something we don't want upon us.
Click to expand...
Your correlation between the lower level bowls and the NCAA tourney doesn't hold up. ratings for the first weekend of Madness are very high, ratings for low level bowl games are close to non-existent. The market doesn't want these games, special interests do.
 
SuperiorBuff said:
Your correlation between the lower level bowls and the NCAA tourney doesn't hold up. ratings for the first weekend of Madness are very high, ratings for low level bowl games are close to non-existent. The market doesn't want these games, special interests do.
Click to expand...
I was more comparing the low tier bowls with the CBI and CIT tourneys.

Special interests? People are making money. Communities are benefiting, college programs see value in playing, and enough people watch to justify a significant investment from ESPN. Do you dispute that and believe there are forces from outside the market that result in these bowl game existing?
 
Buffnik said:
I was more comparing the low tier bowls with the CBI and CIT tourneys.

Special interests? People are making money. Communities are benefiting, college programs see value in playing, and enough people watch to justify a significant investment from ESPN. Do you dispute that and believe there are forces from outside the market that result in these bowl game existing?
Click to expand...
Special interests, i.e. the city providing a bowl game for the local team. Advertising sponsors throwing money into that pot , exacerbating the Who Cares bowls. Yes, I absolutely believe that external factors driving this, outside of the NCAA and conferences. If they must exist, put 2 G5 teams with good records against each other, not a dog butt 5-7 P5 team.
 
SuperiorBuff said:
Special interests, i.e. the city providing a bowl game for the local team. Advertising sponsors throwing money into that pot , exacerbating the Who Cares bowls. Yes, I absolutely believe that external factors driving this, outside of the NCAA and conferences. If they must exist, put 2 G5 teams with good records against each other, not a dog butt 5-7 P5 team.
Click to expand...
The 5-7 teams only become eligible once there aren't any more bowl eligible 6-6 teams left. So G5 teams with good records are in before a 5-7 P5 team already.

And, sure, advertising sponsors and host cities want these bowls. Only because it makes money for them. Companies don't advertise as a charitable enterprise. They expect it to have a payoff in increased brand awareness and sales. Cities don't host events with the accompanying disruption and costs for policing and whatnot unless there's a payoff for the city through tourist revenues and, again, brand awareness leading to more visitors coming from that bowl partnership. These are very much market forces.

I think your argument is that the expansion to the number of bowls isn't driven purely by certain market forces on which you are focusing.
 
Buffnik said:
The 5-7 teams only become eligible once there aren't any more bowl eligible 6-6 teams left. So G5 teams with good records are in before a 5-7 P5 team already.

And, sure, advertising sponsors and host cities want these bowls. Only because it makes money for them. Companies don't advertise as a charitable enterprise. They expect it to have a payoff in increased brand awareness and sales. Cities don't host events with the accompanying disruption and costs for policing and whatnot unless there's a payoff for the city through tourist revenues and, again, brand awareness leading to more visitors coming from that bowl partnership. These are very much market forces.

I think your argument is that the expansion to the number of bowls isn't driven purely by certain market forces on which you are focusing.
Click to expand...
My focus is that outside interests should not trump the requirement for teams having a non-losing record. The NCAA needs to put bowl game organizers on notice that they may have to cancel games some years.
 
SuperiorBuff said:
My focus is that outside interests should not trump the requirement for teams having a non-losing record. The NCAA needs to put bowl game organizers on notice that they may have to cancel games some years.
Click to expand...
I'd be fine with that.

I also think that all programs should have December practices that can be used whether or not the team is preparing for a bowl game.
 
Buffnik said:
I'd be fine with that.

I also think that all programs should have December practices that can be used whether or not the team is preparing for a bowl game.
Click to expand...
I disagree with the second part, extra practices are part of the reward for a successful season. Fans didn't care about other teams not getting the extra practices when the Buffs were rolling. It comes across as sour grapes.
 
SuperiorBuff said:
I disagree with the second part, extra practices are part of the reward for a successful season. Fans didn't care about other teams not getting the extra practices when the Buffs were rolling. It comes across as sour grapes.
Click to expand...
They do it in basketball. Doesn't hurt anything. Seems to me that if all of college football is under one set of rules that the number of practices should be the same for the scholarship athletes at every program.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top