^^^^^ that's the biggest thing with me, the extra practice.
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
- Thread starter JOEinDenver
- Start date
SuperiorBuff
Well-Known Member
I think you will find an increase in injuries due to mental letdowns. Who wants to practice that close after the season with no game in site. Going through the motions increases the likelihood of injuries. I would be more willing to accept an additional 2 weeks of spring ball for non-bowl teams, if anything.
That's on the coaches to structure things in a way that's meaningful. Also, this isn't intramurals. Guys who want to win a starting job for next season and who want to have a good season next year will not half ass things. If a culture of half assign things is the case in a program it's time to fire the coach.
SuperiorBuff
Well-Known Member
Then it should be used in the spring. December practices should be for bowl games.
CUFan
Welcome back
I guess I meant if anyone has seen a reason why the PAC decided to do this. If it is just a concern over a reward for a losing schedule, that doesn't seem like much of a reason. Maybe the decision is because for those lower end bowl games it sometimes ends up costing the school to attend? I don't know. It just seems like a silly rule without a solid reason.
Less college football is a terrible idea. Every team should get an additional "post-season" game and the practice that comes with it. Top teams go to playoffs, winning teams go to bowls, and the rest play each other at someone's home field.
More games, fairer practice opportunities, and more football. Win win win.
More games, fairer practice opportunities, and more football. Win win win.
ahoelsken
Well-Known Member
I know there's a lot of demand for the sport........but even I probably wouldn't watch the pillow fight between Kansas and Oregon State under that scenario.
Wilner's newsletter had a bunch of interesting stuff on the topic today.
He disagreed with the decision and talked about it being a bad look and something that was "fixing a busted tail light when the engine is broken" for the Pac-12. But he also brought in some interesting stuff on why the Pac-12 made this decision, which was driven from the campus level.
The early-signing window, which has quickly became the primary signing window, falls on or about Dec. 20. This creates a significant conflict for coaches trying to prepare for the early bowl games.
What’s more, the teams that would be affected by the new postseason policy — the 5-7 teams — will either have just completed a coaching change, be smack in the middle of a coaching change, or desperately trying to lock down a quality recruiting class in the early-signing window.
Hauling that five-win team across the country for a meaningless, money-losing postseason experience probably won’t be atop the priority list.
And yes, the economics are absolutely a piece of the conference’s calculation: For 5-7 teams, the bowl game is likely to be a money loser because of poor ticket sales, high travel costs and the bonus paid to the head coach for qualifying for a bowl game -- yep, even though he had a losing season. They all get postseason bonuses.
So we’re left with an experience that doesn’t make sense economically (money loser) or competitively (recruiting should be the priority), that doesn’t energize fans or showcase a quality product.
And best of all, he's got some quotes from Mike Leach:
Washington State coach Mike Leach called it “a solution in search of a problem.”
“Why should we limit opportunities when other conferences aren’t?’’ Leach added.
He disagreed with the decision and talked about it being a bad look and something that was "fixing a busted tail light when the engine is broken" for the Pac-12. But he also brought in some interesting stuff on why the Pac-12 made this decision, which was driven from the campus level.
The early-signing window, which has quickly became the primary signing window, falls on or about Dec. 20. This creates a significant conflict for coaches trying to prepare for the early bowl games.
What’s more, the teams that would be affected by the new postseason policy — the 5-7 teams — will either have just completed a coaching change, be smack in the middle of a coaching change, or desperately trying to lock down a quality recruiting class in the early-signing window.
Hauling that five-win team across the country for a meaningless, money-losing postseason experience probably won’t be atop the priority list.
And yes, the economics are absolutely a piece of the conference’s calculation: For 5-7 teams, the bowl game is likely to be a money loser because of poor ticket sales, high travel costs and the bonus paid to the head coach for qualifying for a bowl game -- yep, even though he had a losing season. They all get postseason bonuses.
So we’re left with an experience that doesn’t make sense economically (money loser) or competitively (recruiting should be the priority), that doesn’t energize fans or showcase a quality product.
And best of all, he's got some quotes from Mike Leach:
Washington State coach Mike Leach called it “a solution in search of a problem.”
“Why should we limit opportunities when other conferences aren’t?’’ Leach added.
ahoelsken
Well-Known Member
If the early signing period is an issue.......why not look to replace the Vegas bowl tie-in (I think that's the only pre-Christmas game we're tied into) with pretty much anything after Dec. 25? Doesn't necessarily have to be in TX or FL.......I'd jump on a game like the Music City Bowl if we could a deal done with that game. Our bowl tie-ins are marginal right now.
Or move the Vegas Bowl to New Year's Eve.
SerenityBuff
Well-Known Member
I think the conference is trying to get more Vegas, not less Vegas. Which is why it would not surprise me if UNLV is a big part of the expansion talks, especially with that new stadium.
You mean a coach who has a vested interest in bowl game bonuses is against this move? Knock me over with a feather.
ahoelsken
Well-Known Member
Changing the TV partner would work too-FOX and CBS could pretty much take it and put wherever they want it. The two bowls that FOX owns tv rights for (the game formerly known as the Foster Farms Bowl and the Holiday Bowl) are both on New Years Eve. I'm also not sure why you can't play the non-playoff New Year's Six games similar to the way the BCS did.......One game per night on the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th. ESPN would probably draw higher ratings doing it that way.......I liked being able to come home from work on those nights and be able to watch a bowl game featuring two big time programs. That would allow the the Saturday the week before Christmas to be exclusively for the Group of 5, which wouldn't be bad for those teams. Call it the week 0 of bowl season.
No, but I'd have liked to see CU play someone like, say, Florida or Arkansas or Nebraska at Folsom.
I'd like to see it set up like September callups in baseball, so young guys can play without losing redshirts, and seniors or guys heading to the NFL don't need to play (like most bowls are trending anyway). A fun way to get a start on the next season. All upside.
Sounds like a recipe for terrible football.
JCOLE12010
Well-Known Member
there's a 4th ??!! college basketball tourney??!! What ?!?!
IMO, teams that go to bowl games who finish 5-7 just dumb's down the bowl season and won't impress a 4 or 5 star high school football player trying to decide where to play, any more than a school that finished 6-6. 7-5 should be the bar even if it means fewer bowl games. Since it's all about the $$$, it will never happen.
But telling a 4 or 5 star recruit you have been to bowls 10 straight years when you are coming off a 7-5 season may impress them when they have no idea 7 of those bowls you attended, you did so after 6-6 seasons and another one after a 5-7 season.
Sometimes, pride does matter.
Two thirds of college football will play in the postseason in 2020. That inevitably means more 5-7 teams will be invited, but not the Pac 12. Yay!
And given the choice between watching The Chigago Hotdog Bowl or going Christmas shopping with my in-laws, I can tell you what I'll be doing.
jizzrag85
Well-Known Member
There was absolutely no reason to do this if none of the other conferences aren’t. My only thought is we were thoroughly embarrassed last year and this is a way to keep underachieving teams out of the postseason. I just don’t get why you would handicap yourself. The SEC will eat up every bowl it can and brag about it later regardless of record.
The babysitter?
Our babysitter is a plump, middle aged Hispanic lady, but I suppose that didn't stop Arnold Schwarzenegger.
The reason was mostly financial.
Pac-12 members lose money going to a minor bowl with a 5-7 team. Fan's don't buy the mandatory allotment of tickets for that. Travel is expensive. Entire coaching staff earns a bonus for making a bowl game -- and there's an even chance the school is firing them for going 5-7. This was initiated from the campuses, not from the league offices. The athletic departments in the Pac-12 wanted this rule change.