Proposals to End Meaningless, Boring, Poorly Attended Bowl Games

[mikegriffith1]

If you've watched any of these silly, minor/obscure bowl games involving teams with mediocre records (6-6, 5-7), you've noticed that in many cases the stadiums have been half empty or worse. A few of them have looked like the stadiums had less than 1/3 of the seats occupied. The TV ratings for those games have been quite low, with several of them attracting fewer than 2 million viewers, and with some of them attracting fewer than 1 million viewers (LINK).

Here are four proposals that would end the mediocre bowl games and would improve the overall quality of the bowl games:

-- Require that a team must have a winning record to be eligible for a bowl game--not just a .500 record, much less a sub-.500 record, but a winning record (7-5, 8-4, etc.).

Most people have zero interest in who wins in a bowl game between a 6-6 team and 7-5 team, or between two 6-6 teams. But, a game between two 7-5 teams, or between a 7-5 team and an 8-4 team, or between an 8-4 team and a 9-3 team, has some appeal.

-- Prohibit players from opting out of bowl games.

-- If a bowl game draws fewer than 1 million viewers for two years in a row, cancel it.

-- If a bowl game does not fill at least 50% of the seats in the stadium for two years in a row, cancel it.

 

[Votto]

If you've watched any of these silly, minor/obscure bowl games involving teams with mediocre records (6-6, 5-7), you've noticed that in many cases the stadiums have been half empty or worse. A few of them have looked like the stadiums had less than 1/3 of the seats occupied. The TV ratings for those games have been low, with several of them attracting fewer than 2 million viewers, and with some of them attracting fewer than 1 million viewers (LINK).

Here are four proposals that would end the mediocre bowl games and would improve the overall quality of the bowl games:

-- Require that a team must have a winning record to be eligible for a bowl game--not just a .500 record, much less a 5-7 record, but a winning record (7-5, 8-4, etc.).

-- Prohibit players from opting out of bowl games.

-- If a bowl game draws fewer than 1 million viewers for two years in a row, cancel it.

-- If a bowl game does not fill at least 50% of the seats in the stadium for two years in a row, cancel it.

It won't work

The Playoff system they adopted killed all other bowl games.

The only way it works is, if it becomes a March Madness type of bowl system. You would have the subpar teams play each other and the winner of them all gets to go to the big dance.

 

[frigidweirdo]

If you've watched any of these silly, minor/obscure bowl games involving teams with mediocre records (6-6, 5-7), you've noticed that in many cases the stadiums have been half empty or worse. A few of them have looked like the stadiums had less than 1/3 of the seats occupied. The TV ratings for those games have been low, with several of them attracting fewer than 2 million viewers, and with some of them attracting fewer than 1 million viewers (LINK).

Here are four proposals that would end the mediocre bowl games and would improve the overall quality of the bowl games:

-- Require that a team must have a winning record to be eligible for a bowl game--not just a .500 record, much less a 5-7 record, but a winning record (7-5, 8-4, etc.).

-- Prohibit players from opting out of bowl games.

-- If a bowl game draws fewer than 1 million viewers for two years in a row, cancel it.

-- If a bowl game does not fill at least 50% of the seats in the stadium for two years in a row, cancel it.

How about just have the sport be interesting. People are watching soccer... because it's interesting.

 

[mikegriffith1]

It won't work

The Playoff system they adopted killed all other bowl games.

The only way it works is, if it becomes a March Madness type of bowl system. You would have the subpar teams play each other and the winner of them all gets to go to the big dance.

Well, no, that's just not true. Some of the non-CFP bowl games have done quite well, both in attendance and in ratings. For example, the Alama Bowl last night, between BYU and Colorado, drew a packed a stadium and over 5 million viewers.

 

[Harry Dresden]

How about just have the sport be interesting. People are watching soccer... because it's interesting.

it is?.....

 

[rightwinger]

If you've watched any of these silly, minor/obscure bowl games involving teams with mediocre records (6-6, 5-7), you've noticed that in many cases the stadiums have been half empty or worse. A few of them have looked like the stadiums had less than 1/3 of the seats occupied. The TV ratings for those games have been quite low, with several of them attracting fewer than 2 million viewers, and with some of them attracting fewer than 1 million viewers (LINK).

Here are four proposals that would end the mediocre bowl games and would improve the overall quality of the bowl games:

-- Require that a team must have a winning record to be eligible for a bowl game--not just a .500 record, much less a sub-.500 record, but a winning record (7-5, 8-4, etc.).

Most people have zero interest in who wins in a bowl game between a 6-6 team and 7-5 team, or between two 6-6 teams. But, a game between two 7-5 teams, or between a 7-5 team and an 8-4 team, or between an 8-4 team and a 9-3 team, has some appeal.

-- Prohibit players from opting out of bowl games.

-- If a bowl game draws fewer than 1 million viewers for two years in a row, cancel it.

-- If a bowl game does not fill at least 50% of the seats in the stadium for two years in a row, cancel it.

Most of these schools do not have the rabid fan base of an Alabama or Notre Dame. They barely attend their own home games.

These fans are not going to travel half way around the country to watch their team play a 6-6 team from an obscure conference.
Local fans near the Bowl Game have no interest in a 7-5 team from the MAC playing a 6-6 team from the WAC

The college football playoffs have taken the steam away from other bowls that are meaningless exhibitions

 

[rightwinger]

Well, no, that's just not true. Some of the non-CFP bowl games have done quite well, both in attendance and in ratings. For example, the Alama Bowl last night, between BYU and Colorado, drew a packed a stadium and over 5 million viewers.

The Alamo Bowl featured two ranked teams and a Colorado team with a Heisman Trophy winner, Deion Sanders and his son who will be a top draft pick.
BYU is the Notre Dame for Mormons

 

[jbrownson0831]

Well, no, that's just not true. Some of the non-CFP bowl games have done quite well, both in attendance and in ratings. For example, the Alama Bowl last night, between BYU and Colorado, drew a packed a stadium and over 5 million viewers.

...and it was a tremendous game.

 

[wamose]

I think players opting out is the biggest problem. Take Penn State. The coaches and players are always talking about how much they appreciate the fans. Then they get invited to a bowl game. The fans have to make travel and lodging arrangements at highly inflated prices because of the short notice. Then they have to do those electronic phone tickets which are total bullshit. And then about 3 days before the game, the players (who love the fans so much) start opting out. By game time, 8 or 9 players are out. They wait because if the school doesn't sell out, that bowl will be reluctant to invite them again. So, they rip off their fans (who they love so much) so they can make their team look more desirable to bowl committees. The bottom line is, fans are insulted by their team's exploitation of them. Fuck bowl games. I've been to 40 of them and I'll never go again. TV is fine

 

[Polishprince]

The Alamo Bowl featured two ranked teams and a Colorado team with a Heisman Trophy winner, Deion Sanders and his son who will be a top draft pick.
BYU is the Notre Dame for Mormons

I don't think so. I am not a member of the Mormon religion and never have been.

But I don't think that Brigham Young holds the same position in Mormonism that the Blessed Virgin has in Catholicism.

 

[rightwinger]

I don't think so. I am not a member of the Mormon religion and never have been.

But I don't think that Brigham Young holds the same position in Mormonism that the Blessed Virgin has in Catholicism.

Sorry but Brigham Young would kick the Virgin Mary’s ass in a football game

 

[Auld Phart]

If you've watched any of these silly, minor/obscure bowl games involving teams with mediocre records (6-6, 5-7), you've noticed that in many cases the stadiums have been half empty or worse. A few of them have looked like the stadiums had less than 1/3 of the seats occupied. The TV ratings for those games have been quite low, with several of them attracting fewer than 2 million viewers, and with some of them attracting fewer than 1 million viewers (LINK).

Here are four proposals that would end the mediocre bowl games and would improve the overall quality of the bowl games:

-- Require that a team must have a winning record to be eligible for a bowl game--not just a .500 record, much less a sub-.500 record, but a winning record (7-5, 8-4, etc.).

Most people have zero interest in who wins in a bowl game between a 6-6 team and 7-5 team, or between two 6-6 teams. But, a game between two 7-5 teams, or between a 7-5 team and an 8-4 team, or between an 8-4 team and a 9-3 team, has some appeal.

-- Prohibit players from opting out of bowl games.

-- If a bowl game draws fewer than 1 million viewers for two years in a row, cancel it.

-- If a bowl game does not fill at least 50% of the seats in the stadium for two years in a row, cancel it.

if you want to stop watching poorly Attended bowl games....

 

[Sunni Man]

How about just have the sport be interesting. People are watching soccer... because it's interesting.

Soccer is 2 minutes of action packed into 1 hour.

 

[Mac-7]

If you've watched any of these silly, minor/obscure bowl games involving teams with mediocre records (6-6, 5-7), you've noticed that in many cases the stadiums have been half empty or worse. A few of them have looked like the stadiums had less than 1/3 of the seats occupied. The TV ratings for those games have been quite low, with several of them attracting fewer than 2 million viewers, and with some of them attracting fewer than 1 million viewers (LINK).

Here are four proposals that would end the mediocre bowl games and would improve the overall quality of the bowl games:

-- Require that a team must have a winning record to be eligible for a bowl game--not just a .500 record, much less a sub-.500 record, but a winning record (7-5, 8-4, etc.).

Most people have zero interest in who wins in a bowl game between a 6-6 team and 7-5 team, or between two 6-6 teams. But, a game between two 7-5 teams, or between a 7-5 team and an 8-4 team, or between an 8-4 team and a 9-3 team, has some appeal.

-- Prohibit players from opting out of bowl games.

-- If a bowl game draws fewer than 1 million viewers for two years in a row, cancel it.

-- If a bowl game does not fill at least 50% of the seats in the stadium for two years in a row, cancel it.

Are you a college football fan?

Or just a TV sports junkie?

The bowl games are a reward for teams, players, and fans for a season well done

 

[rightwinger]

Are you a college football fan?

Or just a TV sports junkie?

The bowl games are a reward for teams, players, and fans for a season well done

Your reward is getting to play another mediocre team in a meaningless game.
You don’t even get bragging rights for beating a 6-6 team

 

[Mac-7]

Your reward is getting to play another mediocre team in a meaningless game.

Meaningless to you because you are just a bored TV sports junkie

But not to the fans and players of those teams

 

[mikegriffith1]

Most of these schools do not have the rabid fan base of an Alabama or Notre Dame. They barely attend their own home games.

These fans are not going to travel half way around the country to watch their team play a 6-6 team from an obscure conference.
Local fans near the Bowl Game have no interest in a 7-5 team from the MAC playing a 6-6 team from the WAC

The college football playoffs have taken the steam away from other bowls that are meaningless exhibitions

Yes, all of which reinforces my point about the need to end those bowl games. Some of the non-CFP bowl games are still appealing, feature interesting matchups, and draw big crowds and good TV ratings, but many of them are not and do not.

 

[rightwinger]

Meaningless to you because you are just a bored TV sports junkie

But not to the fans and players of those teams

My team plays in the MAC and have a bowl game against Liberty

They had bigger games in early season non conference games

I will watch but would not pay to see the game

 

[Mac-7]

My team plays in the MAC and have a bowl game against Liberty

They had bigger games in early season non conference games

I will watch but would not pay to see the game

Thats your choice

Other real fans often buy tickets and travel to the game

Often returning home with memories that last a lifetime

 

[mikegriffith1]

Your reward is getting to play another mediocre team in a meaningless game.

Mac-7:
Meaningless to you because you are just a bored TV sports junkie

But not to the fans and players of those teams.

Many of the players on those teams opt out of those bowl games. Few of the fans of those teams bother to travel far to see them play, precisely because they are playing another mediocre team in an obscure, low-rating bowl game.

The plain fact of the matter is that the majority of the non-CFP bowl games are a waste of time--they draw small crowds and get poor TV ratings year after year.