The Case for More Bowls

[WarPig88]

The final two teams actually do play for it in basketball, and have, for about 45 years.  The championship is resolved in true head to head competition-- and really has since the NCAA tournament superceded the NIT.

The bowls are a laughable comparison.  They were only exhibitions, and, if we did not have the playoff now, would still be universally exhibitions.

They have never mattered.

Your criteria was that the bowls were only relevant if they matched #1 and #2. The basketball tournament rarely does this but in your opinion is relevant. Sure sounds like a contradiction to me that only in basketball can the champion be crowned when #1 and #2 don't play but football is illegitimate when this doesn't happen.

That was your statement, not mine and it is patently wrong.

The bowls did not determine the champions until 1965. Since then, the champion could not lose their bowl game and be NC, thus making the bowl games extremely relevant.

[ErieHog]

But the fact that back then two, four and even sometimes more there were teams and their fans that could legitimately argue they were or should have been NC's, made those bowls meaningful. The other bowls were more meaningful because that gave players and schools one more time on TV they wouldn't have had otherwise unlike now when it seems like all games are on TV. The more exposure factor for players and schools are not nearly as important in lower bowls now and thus less meaningful except for the extra practices coaches love to get.

The bowls were meaningful because they let people perpetuate claims unsubstantiated by competition?

Heck-- on that logic, we need to drop the SEC, play 12 at large small conference teams, and steam roll our way to perfection on a semi-regular basis-- and then, if we're left out of the playoff process, our schedule and bowl assignment had meaning, and our claim to perfection is as good as winning a title through a playoff, right?

Meaning doesn't come from winning games that are exhibitions, that don't help resolve with direct competition, the National Champion.

[ErieHog]

Your criteria was that the bowls were only relevant if they matched #1 and #2. The basketball tournament rarely does this but in your opinion is relevant. Sure sounds like a contradiction to me that only in basketball can the champion be crowned when #1 and #2 don't play but football is illegitimate when this doesn't happen.

That was your statement, not mine and it is patently wrong.

The bowls did not determine the champions until 1965. Since then, the champion could not lose their bowl game and be NC, thus making the bowl games extremely relevant.

The basketball final *always* matches #1 and #2 based on the results of head to head competition.  Every. Single. Time.    It is always played out, and a true champion is always determined.

To say football did that from 1965, until the implementation of a 4 team playoff is an easy case of false equivalency.     One of these things does not resemble the standard of having competitive significance-- one is an actual championship, with actual competition between a large number of teams with the same claim, that eventually is resolved as contestants are pitted head to head, until one is left.  One is not.

[Inhogswetrust]

The bowls were meaningful because they let people perpetuate claims unsubstantiated by competition?

Heck-- on that logic, we need to drop the SEC, play 12 at large small conference teams, and steam roll our way to perfection on a semi-regular basis-- and then, if we're left out of the playoff process, our schedule and bowl assignment had meaning, and our claim to perfection is as good as winning a title through a playoff, right?

Meaning doesn't come from winning games that are exhibitions, that don't help resolve with direct competition, the National Championship.

There was competition Just that nothing was finalized via a playoff. Those bowls were not a playoff so ANY games played between top teams just meant the NC wasn't decided on the field and that actually made it relative and meaningful. I think that fans made them meaningful because of that "unsubstantiation". It clearly meant more fans of more teams could argue over not only who was better but who deserved the title. Anytime fans can argue over their team relative to other teams makes it meaningful to those fans.

[ErieHog]

I think that Fans made them meaningful because of that "unsubstantiation". It clearly meant more fans of more teams could argue over not only who was better but who deserved the title. Anytime fans can argue over their team relative to other teams makes it meaningful to those fans.

It does not, however, make it anything more than an exciting exhibition.  Not a measure of achievement, and most definitely not anything that resolved who was best by competition.

A useless appendage, just like the Belk Bowls of the current era.

[Inhogswetrust]

It does not, however, make it anything more than an exciting exhibition.  Not a measure of achievement, and most definitely not anything that resolved who was best by competition.

A useless appendage, just like the Belk Bowls of the current era.

Even though you are correct it was an exciting exhibition the fact remains it was relevant and meaningful because of the fans ability to argue over their teams achievement. There are things in life that do not have to be "measured" to be meaningful.

[WarPig88]

The basketball final *always* matches #1 and #2 based on the results of head to head competition.  Every. Single. Time.    It is always played out, and a true champion is always determined.

To say football did that from 1965, until the implementation of a 4 team playoff is an easy case of false equivalency.     One of these things does not resemble the standard of having competitive significance-- one is an actual championship, with actual competition between a large number of teams with the same claim, that eventually is resolved as contestants are pitted head to head, until one is left.  One is not.

To claim that a tournament is won by pitting the two top teams against one another is ridiculous. There are teams with losing records in the tournament.

I love college basketball, but claiming that the best two teams play for the championship is ridiculous. I do love the tournament determining the champion, but in football, since 1965 the champion was determined by their performance during the entire season and the bowl games.

Your argument that the bowls weren't relevant because the two best teams didn't play for the championship is incorrect. Basketball doesn't determine it's champion by pitting the two best teams playing for all the marbles either regardless of how you try claim it does.

When NC St beat Houston, that was not the two best teams playing for all the marbles. That was a huge upset. The two best teams actually played in the semi finals of that tournament when Houston played Louisville.

I watched Nebraska play Miami in the Orange Bowl. It was not a match up of 1 vs 2, yet the NC was determined in that bowl. Miami was ranked #5 going into that game.

Somehow Miami won the NC in that bowl which was irrelevant. Explain that since the bowls never mattered please.

[ErieHog]

To claim that a tournament is won by pitting the two top teams against one another is ridiculous. There are teams with losing records in the tournament.

I love college basketball, but claiming that the best two teams play for the championship is ridiculous. I do love the tournament determining the champion, but in football, since 1965 the champion was determined by their performance during the entire season and the bowl games.

Your argument that the bowls weren't relevant because the two best teams didn't play for the championship is incorrect. Basketball doesn't determine it's champion by pitting the two best teams playing for all the marbles either regardless of how you try claim it does.

When NC St beat Houston, that was not the two best teams playing for all the marbles. That was a huge upset. The two best teams actually played in the semi finals of that tournament when Houston played Louisville.

I watched Nebraska play Miami in the Orange Bowl. It was not a match up of 1 vs 2, yet the NC was determined in that bowl. Miami was ranked #5 going into that game.

Somehow Miami won the NC in that bowl which was irrelevant. Explain that since the bowls never mattered please.

I'll keep this super simple, so it can be plain as day.

Every single year in college basketball,  #1 and #2  (and #s 3- to very roughly 45,  plus a couple of dozen outliers) are given the chance to resolve, via meaningful competition-- meaning that results actually produce a champion that is determined by winning or losing the sport being played, with the vanquishers of any team with a potential title claim moving on, to face ever-reductive competition, until one team emerges that has defeated everyone in its path, and has outperformed any other team in the field, given a single equitable standard of win-or-go-home.

Football does't have anything approaching that, yet.   Even after decades of failure in trying to arrange that, the best they've been able to come up with is the 4 team tournament-- and have managed that only for a single year.

The regular season hasn't been a de facto elimination format, either-- a great many champions have had losses or ties, while having undefeated or peers of a similar record.

By the way-- the bowl was irrelevant; the National Champion didn't emerge from that exhibition-- the failure of others in their exhibitions made that a plausible claim.   If Texas or Illinois won their otherwise meaningless exhibitions, they would have had a claim to the national title that was at the very least equal to, or would have superceeded Miami's--  and those claims would have been utterly unresolvable by competition--  there was no mechanism for resolution, unlike basketball.

Bowls have always been meaningless, self-laudatory exhibitions-- exercises in chest thumping, that have done very little to give any kind of a true championship for the sport.  To claim otherwise is folly.

[ZERO]

Bowls have always been meaningless, self-laudatory exhibitions-- exercises in chest thumping, that have done very little to give any kind of a true championship for the sport.  To claim otherwise is folly.

'

I kind of hate to agree, but until 1998 when the BCSNG game actually decided the National Champion in a no-questions-asked bout of the #1 and #2 ranked teams, Bowls didn't have a specific meaning attached.

The two of you are clearly never going to come to an agreement about this, which is a line made blurry probably due to the fact that the NCAA never crowned a football champion for some odd reason, instead relying on outside media sources such as the AP to decide for them. It's never made sense that National Championships can be awarded in pieces to different teams due to different major selectors crowning their own champions. It's like the judges at a competition each handing out their own trophy, rather than coming to a collective agreement on what team was the best.

[NaturalStateReb]

That was true until 1965 but not afterward. Since then, bowls absolutely decided the championship.

That's 5 decades of bowls being important by my count.

But usually only 1 or 2 bowls, at the most.  The vast majority of bowls have always been part entertainment, part infomercial.

[WarPig88]

I'll keep this super simple, so it can be plain as day.

Every single year in college basketball,  #1 and #2  (and #s 3- to very roughly 45,  plus a couple of dozen outliers) are given the chance to resolve, via meaningful competition-- meaning that results actually produce a champion that is determined by winning or losing the sport being played, with the vanquishers of any team with a potential title claim moving on, to face ever-reductive competition, until one team emerges that has defeated everyone in its path, and has outperformed any other team in the field, given a single equitable standard of win-or-go-home.

Football does't have anything approaching that, yet.   Even after decades of failure in trying to arrange that, the best they've been able to come up with is the 4 team tournament-- and have managed that only for a single year.

The regular season hasn't been a de facto elimination format, either-- a great many champions have had losses or ties, while having undefeated or peers of a similar record.

By the way-- the bowl was irrelevant; the National Champion didn't emerge from that exhibition-- the failure of others in their exhibitions made that a plausible claim.   If Texas or Illinois won their otherwise meaningless exhibitions, they would have had a claim to the national title that was at the very least equal to, or would have superceeded Miami's--  and those claims would have been utterly unresolvable by competition--  there was no mechanism for resolution, unlike basketball.

Bowls have always been meaningless, self-laudatory exhibitions-- exercises in chest thumping, that have done very little to give any kind of a true championship for the sport.  To claim otherwise is folly.

Every year in football #1 and #2 are also given the same opportunity to resolve who is champion. It just isn't done in a tournament format.

I find it sad that as a Hog fan you are ignorant of the fact that a bowl game cost the Hogs a second national championship in 1965.

You see, the Hogs went into their bowl game undefeated and lost. #2 won their bowl game, and the Hogs did not win the national championship as a result. Sure seems like the bowl games mattered to me.

Your argument is that because basketball the top teams compete in the same format, a tournament, that a true champion is crowned. This is only one way to determine a champion.

Your assertion that bowl games are meaningless sure doesn't jibe with the FACT that they cost the Hogs a NC in 1965.

That should be easy enough for you to understand.

[hogsanity]

Every year in football #1 and #2 are also given the same opportunity to resolve who is champion. It just isn't done in a tournament format.

I find it sad that as a Hog fan you are ignorant of the fact that a bowl game cost the Hogs a second national championship in 1965.

You see, the Hogs went into their bowl game undefeated and lost. #2 won their bowl game, and the Hogs did not win the national championship as a result. Sure seems like the bowl games mattered to me.

Your argument is that because basketball the top teams compete in the same format, a tournament, that a true champion is crowned. This is only one way to determine a champion.

Your assertion that bowl games are meaningless sure doesn't jibe with the FACT that they cost the Hogs a NC in 1965.

That should be easy enough for you to understand.

No, in 1965 TWO bowl games mattered, and had the Hogs won their's then only 1 would have mattered. The rest had no bearing on anything. Jsut like now, only three bowls matter. The two that are the playoff semi-finals, and the ncg. Did the Blue Bonnet bowl matter in 1982?  The Liberty in 85, the 81 gator bowl, the sun bowl in 75?

[ErieHog]

No, in 1965 TWO bowl games mattered, and had the Hogs won their's then only 1 would have mattered. The rest had no bearing on anything. Jsut like now, only three bowls matter. The two that are the playoff semi-finals, and the ncg. Did the Blue Bonnet bowl matter in 1982?  The Liberty in 85, the 81 gator bowl, the sun bowl in 75?

The concepts you are espousing are lost on the audience.   

[WarPig88]

No, in 1965 TWO bowl games mattered, and had the Hogs won their's then only 1 would have mattered. The rest had no bearing on anything. Jsut like now, only three bowls matter. The two that are the playoff semi-finals, and the ncg. Did the Blue Bonnet bowl matter in 1982?  The Liberty in 85, the 81 gator bowl, the sun bowl in 75?

Again, what post are you responding to? Another ghost thread.

The assertion has been made that the bowls NEVER mattered. In fact they have. I have given specific examples of this.

I have never claimed that ALL bowls have ALWAYS mattered. That is just the hyperbolic attempts of you and Erie trying to evade the FACTS that the bowls have been important for at least 50 years.

It's not the same bowl every season, but that doesn't diminish the role they have played as part of the system that determined the NC before the current playoff system.

You are wrong, and exaggerating my assertions may confuse the ignorant, but doesn't change the HISTORICAL FACT that bowls have determined quite a few national champions over the last 50 years.

[hogsanity]

Again, what post are you responding to? Another ghost thread.

The assertion has been made that the bowls NEVER mattered. In fact they have. I have given specific examples of this.

I have never claimed that ALL bowls have ALWAYS mattered. That is just the hyperbolic attempts of you and Erie trying to evade the FACTS that the bowls have been important for at least 50 years.

It's not the same bowl every season, but that doesn't diminish the role they have played as part of the system that determined the NC before the current playoff system.

You are wrong, and exaggerating my assertions may confuse the ignorant, but doesn't change the HISTORICAL FACT that bowls have determined quite a few national champions over the last 50 years.

The BOWLS, plural, in total never have and never will matter.  The Blue Bonnet bowl NEVER mattered. The Hall of Fame Bowl never mattered. Gator? Tangerine? Sun? Sandiegocountycreditunionpoinsettiabowl? Cherry Bowl?

Only a handful of bowls ( Cotton, Orange, Rose, Sugar pre-bcs, and add in Fiesta post BCS ) ever saw a meaningful game as far as mnc implications. The bowls were invented to bring in tourists to warm weather climates in the winter, and then other cities jumped in when tv money came calling.

But the bowls, in general, have never mattered.

[WarPig88]

The BOWLS, plural, in total never have and never will matter.  The Blue Bonnet bowl NEVER mattered. The Hall of Fame Bowl never mattered. Gator? Tangerine? Sun? Sandiegocountycreditunionpoinsettiabowl? Cherry Bowl?

Only a handful of bowls ( Cotton, Orange, Rose, Sugar pre-bcs, and add in Fiesta post BCS ) ever saw a meaningful game as far as mnc implications. The bowls were invented to bring in tourists to warm weather climates in the winter, and then other cities jumped in when tv money came calling.

But the bowls, in general, have never mattered.

The bowls has to be plural because it has been more than ONE bowl that has determined the NC. This does not imply that ALL bowls have mattered however.

Again, your efforts to confuse the facts are laughable.

The elephant in the room that both you and Erie are avoiding is the fact that the bowls have allowed programs to gain extra practices for developing their younger players for DECADES as well and as such have had an importance BEYOND mere title implications.

It used to be a reward for high achieving programs but with the expansion of bowls is now being extended to programs with losing records.

But please, carry on.

[hogsanity]

The elephant in the room that both you and Erie are avoiding is the fact that the bowls have allowed programs to gain extra practices for developing their younger players for DECADES as well and as such have had an importance BEYOND mere title implications.

That is a different conversation. I never said the extra practices do not matter to those teams, that is not what I was referring to. I was speaking to national polls and now playoff implications.

[WarPig88]

That is a different conversation. I never said the extra practices do not matter to those teams, that is not what I was referring to. I was speaking to national polls and now playoff implications.

I think that in terms of determining the champion, the bowls are worthless today and have been defanged since the formation of the BCS.

Prior to that, it is ludicrous to even try to argue that the bowls were merely "an exhibition" that had zero bearing on the NC.

The bowls have never been about rewarding poor teams until recently when the focus has shifted to money and away from football itself. But the claim that money has always been the impetus behind the bowls is false as well.

Most schools LOSE money on bowl games. So why are they participating if that is the driving force behind them?

[hogsanity]

I think that in terms of determining the champion, the bowls are worthless today and have been defanged since the formation of the BCS.

Prior to that, it is ludicrous to even try to argue that the bowls were merely "an exhibition" that had zero bearing on the NC.

The bowls have never been about rewarding poor teams until recently when the focus has shifted to money and away from football itself. But the claim that money has always been the impetus behind the bowls is false as well.

Most schools LOSE money on bowl games. So why are they participating if that is the driving force behind them?

Again, at most one or two bowls had meaning each year.

I did not say money for the schools, I said money for the cities when bowls started, then money for tv as well.

It is like the recent motor cycle rally held here in FS. The people who came in on their bikes lost money, because they had to spend it to come here. The businesses downtown made money because they took in what was being spent.