Should 6-6 Teams get a Bowl Bid?

[WPSportsman1]

I may be missing the point, but aren't all of the sponsorships and all of the profits that these bowl games make a testament to the popularity of college football? Isn't that a good thing? We live in a capitalist society for goodness sakes. If a team goes 6-6, let them play in some crappy bowl and get some more practices in. In many cases it means a fun trip over Christmas break for kids that otherwise could not have afforded the to go on a vacation.

The lesser bowls are meaningless anyway, I think it's a good thing to have as many bowls as possible, it means more football. Not to mention we get to watch teams that we would never get to see otherwise.

Maybe I'm just a capitalist pig, but I don't think that making money is evil.

Let the market dictate how many bowls there are. If the money dries up as we are likely heading into a recession...trim the bowls that aren't making money.

Couldn't agree more. Its more football to watch and the market dictates it so let it be. I love watching these games, for me it makes the holiday season. I would have went to the whatever bowl if we were in it at 6-6. Go Hogs! and Go Football!.

[WarEagle]

No, a 6-6 team should NOT get a bowl invitation.  There are too many bowls and they don't mean nearly as much as they used to.  They should be a reward for a good season.  6-6 is not good.  In fact, at 6-6 if you lose the bowl game you end the year with a LOSING record.

If the teams play 11 games, I guess six wins is acceptable (6-5).  If we are going to have a 12 game regular season, you should have to be 7-5 to get in.  That way, even if you lose, you won't have a losing season.

[nebhog70]

Teams need 12 games for the $$$$$ --- rent a victims

Bowls need 6-6 teams in order to fill the 68 slots for the 34 bowls!

[rzrbaxfan]

It's not a matter of if they deserve it, its more a matter of their being too many bowls.  If 6-6 teams didn't go to a bowl, there would be 5-6 bowls that would have to cancel for not having 2 teams to play each other.

There are too many bowls on both ends of the spectrum.  Too many on the bottom end and the 6-6 teams are in.  Too many on the BCS end and we get lousy matchups like Hawaii/Ga or Ill/USC etc.  Get ready for more of those. We'll get a good national title game, but I only see at best one other BCS bowl worth watching.

[WPSportsman1]

Ya know if the Bowls were incorporated into a playoff it would involve less teams, and keep the same locations/names. Not sure how feasible that is.

[ErieHog]

I see your point but disagree.  It's out of hand.  But as another poster above stated, this thing is gonna die it's own death soon enough.

The bowl market continues to expand, rather than contract, even in uncertain economic times.  That says something about the commercial efficacy of college football bowls-- we haven't even seen a single bowl fail in the last 5 years, something that was much more common *before* the explosion of bowl game numbers.

[DEVIL DOG HOG]

Yes.

Roll Div I back to 96 teams, 8 conferences with 12 teams per conference. Play 11 conference games and have an 8 team play off.  Have all your bowl games and the Championship game.

[rzrbaxfan]

Yes.

Roll Div I back to 96 teams, 8 conferences with 12 teams per conference. Play 11 conference games and have an 8 team play off.  Have all your bowl games and the Championship game.

B 10 would never do it, and the teams that would have to drop to D2 wouldn't be happy....and besides, your plan makes WAY too much sense!

[Flatfoot]

Only teams with a winning record deserve a bowl bid period.  500 teams don't deserve one and if the hogs had beat Miss St. they wouldn't have deserved one.  We have too many bowls now. 

[Throwback1]

The more football games the better.

[PorkSoda]

No.  A team should have to have a winning record.  6 and 6 is not.  But these bowl games are all about money. 

I agree they are all about money.  personally I wish  you only needed 5 wins to become bowl eligible, because then we would be in.  but it doesn't really matter.  you still have to have like 8 wins and a good resume to get into a good bowl game.  The rest are just filler.

[Throwback1]

Not sure I understand why we have too many bowl games?  What is it costing any of you guys?  The more football to watch if I so choose as just a fan the better, imo.

[WilsonHog]

Not sure I understand why we have too many bowl games?  What is it costing any of you guys?  The more football to watch if I so choose as just a fan the better, imo.

Isn't the logical extension of your argument that if there were enough slots available it would be fine if a 3-9 team got a bowl game, because it would mean even more football?

[94 Hawg]

I may be missing the point, but aren't all of the sponsorships and all of the profits that these bowl games make a testament to the popularity of college football? Isn't that a good thing? We live in a capitalist society for goodness sakes. If a team goes 6-6, let them play in some crappy bowl and get some more practices in. In many cases it means a fun trip over Christmas break for kids that otherwise could not have afforded the to go on a vacation.

The lesser bowls are meaningless anyway, I think it's a good thing to have as many bowls as possible, it means more football. Not to mention we get to watch teams that we would never get to see otherwise.

Maybe I'm just a capitalist pig, but I don't think that making money is evil.

Let the market dictate how many bowls there are. If the money dries up as we are likely heading into a recession...trim the bowls that aren't making money.

"    "
the voice of reason.

[94 Hawg]

Not sure I understand why we have too many bowl games?  What is it costing any of you guys?  The more football to watch if I so choose as just a fan the better, imo.

agreed, and it begs the question; do we have too many message boards?

[The Hog]

I would be willing to accept the fact of 6 and 6 teams bowling if there were a 8 team playoff for the NC.

[Throwback1]

Wilson, I see your point, and wouldn't disagree if my perspective was the same, ie., to some extent at least a bowl game being a "reward" for a successful season;  I just figure the more football the better.  Now, would I watch a couple of 3-9 teams, probably not, but would depend on what else was on, I guess.  Regardless, it's not costing me anything and watching would be my option.  And certainly, since your original topic dealt with 6-6 teams, not 3-9 ones, I would watch some 6-6 matchups.

[kcabrozaR]

I think it takes 68 teams to fill all of the current bowls. How could you fill up all of the slots without taking 6 win teams?

[Pecos Hog]

No.   I think a team should be ABOVE 0.500 to get a bowl bid.   But, there are too many bowls these days. 

[donewithdale]

The answer is:  Yes

College football is a profitable entertainment vehicle, and there is absolutely no reason to not let as many teams play in as many bowl games as can be economically rationalized.

The only time to revisit the question is when bowls start failing financially.

Great response.  I'm all for as many bowls as possible and if it takes 6-6 to fill them all then that is fine by me.  They offer economic benefits to the host city while giving extra practices to the teams.  Nothing wrong with extra college football games.  If you don't care about the bowl, don't watch it. 

[silverhawg]

viewer stats show that most low tier bowls have low ratings..only die hards & those paricular fans watch...if this economy stays down long, I think some bowls will get shut out due to low sponosrship money...

[ErieHog]

viewer stats show that most low tier bowls have low ratings..only die hards & those paricular fans watch...if this economy stays down long, I think some bowls will get shut out due to low sponosrship money...

Actually, that's untrue; even bad TV bowls like the Sun (midweek, mid-day) regularly draw 3 to 4x the ratings of normal programing in their time slot.  The cost-to-exposure rates are highly competitive to the price of buying standard advertising.

[silverhawg]

I said low tier bowls..esp ones now shown on espn 2 & espc classic....

[demonHOG1013]

the 6 win rule was fine when teams only played 10 games, it became shaky when teams started scheduling 11 games, now that teams play 12 games no 6-6 team should play in a bowl game.  A bowl game is a reward for a good or great season.  Even after losing a bowl game the team should still have a winning record. 6-7, is not a good season and neither is 7-6 for that matter.  If there is never going to be a playoff system, I'd rather see less bowls and teams have to have 7 or 8 wins to go to a bowl.  Those are the only ones anyone watches anyway.

[ErieHog]

The Sun is not a bad bowl, its been around a long time, draws many high profile teams, and it is on New Year's Eve at 1 p.m.

The Sun is a horrible bowl;  it is consistently in the bottom 5 of TV ratings for bowl games, and has been for a decade;  it  hasn't been played on NYD since 1958, and is even earlier than NYE about a third of the time.  As far as the quality of the draw, 2 ranked teams have faced each other exactly *once* in the past 20 years-- and both participants haven't finished in the AP Top 25 since 1979.

[ErieHog]

I said low tier bowls..esp ones now shown on espn 2 & espc classic....

Those 'ESPN2' and 'ESPN Classic' bowls consistently out-draw the likes of the Sun.

Worst rated TV bowls over the past 5 years have been the Sun, the Emerald, Las Vegas, International, GMAC and  Armed Services bowls.

[silverhawg]

bottom line, as companies look to trim budgets...low priority sporting events will feel the heat

[ErieHog]

bottom line, as companies look to trim budgets...low priority sporting events will feel the heat

Those sporting events are still *much* more cost-effective than TV commercials; as long as that remains true, you'll see bowls remain resilient. 

[longtimeHogfan]

Yes.

Roll Div I back to 96 teams, 8 conferences with 12 teams per conference. Play 11 conference games and have an 8 team play off.  Have all your bowl games and the Championship game.

P.S.  ....and make the golden domer's of notre dame join a conference. 

[WilsonHog]

This one thing is all I need to know to illustrate the sorry state of college bowls - Clemson is going to a New Year's Day bowl.

Clemson.

[hogsanity]

Well, that horrible bowl, in your opinion, will be playing their 75th game this month.

But its tv ratings are bad because it is on CBS, which has few f any other bowls, so many people do not even know what channel it is on.  Plus, it is usually a 2:30pm start on a weekday.  And, Elpaso can be pretty darn cold in late Dec. 

That being said the games are usually fairly entertaing.

[ErieHog]

Well, that horrible bowl, in your opinion, will be playing their 75th game this month.

75 games between Michigan State and Purdue don't make a classic matchup-- nor does 75 mediocre years of bowl-dom.

[ErieHog]

Many other Bowl Games have come and went but the Sun Bowl usually provides a pretty competitive matchup. Maybe you prefer classic matchups like the last two BCS championship matchups. Just because a game may match up the best teams from the best conferences does always equal a classic matchup.

Yet folks are arguing that there are too many bowl games, with the logic being put out that they can't be economically justified. 

What it boils down to is people blindly whining about the 'Good Old Days' -- despite the actual history of bowls (quick question, True or False:  A higher percentage of NCAA D1 teams went to bowls in 1979 than in 2007.)