A modest proposal to eliminate 15 bowl games and send their mediocre teams home for the holidays

by fanoverboard on Dec 7, 2011 12:34 PM CST

You can argue somewhere else about whether Alabama or Oklahoma State more deserves to play LSU for the national championship. But if you want to argue about whether there are really 70 teams out of 120 whose records are deserving of post-season play in one of 35 bowl games, you have come to the right place.

I'll get the football rolling by suggesting that there should only be enough bowl games to allow the top 25 and 15 honorable mention teams to play in the postseason. That's 20 bowls, featuring 40 teams. The remaining bowls would be eliminated, and the mediocre teams that would otherwise play in them would stay home during the holidays and watch better and more deserving teams play. Maybe they'd learn a thing or two.

First, let's admit why there are so many bowl games to begin with: GREED. The bowl sponsors, the communities in which bowls take place, the TV networks, advertisers, and merchandisers of junk with school names and mascots emblazoned all over it, the conferences and teams, even the coaches, whose contracts provide bonuses for bowl invitations -- all of them want to make some money off of gullible fans. It is obvious that there are many teams participating in bowl games whose seasons were a source of frustration and embarrassment to their fans. Those fans want to make the best of a disappointing season, to be rewarded for sticking with their teams, to be deluded that mediocrity is really just another word for success after all.

Second, I must admit to a personal bias against teams with losing or .500 records. Obviously, teams like UCLA (6-7), with more losses than wins, have not earned the right to a bowl invitation. But why on earth should 6-6 teams be accorded that honor, or any honor, other than a pat on the back for at least not losing any more games than they won? I will even go so far as to propose that teams with 7-5 records, which are just one game better than 6-6, should also not be invited to bowls. I mean, really, since those "winning" records are the result of cynically scheduling a couple of patsies from lesser conferences to make up for expected losses to more worthy opponents, are they really post-season material? What exactly have they proven, other than that they know how to manipulate their schedules to misrepresent their athletic achievements?

Okay, enough of the pontificating. Here's my list of 29 unbowlworthy teams this season, in no particular order, followed by a list of the bowl games that are promoting and profiting from mediocre postseason play:

* UCLA (6-7)

* Utah State (7-5)

* Marshall (6-6)

* Arizona State (6-6) Note: This team collapses and fires its coach, but still gets to play Boise State (11-1)?

* Nevada (7-5) Note: This underperforming team gets to play Southern Mississippi (11-2)?

* North Carolina (7-5)

* Missouri (7-5)

* Western Michigan (7-5)

* Purdue (6-6)

* Louisville (7-5)

* North Carolina State (7-5)

* Air Force (7-5)

* California (7-5)

* Texas (7-5)

* Washington (7-5) Note: Ah come on. This uninspiring team deserves to play high-flying Baylor (9-3)?

* Iowa State (6-6)

* Mississippi State (6-6)

* Wake Forest (6-6)

* Iowa (7-5)

* Texas A&M (6-6)

* Northwestern (6-6)

* Utah (7-5)

* Vanderbilt (6-6) Note: Improvement from abysmal to mediocre in 2011 earns them the right to play Cincinnati (9-3)?

* Illinois (6-6)

* Auburn (7-5)

* Ohio State (6-6)

* Florida (6-6)

* SMU (7-5)

* Pittsburgh (6-6)

Now for the 15 worthless bowl games that wouldn't be missed. Unless you're a fan of a participating team, you'd be better off catching a re-run of "Miracle on 34th Street," or taking a long walk in the fresh air than wasting your time watching these games. You have to pace yourself this holiday season, so you have enough energy and attention left to watch the remaining 20 bowl games. Avoid these, and you'll thank me.

* New Mexico Bowl

* Famous Idaho Potato Bowl

* Beef O'Brady's Bowl

* Little Caesars Pizza Bowl

* Independence Bowl

* Belk Bowl

* Holiday Bowl

* Music City Bowl

* MAACO Bowl

* Pinstripe Bowl

* Meinke Car Care Bowl

* Fight Hunger Bowl

* Chick-fil-A Bowl

* Gator Bowl

* BBVA Compass Bowl

The few worthy teams playing in the above bowls could be redistributed among the remaining 20 bowls, if undeserving teams in those bowls were disinvited.

Okay, yeah, yeah, I know, there's no chance that the proliferation of worthless bowl games featuring mediocre teams can be stopped, given fundamental flaws in human nature that are hardwired into our genes. I must have suffered a random mutation to even think such thoughts. Any other mutants out there?

Editors of The Daily Gopher retain the right to remove posts deemed excessively offensive or grossly inappropriate. Keep it clean and don't be mean.

Tweet Comment 5 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

You clearly have an axe to grind.

Suffice it to say that I don’t entirely agree with your proposal. I know—shocking, right?

I will say that it perturbs me somewhat that 6-6 teams from BCS conferences make it to a bowl game, but I certainly don’t think that we should do away with all these bowls simply because you don’t like “mediocrity.” The only bowl game that really matters is the national championship. The rest are glorified exhibition matches.

Furthermore, doing away with all the “lower level” bowls would be detrimental to teams in smaller conferences. Some of those teams work very hard just to get to seven wins or better. San Diego State is a good example. There is also Western Michigan, one of the teams you mentioned you’d like to send home. Western has never won a bowl game in its entire history. So, those seniors, who work their butts off to compete in the MAC, shouldn’t go to a bowl game?

The bowl selection is a tricky thing. Like I said, it’s more about exhibition matches than actual merit-based entries. I do think that a 6-6 Ohio State or a 6-6 UCLA can afford be passed by the bowl selection committee, as those teams aren’t very interesting anyway. But the problem with that is that you’ll have OSU and UCLA fans outcrying because teams from weaker conferences got into bowl games and they didn’t. And OSU usually travels very well.

I firmly believe that San Diego State, Western Michigan, etc. these guys deserve to go to a bowl game. They’ve earned it. You talk about “GREED” as the reason why there are so many bowls, when actually the main influence behind your proposal is that you’re greedy for entertainment, and these teams do not entertain you. If anything, I think there should be more bowls—because there are teams out there who make it to 8-4 and don’t get picked. How is that fair?

What about if Minnesota was 7-5? After everything these players have been through, and how long it’s been since they’ve won a bowl, you think Minnesota shouldn’t even get to go simply because it’s not a kick-ass team?

by Meager Reader on Dec 12, 2011 10:44 PM CST reply actions

You think there should be MORE bowls? Really? 35 isn't enough?

There are more than 70 out of 120 teams who deserve the honor of postseason play? You must live in Lake Wobegon, where all the children are above average.

Sure, I’d like to see the Gophers earn their way to a bowl game. But I’d prefer it to be a meaningful honor, not a third or fourth tier bowl, against a mediocre opponent. Okay, I’ll give you 7-5 for a bowl game, but 6-6? Not even a winning record?

Bowl games have become the athletic equivalent of all those award shows on TV. You know, there’s one a week, “awarding” various “honors,” to lots of people who haven’t really done much. Try Googling “too may bowl games” and “too many award shows,” as I just did, and you’ll discover that I’m not the only one saying, “Enough already!”

by fanoverboard on Dec 15, 2011 5:18 PM CST up reply actions

I never suggested you were alone in this.

Quite to the contrary, a lot of people don’t like the bowl game system.

Here’s where we partially agree. Teams like Ohio State, UCLA, and a lot of the 6-6 teams you mentioned from BCS conferences, especially big name programs, if they’re 6-6, they’re already pretty pathetic and it seems more pathetic that they get to play in a bowl game. Do I think Ohio State or UCLA should have been passed over for other teams? Yes. Do I understand why they weren’t? Yes. Ohio State and UCLA have big fan bases that travel well. There would have been outcry if they had not been selected.

As for the Gophers, a bowl game is a great goal or achievement in a rebuilding process. To deny a rebuilding team a bowl berth just because they didn’t transform into LSU or Alabama, that just seems cruel. Even if the Gophers are 6-6, they’d be happy to go to a bowl, any bowl. Would they be mediocre? Undoubtedly. But those seniors, those guys who won’t be going to the pros, they get to play in one more game, on a (relatively) big stage, and go out with a good finish. It might take the Gophers years (5+) to get to what you’d consider a “meaningful honor.” Right now, to them, the Gator Bowl sounds pretty damn good.

Where we disagree is that I don’t look at the bowl games as a source of unending amusement. Watch pro football, if you want that. College football is a complicated animal, containing lots of nuances and intangibles that make it great. One of those nuances is the value of achievement. It’s a lot like high school.

Yes, there’s the national championship, but for a lot of these players, the achievement is in the journey. That’s not me handing out trophies for participation. That’s the reality of college football. A lot of these players know that college is the furthest they will ever go. That makes what they do a lot more important. And sometimes, even when they work their butts off, the best they’re going to get is the New Mexico Bowl. Who are we to take that away from them?

As much as you might disagree, college football is about the players, not about the fans.

by Meager Reader on Dec 15, 2011 7:59 PM CST up reply actions

"College football is about the players, not about the fans"?

All right, now you’re getting silly. Our brand new, multimillion dollar stadium wasn’t built for the players. They could play on a field somewhere without any fans attending. The stadium is for the fans. And the games are broadcast on radio and TV for the fans. Of course, the players are the most important aspect of college football, as with other forms of entertainment. The talent of the performers fills the stands and draws an audience to the broadcasts. College biology, English, business, and other classes are for the students. Athletic contests between UM teams and those of other institutions are for the players, and the coaches, and the student body, and alums, and other fans, as well as broadcasters and advertisers. That’s why people like you and me take the time to write comments on websites such as this about UM athletics.

by fanoverboard on Dec 18, 2011 4:40 PM CST up reply actions

You're Not Forced To Watch

The real reason there are so many bowl games if because there are so many football fans. Personally, as a big college football fan, I think it’s cool to get so see the above average CUSA, Sun Belt, WAC, etc teams in nationally televised games around the holidays. Getting to see Louisiana Tech, Marshall, Wyoming, and teams like that play some football is entertaining for some of us. Sorry that our television preferences have somehow diluted your enjoyment of life.

I don’t disagree that having so many 6-6 teams involved is a little weird. I guess I don’t think you shouldn’t end up with a losing record after a bowl game. So maybe a couple of the bowls could be eliminated or else allow a FCS team in that chooses to bypass their playoffs. But seriously, why have less football on television? Are you a lobbyist for some reality television conglomerate?

by Bo Darville on Dec 22, 2011 11:01 AM CST reply actions