Three New Bowl Games Nixxed

[CycloneWarning]

Already 41 Bowl games and three teams with losing 5-7 records got to play last year. And there were three more new bowl games (Austin, TX; Myrtle Beach and Charleston) going to be added until the NCAA just said NO.

Jeebus.

 

[acrozier22]

Too bad they couldn't have gotten rid of three bad locations. Those three spots would have been great locations for bowl games.

 

[tim_redd]

There should be 25, maybe 30 bowl games max.

 

[awd4cy]

That stinks. We will have to wait another year at least to be invited as a 3-9 team.

 

[Judoka]

College football is like pizza. Even when it's bad its still good. The more bowl games the merrier.

 

[MNCyGuy]

Already 41 Bowl games and three teams with losing 5-7 records got to play last year. And there were three more new bowl games (Austin, TX; Myrtle Beach and Charleston) going to be added until the NCAA just said NO.

Jeebus.

I thought bowl games kind of existed outside of the NCAA's purview? Honestly, who cares how many they add, especially as the playoff continues to grow? It's like saying the NIT should be eliminated because it devalues the NCAA tournament. Nobody think those games are anything more than a bit of bonus basketball. If the schools make some money, the fans have some fun, and the players get an extra game, what's the problem? And if they don't make money, schools will just opt to not go and the extra games will just die off, problem solved.

 

[cyfanatic13]

I agree with Judoka and MNCyGuy. Who is it hurting to have more bowl games? People will watch when football is on.

 

[Hoiball92]

I agree with Judoka and MNCyGuy. Who is it hurting to have more bowl games? People will watch when football is on.

I didn't watch any of the bowl games till dec 30th. I don't want to watch Akron vs Utah state

 

[Styx]

I didn't watch any of the bowl games till jan 30th.

Well, some of us are interested in watching more than the Pro Bowl and the Super Bowl.

 

[clones26]

I didn't watch any of the bowl games till jan 30th. I don't want to watch Akron vs Utah state

what? I love me some MACtion, gets me through the fall on a Tuesday and Wednesday night until bball starts. Yes I will watch all basketball too, even Big 10

 

[MNCyGuy]

I didn't watch any of the bowl games till jan 30th. I don't want to watch Akron vs Utah state

I didn't really either, but clearly the ESPN/Fox Sports/CBS Sports of the world have some sort of audience for them and are willing to pay for the content. And if the live sports content bubble bursts, then these games will just fold once their TV contracts run out. As long as there is contract language insuring the school's still get paid if they actually play in a game, I don't understand what the NCAA thinks they are protecting anybody from.

 

[klamath632]

I didn't watch any of the bowl games till jan 30th. I don't want to watch Akron vs Utah state

The only games that happen after January 30th of a given year ARE those types of games. Or did you mean December 30th?

 

[ISUCyclones2015]

Too bad they couldn't have gotten rid of three bad locations. Those three spots would have been great locations for bowl games.

Agreed, that Charleston one would've been a hella good time.

 

[tolfbfan]

what? I love me some MACtion, gets me through the fall on a Tuesday and Wednesday night until bball starts. Yes I will watch all basketball too, even Big 10

Clones26 be the man!

 

[Judoka]

I didn't watch any of the bowl games till dec 30th. I don't want to watch Akron vs Utah state

Which is fine. If you don't want to watch minor bowl games that's your prerogative. But that doesn't mean other people won't. The existence of minor bowl games has no impact on the major bowl games.

Hell, let any team that didn't qualify for a bowl find somebody willing to play them on campus once the season is over. I'd be down. We'd finally get a Kansas vs. UCF toilet bowl.

 

[jbhtexas]

There were articles last year about schools losing money because the bowls force them to buy ticket allotments. Some of those bowls aren't in great destinations. In my opinion, the NCAA should ban that practice as well. It shouldn't be incumbent on the participating schools to finance a bowl game.

 

[Judoka]

There were articles last year about schools losing money because the bowls force them to buy ticket allotments. Some of those bowls aren't in great destinations. In my opinion, the NCAA should ban that practice as well. It shouldn't be incumbent on the participating schools to finance a bowl game.

That I agree with. Bowls are super shady and the ticket sales thing is one of the worst examples. Especially since the tickets that schools get tend to be in bad locations and more expensive than tickets that can be purchased through other venues. The bowls should be the ones taking on the risk of ticket sales, not the schools.

 

[MNCyGuy]

There were articles last year about schools losing money because the bowls force them to buy ticket allotments. Some of those bowls aren't in great destinations. In my opinion, the NCAA should ban that practice as well. It shouldn't be incumbent on the participating schools to finance a bowl game.

Yea, that part I'd agree with. This move just feels like it's more about the NCAA feeling pressure from the existing games to protect their share of the racket than it is about protecting schools from getting ripped off.

 

[IceCyIce]

Well there goes every chance we had at making a bowl. On to softball

 

[FDCy83]

I think it goes hand in hand with the banning of the satellite camps. The NCAA knows how valuable those extra practices are to a struggling team that just gets turned around to 6-6. More bowl games insure that more teams get these extra practices and that threatens the powers that be at the top. It would not surprise me that the top schools may be pushing for expanding the playoffs and cancelling most of the bowls. Rich get richer. Seems to me like these two decisions are bad for the student athlete, who the NCAA always says it is looking out for.