[This week we've changed up the format a little bit. I posted the question in a chat group and people weighed in when they got to it. So it's a bit more conversational.]
The Question:
Do you like low level bowls? Where should they draw the line?
The Responses:
Ace: I’m torn on this mostly because of one game: last year’s Bahamas Bowl. Two 7-5 teams with smaller fanbases from non-power conferences played a football game in the Bahamas and the turnout was as expected.
Kickoff: pic.twitter.com/cB4to121Br
— Chad Bishop (@MrChadBishop) December 24, 2014
BUT, I watched that game anyway, and it was completely insane and awesome:
I find myself making fun of the lower level, obvious cash grab for guys in garish blazers bowl games right up until I’m watching and enjoying them because they’re football.
[Hit THE JUMP for a more sensible approach to bowl eligibility]
-----------------------------
Brian: I watched it too, as I have an aunt and uncle who both work at WKU. It was a window into another world of football in which it's more about breaking serve than scoring any points. And so that was interesting enough to warrant it.
My main concern comes in when it's clear that a number of these bowls are money-losing scams for the programs that are in them. You have to go otherwise you kill recruiting, and then they hit you with ticket guarantees and the like. Those have largely evaporated at higher levels as the schools realize they're the ones with the power, but at the bottom end I bet these bowl games are financial disasters. Fix that and, like, whatever, let them eat cake.
The one exception: no more 5-7 teams. That's where I draw the line.
-----------------------------
Ace: 5-7 teams should only be allowed in the Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl, and they'd be required to fire their head coach first.
I totally agree on working out the finances, and if that happens, I won’t have any issue enjoying the lower-level games. That Bahamas Bowl was on Christmas Eve Afternoon. For me, that’s peak “there’s nothing to do” time.
-----------------------------
Brian: I could get behind a bowl between 0-12 teams.
-----------------------------
Ace: So where do we set up the game between Kansas and UCF?
…besides Ford Field.
-----------------------------
Seth: Only a few bowls are actually established annual events, and barely any of the rest are worthwhile except as the boondoggles Brian described. I think the NCAA should just mandate that the bowls cover travel expenses for the team and a reasonable amount of necessary program people, and outlaw ticket guarantees. Do that and the economics will sort the rest out.
| Seth Plan Bowl Points | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Team | Record | Pts | Psbl |
| Michigan State | 12-1 | 25 | 27 |
| Iowa | 12-1 | 22 | 25 |
| Ohio State | 11-1 | 20 | 23 |
| Michigan | 9-3 | 18 | 27 |
| Northwestern | 10-2 | 18 | 24 |
| Wisconsin | 9-3 | 15 | 24 |
| Penn State | 7-5 | 11 | 26 |
| Nebraska | 5-7 | 9 | 25 |
| Indiana | 6-6 | 8 | 24 |
| Minnesota | 5-7 | 7 | 26 |
| Not Bowl Eligible | |||
| Illinois | 5-7 | 6 | 24 |
| Rutgers | 4-8 | 5 | 24 |
| Maryland | 3-9 | 3 | 24 |
| Purdue | 2-10 | 2 | 23 |
I'd also remove the minimum requirement for teams to be bowl-eligible. Why would Indiana ever schedule someone interesting if just the normal spate of conference losses will keep them out of bowls? Michigan has a hard time convincing bad Power 5 programs to play us in the nonconference because the difference between playing a real opponent and an FCS one in September is usually the difference in bowl eligibility.
Instead I'd make a simple points system. Any FBS win is worth 1 point, any Power 5 win is worth an extra point, and any win over the 25 is worth three points total, and you need seven points to play. The 7-win teams will all be there as long as they didn't pad that with FCS games, and bowls would also be able to pick that one 4-8 team who scheduled monsters and beat Notre Dame.
[Added: I tried this with the Big Ten teams and as you can see Nebraska and Minnesota would be eligible but Illinois, who gets nothing for beating Western Illinois, is not. BYU I counted as a Power 5 school, and that's why M's schedule looks a tick harder than the rest. Mouseover the teams to see how they got their points.]
-----------------------------
Adam: I really like Seth's idea that the bowls have to cover travel expenses and erase ticket guarantee. Assuming that's a thing that eventually happens, I propose that the two worst FBS teams play on that oil rig from The Simpsons that had a Krusty Burger on it. That game would have the best of the corporate CFB machine's excess.
There probably wouldn't be room for stands on the oil rig, nor would anyone be able to get there with relative ease, so it would be a purely made-for-TV event: the Krusty Burger Klassic Presented by GlaxoSmithKline, Maker of Tums.
It would have just the right amount of soullessness. It wouldn't be quite as sad as an empty stadium, and the extra bit of creepiness from being able to hear everything they're saying/grunting on the field would make it unique. People love watching two hapless teams outfail each other; the bizarre spectacle of a game on a derelict oil rig puts it over the top, making it as absurd as the teams participating.
The only downside I see is that the swag bags for the players probably would be lackluster considering the sponsors. A voucher for a free cup of Krusty's Klam Chowder, a one-year supply of Tums, and a subscription to ESPN The Magazine wouldn't exactly thrill.
-----------------------------
Seth: Isn't MSU already scheduled to play there in 2017?
-----------------------------
Adam: Mark Hollis is my muse.
-----------------------------
David: When I was a kid, I used to love all of the bowl matchups and I would get excited as more and more bowls were added. The idea of schools having to play against other schools that they would almost never schedule was very intriguing. Plus, I would watch pretty much any two groups of humans play football.
In the past decade or so, my excitement for lower bowls has more or less dwindled (unless there is a team I try to follow or a crazy matchup). I'm not really against lower bowls, though. But, like Ace mentioned, if there's not much going on, I'll probably check out the Liberty Bowl.
To me, unless its Indiana trying to become eligible or Northwestern grasping for the tournament, the novelty of post-season has all but worn off. There are multiple basketball tournaments and more bowls than can fit mediocre teams. If you qualify, hooray for you! If you don't, you must really not be very good.
The one interesting thing about the Playoff system is that it has clearly defined the tiers. Playoff level, NY6 (maybe a couple other Jan 1st bowls), and pretty much everything else.
I also agree with Brian and Seth about sorting out the finances and not weighing down smaller programs with net losses. Seth's idea sounds revolutionary and could add some extra incentives for scheduling. That could be fun. But honestly, there's still enough of a 9 year old, football-crazed boy inside of me that would not object to having incessant games available during Bowl Week. And regardless of what I say, I'll probably still tune in to way more than I originally said I would.