|
|
From the USA Today "Team Pages"
A bowl bid is often seen as a reward for a job well done. In Alabama's case, the Independence Bowl might be misconstrued as punishment
Its not just the fact that Alabama closed the regular season with four consecutive losses under first year coach Nick Saban and got stuck in the Independence Bowl for the second consecutive season - and third time in the past five years - it's the reminders that come with the game . . . . . . .
They should just quit playing this bowl game. No one should be rewarded for finishing 8th in their conference. Maybe they should rename it the "We had a Terrible Season Bowl." In most of these games, the Def Coord coaches the team because the Head Coach has already been fired. What's the point?
Get rid of "newer" bowls first...
Originally Posted by T_Won
That is the story with the majority of bowls these days. I mean we were about to go to a bowl game with a 6-6 record. I know it is good for the kids, but I think bowl standards should be held a little higher.
I could not agree more. The NCAA is too busy trying to make sure the mascots are PC instead of controlling college football. They should pull their heads out of their asses and come up with a playoff system. I also do not think any 6-6 team should be "rewarded" with a bowl game. I don't think any team that doesn't even have a winning record in their own conference should go bowling. They need to cut the number of games back so that they mean something again.
The rule should be that only the Top 3 teams of each conference go to bowl games... regardless of what their record is. Then, maybe the winners of these bowl games could start a playoff to find a national champion. What a novel idea!
Indy bowl is a joke, everyone knows its a joke. SEC teams HATE to come to Shreveport. So in a way it is punishment.
The sad thing is that Indy bowl with their pay out a few years back could have had number 1 or 2 from certain conferences...C-USA, MWC, WAC (at the time there was a WAC East), but the people in charge would rather beg for scraps from the big12 and SEC.
So, basically what everyone is saying is that if Tech would have beaten Nevada then you would have been pissed if they went to a bowl, based on the aforementioned comments, and that 6-6 would have not been a good year for Tech and should not be considered for bowl consideration? Is that what I am getting, because there are about 10 other threads during the Nevada game week that say the opposite. Guess I'm just confused.
And yes Alabama SUCKS, the loss to ULM should in itself be enough to eliminate you from bowl consideration.
The sad thing is that Missy Setters is a prime example of the mind set of the elite Shreveporters. They will pay twice the price just for a brand name and that carries over to the bowl They would much rather have a lousy 6-6 Alabama and a lousy 6-6 Notre Dame, just because they are big name programs, than two "good" teams. Colorado probably does not fill the bill for them because it is not a big name in the world of football but they are after all Big XII, so there ya have it.
I would have been happy if we had gone to a bowl, but, the thing is, there are too damn many bowls. I don't think any team that does not have a winning record should go bowling. But that's what we're stuck with, so if we had gone at 6-6 I would have been glad to go.
Here Here. We should have gone if that's what the rules are, but no .500 team should go bowling. The NCAA should mandate that ALL teams with the highest winning percentages are slotted in bowls before a near .500 team NO MATTER who they are. If that rule had been in effect for the last ten years, we would have gone to several bowl games.
BTW the Independence Bowl is missing the boat. The better match up would have been a rematch with ULM. That is just what Nick Satan should have deserved. :icon_wink:
No, if Tech would have made it to a bowl that would have been great. I think what everyone is talking about is just the overall system. I mean just look at some of the bowls and the teams in it. I just think everyone agrees a bowl game should be of more elite status. If anybody thinks that Tech was worthy of a bowl this year, they probably love this system and will be sure not to miss the Poinsetta bowl. But for others, lets see some real games.
I agree with those that say .500 teams shouldn't get a bowl spot. That said, until the rules are changed I will always pull for TECH to get a spot if they are at .500.
What's funny is the elitest mind set they all have. They are the person that thought they were cool yet everyone made fun of them when they weren't around in high school. It's funny, yet sad.
Troy is the team that got screwed. And I think they would bring more fans that CU or Bama to the I(t doesn't matter) Bowl this year.
They have the tie with the SEC for one reason only-the chance that LSU will end up in Shreveport. They are willing to put up with crappy SEC teams if it means a chance that LSU can make it to Shreveport.
Unfortunately, all of the bowls are about money and the local economy. They would rather have two 0-12 teams that sold out, brought fans, and spent money, and played a 3-2 game, rather than two 12-0 teams that only filled half the stadium and played a 42-41, triple OT game. I understand why finances are the motivation, but it is very sad that the fans don't get to see the best possible matchup in every bowl.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
