Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Appealing, isn't it.

Marshall trades Championship Glory for the big time, and gets rewarded by getting to spend Christmas in downtown Detroit, and playing Ohio in the Little Ceaser's Bowl

dbackjon wrote:Appealing, isn't it.

Marshall trades Championship Glory for the big time, and gets rewarded by getting to spend Christmas in downtown Detroit, and playing Ohio in the Little Ceaser's Bowl

With a record of 6-6 that would not have even got them a sniff of the FCS playoffs. Yet they, too, get a date to play on ESPN.

JALMOND wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Appealing, isn't it.

Marshall trades Championship Glory for the big time, and gets rewarded by getting to spend Christmas in downtown Detroit, and playing Ohio in the Little Ceaser's Bowl

With a record of 6-6 that would not have even got them a sniff of the FCS playoffs. Yet they, too, get a date to play on ESPN.

With crappy ratings - guarantee more watched the Montana-App game.

dbackjon wrote:

JALMOND wrote:
With a record of 6-6 that would not have even got them a sniff of the FCS playoffs. Yet they, too, get a date to play on ESPN.

With crappy ratings - guarantee more watched the Montana-App game.

How does the attendance compare to the FCS NC game? While 14,000 paid was reported in Chatty, my estimate of butts in the seats was more like 9000.

In FBS there will be 35 or so postseason teams that will end the season with a win. In FCS, there was one.

kemajic wrote:

dbackjon wrote:
With crappy ratings - guarantee more watched the Montana-App game.

How does the attendance compare to the FCS NC game? While 14,000 paid was reported in Chatty, my estimate of butts in the seats was more like 9000.

In FBS there will be 35 or so postseason teams that will end the season with a win. In FCS, there was one.

And quite a few of those FBS teams also end up with a losing record.

And the one team that ends with a win is a true national champion.

I'd rather lose in the playoffs, which means the team EARNED something, then get a bowl bid by default.

dbackjon wrote:

kemajic wrote: How does the attendance compare to the FCS NC game? While 14,000 paid was reported in Chatty, my estimate of butts in the seats was more like 9000.

In FBS there will be 35 or so postseason teams that will end the season with a win. In FCS, there was one.

And quite a few of those FBS teams also end up with a losing record.

And the one team that ends with a win is a true national champion.

I'd rather lose in the playoffs, which means the team EARNED something, then get a bowl bid by default.

Or, look at Idaho where a 7-5 season and a trip to the Humanitarian Bowl is probably as good as it's going to get.

No thanks.

dbackjon wrote:With crappy ratings - guarantee more watched the Montana-App game.

It was a better game.

Bowl games on ESPN = Lots of exposure. While the playoffs are great, these guys are also playing on the biggest stage.

My, the status quo crowd is getting defensive as the tide is turning. It's also getting smaller....

MrTitleist wrote:Bowl games on ESPN = Lots of exposure. While the playoffs are great, these guys are also playing on the biggest stage.

Smart football used that time today for honey do's and playing with the bambino's waiting for USC and BC tonight and the NFL tomorrow.

MrTitleist wrote:Bowl games on ESPN = Lots of exposure. While the playoffs are great, these guys are also playing on the biggest stage.

Little Caesars bowl ? Not much exposure at all. None really. Gets lost in the crowd

And how much did it cost Marshall and Ohio to send its team, band, cheerleaders, VIP’s and buy its mandatory minimum allotment of tickets to play in Detroit?

http://www.bigskyfans.com/hornets/viewt ... ?f=4&t=644

Hey Jon, you want a laugh? Go to our message board, Redbirdfan.com and go to the football board. They have like 4 threads going all at once about how wonderful bowl football is and how much The NCAA Division I Football Championship sucks. Those guys are largely football retarded idiots.

There are "fans" that revel in bashing, demeaning, and belittling the division that we compete in, comlete and total lack of support for our football program. There is even this one dude that went so far as to say winning championships in college football doesn't matter, bowls are however, any and all of them, important.

OSBF wrote:Hey Jon, you want a laugh? Go to our message board, Redbirdfan.com and go to the football board. They have like 4 threads going all at once about how wonderful bowl football is and how much The NCAA Division I Football Championship sucks. Those guys are largely football retarded idiots.

There are "fans" that revel in bashing, demeaning, and belittling the division that we compete in, comlete and total lack of support for our football program. There is even this one dude that went so far as to say winning championships in college football doesn't matter, bowls are however, any and all of them, important.

That's because a 6-5 record would have qualified them for a bowl game, whereas it would have taken two additional victories to get into the playoffs.

If FBS adopted a playoff system, I'd want UD to move up and compete at the highest level - provided that they would have access to the playoff system.

Under the current system, I'd rather the Hens remain FCS.

I hate to say it though, but I think schools get more exposure in the bowl games than our schools do in the playoffs - even the crappy bowls.

If they tapered down the # of bowls, instead of consistently adding new ones, but made sure all conferences were repped by at least 1 team...they'd still have the 5 big bowls and would get each conference more of the allotment, wouldn't they? I mean, they'd have all this money generated by those 5 bowls and not nearly all the losses, so all the conferences would get more $$$.
If, as I read it, it's about the money...why not? Oh, I know less teams would get the ESPN exposure but I'd rather my team wasn't embarrassed like some of those teams are. You go in with a 6-6 record and play a team that's 8-4 or 9-3 or something and you lose. So, you got on TV and made asses of yourselves...excellent.

CatMom wrote:If they tapered down the # of bowls, instead of consistently adding new ones, but made sure all conferences were repped by at least 1 team...they'd still have the 5 big bowls and would get each conference more of the allotment, wouldn't they? I mean, they'd have all this money generated by those 5 bowls and not nearly all the losses, so all the conferences would get more $$$.
If, as I read it, it's about the money...why not? Oh, I know less teams would get the ESPN exposure but I'd rather my team wasn't embarrassed like some of those teams are. You go in with a 6-6 record and play a team that's 8-4 or 9-3 or something and you lose. So, you got on TV and made asses of yourselves...excellent.

Like it or not, the bowls are for the benefit of the host communities, that is why there are so many of them. The places that host win no matter who plays there, they don't care if your 6-6 team gets embarassed, as long as they stay at a local hotel. Fewer bowls mean fewer opportunities to host, so your suggestion won't work.

Yeah, I kinda figure not but it was worth getting my opinion out......logical or not.

CatMom wrote:Yeah, I kinda figure not but it was worth getting my opinion out......logical or not.

I don't disagree with you here, I'm only pointing out reality. I'd rather see a 16 team playoff, with every conference getting an autobid, but that is unlikely in the near future.

BlueHen86 wrote:

CatMom wrote:Yeah, I kinda figure not but it was worth getting my opinion out......logical or not.

I don't disagree with you here, I'm only pointing out reality. I'd rather see a 16 team playoff, with every conference getting an autobid, but that is unlikely in the near future.

I think even the lower rated bowls still do fairly well as far as TV viewers and it is monetarily worth it to have the number they do as well for those times. I mean as far as programming goes what is ESPN gonna have to get the ratings that the bowls do?

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:
I don't disagree with you here, I'm only pointing out reality. I'd rather see a 16 team playoff, with every conference getting an autobid, but that is unlikely in the near future.

I think even the lower rated bowls still do fairly well as far as TV viewers and it is monetarily worth it to have the number they do as well for those times. I mean as far as programming goes what is ESPN gonna have to get the ratings that the bowls do?

I'm sure you are right. This is a slow two weeks for sports, it's the middle of the meaningless NBA and NHL regular seasons. I think many people would rather watch two 6-6 teams in a bowl game. If the money wasn't there, there wouldn't be any bowl games.

Make it an 11 game regular season or if you want to keep the conference championship games, make it a 10 game regular season. The playoffs begin on Thanksgiving weekend with 64 seeded teams in brackets including AQ's and at-larges. The games are played at the current bowl sites with the less prestiguous bowl game sites used first, culminating in a rotating championship site at one of the current BCS venues approximately the same time as the current BCS championship is played.

1)The bowls and their communities get to keep their gig, with the opportunity to increase revenue and interest by hosting a 1 vs 16 instead of the the 4th place teams from the WAC and MAC. 2)The same number of schools would be eligible for bowls. 3)There really wouldn't be much extra school missed considering round one would be over a holiday weekend, by round two your down to only 32 schools, and by round three it's christmas break. 4) TV revenue should increase due to the greater relevancy of every game and the prospect of occassional upsets.

December madness.

Preaching the choir.

Given the choice of playing in, say, Lake Charles (great fans, great atmosphere) for a chance to advance to the next round of the playoffs or Shreveport for an exhibition game on a neutral field in front of a bunch of locals who go to the game "to support the community", I would take the playoff game every time.

kemajic wrote:

dbackjon wrote:
With crappy ratings - guarantee more watched the Montana-App game.

How does the attendance compare to the FCS NC game? While 14,000 paid was reported in Chatty, my estimate of butts in the seats was more like 9000.

In FBS there will be 35 or so postseason teams that will end the season with a win. In FCS, there was one.

The bowl system is the grown-up version of the little-league banquet where all the kids get a trophy for participating....it's nice, but meaningless. Do you think the Marshall fans are as proud of the Little Caesar's Bowl banner hanging in the stadium or the NC banners? Will they even hang the Little Caesar's Bowl banner in the stadium? Or will it be exchanged for free Crazy Bread.....

BlueHen86 wrote:If FBS adopted a playoff system, I'd want UD to move up and compete at the highest level - provided that they would have access to the playoff system.

Under the current system, I'd rather the Hens remain FCS.

I hate to say it though, but I think schools get more exposure in the bowl games than our schools do in the playoffs - even the crappy bowls.

I don't know, I don't remember Middle Tennessee State playing on ESPN or any other national televised channel throughout the regular season. They play one bowl game on ESPN, and that's pretty much the same exposer as all the FCS teams that got televised on ESPN during the semis.

That's what kinda makes me mad about the bowl system is you see all these teams that you hardly hear about, like holy shit I didn't know that school still had a team, not really but you know what I'm saying. The bowl system should be called the feel good system.