#17 in the BCS, - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: #17 in the BCS, (/thread-4090.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: #17 in the BCS, (/thread-4090.html)
Re: #17 in the BCS, - pincemob - 10-23-2012
Thanks for the replies. Although it sounds like there are limits to what these bowls are able to do, I still find it ridiculous that a lower-performing team can leapfrog into the better bowl. I would be perfectly fine with a clause that permitted the bowls some choice to avoid hosting the same team twice in a row, or too frequently in general. But it should stop there. In the past, for Stanford, that stupid rule has meant bowls in Memphis, Seattle, and El Paso instead of places like Hawaii & San Diego. It would be one thing if our bowls were January 1 classics that had some pull, but our bowls suck. I don't know why we bow to the Alamo or Holiday Bowl's demands.Â
Re: #17 in the BCS, - pincemob - 10-23-2012
Thanks for the replies. Although it sounds like there are limits to what these bowls are able to do, I still find it ridiculous that a lower-performing team can leapfrog into the better bowl. I would be perfectly fine with a clause that permitted the bowls some choice to avoid hosting the same team twice in a row, or too frequently in general. But it should stop there. In the past, for Stanford, that stupid rule has meant bowls in Memphis, Seattle, and El Paso instead of places like Hawaii & San Diego. It would be one thing if our bowls were January 1 classics that had some pull, but our bowls suck. I don't know why we bow to the Alamo or Holiday Bowl's demands.Â
Re: #17 in the BCS, - FarmBoy - 10-23-2012
People forget that the entire bowl system is not created as a reward for teams that perform well during the season. Rather, bowls exist to increase tourism revenue for the host cities and make money for the stadium owners. The student-athletes and rewarding performance is completely secondary to making money. March Madness this is not. There is a lot of money on the line for these bowls, and making sure that the bowls can sell the tickets and fill hotel rooms is the primary consideration in place. TV ratings are a consideration as well, but not as big a factor. So the conference has to give and take with their bowl sponsors, allowing them to maximize their revenue while maintaining some semblance of a reward system for a successful campaign.
Re: #17 in the BCS, - FarmBoy - 10-23-2012
People forget that the entire bowl system is not created as a reward for teams that perform well during the season. Rather, bowls exist to increase tourism revenue for the host cities and make money for the stadium owners. The student-athletes and rewarding performance is completely secondary to making money. March Madness this is not. There is a lot of money on the line for these bowls, and making sure that the bowls can sell the tickets and fill hotel rooms is the primary consideration in place. TV ratings are a consideration as well, but not as big a factor. So the conference has to give and take with their bowl sponsors, allowing them to maximize their revenue while maintaining some semblance of a reward system for a successful campaign.
Re: #17 in the BCS, - teejers1 - 10-23-2012
The disgraceful loss to UW killed any chance at a BCS bowl. Sadly, we all have to deal with that brutal reality. (Stanford is not going to beat Oregon).
After that? Who knows.
Even if Stanford finishes 9-3 (and I put those chances at below 50/50, maybe around 35/65), it will be hard not to think of this season as the "coulda, woulda, shoulda" season. And we all know why that is.
But on the bright side, this defense is something to behold!
Re: #17 in the BCS, - teejers1 - 10-23-2012
The disgraceful loss to UW killed any chance at a BCS bowl. Sadly, we all have to deal with that brutal reality. (Stanford is not going to beat Oregon).
After that? Who knows.
Even if Stanford finishes 9-3 (and I put those chances at below 50/50, maybe around 35/65), it will be hard not to think of this season as the "coulda, woulda, shoulda" season. And we all know why that is.
But on the bright side, this defense is something to behold!
Re: #17 in the BCS, - ChicagoCard - 10-23-2012
(10-23-2012, 11:55 AM)FarmBoy link Wrote:People forget that the entire bowl system is not created as a reward for teams that perform well during the season. Rather, bowls exist to increase tourism revenue for the host cities and make money for the stadium owners. The student-athletes and rewarding performance is completely secondary to making money. March Madness this is not. There is a lot of money on the line for these bowls, and making sure that the bowls can sell the tickets and fill hotel rooms is the primary consideration in place. TV ratings are a consideration as well, but not as big a factor. So the conference has to give and take with their bowl sponsors, allowing them to maximize their revenue while maintaining some semblance of a reward system for a successful campaign.
Although that's true, and I certainly remember hearing this from people defending Virginia Tech and Michigan last December, it's also true that during the season the objective seems to be to play well and win games so that teams can get into a good bowl game, if not BCS game. Its almost a form of bait and switch once youve ended up with last season's Virginia Tech and Michigan. My personal opinion in a world where you can't have everything is that I wish there were no conferences larger than 10 teams (everybody plays each other), no conference championships, and therefore just 12 games played. Then have an 8-team playoff (that'd be 8 down from the current 10 BCS teams much closer to 8 based on merit). I like the number 6 a bit better -- top 5 plus 1 -- but I cant see having teams 3-6 do a playoff while 1 and 2 sit and wait. The bowls can get in on the playoff, maybe do a rotation. Always will be talk of preserving the bowls but never mention how the system has changed over time anyway.
Re: #17 in the BCS, - ChicagoCard - 10-23-2012
(10-23-2012, 11:55 AM)FarmBoy link Wrote:People forget that the entire bowl system is not created as a reward for teams that perform well during the season. Rather, bowls exist to increase tourism revenue for the host cities and make money for the stadium owners. The student-athletes and rewarding performance is completely secondary to making money. March Madness this is not. There is a lot of money on the line for these bowls, and making sure that the bowls can sell the tickets and fill hotel rooms is the primary consideration in place. TV ratings are a consideration as well, but not as big a factor. So the conference has to give and take with their bowl sponsors, allowing them to maximize their revenue while maintaining some semblance of a reward system for a successful campaign.
Although that's true, and I certainly remember hearing this from people defending Virginia Tech and Michigan last December, it's also true that during the season the objective seems to be to play well and win games so that teams can get into a good bowl game, if not BCS game. Its almost a form of bait and switch once youve ended up with last season's Virginia Tech and Michigan. My personal opinion in a world where you can't have everything is that I wish there were no conferences larger than 10 teams (everybody plays each other), no conference championships, and therefore just 12 games played. Then have an 8-team playoff (that'd be 8 down from the current 10 BCS teams much closer to 8 based on merit). I like the number 6 a bit better -- top 5 plus 1 -- but I cant see having teams 3-6 do a playoff while 1 and 2 sit and wait. The bowls can get in on the playoff, maybe do a rotation. Always will be talk of preserving the bowls but never mention how the system has changed over time anyway.
Re: #17 in the BCS, - pincemob - 10-23-2012
Both in fact. The Final 4 was great and S.A. is a neat city... the Alamo Bowl is one I'd like to attend rather than being relegated to Las Vegas 3 days before Christmas (barf) against Nevada (barf again). I think about it from the players' perspective too. I think they want to go to the bigger games with the bigger conference opponents, in warm weather areas. When you've beaten the likes of USC or Notre Dame, it is hard to get excited for an East Carolina or weak ACC school, as we saw in 95 and 01. I don't think the bowl win should be the 4th or 5th best win on your resume. You practice 4 weeks for that?Â
Re: #17 in the BCS, - pincemob - 10-23-2012
Both in fact. The Final 4 was great and S.A. is a neat city... the Alamo Bowl is one I'd like to attend rather than being relegated to Las Vegas 3 days before Christmas (barf) against Nevada (barf again). I think about it from the players' perspective too. I think they want to go to the bigger games with the bigger conference opponents, in warm weather areas. When you've beaten the likes of USC or Notre Dame, it is hard to get excited for an East Carolina or weak ACC school, as we saw in 95 and 01. I don't think the bowl win should be the 4th or 5th best win on your resume. You practice 4 weeks for that?Â
Re: #17 in the BCS, - SamAtoms1980 - 10-24-2012
I'm intrigued by the possibility of Stanford playing in the Holiday Bowl. For me, it would be local.
Re: #17 in the BCS, - SamAtoms1980 - 10-24-2012
I'm intrigued by the possibility of Stanford playing in the Holiday Bowl. For me, it would be local.