Nick Saban "Change the entire bowl slection sytem."

[deweydw]

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr-saturday/nick-saban-thinks-the-entire-bowl-selection-system-should-be-changed-160058637.html


“Well I think on the other end of it, the committee that’s going to pick the top four teams for the playoff are really picking the top 12 teams for all six sort of championship bowl games, whatever they call it now. Well, why don’t we do it like basketball and let them pick all the teams for all the bowl games. Then it doesn’t matter what your record is.”

IMHO it should be only 7-5 teams that get a bowl invite. Some day soon we'll have 70 bowl games. Everybody wins.

[MichiganSooner]

No...35 would be losers.

[8timechamps]

I actually agree with Saban.

It would be really cool if they did a selection Sunday for the bowl games. Personally, I'd like to see the conference tie-ins thrown out. The selection committee could evaluate teams that fit best in certain regions (to ease fan travel issues).

I also agree that the number of bowls needs to be cut down. Outside of the playoff, I'd like to see maybe 10 other bowl games. At that point (including playoffs), you're only dealing with about 26-28 teams.

[DMSooner]

The only thing is, the bowls aren't NCAA affiliated, I don't believe the NCAA has any control over this. Its all about money and as long as they give these bowls are tax exempt status, they will keep adding more.

[badger]

The bowls mean a lot of smaller schools or programs that haven't been to one in awhile. Maybe the postseason needs tiers rather than more bowls

[Mac94]

I do enjoy the bowls but would love to see them make it tougher for eligibility ... make 7-5 the minimum record and no wins against non FBS teams count. Won't happen but I can dream.

[Eielson]

If we limit the number of bowl games, then we're robbing the bad teams of an opportunity to get better (more practice and game experience). I also think it'd be a bad business move. Looks like a rich get richer, poor get poorer move to me.

[SoonerDomiNation]

He just don't want another *** whoopin from a up tempo team.

[NorthernIowaSooner]

No...35 would be losers.

Actually 70 would be losers. 140 teams would plays in 70 bowl games.

[BoulderSooner79]

If we limit the number of bowl games, then we're robbing the bad teams of an opportunity to get better (more practice and game experience). I also think it'd be a bad business move. Looks like a rich get richer, poor get poorer move to me.

^This. I don't understand why people complain about too many bowl games. The really good teams will go to the biggest bowls regardless and there is no law forcing folks to watch. And it's not like there are not enough channels on cable/satellite to make them available to view. Seems like the market would limit this naturally as bowls run out of advertising sponsors and viewer ratings.

[Jacie]

If we limit the number of bowl games, then we're robbing the bad teams of an opportunity to get better (more practice and game experience). I also think it'd be a bad business move. Looks like a rich get richer, poor get poorer move to me.

From a strictly financial POV, most teams don't get "richer" going to a bowl game in that for all but a select few, the school will pay out much more than they get back for the "privilege" of that selection. That extra practice time can be calculated in dollars/hour/player billable directly to the school if one wants to look up the numbers (amount of money it cost to send the team and sometimes the band and other non-essential as far as the team is concerned staff versus the bowl payout, amount of time spent on the practice field either at home or the site of the bowl and the number of returning players). I think the formula is hours x returning players divided by the money.

[Eielson]

From a strictly financial POV, most teams don't get "richer" going to a bowl game in that for all but a select few, the school will pay out much more than they get back for the "privilege" of that selection. That extra practice time can be calculated in dollars/hour/player billable directly to the school if one wants to look up the numbers (amount of money it cost to send the team and sometimes the band and other non-essential as far as the team is concerned staff versus the bowl payout, amount of time spent on the practice field either at home or the site of the bowl and the number of returning players). I think the formula is hours x returning players divided by the money.

I don't really know the financial side of things. I'm confident that these bowl games produce money in general, though. I'm not sure if the NCAA, the schools, the owners of the stadiums, TV, etc. make a profit, but I'm sure somebody is. My rich get richer statement wasn't completely financial, though. I don't think any school that takes football seriously would hesitate to spend some money if it meant an extra month of practice.

[BoulderSooner79]

I don't really know the financial side of things. I'm confident that these bowl games produce money in general, though. I'm not sure if the NCAA, the schools, the owners of the stadiums, TV, etc. make a profit, but I'm sure somebody is. My rich get richer statement wasn't completely financial, though. I don't think any school that takes football seriously would hesitate to spend some money if it meant an extra month of practice.

The schools and advertisers are the money losers if a bowl game is poorly attended or viewed. The lesser bowls don't have big payouts and they often get split with other conference teams. The school have to pay for the team + band expenses as well as ticket sales if they don't make minimum. The advertisers don't reach the audience they hoped for when they do their budget. The bowl organizers get paid, but I'm guessing they would make more with a bigger audience. The school has to decide what it is worth to get those extra 15 days of practice Either in terms of a better squad or in recruiting exposure.

[Jacie]

Most, not all, bowl games "produce" money in that the people putting it on line up enough sponsors and through forcing participating schools to cough up at face value enough to cover their ticket allotment. The ones that don't fade away but never fear, there is always someone else out there who thinks they've cracked the code and are eager to put on the (blank) Bowl at a stadium near you.

That "extra month" is 15 practices and given the disparity between what schools spend to go bowling (some teams in lesser bowls have been known to leave the band at home over the protests of bowl officials due to running a deficit just to get their team there). The schools pay dearly for that "extra" time hence the comment about being able to calculate it down to the hours/players and if one really wanted to track things, factor in the team's record the following season to see if they got their money's worth.

[dennis580]

I actually agree with Saban.

It would be really cool if they did a selection Sunday for the bowl games. Personally, I'd like to see the conference tie-ins thrown out. The selection committee could evaluate teams that fit best in certain regions (to ease fan travel issues).

I also agree that the number of bowls needs to be cut down. Outside of the playoff, I'd like to see maybe 10 other bowl games. At that point (including playoffs), you're only dealing with about 26-28 teams.

Actually the committee will be picking all the teams for the open slots in the bowls. All the nontieins WILL be picked by the Playoff committee.

[8timechamps]

Actually the committee will be picking all the teams for the open slots in the bowls. All the nontieins WILL be picked by the Playoff committee.

For all of the bowls, or just the BCS style bowls?

[8timechamps]

The schools and advertisers are the money losers if a bowl game is poorly attended or viewed. The lesser bowls don't have big payouts and they often get split with other conference teams. The school have to pay for the team + band expenses as well as ticket sales if they don't make minimum. The advertisers don't reach the audience they hoped for when they do their budget. The bowl organizers get paid, but I'm guessing they would make more with a bigger audience. The school has to decide what it is worth to get those extra 15 days of practice Either in terms of a better squad or in recruiting exposure.

I'd argue that more schools lose money on bowls than make money. Look no further than last year's Fiesta Bowl (which was watched by many). UCF lost big.

I don't like additional bowls because it's watering down an already overloaded system. There was a time when it really meant something for a team to go bowling, that's still true of the big bowls, but not so much of the small ones. Of course the fans of those teams will watch, but not many others. I love college football, and do watch a lot of the small bowls, but in the past few years, some of them have been pretty bad (a step above a good high school game).

Of course it doesn't affect me personally, but you said you didn't understand why people complain...that's why I do.

[King Barry's Back]

I also agree that the number of bowls needs to be cut down. Outside of the playoff, I'd like to see maybe 10 other bowl games. At that point (including playoffs), you're only dealing with about 26-28 teams.

I couldn't disagree more. The more bowls, the better, as long as enough people are watching on TV to keep them paying their bills, I really can't imagine why anyone would be against more COLLEGE FOOTBALL. I do think the biggest reason for the ideological hostility to "many bowls" is probably the bowls' own hype -- mainly their claim that bowls are "unique" institution and are a "reward" for a successful season.

I think that's bunk. In fact, i think that bowl games are exactly like holiday tournaments in college basketball. The only claim to unique is that the holidays fall end-of-season for football teams, making them a culmination of the season, versus the anti-climactic mid-season for basketball teams. If bowl teams played in, say early October, and were chosen before the season began based on who the organizers thought would generate the most ticket sales/TV viewers -- nobody would give the bowls mythical status. Even before 1970, when national champions were chosen before the bowls were played, bowls seemed to be more of an event in themselves rather some kind of capstone to the whole season.

Instead, since the teams are chosen following the season, the idea has grown up around "bowls" that they are a bigger deal than they are. Maybe with the playoffs, the rest of the bowls will get some of their perspective back.

[BoulderSooner79]

I'd argue that more schools lose money on bowls than make money. Look no further than last year's Fiesta Bowl (which was watched by many). UCF lost big.

I don't like additional bowls because it's watering down an already overloaded system. There was a time when it really meant something for a team to go bowling, that's still true of the big bowls, but not so much of the small ones. Of course the fans of those teams will watch, but not many others. I love college football, and do watch a lot of the small bowls, but in the past few years, some of them have been pretty bad (a step above a good high school game).

Of course it doesn't affect me personally, but you said you didn't understand why people complain...that's why I do.

I don't see how lots of bowls water things down. The Fiesta would still have been a flop if a bunch of the smaller bowls didn't exist - I.e I don't see the small bowls changing the match ups in big bowls. Seems like the free market will work this out - if there are too many $$$ losers, then the promoters will not be able to find sponsors and the bowl goes under. It's a bit tougher on the school side of the equation since paranoid coaches don't want a rival getting those bowl practices and will always lobby to go. But if the AD at smaller schools start to push back on budget concerns and actual decline the invitation, I could see a few bowls getting trimmed. I don't really care myself as I don't watch many of the small bowls (I'm helping you out!), but they don't annoy me either.

Hey, how about all schools being allowed a 15 practice fall camp regardless of bowl status? Makes a level playing field in both the positive (more practice) and negative (impacts class studies) aspects. Doesn't change the TV exposure angle, but some of these bowls appear way down the channel list. I'll bet the number of bowls would be trimmed quickly by such a rule.

[badger]

Actually 70 would be losers. 140 teams would plays in 70 bowl games.

Do we even have 140 D-1 teams? Or will we have to dip into the FCS rankings? Don't those guys have their own playoff postseason to worry about during bowl season? Maybe some SEC schools will schedule D2 or D3 opponents. That way their bowl non-conference opponent could be just as fluffy a cupcake as their regular season non-conference opponents ;)

SEC defenders: WE DON'T SCHEDULE DIVISION 3 TEAMS!!!!!

[TheHumanAlphabet]

IMHO it should be only 7-5 teams that get a bowl invite. Some day soon we'll have 70 bowl games. Everybody wins.

Participation trophy's for all!!! Or rings, if you are an OSU fan...

[8timechamps]

I don't see how lots of bowls water things down. The Fiesta would still have been a flop if a bunch of the smaller bowls didn't exist - I.e I don't see the small bowls changing the match ups in big bowls. Seems like the free market will work this out - if there are too many $$$ losers, then the promoters will not be able to find sponsors and the bowl goes under. It's a bit tougher on the school side of the equation since paranoid coaches don't want a rival getting those bowl practices and will always lobby to go. But if the AD at smaller schools start to push back on budget concerns and actual decline the invitation, I could see a few bowls getting trimmed. I don't really care myself as I don't watch many of the small bowls (I'm helping you out!), but they don't annoy me either.

Hey, how about all schools being allowed a 15 practice fall camp regardless of bowl status? Makes a level playing field in both the positive (more practice) and negative (impacts class studies) aspects. Doesn't change the TV exposure angle, but some of these bowls appear way down the channel list. I'll bet the number of bowls would be trimmed quickly by such a rule.

I can't say I'm really "annoyed", just think it would be better if there weren't so many of them. Less is more kind of approach I suppose.

Anyway, I'd be in favor of an extended practice for all. It certainly seems like that would be the fair way to do things, but I don't understand much of what the NCAA does, so this is just another thing to add.

Extending practice time would help everyone (not just the bowl participants), and provide a better product overall.