No New Bowls

[Turbine]

NCAA sets moratorium for 3 years at 41 bowls

[Zeebart21]

Thank you.

[31Ragin97]

interesting. so if a private entity wants to create a bowl they cant, but all of the espn "owned" bowls were approved prior to this moratorium, and Im sure espn was against this measure to unfairly thwart possible competitors. wonderful

[Cajunsmike]

interesting. so if a private entity wants to create a bowl they cant, but all of the espn "owned" bowls were approved prior to this moratorium, and Im sure espn was against this measure to unfairly thwart possible competitors. wonderful

Some bowls will be eliminated soon so as to prevent losing record teams from participating.

[bigearl]

Thank God.

[CajunEXPRESS]

Thank God.

Did anyone force you to watch or pay for a bowl you didn't think should be held.

All bowls beyond the play in and national championship are only exhibition games.

I just don't get the indignant attitudes for bowl 40 vs bowl 4. None are for anything beyond fun.

[Ragin' Caleb]

Thank God.

My thoughts exactly

[bigearl]

Did anyone force you to watch or pay for a bowl you didn't think should be held.

All bowls beyond the play in and national championship are only exhibition games.

I just don't get the indignant attitudes for bowl 40 vs bowl 4. None are for anything beyond fun.

I didn't watch and that's my point. We don't need 40+ bowls when some spots are filled with teams that have losing records... tremendous waste of money.

[CajunJack55]

I didn't watch and that's my point. We don't need 40+ bowls when some spots are filled with teams that have losing records... tremendous waste of money.

Someone is making money, or else they wouldn't be having them.

[CrazyCajun]

I didn't watch and that's my point. We don't need 40+ bowls when some spots are filled with teams that have losing records... tremendous waste of money.

Just 2 years ago the SBC had 3 teams get left out. If they cut back on bowls where exactly you think they are gonna start? You will have a 9-3 possibly 10-2 SBC team sitting at home and still have 2, 6-6 P-5's going at it. We will be the first league to have Bowls taken away.

[CajunAmos]

I always thought bowls were for those who wanted them. If you don't want to have more bowls, don't watch them. If they don't have enough viewership or attendance they will go away. I never was a fan of someone saying I don't like something so no one else should be able to do it. JMO

[CajunEXPRESS]

I didn't watch and that's my point. We don't need 40+ bowls when some spots are filled with teams that have losing records... tremendous waste of money.

Your point is you've found something other to do. Good for you. It's not hurting you, it's not your money, and 95% of the games don't matter anyway. It's no skin off your nose.

You can be sur if and when bowls get limited the SBC will feel that first.

[Cajunsmike]

Just 2 years ago the SBC had 3 teams get left out. If they cut back on bowls where exactly you think they are gonna start? You will have a 9-3 possibly 10-2 SBC team sitting at home and still have 2, 6-6 P-5's going at it. We will be the first league to have Bowls taken away.

One of the things I read was a requirement teams with winning records would have to be placed ahead of 6 and 6 teams may be considered. That would make things somewhat fair although teams from the P5 leagues do travel better than the top teams from the G5 leagues.

[CajunEXPRESS]

Mike that was the argument for the 64 teams. That went away almost the first year.

[Duckster]

Although I'm not a fan of teams with losing records playing in a bowl its better letting the market decide. The moratorium could have unforeseen consequences. Such as there could be a couple of bowls hanging on by a thread right now in their existing location. What if the Camelia Bowl dies and needs to be reincarnated in San Antonio or Houston? Meaning is the moratorium a site neutral thing whereas a conference can relocate a bowl game? Or is that a no go?