[Husker] The fed bringing the hear on the BCS

[Jon Johnston]

I like the bowl games, and they do mean something. Given how poor scheduling has gotten in college football, it's a chance for teams to play each other than normally wouldn't. 

Put it this way - if it weren't for the bowls, the last game between Nebraska and Michigan is in 1962. We haven't played Ohio State since the mid-50s. We've never played Tennessee outside of bowls. Last game against Alabama in 1978, Georgia in 76. 

I could go on. Scheduling is garbage, including ours. 

I don't get the complaining about the bowls. It's more college football. Who's not for that? 

Jon Johnston
Corn Nation

On Jan 30, 2010, at 2:41 PM, David Strong wrote:

> 
>> Why? What changes for the bowls? As it is today, only one
>> bowl geme "matters" in the sense that it determines the MNC,
>> yet we have over thirty bowl games. I've heard this argument
>> before, but I really do not understand it.
> 
> Not to nitpick, but the BCS championship game isn't a bowl anymore.  All of the bowls, BCS or otherwise, are the same.  They are exhibition games played for profit.  Some have big pay, some not so big, that's the only difference.  But other than that, they don't mean anything.  Over half the teams in the FBS go to bowl games, so it's pretty funny when you hear that a team was successful because they went to a bowl.  7-5, lots of them, go to bowls.  6-6, lots of them, go to bowls.  Hooray, we got invited to the Allstate Sugar bowl, or the Emerald Bowl, or the Papa Johns bowl, or the ChikfilA bowl, or the Tostitos Fiesta Bowl.  Hooray, we won the Capitol One bowl, or the Outback bowl, or the Insight Bowl, or the Pacific Life Holiday bowl.  Awesome.
> 
> Dave
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> husker site list
> husker at tssi.com
> http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/husker