[NU Sports] FW: NU alum says PSU deserves Bowl, but not Pitt (& NU)

[Jim Leonard]

That's an interesting idea, Mike. What if non-bowl teams could start fall camp a week earlier and have 10 extra sessions in pads? I wonder how many coaches would pass on a minor bowl game. 
 
I'm with you though, I like having the option of watching the various bowls. This is one case where I say the free market should be free to act. If the bowls can't pay for themselves they will disappear and if they can pay for themselves they are not hurting anyone.
 
Jim
 
 
 

________________________________
 From: Mike Nolan <nolan at tssi.com>
To: "Weinbaum, Willie" <Willie.Weinbaum at espn.com> 
Cc: "'nwu-sports at tssi.com'" <nwu-sports at tssi.com> 
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 10:46 AM
Subject: Re: [NU Sports] FW: NU alum says PSU deserves Bowl, but not Pitt (& NU)
 
> http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11333/1193289-87.stm  

Well, if you start with the premise that there are
'a ridiculous number of bowls', as he does,
then concluding that 6-6 teams shouldn't be in bowl
games is probably not unreasonable.

As long as ESPN and others are willing to shell out
for TV rights for bowl games, I don't see any meaningful
shrinkage in the number of games.

With 120 FBS teams, 35 bowl games is probably about as
many as the current rules can handle without running
into the risk that there aren't enough bowl-eligible
teams to fill all the bowls.  

Personally, I like bowl games, because each bowl
has its own story, even the mismatches.  And if
college football has proven anything, it is that
you cannot assume the favored team will win.

I do, however, have concerns about the fact that 70
out of 120 teams get extra practices.  This creates
'haves' and 'have nots'.  

Perhaps the NCAA should allow ALL 120 FBS teams to 
practice in December, not just the bowl-eligible ones.
--
Mike Nolan




_______________________________________________
nwu-sports site list
nwu-sports at tssi.com
http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/nwu-sports