Some of the greatest football games were played outdoors. Steelers, Packers etc. It is great to see teams battle the elements. I love to watch games in the snow. I could not care if some corporate executive wants to sit in stadium that is 80 degrees. Baseball isn't afraid to have playoff games in October in any MLB stadiums. I don't understand why football (which claims it is a "man's game"😉 can't battle the elements.
The idea that Northern cities wouldn't support a bowl game is a joke. Michigan has had over 100,000 people at every home game since 1975. You think they wouldn't fill up a bowl?
It is simply stupid and unfair to have all the games in one region of the country. There is no rosed color glasses in this issue it is just that I don't have to swallow whole the notion that a Championship football game has to be played in the sun of the south.
Originally posted by myteamtrulystinksThen you have no clue about how sports exist. If you take out the financing/advertising dollar, they all cease to exist. Period. So, yes, Pollyanna, it does make sense to coddle those that pay for the show, and the show won't go where there is snow, ya know!! Now blow!!
Some of the greatest football games were played outdoors. Steelers, Packers etc. It is great to see teams battle the elements. I love to watch games in the snow. I could not care if some corporate executive wants to sit in stadium that is 80 degrees. Baseball isn't afraid to have playoff games in October in any MLB stadiums. I don't understand the notion that a Championship football game has to be played in the sun of the south.
Originally posted by shortcircuitPenn State, Ohio State, Michigan and other could weather venues have no problem getting 95,000+ for out of conference games. There is no reason to think that they would not support bowl games.
Then you have no clue about how sports exist. If you take out the financing/advertising dollar, they all cease to exist. Period. So, yes, Pollyanna, it does make sense to coddle those that pay for the show, and the show won't go where there is snow, ya know!! Now blow!!
P.S. To use your expression "maybe you should blow". It is probably something you do well.
- Joined
- 28 Jun 01
- Moves
- 36847
Originally posted by myteamtrulystinksAren't heat and humidity considered "elements" teams have to deal with as well like cold and snow? I guess the only fair locations to hold bowl games would have to be domed stadiums, but then they are biased towards teams that play on artificial surfaces aren't they? 😉
Some of the greatest football games were played outdoors. Steelers, Packers etc. It is great to see teams battle the elements. I love to watch games in the snow. I could not care if some corporate executive wants to sit in stadium that is 80 degrees. Baseball isn't afraid to have playoff games in October in any MLB stadiums. I don't understand the notion that a Championship football game has to be played in the sun of the south.
The NCAA has 3 bowl games played up north:
1. Motor City Bowl in Detroit, MI played between Big 10 & MAC at indoor Ford Field after moving from the Pontiac Silverdome
2. International Bowl in Toronto, Canada played between Big East and MAC in the Rogers Centre (aka Sky Dome)
3. Humanitarian Bowl in Boise, ID played between ACC and WAC at 30,000 seat Bronco Stadium known for it's gimmicky blue turf.
Basically, these bowls were created for MAC and WAC schools to get in on the post season action. If not, nobody would want to spend bowl season in any of these places. I must admit, I was in attendace for the Humanitarian Bowl a few years back. It did snow during the game too, fun trip, but not something I'd want to do every year. In genereal when it's cold, people want to head South for warmer weather. That's why I can hit any SC beach in March and watch crazy Canadians splash around in the 50 degree Atlantic Ocean.
Originally posted by vacostnerOf course heat and humidity are elements. It is one of the reasons I think that the is a home field advantage for certain teams. I never said there should be no bowl games in the south, I just don't think that all the BCS bowls should be there.
Aren't heat and humidity considered "elements" teams have to deal with as well like cold and snow? I guess the only fair locations to hold bowl games would have to be domed stadiums, but then they are biased towards teams that play on artificial surfaces aren't they? 😉
The NCAA has 3 bowl games played up north:
1. Motor City Bowl in Detroit, MI played ...[text shortened]... beach in March and watch crazy Canadians splash around in the 50 degree Atlantic Ocean.
With all due respect to the three bowls you mentioned, they are a disproportionately low in amount and importance. I am glad you saw the Humanitarian Bowl (I've only seen the blue turf on TV) and I think that there would be demand for tickets to these sort of games for people who wanted to go to a game without necessarily making a vacation around it.
Originally posted by myteamtrulystinksWhat a joke. Now sunshine and humidity pose an unfair advantage? I just bet you are the type of guy who loves to watch a game during a torrential downpour that you can't see through with everyone slipping and sliding through the mud and the muck. Those conditions, just like blizzard conditions or frozen turf do not allow athletes to display the best of their talents. If you think the battle should be with the elements rather than the opponents, then you are a bigger rube than I gave you credit for being. True, you have to deal with the elements, but why on earth would you wish crappy weather on a sporting event? I guarantee you, the players don't want it that way, the networks don't want it that way, and the overwhelming majority of the fans don't want it that way. Most people want to see the best that both teams have to offer. You probably love referees that take over a game and over-call it as well. Wake up and smell what it is you are shoveling guy!!
Of course heat and humidity are elements. It is one of the reasons I think that the is a home field advantage for certain teams. I never said there should be no bowl games in the south, I just don't think that all the BCS bowls should be there.
With all due respect to the three bowls you mentioned, they are a disproportionately low in amount and f games for people who wanted to go to a game without necessarily making a vacation around it.
EDIT: If you want the bowl games to be played near where you live, move near the venues.
The beauty of the stadium is irrelevant. The Rose Bowl is a Pac 10 venue with USC fans. It is a home game for USC. I can't even see how that is debatable.
When Penn State plays in Texas against Texas A&M and Michigan plays in Florida against Florida (both bowl games the Big 10 won) they are road games. The overwhelming majority of fans, the weather etc are all for one side and the other side needs to travel to a different climate and geographical region. That is the definition of a home game.
I never suggested anyone play a bowl game where I live (Long Island. Although I imagine if you were looking for TV ratings and fans I wouldn't be the dumbest idea to have one of your 22 bowl games in the New York metropolitan area ). I suggested that if you wanted to be fair you play it where teams (which includes the north east and midwest) and not just in the South.
If every world Series was played in Yankee Stadium. People would say it is unfair. It would not matter if it has a lot of history, it the stadium is beautiful, if it was agreed upon before hand or if TV networks liked having it in a major market that loved baseball. Your arguments just have nothing to do with fairness.
Originally posted by myteamtrulystinksThe schools get an equal number of tickets for a bowl game; it is nothing like a home game for either school. USC does not play its home games in the Rose Bowl and that fact doesn't change no matter how many times you erroneously claim otherwise.
The beauty of the stadium is irrelevant. The Rose Bowl is a Pac 10 venue with USC fans. It is a home game for USC. I can't even see how that is debatable.
When Penn State plays in Texas against Texas A&M and Michigan plays in Florida against Florida (both bowl games the Big 10 won) they are road games. The overwhelming majority of fans, the ...[text shortened]... in a major market that loved baseball. Your arguments just have nothing to do with fairness.
The big picture is that the Big Ten is 14-22 in bowl games over the last 5 years; cherry picking a couple of games doesn't change that dismal record.
I suggest the Big Ten stop playing in bowl games or it's crybaby fans stop whining; either would be fine with me. Make your own bowl games if you don't like it; I'm sure lots of high rollers will trudge up to Ann Arbor in January.
In professional sports, even ones with uniform fields (football and basketball) there is a huge home field advantage and teams play a whole season to get home playoff games. Somehow, you think that in college football it isn't a home field advantage.
The Rose Bowl is in USC/ UCLA home territory and it is absolutely ridiculous to not think it is a home gamme for a California team.
The NBA has the draft in New York, but it would not be fair to have its championship game there. I feel the same way about the NCAA having its bowl games in one region of the country.
I am not cherry picking games I am showing that the games are uneven. As stated before if Ohio State played the Pac 10 #3 team in the midwest it would be a blow out, it is not any different than Illinois #3 in the Big 10 playing in USC. You can't only look at records when Ilinnois are expected to play USCs or Michigan State's play top 15 teams like BC.
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
The only thing I care about is that Ohio St. stay the hell out of the national title game so that the nation can be spared from their futility.
Oh, and that Notre Dame stay where they're at and where they belong. They've been far too overrated for far too long.
And, Go Ducks!
Originally posted by myteamtrulystinksThe #4 in the Pac-10, Oregon, beat Michigan in Ann Arbor by 32 points. USC lost to Stanford which was near the bottom of the PAC-10; how come the team that finished tied for 2nd in the Big Ten couldn't even put up a fight?
In professional sports, even ones with uniform fields (football and basketball) there is a huge home field advantage and teams play a whole season to get home playoff games. Somehow, you think that in college football it isn't a home field advantage.
The Rose Bowl is in USC/ UCLA home territory and it is absolutely ridiculous to not think it is ...[text shortened]... ecords when Ilinnois are expected to play USCs or Michigan State's play top 15 teams like BC.
Like I said, no one is putting a gun to the Big Ten's head and making them play in the Rose Bowl or any other bowl. They can quit playing there at any time. That would be a more reasonable solution than playing the Rose Bowl in Green Bay every other year like you seem to want.
It is funny how the Celtics go half the playoffs without winning a road game and the conclusion of the sports world is well that's what home field advantage is about, but when I suggest that home field is ignored in college football (which it clearly is) I am told that's the way it is.
The Big 10 has an above .500 record against the SEC in bowl games the last 5 years because the match ups are even (big ten 3 vs SEC 3).
No conference wins games when there 7th best team (Michigan State) plays a top 15 team (BC). Win loss record in expected blow outs (although it actually ended up being a 3 point game) games are just irrelevant when comparing conferences. At the very least have Michigan State play another team that was .500 for the season or Illinois play another team that finished third in their conference before you decide that the whole conference stinks because they have a below .500 bowl record.
Originally posted by myteamtrulystinksThey've had a below .500 Bowl record FOR 5 YEARS! And their best teams get smashed EVERY YEAR!
It is funny how the Celtics go half the playoffs without winning a road game and the conclusion of the sports world is well that's what home field advantage is about, but when I suggest that home field is ignored in college football (which it clearly is) I am told that's the way it is.
The Big 10 has an above .500 record against the SEC in bowl ...[text shortened]... before you decide that the whole conference stinks because they have a below .500 bowl record.
Wake up and smell the coffee.
If you continually have teams like Michigan State play BC and Illinois play USC on the road they cannot be expected to win. The SEC as good as it is played one BCS conference champion; the big 10 played two plus Michigan State (who is 7th in the conference) played a top 15 team. If other conference has similar lopsided scheduled games they would have lopsided results too. Simply put no one travels further to play a tougher bowl schedule and that's why I think one needs to look at more than just record when comparing conferences.