Best-ever package on corrupt aspect of bowl games

There couldn't be a better piece that's ever been done on the negative aspects of bowl games.

Dan Wetzel has hit a homer with this. And he's got more info coming soon.

Great job by Mr. Wetzel on a topic that needs more attention.

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=dw-bowls121808&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

 

I believe the Times and several other publications have done this before.

 

I certainly believe that turning the NCAA men's basketball tournament into a megabucks TV extravaganza has lessened the corruption in that sport.
Yay, playoff!

 

I have for some time wondered why we can't have a football playoff.
Lord knows, all the other divisions except D-I do it.
The game last nite with Richmond was exciting.
It would and could work on D-I level.
It's just that the NCAA is married to the bowl games and their mostly-crooked gnomes running around in the bright blazers.

Include the bowls, if need be. But a playoff is the only right thing to do.

There are too many bowls, too.
Desmond Howard said it best today. You are rewarding mediocrity.

 

It needs to be said often, absolutely, but Wetzel covered very little new ground.

The San Diego U-T, among others, have done excellent work on this topic, particularly the bowl folks' salaries.

An executive job with a bowl game is a freaking gold mine. Best job in sports.

 

Yes, it was an excellent piece. I remember reading it, but I think a couple of other papers have done it too.,
I have a hard time making a team bowl eligible because of six wins. Six wins, as Howard said, mediocrity.

 

I do believe that more work has been done on such a package.
I haven't seen a lot of it. But I don't doubt it's been done.
This sort of stuff is interesting whenever it's dispensed.

If there was a standing rule that seven wins were required for acceptance of bowl bids, we'd see a more diverse field of teams enjoying the postseason.

But the bottom line that bowls are flawed is the premise of Wetzel's package and I applaud the introduction of that idea.

Frickin' All-State Sugar Bowl.
Garbage !

 

Part II, by Josh Peter...

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news;_ylt=AmkX02nuvAgWJWAv94b6J8IcvrYF?slug=jo-bowlfacts121908&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

 

I have no beef with the bowls they're doing what they intended to do, I have no problem with the ADs and conference commissioners, they are doing what they are hired to do, move their football programs forward.
I just don't understand how school presidents look at this and don't want to interject themselves into the process. Yes, the bowl games give the schools exposure and the students a nice trip, the expansion of bowl games means more coaches get bowl bonuses, but you'd think school presidents would at least have an opinion and want to get more involved. It's willful neglect. The money is too big for them not to care.

 

The vast, vast majority of bowl games lose massive amounts of money on actual operations, and only make money as a result of sponsorship windfalls (written off as 'promotional expenses', meaning that in effect, TAXPAYERS are funding the sponsorships), mandatory ticket purchases by the participating teams and "volunteer" labor to do work for free that profit-making organizations would have to pay money to get done.

There are 34 bowl games. Maybe 10-12 are actually viable financial operations in their own right (and even that's probably a stretch).

A lot of that sponsorship money is going away very soon. So will many of the bowl games.

 

Wetzel has had a good run of columns as of late. But if you really want to get into the corruption of college football, read the Hundred Yard Lie by Rick Telander.

 

Starman, can you explain what you mean by the statement that taxpayers pay for the sponsorships?