From: pdunn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Patrick L Dunn)
Subject: Re: Proof of What drives I-A football (was Iowa vs BY
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 23:48:52 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.151615@mccall.com> scott@mccall.com (Scott D. Davis) writ
es:
>
>In article <1992Nov18.180533.27592@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, pdunn@magnus.ac
s.ohio-state.edu (Patrick L Dunn) writes:

>>There have got to be ten teams which will have better records than this and
>>will stay at home. The only reason for this, of course, is the added notoriet
y
>>which a team like Iowa brings from its name, and the increase in revenue whic
h
>>is likely to be generated.
>>
>>There have been a lot of cracks made about the Blockbuster Bowl choosing Penn
>>St. before the start of the season.  It seems to me that if the bowls are onl
y
>>interensted in making money by putting revenue-generating teams together in
>>bowl games regardless of their mediocre records all the bowls might as well
>>pick thier matchups before the season starts; after all, it seems that is the
>>most important criteria for choosing teams to play.
>>
>>Further proof of the prostitutionalization of college football.
>>
>Agreed, but it even goes farther than that:
>And talk about DivIAA "home field" in the playoffs.  Didn't you
>tell me that home field is determined by attendance?  I also
>heard that 33 DivIAA teams had to "bid" to get the playoffs in
>their home town.

I have to agree that the "bidding" for home playoff games in I-AA sort of
cheapens the concept.  However, I do not think you will ever see a team that is
6-6 in the I-AA playoffs.  In fact, only three teams (Marshall in 1987, the
Citadel in 1989, and Western Illinois in 1991) have gotten at-large bids with
four losses.  The only other time a team with four losses got in was '91, when
McNeese St. won the Southland automatic bid with a 6-4-1 record.  I-AA still
seems to put more far more value on performance than the bowl system
does.  Teams have to prove their worth to get into the I-AA playoffs.

I just think it is the ultimate hypocrisy to state that a bowl game is a reward
for doing well when the teams with the best records are not invited.

>As for the Bowls....look at their names.  It just isn't the
>Orange, Gator, etc.  The SunBowl even lost its whole name.
>Teams want in the Rose and Orange for the payout alone.
>I'm waiting for when businesses take over college athletics.
>IBM Wolverines(Go Blue), All-State Hurricanes(your in good
>hands after an accident), Emery Wildcats(when it has to
>get to Kentucky fast), Budweiser Boilermakers(what a drink),
>MinuteMaid Orangemen, etc etc etc.  Even USAToday(Tues 11-17-92,
>page 9c) writes an article about it.

Let's hear it for amateur athletics:-)

>As for Iowa, name the 10 teams with a better record with a
>comparable schedule.  I'll agree they probably don't deserve
>to go.  But who does?

Well, I still don't want to cut down Iowa--that's not my point.  My beef is
with a bowl system whose stated purpose is to reward teams who have good years.
And there are teams out there that have won more games and lost fewer games 
than Iowa and will be home for the holidays.  One team that comes to mind is 
Southern Mississippi.  You might have a point on schedule strength, but I would 
buy it a lot quicker if the Big 10 was a little tougher this year.  The one and
only thing that gets Iowa in and keeps Southern Miss out is drawing power.  
And, back to my point, that is not (or at least it shouldn't be) the reason a 
team gets a bowl bid.