| Steve Whitewater's 2007-08 Bowl Wrapup |
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |
The 2007-08 college football bowl season is now officially completed, the reviews are in, and one word comes to mind when describing the mood of this
solitary college football fan: angry. I am angry that there are so many bowls to begin with, angry that Illinois was deemed the best fodder for the USC machine,
angry that the International Bowl was so one-sided (more on that later), and angry that Ohio State was given another opportunity to prove the Big Ten’s
ineptitude on the grandest college football scale. As the statistics and highlights are pored over in preparation for the 2008 season, here are some factoids
that I have found that drive home the point of Bowl Elephantitis:
-Of the 64 teams competing in the bowl season, a whopping 22! had a 7-5 record or worse heading into their postseason game. Sorry, folks, but this
breeds mediocrity at its finest. In the current 12-game regular season schedule, if you can’t win at least two-thirds of your games, you should not be allowed to
play in a bowl game.
-Of the 32 bowl games, 14 of them resulted in the victors winning the game by at least two touchdowns, which seems a pretty conservative number. Of
these gross inequities, Tulsa beat Bowling Green by 56! in the GMAC Bowl, Oregon beat South Florida by 35! in the Sun Bowl (FYI, weren’t those teams both in
the national title chase at one point? Wow, how the mighty fell.), and Missouri beat Arkansas by 31! in the Cotton Bowl. Heck, three of the BCS games were
decided rather handily: USC by 32 over the Illini in the Rose, Georgia by 31 over the Rainbow Warriors in the Sugar, and the Mountaineers of West Virginia over
Oklahoma by 20 in the Fiesta. And that does not even count LSU’s rather comfortable two touchdown win over the Buckeyes.
-Looking at conference performance, it is pretty easy to see which ones were the best during the 2007 regular season. The SEC teams went 7-2 in bowl
games, the Pac-10 ones went 4-2, the Big 12 teams went 5-3, and the mighty Big Ten teams went 3-5. Not to be confused with the mightier ACC, which ran its
conference bowl record to 2-6. What does this mean? It means that those analysts who we love to mock must have been right in questioning Boston College’
s legitimacy or Ohio State’s deservedness. And that Appalachian State’s shocking upset of Michigan was not as impressive as we had hoped.
I will use the 2008 International Bowl as a case study of college football bowl season extravagance. The game pitted a Big East also-ran (Rutgers) vs. the
MAC third place team (Ball State), both of which had 7-5 records. Looking at the statistics, it might be tough to judge the game’s winner: Ball St. QB Nate Davis
threw for 291 yards and 3 TDs, RB Chris Clancy ran for 98 yards, TE Darius Hill caught 9 passes for 89 yards and two TDs, and WR Dante Love caught 13
passes for 169 yards and a touchdown. Not bad, huh? Well, Ball State lost rather convincingly, 52-30. Rutgers RB Ray Rice ran for 280 yards and 4 TDs (in
three quarters) before declaring for the NFL Draft, QB Mike Teel threw for 303 yards and 3 TDs, and Rutgers sacked Davis 7 times while getting pressure on
him constantly throughout the game. But what did Rutgers have to prove? All this game did was alleviate the notion that Big East teams are more physical and
fast and that these types of bowl games are rather inconsequential. I mean, of course I was thrilled that my Cardinals reached a postseason game for the first
time since 1996 and that the national media could witness Davis and the great Cardinals offense. But the massive weight difference between the offensive
and defensive lines (TV announcer Jesse Palmer said that there was a 41 lb-per man weight difference between the teams) resulted in an unfair and
lopsided outcome. Should Rutgers feel good about beating a MAC team? Of course, any win is positive, but when the playing field is this uneven, does it really
matter? Should Ball State feel bad about being physically dominated? Of course not. Rutgers is a BCS conference school and doesn’t exactly fit the standards
that Ball State faces in a regular MAC game. After witnessing this game, I just question why it is even played and what the purpose is of contesting two vastly
different teams. Bowl season has officially gotten too expansive.
So how do we fix this? Clearly, fewer games should be played. Other than winning a bad conference with a mediocre record (call this the 2005 San Diego
Padres Rule), bowl contestants should be forced to have at least 8 victories under their belt. Conference champions should be rewarded and 4th and 5th
place conference teams should not be selected for postseason games. The bowl season should start no sooner than December 30 and the BCS
championship game will remain- only with a twist. Now, with the names that they ought to have, here is my revised 10-game college football bowl schedule
(keeping tradition alive as much as possible):
-Holiday Bowl: Pac-10 #2 vs. Big 12 #2
-Independence Bowl: WAC #1 vs. Conference USA #1
-Peach Bowl: SEC #2 vs. ACC #2
-Cotton Bowl: Big East #2 vs. Mountain West #1
-Gator Bowl: Big Ten #2 vs. MAC #1
-Rose Bowl: Pac-10 #1 vs. Big Ten #1
-Sugar Bowl: SEC #1 vs. Top Minor Conference Team
-Fiesta Bowl: Big 12 #1 vs. Big East #1
-Orange Bowl: ACC #1 vs. At-large
-National Championship Game: #1 vs. #2 in the final rankings after bowl games played- the enticing “And 1” system
Obviously, these games can have some variation. The top team from the WAC, Conference USA, Mountain West, Sun Belt, and MAC can fight it out for the
alluring one open BCS spot every season. The at-large slot goes to a top independent or a BCS-conference school in the top 10 in the polls who finished third
in a great conference (a.k.a. this year’s Missouri). The Rose Bowl can never change but the other BCS games can vary every season, allowing a Hawaii or
Boise State to play in the Sugar, Fiesta, or Orange Bowl. This system, although quite different, would grow and allow a more equitable national champion. We
all wanted to see LSU vs. USC or Georgia after the bowl games this year: this system makes it possible. Unfortunately, this is clearly a pipe dream and will
never happen, but one can only wish. Here’s to another year of anticipation for 32 more bowl games
For another perspective on the Bowls, check out Bob Loblaw's 2008 Bowl Review.
 |