Kirk Ferentz on Hawkeyes Being Left Out of Coaches Poll

Whether they stay at 4 teams or expand to 8 teams, non-playoff bowl games could take on significance if they reduced the number down to 10. Then, you'd need a good season to get in one and attendance would be better because your team might not be going every year - those games would have more meaning. However, that will not happen (at least anytime soon). 40 bowl games dilutes the significance of being in a bowl game. Being one of the top 80 teams in the country is pretty close to meaning nothing.
 
homes said:
Whether they stay at 4 teams or expand to 8 teams, non-playoff bowl games could take on significance if they reduced the number down to 10. Then, you'd need a good season to get in one and attendance would be better because your team might not be going every year - those games would have more meaning. However, that will not happen (at least anytime soon). 40 bowl games dilutes the significance of being in a bowl game. Being one of the top 80 teams in the country is pretty close to meaning nothing.
Click to expand...

In the grand scheme of things, ok, these bowl games mean nothing. But by that definition then any game outside of the playoff games are meaningless.

But 20 teams get to take home a trophy and feel pretty damn good about themselves to end the season. I like the bowl system, it's what makes college football unique. The playoff system is fine as it is, it got the right 2 teams into the championship game and we got a champion.
 
ssckelley said:
In the grand scheme of things, ok, these bowl games mean nothing. But by that definition then any game outside of the playoff games are meaningless.

But 20 teams get to take home a trophy and feel pretty damn good about themselves to end the season. I like the bowl system, it's what makes college football unique. The playoff system is fine as it is, it got the right 2 teams into the championship game and we got a champion.
Click to expand...

I like it too...but 20 bowls are enough not 40.
 
ssckelley said:
In the grand scheme of things, ok, these bowl games mean nothing. But by that definition then any game outside of the playoff games are meaningless.

But 20 teams get to take home a trophy and feel pretty damn good about themselves to end the season. I like the bowl system, it's what makes college football unique. The playoff system is fine as it is, it got the right 2 teams into the championship game and we got a champion.
Click to expand...
I guess it comes down to how one defines "meaningless".

I'm all for extending the college football season as long as possible, it's my favorite sports season, and I'm particularly happy when Iowa is still playing. But, given the number of bowl games, it's more of another non-conference game on the schedule for nearly 2/3 of the schools in the FBS, which I'm fine with.

I've asserted this before, but back when it was just bowl games, there were only, at most, 3 bowl games that "mattered" in determining the national champion, i.e., back when the national champion was decided by poll rankings. In that sense, those other bowl games back then were also "meaningless". However, because there were not many of the "other" bowl games, you still had to have a really good season to go to one. Now, Iowa can go 3-0 in non-conference and 3-6 in the conference and still go to a bowl game. I get to watch Iowa again, which is great, but I'm not of the mind to believe that 13th game is because of Iowa's great season. So, maybe I was a bit harsh by stating it meant almost nothing, but it would mean more if it was more exclusive due to the success of the season. I think that is also the primary reason for the flagging attendance at many of these games.
 
The newer bowls that have been added the last few years are participation trophies for perennial P5 lesser-thans and non-P5 conferences. I agree, they are meaningless.

So, getting rid of them isn't getting to make the "traditional" bowls more valuable because those bowls are still getting the same tier of teams as before.


The current mix of playoff/bowl we have now is a mutt dog: part on the field success, part historical/blueblood, part talent, part media hype, and for some reason, anti-cinderella angst. I'm okay with the bowl part of the butt, but the playoff part of the mutt is back-door smoke-filled room mess.
 
homes said:
I guess it comes down to how one defines "meaningless".

I'm all for extending the college football season as long as possible, it's my favorite sports season, and I'm particularly happy when Iowa is still playing. But, given the number of bowl games, it's more of another non-conference game on the schedule for nearly 2/3 of the schools in the FBS, which I'm fine with.

I've asserted this before, but back when it was just bowl games, there were only, at most, 3 bowl games that "mattered" in determining the national champion, i.e., back when the national champion was decided by poll rankings. In that sense, those other bowl games back then were also "meaningless". However, because there were not many of the "other" bowl games, you still had to have a really good season to go to one. Now, Iowa can go 3-0 in non-conference and 3-6 in the conference and still go to a bowl game. I get to watch Iowa again, which is great, but I'm not of the mind to believe that 13th game is because of Iowa's great season. So, maybe I was a bit harsh by stating it meant almost nothing, but it would mean more if it was more exclusive due to the success of the season. I think that is also the primary reason for the flagging attendance at many of these games.
Click to expand...

But when Iowa wins 6 games are we not watching those bowl games? This has happened 5 times dating all the way back to 1988 but they only won once in 2001 (Alamo Bowl over Texas Tech). But I remember that 2001 bowl win feeling like a huge accomplishment. The rest of them were all disappointments (obviously) but that didn't stop me from watching the game. Of course they are not considered "great seasons", I honestly don't consider this past one a "great season" (good, just not great) even though they won 9 games.

Now if you want to tell me some of those other 39 bowl games are meaningless, for me personally I'd agree. But I'm sure there were Wake Forest fans excited that they won the Birmingham Bowl over Memphis, they were a 6 win team going into that bowl game. I'm not watching those games but who cares, somebody is.

As far as the attendance of these games is concerned, that's not my worry. There were plenty of empty seats in the Outback Bowl, it didn't bother me one bit.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sold on the number of bowl games, but IMO it's football and I'm going to watch it. and if it's Iowa playing in one of those bowl games that changes sponsors yearly so be it, because chances are whoever we're matched up against is still going to be a better program than one or two of our OOC opponents.
 
ssckelley said:
But when Iowa wins 6 games are we not watching those bowl games? This has happened 5 times dating all the way back to 1988 but they only won once in 2001 (Alamo Bowl over Texas Tech). But I remember that 2001 bowl win feeling like a huge accomplishment. The rest of them were all disappointments (obviously) but that didn't stop me from watching the game. Of course they are not considered "great seasons", I honestly don't consider this past one a "great season" (good, just not great) even though they won 9 games.

Now if you want to tell me some of those other 39 bowl games are meaningless, for me personally I'd agree. But I'm sure there were Wake Forest fans excited that they won the Birmingham Bowl over Memphis, they were a 6 win team going into that bowl game. I'm not watching those games but who cares, somebody is.

As far as the attendance of these games is concerned, that's not my worry. There were plenty of empty seats in the Outback Bowl, it didn't bother me one bit.
Click to expand...
I don't think we really disagree.

It's funny, in 2001, the Alamo Bowl was a big deal to Iowa fans because it represented a new turning point in the program, although the Hawks had been there before and have after. Fast forward to this year, and the Alamo Bowl is the best bowl the Iowa State has ever been in*, according to them, while that's so, been there, done that for us Hawkeye fans.

*Although I would argue it was the 1971 Sun Bowl game, which they also lost, as there were only 11 bowl games that year, which for each bowl game, save for the Bluebonnet Bowl, was at or near full attendance.
 
homes said:
I don't think we really disagree.

It's funny, in 2001, the Alamo Bowl was a big deal to Iowa fans because it represented a new turning point in the program, although the Hawks had been there before and have after. Fast forward to this year, and the Alamo Bowl is the best bowl the Iowa State has ever been in*, according to them, while that's so, been there, done that for us Hawkeye fans.

*Although I would argue it was the 1971 Sun Bowl game, which they also lost, as there were only 11 bowl games that year, which for each bowl game, save for the Bluebonnet Bowl, was at or near full attendance.
Click to expand...

For us old folks, when a SECOND Big 10 team got to go to a bowl, that was huge. It was, of course, a response to O$U being "voted" to the Rose Bowl by Big 10 ADs after the tie game. Michigan became the first Big 10 "runner-up" to play a bowl game, losing to Oklahoma in the Orange Bowl. A few years later, it was a "few" Big 10 teams, and then by the 1980s, it was pretty much any Big 10 team with 6 or 7 wins.
 
A lot of good thoughts here and it has been discussed before but again 40 bowls might be close to the most. But I think some adjustments or rules need to be introduced or re-introduced. Like teams with losing records playing in bowl games. I think Nebby did a few years ago and they did play well and win but this is lame. A team needs to be at least 6-6 to get a bowl. I think the hawks got jobbed on their Freedom Bowl payout and maybe some others have also so are the Bowl Game organizers putting the payouts in escrow. Need to make sure schools/teams arent getting screwed.

This brings up another thought which is to get away from the 6-6 records going to bowls. How about going to a 13 game regular season. Teams would be either 7-6 or 6-7 at at the cutoff level. No teams with losing records go to bowls. If there are not enough teams to fill bowls that whittles down the number of bowls.

This is sort of like the NCAA D1 Bball tourney part that I hate is when a team that is 10-20, 7th in their league goes nuts and wins their Conf tourney. They get an auto bid and then other team(s) in their league get in the tourney effectively bumping a team out of the tourney who might be 2-10. Doesnt happen a lot but the fans of that decent 20-10 team that gets bumped are pissed. It may have happened to the Hawks in the past.
 
As far as the hawks getting left out of the Coaches poll it doesnt matter to me. hawks were probably 26th or so and more people pay attention to the AP and other polls rather than what some athletic dept staff member sends in for a vote to the coaches poll because the coach wont do it.

Overall I cant overly complain about a 9-4 record, a big bowl win against a tough SEC opponent, there were 4 very close losses that took the wind out of everyone, and a lot of what ifs. But finishing ranked in the AP is nice because it doesnt happen very much lately.

Now this upcoming season could be a tough one but if the ball bounces the hawks way maybe we win most of the close ones and still get 8 wins.
 
hawkeyebob62 said:
For us old folks, when a SECOND Big 10 team got to go to a bowl, that was huge. It was, of course, a response to O$U being "voted" to the Rose Bowl by Big 10 ADs after the tie game. Michigan became the first Big 10 "runner-up" to play a bowl game, losing to Oklahoma in the Orange Bowl. A few years later, it was a "few" Big 10 teams, and then by the 1980s, it was pretty much any Big 10 team with 6 or 7 wins.
Click to expand...
I presume you've seen the documentary on the BTN about the vote? It was well done. I firmly believe it was Michigan State's AD that voted against Michigan, as retribution for Michigan trying to keep MSU out of the Big Ten.
 
I think what is missed is the phenomenon of "Ferentzing". It works for us Iowa fans. Others see it as a gimmick and a terror when it works against your own team.

The 2009 team and the 2002 team and a few others won without the Ferentzing Effect. Those teams got respect.
 
uihawk82 said:
A lot of good thoughts here and it has been discussed before but again 40 bowls might be close to the most. But I think some adjustments or rules need to be introduced or re-introduced. Like teams with losing records playing in bowl games. I think Nebby did a few years ago and they did play well and win but this is lame. A team needs to be at least 6-6 to get a bowl. I think the hawks got jobbed on their Freedom Bowl payout and maybe some others have also so are the Bowl Game organizers putting the payouts in escrow. Need to make sure schools/teams arent getting screwed.

This brings up another thought which is to get away from the 6-6 records going to bowls. How about going to a 13 game regular season. Teams would be either 7-6 or 6-7 at at the cutoff level. No teams with losing records go to bowls. If there are not enough teams to fill bowls that whittles down the number of bowls.

This is sort of like the NCAA D1 Bball tourney part that I hate is when a team that is 10-20, 7th in their league goes nuts and wins their Conf tourney. They get an auto bid and then other team(s) in their league get in the tourney effectively bumping a team out of the tourney who might be 2-10. Doesnt happen a lot but the fans of that decent 20-10 team that gets bumped are pissed. It may have happened to the Hawks in the past.
Click to expand...
6-6 shouldn't be allowed anyway. 3 wins against Bethune Cookman type colleges should not count for being bowl eligible.
How can you say they do and then if a school like that goes undefeated they shouldn't have a spot in the playoffs?? You can't.
Should be conf wins only (or other p5 wins)and with us playing one more than others....,well tough crap I guess huh??
I think I should just be hired to run around the b10 setting crap straight.
 
Last edited:
4thngoal said:
6-6 shouldn't be allowed anyway. 3 wins against Bethune Cookman type colleges should not count for being bowl eligible.
How can you say they do and then if a school like that goes undefeated they shouldn't have a spot in the playoffs?? You can't.
Should be conf wins only (or other p5 wins)and with us playing one more than others....,well tough crap I guess huh??
I think I should just be hired to run around the b10 setting crap straight.
Click to expand...

So when Iowa finished 6-6 in 2006 with wins over over Montana and Northern Illinois and finished 2-6 in conference you didn't watch the Alamo Bowl?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top