OrrvilleQB;630111 wrote:^^even Lucas oil stadium?

What is there to do in Indy outside of the game? (Serious question, I've never been there). They take that stuff into account too in order to build an experience around the game.

I've been to Phoenix and New Orleans, though not during bowl games, and there's a lot of stuff to keep people busy. Plus, the weather didn't suck and keep everyone in their hotels.

^Indianapolis Motor Speedway and its museum. Gasoilne Alley where most of the Indy Car teams are located. Indiana Pacers games. That's about it!

From what I here, downtown Indy is nice, but who wants to go to a town where it's 25 degrees. Alot of people go to BCS bowls for the whole experience, not just the 3 hours for the game.

I get that side of the argument too...I get it haha

I have never been to Indi so I have no clue....but why does it have to be a week long event....why can't you show up a few days before the game get used to the city and play the game...these BCS games have turned into vacations instead of an actual football game imo. Just shows the power of money in the ncaa and college football.

Indy is a very nice city but there is far less to do there in the wintertime than in the summer.

Their hosting the super bowl..obviously there is something to do there or we wouldn't see a super bowl being played in that city.

I think the Super Bowl is a bit different than a BCS game. It caters to a different crowd than a college bowl game, imo. Bowl games like to bring each school's fan base in whereas the NFL could care less if each pro team's fans come or not. I believe the NFL is more concerned about it making its showcase event a national event, almost a national holiday, than the BCS is. The Super Bowl was definitely made for TV. Big money, maybe only about the money. I also think the Super Bowl is priced out of most ordinary people's means while a college bowl is somewhat more affordable.

In the Super Bowl, winning the Lombardi Trophy far outweighs the experience that is a big part of a BCS/bowl game for its participants and fan bases. Hence, why I think schools show up a week in advance of their game and why there needs to be things to do and see outside the media events, practices, and tutoring sessions.

True, very true....honestly I think both of them are priced way to high...I know I will never go to a game unless I receive free tickets, and even then i would probably sell them.

OrrvilleQB;630130 wrote:but why does it have to be a week long event....why can't you show up a few days before the game get used to the city and play the game...these BCS games have turned into vacations instead of an actual football game imo. Just shows the power of money in the ncaa and college football.

Obviously there's a lot of money at stake, but it isn't like bowl games have "turned into vacations". Since 1903(?), the whole purpose of a bowl game was a unique experience that brought in tourists. Have you been to a bowl game? The experience is a big part of the equation that a lot of people just don't account for when clamoring for new locations....or playoffs. And it isn't new at all.

Actually they have turned into vacations.....I mean just read the comments as to why the games are in warm climates with lots of things to do. If that isn't the definition of a vacation Idk what is.

OrrvilleQB;630307 wrote:Actually they have turned into vacations.....I mean just read the comments as to why the games are in warm climates with lots of things to do. If that isn't the definition of a vacation Idk what is.

No, what I'm saying is, they were ALWAYS that way. That was ALWAYS the intent. You're coming in a little late to the party acting like it is some product of a money grubbing NCAA scam. It might be, but it has been that way since way before college football became a big money attraction.

First bowl game was the Rose Bowl Game in 1902. The thought was to have an exhibition of midwest vs. west coast giants to play after the culmination of the parade. The bowls have always been a 'vacation/getaway' type event. That's just the way it is. The problem is that after all these years their tradition has dictated that we keep playing them despite every other sport and every other level of college football has turned to a playoff to crown a champion. We've shoehorned polls (arguing over who is best, rather than who is the champion, which is not synonymous) into these exhibition games in the hope of somehow backing our way into a legitimate championship game. We haven't. Instead, it's just more of the same with a new name. The BCS was never directly intended for a national title, per se, but to organize the 'major bowls' under the BCA to share their participants to allow even better matchups than what was offered under the previous 'strict alignment'. The BCS is just the eventual continuation of that fallacy.

As for locations, it won't change. Even if we switch to a championship tournament with a neutral site title game (or even neutral site preliminary rounds, which is doubtful as homefield is much more logistically feasible and much more lucrative to the teams that get to host), the game will be played in the south or far west coast where the weather will allow a much more 'even' game in terms of weather and fan attraction to the non-diehards.

That's just the way it is. If the football season ended in August, the north would have the vast majority of games as nobody would want to visit the deep south in the height of summer.

Mark me down as another who wants no part of ever attending a bowl game in the North. Seriously, who on Earth wants to be in Minnesota during January? Who wants to be in Detroit at any time of the year?

OrrvilleQB;630055 wrote:Scarlet buckeyes....maybe you "where" born yesterday.....

Ahhhh damn. Trying to roast someone while using poor grammar. Damnit. Got me.