Counterpoint: There are not too many bowls

Yes, the New Orleans Bowl is on the schedule, with 7-4 North Texas and 6-5 Southern Mississippi getting ready to tangle. Now, I can think of about 100 better things to do in New Orleans than watch North Texas and Southern Mississippi play football, but that's another story that's probably not fit for the sports page.

Anyhow, these are the kinds of games that momentarily distract people from their BCS rants and turn them towards the old "there's too many bowls" argument. About this time each year, some codger looks at the bowl schedule and goes into histrionics about how the expanding bowl picture is watering down the meaning of the bowls.

Generally, I have no problem with the preponderance of bowl games. As a football fan, I'd much rather watch two 6-5 football teams play than watch a rerun of the World Series of Poker Celebrity All-Star Challenge Classic, or whatever other marginal programming would be occupying that time slot on ESPN.

But there are better reasons for more bowls than to simply satisfy your jones for televised football.

We need more bowl games, and the growing bowl picture is consistent with the parity that currently exists in college football.

In a bygone era, it was probably better to have fewer games. There were a handful of dominant teams -- your Ohio States, Oklahomas, Texases, Michigans and USCs -- then a huge drop-off to the next level of play.

In those days, it was inconceivable that a team like Utah or Boise State would hold a legitmate place in college football's hierarchy. It was equally inconceivable that teams like Nebraska and Notre Dame would be mediocre afterthoughts.

That is where we are today, though. Scholarship reductions have spread the best talent more evenly across college football's landscape, and more teams have established themselves as legitimate football programs. In this climate, the bowl door should be a little wider.

These days more teams out there are playing quality football, or at least playing a level of football that's consistent with bowl eligibility.

It can be rightly argued that a 6-5 team doesn't deserve to be in a bowl, that a team that's barely above .500 shouldn't get the chance for a free vacation in late December.

Thirteen 6-5 teams earned bowl berths this year, but before you dismiss those teams out of hand, take a closer look at a few of them.

6-5 UCLA put a big scare in No. 1 USC.

6-5 Iowa State beat perennial powers Nebraska and Kansas State.

6-5 Notre Dame beat Michigan and Tennessee.

6-5 North Carolina beat Miami.

The point here isn't that these are great teams. They aren't.

Those teams are, however, examples of what parity can accomplish, points that prove the difference between a really good 8-3 team and a 6-5 team that's considered mediocre isn't vast. Why should one of these teams go to a bowl and the other not?

There are really only two ways for the bowl system to operate. You either close the door and limit bowl participants to the truly elite highly rated BCS teams, or you swing the door wide open and let most of the winning teams in.

Judging by the problems the BCS has had determing who the elite teams actually are, it's probably better we're going with the latter approach.

Jay Hansen can be reached at jmhansen@nncogannett.com.

Originally published Tuesday, December 14, 2004