The Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl Experience: Bad Football Is Better Than No Football

When UCLA asked for a bowl waiver in 2011, you laughed. Hard. So did I. So did everyone with a sense of humor and a functioning college football brain.

The Bruins applied for this bowl waiver before playing Oregon in the Pac-12 championship game, and at 6-6 would not have been eligible had they lost (SPOILER ALERT: they did) because teams must have a record over .500 to qualify.

Their waiver was approved shortly after, and they were battered by Oregon shortly after that. They did, however, cover the 31-point point spread in that game. It was the ultimate Rick Neuheisel sendoff.

With waiver in hand and interim coach at the helm, the bowl selection committee, which also appears to have a pretty wonderful sense of humor, pinned up 6-7 UCLA against a 6-6, interim-led, Ron Zook-less Illinois team in the Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl.

It was viewed as one of the worst bowl matchups in recent memory, but the game itself surprised everyone by how well it was played! Just kidding, it was actually as terrible as advertised (if not worse) for those poor souls who also tuned in.

At least it was close, although it likely remained so only because each team thought the end zones were covered in deadly battery acid, I think. Regardless, a game with very little hope lived down to its expectations. Oh, and Illinois won for those keeping score at home.

I remember sitting in my family room watching this one, drinking, because it felt appropriate given everything about this experience. I was also somehow glued to it all. There were other games on, but this self-punishment that came with strange enjoyment just felt right at the time. The jokes on Twitter were also outstanding.

Looking back on that game now, I still laugh thinking that UCLA somehow made it to the Pac-12 championship despite the fact that the Bruins lost four out of their last five games. I’d also run through a brick wall for just a quarter of the 2011 Kraft Fight Offense Bowl at this very moment. The offseason will do that to a man.

And so, when Big Ten commish Jim Delany met with the media on Tuesday and outlined his preference to raise the win minimum for bowl teams to seven, I realized that less football could be on the horizon, and we could be deprived of our Fight Offense Bowls in the future. 

"

We experimented with the 12th game, we experimented with the 6-6, but we think it’s better for our programs, better for our fans and better for the bowl system, for us to have a winning season in order to qualify. For us, I think it means redefining a successful year at 7-5.

"

The Big Ten is currently ironing details for its ideal playoff scenario, although the future of bowl games beyond the four-team championship decider is also being discussed. These games, the tie-ins and the qualifications for such games going forward are all being assessed now that the postseason hood is open.

There’s certainly something to be said about bowl games featuring teams with 6-6 records or worse in limited cases. Fanbases are given ticket allotments and are expected to travel (sometimes great distances) to watch their incredibly average team. The teams and conferences are still on the hook for all tickets not sold for these games, which is certainly a notable concern.

Still, however, most teams—especially Big Ten schools, which travel well for the most part—typically find a way to dish these out and fill up most of the seats. There are always exceptions, of course.

And then there’s the simple fact that you’re showcasing average, or in the case of the Kraft Fight Completions Bowl, bad teams. Should teams like UCLA and Illinois be treated to a meaningless postseason platform? Probably not, but is it hurting anyone outside the conferences that could suffer financial drawbacks? Let me rephrase that: Are you really against the game being played?

The gamblers and sports books of the world want as much bowl action and as many bowl games as possible, so they’re excluded from the discussion. There’s a simple truth to this discussion for the rest of us, however: Football is better than no football at all.

I’d watch hamsters play in a bowl game if you televised it. Now that is an idea.

If you want to show us college football, we’re going to tune in. We’d prefer if there were some talent involved, a storyline of sorts or a reason to watch beyond that of OMG Football!, but we’ll take it anyway we can.

This is not meant to be a meat-headed rally, but instead just a vocal reminder of how damn good the game is and how obsessed we are with it.

In all likelihood, the bowl minimum will be lifted to seven wins and some teams will be left out of the mix that could have made it in previous years. I understand the change, and I get that they’re trying to improve the overall postseason brand and eliminate potential financially-challenging situations. This won’t crush our postseason consumption but could limit games depending on what is decided.

From a selfish standpoint, however, I’ll take extra football anyway I can get it. That includes Kraft Fight Sanity Bowl games, where a cocktail or two might be in order to get by.