FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W202294573> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W202294573 abstract "Introduction One of the many traditions of major college football is the unique conclusion to its season. Since 1902, when the forerunner to the Rose Bowl was played for the first time, a series of bowl games has marked the end of the college football season (Bauman, 2009). Unlike most of their other collegiate and professional sports counterparts, college football teams in the NCAAs Division One Football Bowl Subdivision (formerly Division I-A) conclude each year with the chance to participate, not in a multi-round tournament, but in a bowl game (NCAA Championships, 2008). In the past fifteen years, the college football bowl system has evolved into an imperfect compromise, balancing tradition with a growing desire to crown an undisputable national champion. The Bowl Championship Series, the most recent manifestation of the struggle between tradition and progress, emerged in the late 1990s. (BCS Background, 2008). At first, the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) consisted of four major bowl games--the Fiesta, Orange, Sugar, and Rose Bowls--with the two most highly ranked teams placed in one of those four games. A fifth BCS game, which was dubbed the BCS Championship was added starting with the end of the 2006 season (Flanagan, 2008). The BCS, while representing significant progress compared with its predecessors, has been unable to produce a true national champion on a consistent basis. This shortcoming is partially due to the fact that each team can play in a maximum of just one bowl game, as opposed to a multi-round tournament. If, for example, three schools have perfect records following the regular season, the BCS is capable of pairing only two of those three institutions in its ational Championship Game, while the third school must compete in a different bowl game. BCS controversy, while never completely dormant between 2005 and the present, returned with a vengeance in 2008 (Lopresti, 2008). Instead of having three undefeated teams vying for the chance to play for a national championship, the end of the 2008 regular season resulted in a top ten with no undefeated major conference teams, seven one-loss major conference teams, and two undefeated non-major conference teams. Three of these one-loss teams were from one particular conference, and only one received a chance to play in the national championship game, while another played in the Fiesta Bowl, and the third did not get an opportunity to play in a BCS game at all (Knight, 2009). This debate has even become a political issue, as various politicians have spoken out in favor of a college football playoff system (Limon, 2009). As a result of this continued controversy, the increasingly popular solution to the championship problem is a playoff system, which could pit anywhere from four to sixteen teams in a single-elimination tournament. (Withers, 2008). Other collegiate and professional sports, including other collegiate football divisions and the National Football League, already employ such a format. While many agree that this would be a logical change, few have addressed the issue of where these playoff games would be played. That the proponents of maintaining the BCS system believe the bowl games should be played at their traditional locations is a given. With few exceptions from year to year, bowl games are played on a neutral field and at the same stadium each year (Official Records Book, 2008). While the focus of reforming the bowl system has been on moving from a one-game postseason to more of a tournament system, other elements of the system--such as where the bowl games (or playoff games) are (or will be) played--have been largely overlooked, even though the locations of games could be important in creating a comprehensively fair postseason that crowns a true national champion. Question Presented Do geographical factors play a role in determining the results of bowl games? Specifically, do significantly diverse distances between the participating teams campuses and the bowl games sites affect the outcome of those games? …" @default.
• W202294573 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W202294573 creator A5049172566 @default.
• W202294573 date "2009-06-22" @default.
• W202294573 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W202294573 title "Geographical Effects on College Bowl Games" @default.
• W202294573 hasPublicationYear "2009" @default.
• W202294573 type Work @default.
• W202294573 sameAs 202294573 @default.
• W202294573 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W202294573 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W202294573 hasAuthorship W202294573A5049172566 @default.
• W202294573 hasConcept C112698675 @default.
• W202294573 hasConcept C114614502 @default.
• W202294573 hasConcept C121332964 @default.
• W202294573 hasConcept C1276947 @default.
• W202294573 hasConcept C136975688 @default.
• W202294573 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W202294573 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W202294573 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W202294573 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W202294573 hasConcept C207456731 @default.
• W202294573 hasConcept C2778444522 @default.
• W202294573 hasConcept C2779501167 @default.
• W202294573 hasConcept C2780465443 @default.
• W202294573 hasConcept C29595303 @default.
• W202294573 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W202294573 hasConcept C46355384 @default.
• W202294573 hasConceptScore W202294573C112698675 @default.
• W202294573 hasConceptScore W202294573C114614502 @default.
• W202294573 hasConceptScore W202294573C121332964 @default.
• W202294573 hasConceptScore W202294573C1276947 @default.
• W202294573 hasConceptScore W202294573C136975688 @default.
• W202294573 hasConceptScore W202294573C144024400 @default.
• W202294573 hasConceptScore W202294573C144133560 @default.
• W202294573 hasConceptScore W202294573C17744445 @default.
• W202294573 hasConceptScore W202294573C199539241 @default.
• W202294573 hasConceptScore W202294573C207456731 @default.
• W202294573 hasConceptScore W202294573C2778444522 @default.
• W202294573 hasConceptScore W202294573C2779501167 @default.
• W202294573 hasConceptScore W202294573C2780465443 @default.
• W202294573 hasConceptScore W202294573C29595303 @default.
• W202294573 hasConceptScore W202294573C33923547 @default.
• W202294573 hasConceptScore W202294573C46355384 @default.
• W202294573 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W202294573 hasLocation W2022945731 @default.
• W202294573 hasOpenAccess W202294573 @default.
• W202294573 hasPrimaryLocation W2022945731 @default.
• W202294573 hasRelatedWork W1524798167 @default.
• W202294573 hasRelatedWork W1647983303 @default.
• W202294573 hasRelatedWork W1946944861 @default.
• W202294573 hasRelatedWork W1989489297 @default.
• W202294573 hasRelatedWork W2024221401 @default.
• W202294573 hasRelatedWork W2087104217 @default.
• W202294573 hasRelatedWork W2090011923 @default.
• W202294573 hasRelatedWork W2413548243 @default.
• W202294573 hasRelatedWork W2494409422 @default.
• W202294573 hasRelatedWork W2614628949 @default.
• W202294573 hasRelatedWork W2699986034 @default.
• W202294573 hasRelatedWork W2959056340 @default.
• W202294573 hasRelatedWork W345856064 @default.
• W202294573 hasRelatedWork W581474591 @default.
• W202294573 hasRelatedWork W583652228 @default.
• W202294573 hasRelatedWork W608992655 @default.
• W202294573 hasRelatedWork W609789414 @default.
• W202294573 hasRelatedWork W634797288 @default.
• W202294573 hasRelatedWork W94590271 @default.
• W202294573 hasRelatedWork W2623435789 @default.
• W202294573 hasVolume "12" @default.
• W202294573 isParatext "false" @default.
• W202294573 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W202294573 magId "202294573" @default.
• W202294573 workType "article" @default.