Here's the rub with where we are on the bowl situation.

We are starting to see teams in bowls with interim or lame duck coaches not because the coach was hired away but because the coach was fired for poor performance.

When 7 was getting consideration, Jim Delany noted that not every 6-6 is equal.

Last year 6-6 at Purdue garnered a bowl and a fired coach, while 6-6 at Ole Miss warranted a raise and extension.

Considering the Purdue got blown out by Michigan (44-13), Wisconsin (38-14), Minnesota (44-28), Penn St (34-9), and Oklahoma State (58-14) in their bowl game appearance, that's not all that surprising. Minnesota finished last in their division, and the bowl game fiasco was the icing on the cake. Purdue's recruiting class last year only ranked #50 as well...

Ole Miss, on the other hand, played in the toughest division in college football, the SEC west, and was in every game they played, except for the Texas, Alabama, and Georgia games. They also won their bowl game over Pittsburgh 38-17, finishing on a high note, with ESPiN's #5 rated 2013 recruiting class coming in. The Rebels had 10 of ESPiN's top 300 recruits, including 2 5* and 12 4* recruits...

IMO Ole Miss' coaching staff deserved a raise, since they're building for the future. Purdue's coaching staff, on the other hand, was merely slogging along, and was doing little to improve the program. Why not fire them and try to bring in someone who can do better?

(06-15-2013 10:24 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Considering the Purdue got blown out by Michigan (44-13), Wisconsin (38-14), Minnesota (44-28), Penn St (34-9), and Oklahoma State (58-14) in their bowl game appearance, that's not all that surprising. Minnesota finished last in their division, and the bowl game fiasco was the icing on the cake. Purdue's recruiting class last year only ranked #50 as well...

Ole Miss, on the other hand, played in the toughest division in college football, the SEC west, and was in every game they played, except for the Texas, Alabama, and Georgia games. They also won their bowl game over Pittsburgh 38-17, finishing on a high note, with ESPiN's #5 rated 2013 recruiting class coming in. The Rebels had 10 of ESPiN's top 300 recruits, including 2 5* and 12 4* recruits...

IMO Ole Miss' coaching staff deserved a raise, since they're building for the future. Purdue's coaching staff, on the other hand, was merely slogging along, and was doing little to improve the program. Why not fire them and try to bring in someone who can do better?

If only close losses counted as wins. 6-6 is still 6-6. The games they actually won were Central Arkansas, UTEP, Tulane, Auburn, Arkansas, and Mississippi State. So they won only 3 SEC games and neither Auburn nor Arkansas were very good last year. And a good recruiting class for 2013 should not mean they're in a bowl game in 2012. I don't see why what happens with the coach matters.

(06-15-2013 10:24 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Considering the Purdue got blown out by Michigan (44-13), Wisconsin (38-14), Minnesota (44-28), Penn St (34-9), and Oklahoma State (58-14) in their bowl game appearance, that's not all that surprising. Minnesota finished last in their division, and the bowl game fiasco was the icing on the cake. Purdue's recruiting class last year only ranked #50 as well...

Ole Miss, on the other hand, played in the toughest division in college football, the SEC west, and was in every game they played, except for the Texas, Alabama, and Georgia games. They also won their bowl game over Pittsburgh 38-17, finishing on a high note, with ESPiN's #5 rated 2013 recruiting class coming in. The Rebels had 10 of ESPiN's top 300 recruits, including 2 5* and 12 4* recruits...

IMO Ole Miss' coaching staff deserved a raise, since they're building for the future. Purdue's coaching staff, on the other hand, was merely slogging along, and was doing little to improve the program. Why not fire them and try to bring in someone who can do better?

There is an inherent disconnect when college football as an enterprise says, "more bowl games are a good thing because it rewards the players for their season." If their season results in the coach being fired for poor performance, why is there a reward?

Rather than worrying about making the line 6 or 7 wins, let's start with something simple. Fire your coach, you stay home unless at least half your wins came under the interim.

It would be simpler just to use the 7-win limit.

I think this is pretty cool for the Sun Belt and MAC. I like the idea of pitting the northern conference vs the southern conference at that level. The big challenge will be for Little Rock to entice some of those northern fans to travel to Little Rock. It really isn't known as a vacation spot up north and these travelling fans generally treat Bowl trips as a mini vacation.

I hope the two conferences really play this one up. The North vs South storyline should most definitely be used.

a coach getting fired has nothing to do with a team's eligibility. But here's a simple solution- make a rule that says ADs aren't allowed to contact coaches until after the bowl season. That would eliminate all of these schools that win a conference championship getting poached by a big money school and having to scramble to get an interim coach in place for the bowl.

or how about this- bowl eligibility requires a team to finish with at least a .500 record in their own conference. If you can't win the majority of your games against your peers then why should you be showcased in a bowl?

(06-15-2013 10:58 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-15-2013 10:24 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Considering the Purdue got blown out by Michigan (44-13), Wisconsin (38-14), Minnesota (44-28), Penn St (34-9), and Oklahoma State (58-14) in their bowl game appearance, that's not all that surprising. Minnesota finished last in their division, and the bowl game fiasco was the icing on the cake. Purdue's recruiting class last year only ranked #50 as well...

Ole Miss, on the other hand, played in the toughest division in college football, the SEC west, and was in every game they played, except for the Texas, Alabama, and Georgia games. They also won their bowl game over Pittsburgh 38-17, finishing on a high note, with ESPiN's #5 rated 2013 recruiting class coming in. The Rebels had 10 of ESPiN's top 300 recruits, including 2 5* and 12 4* recruits...

IMO Ole Miss' coaching staff deserved a raise, since they're building for the future. Purdue's coaching staff, on the other hand, was merely slogging along, and was doing little to improve the program. Why not fire them and try to bring in someone who can do better?

There is an inherent disconnect when college football as an enterprise says, "more bowl games are a good thing because it rewards the players for their season." If their season results in the coach being fired for poor performance, why is there a reward?

Rather than worrying about making the line 6 or 7 wins, let's start with something simple. Fire your coach, you stay home unless at least half your wins came under the interim.

Purdue wasn't competitive in half their games, and weren't recruiting good talent. Danny Hope had 4 years to make an improvement in the football program at Purdue, and the program had made no real progress. In his 4 years he went 5-7, 4-8, 7-6, and 6-7, and didn't improve their recruiting any. How is keeping him going to help the program?

In comparison, Hugh Freeze just finished his 2nd year as head football coach at Mississippi. They improved from 2-10 in his first year, to 7-6 last year. In Freeze's first full year of recruiting, he pulled in the #5 recruiting class. That shows marked improvement, unlike Hope, so Ole Miss made a very good decision...

You guys need to do some research when talking about things like this, rather than just relying on wins and losses alone...

(06-15-2013 12:48 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(06-15-2013 10:58 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-15-2013 10:24 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Considering the Purdue got blown out by Michigan (44-13), Wisconsin (38-14), Minnesota (44-28), Penn St (34-9), and Oklahoma State (58-14) in their bowl game appearance, that's not all that surprising. Minnesota finished last in their division, and the bowl game fiasco was the icing on the cake. Purdue's recruiting class last year only ranked #50 as well...

Ole Miss, on the other hand, played in the toughest division in college football, the SEC west, and was in every game they played, except for the Texas, Alabama, and Georgia games. They also won their bowl game over Pittsburgh 38-17, finishing on a high note, with ESPiN's #5 rated 2013 recruiting class coming in. The Rebels had 10 of ESPiN's top 300 recruits, including 2 5* and 12 4* recruits...

IMO Ole Miss' coaching staff deserved a raise, since they're building for the future. Purdue's coaching staff, on the other hand, was merely slogging along, and was doing little to improve the program. Why not fire them and try to bring in someone who can do better?

There is an inherent disconnect when college football as an enterprise says, "more bowl games are a good thing because it rewards the players for their season." If their season results in the coach being fired for poor performance, why is there a reward?

Rather than worrying about making the line 6 or 7 wins, let's start with something simple. Fire your coach, you stay home unless at least half your wins came under the interim.

Purdue wasn't competitive in half their games, and weren't recruiting good talent. Danny Hope had 4 years to make an improvement in the football program at Purdue, and the program had made no real progress. In his 4 years he went 5-7, 4-8, 7-6, and 6-7, and didn't improve their recruiting any. How is keeping him going to help the program?

In comparison, Hugh Freeze just finished his 2nd year as head football coach at Mississippi. They improved from 2-10 in his first year, to 7-6 last year. In Freeze's first full year of recruiting, he pulled in the #5 recruiting class. That shows marked improvement, unlike Hope, so Ole Miss made a very good decision...

You guys need to do some research when talking about things like this, rather than just relying on wins and losses alone...

Maybe you want to look again at your own research.

Hugh Freeze has only coached one season at Ole Miss. He was somewhere else in 2011.

(06-15-2013 03:12 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-15-2013 12:48 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(06-15-2013 10:58 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-15-2013 10:24 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Considering the Purdue got blown out by Michigan (44-13), Wisconsin (38-14), Minnesota (44-28), Penn St (34-9), and Oklahoma State (58-14) in their bowl game appearance, that's not all that surprising. Minnesota finished last in their division, and the bowl game fiasco was the icing on the cake. Purdue's recruiting class last year only ranked #50 as well...

Ole Miss, on the other hand, played in the toughest division in college football, the SEC west, and was in every game they played, except for the Texas, Alabama, and Georgia games. They also won their bowl game over Pittsburgh 38-17, finishing on a high note, with ESPiN's #5 rated 2013 recruiting class coming in. The Rebels had 10 of ESPiN's top 300 recruits, including 2 5* and 12 4* recruits...

IMO Ole Miss' coaching staff deserved a raise, since they're building for the future. Purdue's coaching staff, on the other hand, was merely slogging along, and was doing little to improve the program. Why not fire them and try to bring in someone who can do better?

There is an inherent disconnect when college football as an enterprise says, "more bowl games are a good thing because it rewards the players for their season." If their season results in the coach being fired for poor performance, why is there a reward?

Rather than worrying about making the line 6 or 7 wins, let's start with something simple. Fire your coach, you stay home unless at least half your wins came under the interim.

Purdue wasn't competitive in half their games, and weren't recruiting good talent. Danny Hope had 4 years to make an improvement in the football program at Purdue, and the program had made no real progress. In his 4 years he went 5-7, 4-8, 7-6, and 6-7, and didn't improve their recruiting any. How is keeping him going to help the program?

In comparison, Hugh Freeze just finished his 2nd year as head football coach at Mississippi. They improved from 2-10 in his first year, to 7-6 last year. In Freeze's first full year of recruiting, he pulled in the #5 recruiting class. That shows marked improvement, unlike Hope, so Ole Miss made a very good decision...

You guys need to do some research when talking about things like this, rather than just relying on wins and losses alone...

Maybe you want to look again at your own research.

Hugh Freeze has only coached one season at Ole Miss. He was somewhere else in 2011.

You're right. He was hired in December of 2011. I forgot to figure in the month, and just went with the year...

But that just makes what he's done even more amazing. He didn't have time to do much to improve the program, and still managed to win 5 more games than the previous coaching staff managed, and he pulled in the #5 recruiting class to boot...

It doesn't matter to me if at team went from 10-2 to 6-6, or 2-10 to 6-6. They're still 6-6.

(06-15-2013 04:09 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  It doesn't matter to me if at team went from 10-2 to 6-6, or 2-10 to 6-6. They're still 6-6.

Then it's a good thing for NIU that you aren't in a position to make any decisions for the university...

Hope it works out, I hate seeing deserving teams left out of bowls when 6-6 teams make it..

Looks like the Sunbelt could pick up yet another bowl....

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2013/..._game.html

Actually, I'm pretty sure Big Ten's official stance the past few years is that a 7 win minimum would be preferable to 6 and that there are too many bowl games out there.

Alas, I don't think that sentiment is shared by many other conferences.

Delany was a strong 7-5 advocate but softened his stance.
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id...-at-6-wins

(06-14-2013 01:34 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Location sucks for the MAC.

Really? Its the closest out of our 2 other bowls.

(06-15-2013 05:00 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(06-15-2013 04:09 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  It doesn't matter to me if at team went from 10-2 to 6-6, or 2-10 to 6-6. They're still 6-6.

Then it's a good thing for NIU that you aren't in a position to make any decisions for the university...

Why is that? NIU went to a bowl game at 6-6 once. If not having a 6-6 team going to a bowl would have meant that our 2003 10-2 team or our 2005 MAC West Champion went to a bowl game then that would be just fine with Huskie fans.

(06-16-2013 08:56 AM)HuskieJohn Wrote:  

(06-15-2013 05:00 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(06-15-2013 04:09 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  It doesn't matter to me if at team went from 10-2 to 6-6, or 2-10 to 6-6. They're still 6-6.

Then it's a good thing for NIU that you aren't in a position to make any decisions for the university...

Why is that? NIU went to a bowl game at 6-6 once. If not having a 6-6 team going to a bowl would have meant that our 2003 10-2 team or our 2005 MAC West Champion went to a bowl game then that would be just fine with Huskie fans.

You no longer recognize sarcasm?

(06-16-2013 02:54 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Delany was a strong 7-5 advocate but softened his stance.
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id...-at-6-wins

I'm not sure I'd agree with that interpretation. The article states that Delany backed down because the other conferences aren't on board with the idea - not that he has changed his mind.