(05-10-2015 06:45 AM)Georgia_Power_Company Wrote:  

(05-10-2015 06:33 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-06-2015 10:37 AM)Wedge Wrote:  I don't get enthusiastic about 6-6 teams in bowls, but hell, if someone wants to put 0-12 teams in bowls starting the Tuesday after the conference championship games, it shouldn't bother anyone. Just don't watch it if you don't like it.

I've defended the addition of these and other new bowls, but that actually would bother me. I draw the line at a .500 record. No team with a losing record should go to a bowl game, ever, unless through some miraculous process they somehow manage to win their conference championship.

I would go even further and say no 6-6 team can be placed before all 7-5 or better teams are placed. That way we at least guarantee that no truly deserving team sets at home.

I don't see how that can work, because then you have conditional eligibility which depends on results in other conferences, which will raise some ire.

For example, imagine a situation in which Florida is 6-6, and the SEC has a slot to fill in the Birmingham Bowl. But, let's say that there's a G5 team, Toledo, that is 7-5 and has no place to play because the MAC has no bowl slots for them. Is the SEC going to stand for Florida not going to a bowl, and having to give up its contractual place in their Birmingham bowl, because Toledo went 7-5? Is the Birmingham Bowl going to want that? No chance in hell. And even on "merit" grounds the idea isn't necessarily rational, because a 7-5 record against a soft MAC schedule isn't necessarily better than a 6-6 record against an SEC schedule.

So IMO the cutoff, whatever it is, can't be conditional, it has to be "bright line". Make it having a winning record if you like, such as 7-5 or 7-6, but it has to be a clear cut-off where your bowl eligibility doesn't depend on someone else's results in another conference.

(05-10-2015 07:41 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-10-2015 06:45 AM)Georgia_Power_Company Wrote:  

(05-10-2015 06:33 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-06-2015 10:37 AM)Wedge Wrote:  I don't get enthusiastic about 6-6 teams in bowls, but hell, if someone wants to put 0-12 teams in bowls starting the Tuesday after the conference championship games, it shouldn't bother anyone. Just don't watch it if you don't like it.

I've defended the addition of these and other new bowls, but that actually would bother me. I draw the line at a .500 record. No team with a losing record should go to a bowl game, ever, unless through some miraculous process they somehow manage to win their conference championship.

I would go even further and say no 6-6 team can be placed before all 7-5 or better teams are placed. That way we at least guarantee that no truly deserving team sets at home.

I don't see how that can work, because then you have conditional eligibility which depends on results in other conferences, which will raise some ire.

For example, imagine a situation in which Florida is 6-6, and the SEC has a slot to fill in the Birmingham Bowl. But, let's say that there's a G5 team, Toledo, that is 7-5 and has no place to play because the MAC has no bowl slots for them. Is the SEC going to stand for Florida not going to a bowl, and having to give up its contractual place in their Birmingham bowl, because Toledo went 7-5? Is the Birmingham Bowl going to want that? No chance in hell. And even on "merit" grounds the idea isn't necessarily rational, because a 7-5 record against a soft MAC schedule isn't necessarily better than a 6-6 record against an SEC schedule.

So IMO the cutoff, whatever it is, can't be conditional, it has to be "bright line". Make it having a winning record if you like, such as 7-5 or 7-6, but it has to be a clear cut-off where your bowl eligibility doesn't depend on someone else's in another conference.

Fine make 7 wins the cut-off for all bowl teams and then require any 6-win team to apply for a wavier to play in a bowl.

(05-10-2015 07:45 AM)Georgia_Power_Company Wrote:  

(05-10-2015 07:41 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-10-2015 06:45 AM)Georgia_Power_Company Wrote:  

(05-10-2015 06:33 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-06-2015 10:37 AM)Wedge Wrote:  I don't get enthusiastic about 6-6 teams in bowls, but hell, if someone wants to put 0-12 teams in bowls starting the Tuesday after the conference championship games, it shouldn't bother anyone. Just don't watch it if you don't like it.

I've defended the addition of these and other new bowls, but that actually would bother me. I draw the line at a .500 record. No team with a losing record should go to a bowl game, ever, unless through some miraculous process they somehow manage to win their conference championship.

I would go even further and say no 6-6 team can be placed before all 7-5 or better teams are placed. That way we at least guarantee that no truly deserving team sets at home.

I don't see how that can work, because then you have conditional eligibility which depends on results in other conferences, which will raise some ire.

For example, imagine a situation in which Florida is 6-6, and the SEC has a slot to fill in the Birmingham Bowl. But, let's say that there's a G5 team, Toledo, that is 7-5 and has no place to play because the MAC has no bowl slots for them. Is the SEC going to stand for Florida not going to a bowl, and having to give up its contractual place in their Birmingham bowl, because Toledo went 7-5? Is the Birmingham Bowl going to want that? No chance in hell. And even on "merit" grounds the idea isn't necessarily rational, because a 7-5 record against a soft MAC schedule isn't necessarily better than a 6-6 record against an SEC schedule.

So IMO the cutoff, whatever it is, can't be conditional, it has to be "bright line". Make it having a winning record if you like, such as 7-5 or 7-6, but it has to be a clear cut-off where your bowl eligibility doesn't depend on someone else's in another conference.

Fine make 7 wins the cut-off for all bowl teams and then require any 6-win team to apply for a wavier to play in a bowl.

Philosophically, I agree that teams should not just be .500, but be "winners", have winning records, to play in bowl games.

But for practical purposes, I'd not like that, because it would mean less of these Asparagus Bowl games, and I like watching those bowls!

There used to be a requirement that all 7+ win teams had to be placed before 6 win teams, but it was removed. The first year after it was removed, Temple sits at home with an 8-4 record.

(05-10-2015 09:03 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  There used to be a requirement that all 7+ win teams had to be placed before 6 win teams, but it was removed. The first year after it was removed, Temple sits at home with an 8-4 record.

Toledo, Wyoming, Ohio U., UTSA, Texas State, Georgia Southern, Army, Appalachian State and some others. Some of the Big West schools back in the 1990s that had winning records was left out. Imagine if those schools went to bowl games before they shut the programs down? Those schools might still be in FBS to this day, and WAC would not gone to 16 before they split to MWC.

Geez...back in the 1960s there actually were Top 20 teams that didn't get bowl bids.

(05-11-2015 08:35 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  Geez...back in the 1960s there actually were Top 20 teams that didn't get bowl bids.

And back in the 60's computers ran on punch-cards and vacuum tubes....times change.

In 2014 there were 16 schools that only qualified for a bowl because they had a qualifying win over an FCS school. Nine of those were P5 schools - Pitt, UNC, Virginia Tech, Miami, Oklahoma State, Illinois, Tennessee, South Carolina, Florida and Arkansas. Another 7 were G5 schools - Temple, Fresno, Ohio, Middle Tennessee, Old Dominion, UAB and South Alabama.

Within a couple of years, schedules are going to reflect changes in conference scheduling policy that will significantly reduce the number of FBS vs FCS games played. Since most of those games are FBS wins, it stands to reason that more FBS teams will be bowl ineligible under current criteria. The question for me is: Will those newly ineligible be more likely to be P5 schools, or G5 schools?

At first glance, one might conclude that it would be P5's, since they seem to be the conferences making it a policy to not play FCS teams. But in 2014, the Big Ten only had one school who wouldn't have qualified without their FCS win. And since they would likely replace that game with a weak G5 team, they would likely still qualify, since P5s beat G5s more than 80% of the time anyway.

Who do you think will be hurt (bowl-wise, at least) by changes in scheduling policy?

(05-11-2015 09:51 AM)FIUFan Wrote:  

(05-11-2015 08:35 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  Geez...back in the 1960s there actually were Top 20 teams that didn't get bowl bids.

And back in the 60's computers ran on punch-cards and vacuum tubes....times change.

Yep, and usually for the better. That's why we make the change!

(05-09-2015 09:16 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(05-09-2015 07:59 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-06-2015 09:46 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I think it's a good thing. It doesn't hurt anybody and its a positive for the players.

I see no real argument against letting them play.

Yes, the bowls aren't welfare creations, if they can make it economically than there's no argument against them.

Quo...TV has a lot to say...I know ESPN is supporting most but I heard some of these are CBS creations...it will be interesting to see how they are funded.

I have no problem with more bowls...the market will decide which ones survive.

I agree 100%.

Let's not also lose sight of the fact that the bowls are a way for players to receive compensation in the form of swag valued at $500 or more without breaking any rules. These new bowls give more G5 players a chance to get that same benefit.

(05-11-2015 10:13 AM)ken d Wrote:  In 2014 there were 16 schools that only qualified for a bowl because they had a qualifying win over an FCS school. Nine of those were P5 schools - Pitt, UNC, Virginia Tech, Miami, Oklahoma State, Illinois, Tennessee, South Carolina, Florida and Arkansas. Another 7 were G5 schools - Temple, Fresno, Ohio, Middle Tennessee, Old Dominion, UAB and South Alabama.

Within a couple of years, schedules are going to reflect changes in conference scheduling policy that will significantly reduce the number of FBS vs FCS games played. Since most of those games are FBS wins, it stands to reason that more FBS teams will be bowl ineligible under current criteria. The question for me is: Will those newly ineligible be more likely to be P5 schools, or G5 schools?

At first glance, one might conclude that it would be P5's, since they seem to be the conferences making it a policy to not play FCS teams. But in 2014, the Big Ten only had one school who wouldn't have qualified without their FCS win. And since they would likely replace that game with a weak G5 team, they would likely still qualify, since P5s beat G5s more than 80% of the time anyway.

Who do you think will be hurt (bowl-wise, at least) by changes in scheduling policy?

The FCS reductions are only going to come for the P5 conferences.

I see no reason why G5 conferences won't continue playing them. Indeed, if G5 are going to replace FCS teams for "easy wins" on P5 schedules, then basically every G5 needs to start making sure they get their FCS win scheduled.

I think teams should have a record > .500 to be in a bowl. Though I don't like the thought of bowls actually being cut back because we'd probably go back to the days of 6-6 Big Whatever teams still going to a bowl while a 10-2 MAC team with good wins gets left at home.