(05-07-2015 01:31 PM)HuskieJohn Wrote:  

(05-07-2015 10:37 AM)chrisattsu Wrote:  

(05-07-2015 09:58 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(05-06-2015 09:45 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(05-06-2015 09:41 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  I have said it repeatedly... The NCAA needs to put a moratorium on the creation of new Bowl games.

As long as 6-6 P5 schools gets to go to a bowl, so should 6-6 G5 schools. If new bowls need to be created then so be it.

This is good news to get 8-4 and 7-5 G5 schools to get a bowl spot. We have seen many of them get looked over for a 6-6 team. A 7-5 Texas State was left out for a 6-6 South Alabama.

Yep, and 8-4 Western Kentucky was left out the year before that and 9-3 Louisiana Tech in 2012 after the Liberty Bowl changed their mind at the last minute.

A lot more bowls added since then but the 2003 10-2 NIU team that defeated then ranked Alabama and Maryland along with ISU didn't go bowling either.


On a side note I am totally for removing of a win vs a FCS team as a qualifying 6th win for a bowl game.

Then at least 5 bowls would need to be dropped.

(05-07-2015 09:58 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(05-06-2015 09:45 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(05-06-2015 09:41 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  I have said it repeatedly... The NCAA needs to put a moratorium on the creation of new Bowl games.

As long as 6-6 P5 schools gets to go to a bowl, so should 6-6 G5 schools. If new bowls need to be created then so be it.

This is good news to get 8-4 and 7-5 G5 schools to get a bowl spot. We have seen many of them get looked over for a 6-6 team. A 7-5 Texas State was left out for a 6-6 South Alabama.

Both teams had 6 FBS wins (one of TSU's 7 was against an FCS opponent) and USA beat TSA head-to-head.

(05-07-2015 02:15 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(05-07-2015 01:31 PM)HuskieJohn Wrote:  

(05-07-2015 10:37 AM)chrisattsu Wrote:  

(05-07-2015 09:58 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(05-06-2015 09:45 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  As long as 6-6 P5 schools gets to go to a bowl, so should 6-6 G5 schools. If new bowls need to be created then so be it.

This is good news to get 8-4 and 7-5 G5 schools to get a bowl spot. We have seen many of them get looked over for a 6-6 team. A 7-5 Texas State was left out for a 6-6 South Alabama.

Yep, and 8-4 Western Kentucky was left out the year before that and 9-3 Louisiana Tech in 2012 after the Liberty Bowl changed their mind at the last minute.

A lot more bowls added since then but the 2003 10-2 NIU team that defeated then ranked Alabama and Maryland along with ISU didn't go bowling either.


On a side note I am totally for removing of a win vs a FCS team as a qualifying 6th win for a bowl game.

Then at least 5 bowls would need to be dropped.

Or you could say something like "must have at least .500 winning percentage over any consecutive eight game stretch".

Then it doesn't penalize teams who get better as the season goes on or teams that suffer from late injuries.

Tucson Bowl may not go for 2015

http://www.tucsonnewsnow.com/story/28995...-the-table

There has been a considerable amount of work behind the scenes in recent weeks to land a football bowl game for Tucson.

If it comes to fruition, it would be played in Arizona Stadium at the University of Arizona and be called the Tucson Bowl..

Even though those efforts failed for 2015, conversations are ongoing for 2016.

There is still an outside chance it could be played on 1015 if a title sponsor is found and the organizers decided to go with a "hurry-up" mode.

June 1st is the drop dead date for a decision but it appears the decision has already been made.

"It's not going to happen this year," says Fletcher McCusker, the CEO of Rio Nuevo, who is one of the main organizers of the bowl.

According to a conversation with McCusker, there is a commitment from Conference USA and Mountain West.

The fans of both conferences "travel well and are good fans," according to McCusker.

McCusker says it's too late in the year to move forward without a title sponsor but the door is still open for 2016.

Ali Farhang, a Tucson attorney also leading the effort says the NCAA has approved the bowl for 2015 but agrees without a title sponsor it would be difficult to move ahead right now.

"It possibly could be done," he says. "But I'm not sure we want to rush it."

He says the group is looking at a possible three day event with a block party downtown.

(05-07-2015 01:29 PM)Artifice Wrote:  

(05-07-2015 09:30 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-06-2015 10:38 AM)Artifice Wrote:  The math here doesn't work. Some actuarial type work needs to be done to prove it, but what are the chances that 64% (82 of 128 teams) in FBS finish with 6-6 or better records? It cannot be high.

This means that FBS programs are even more dependent on FCS programs to pad their win totals, unless they change the eligibility rule (which would be ridiculous). If anything, it puts pressure on FBS to allow more FCS games to count for bowl eligibility.

During the past four seasons these are the actual numbers:

Teams with 6 or more wins, % of total FBS teams, Total wins vs FCS

2011 74...61.7%...91
2012 76...61.3%...98
2013 81...64.8%...98
2014 83...64.8%..100

It's even tighter than I thought. Thanks for the #s ken.

My two teams are CUSA & SEC, so I am on one hand happy for more G5 access to bowl games. However, those additional bowls are all G5 vs G5. I find it much more interesting to see G5 vs P5. Especially since the P5 teams so rarely play G5 away from home.

To be clear, my numbers include teams that met the required # of wins but which were ineligible for other reasons, such as probation. Also, the total number of FBS schools has increased from 120 in 2011 to 128 in 2014. There will only be 127 in 2015 with the departure of UAB, since Charlotte will still be transitional.

Adjusting the earlier years for the increase in teams, it's fair to say that the expected # of qualifying teams would be about 81 at the current FBS membership. The new bowls bring the required # of eligible teams to 82. So without an increase in the number of FBS schools, which can't happen for a few years due to NCAA rules, it's close to a 50-50 chance that we will have to have some bowl teams with losing records.

For those complaining about too many bowls; it's better football content than the NFL Networks round the clock coverage of the NFL Combine (splitting hairs over a 1/10th of a second or an inch and a half vertical) or everyone's mock draft....ad nausum.

At least they're games someone might care about.

(05-07-2015 02:41 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-07-2015 01:29 PM)Artifice Wrote:  

(05-07-2015 09:30 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-06-2015 10:38 AM)Artifice Wrote:  The math here doesn't work. Some actuarial type work needs to be done to prove it, but what are the chances that 64% (82 of 128 teams) in FBS finish with 6-6 or better records? It cannot be high.

This means that FBS programs are even more dependent on FCS programs to pad their win totals, unless they change the eligibility rule (which would be ridiculous). If anything, it puts pressure on FBS to allow more FCS games to count for bowl eligibility.

During the past four seasons these are the actual numbers:

Teams with 6 or more wins, % of total FBS teams, Total wins vs FCS

2011 74...61.7%...91
2012 76...61.3%...98
2013 81...64.8%...98
2014 83...64.8%..100

It's even tighter than I thought. Thanks for the #s ken.

My two teams are CUSA & SEC, so I am on one hand happy for more G5 access to bowl games. However, those additional bowls are all G5 vs G5. I find it much more interesting to see G5 vs P5. Especially since the P5 teams so rarely play G5 away from home.

To be clear, my numbers include teams that met the required # of wins but which were ineligible for other reasons, such as probation. Also, the total number of FBS schools has increased from 120 in 2011 to 128 in 2014. There will only be 127 in 2015 with the departure of UAB, since Charlotte will still be transitional.

Adjusting the earlier years for the increase in teams, it's fair to say that the expected # of qualifying teams would be about 81 at the current FBS membership. The new bowls bring the required # of eligible teams to 82. So without an increase in the number of FBS schools, which can't happen for a few years due to NCAA rules, it's close to a 50-50 chance that we will have to have some bowl teams with losing records.

Or as your data notes: increase the FCS wins to the maximum of 127. In other words, make sure every FBS schedules a counting, but winnable game against an FCS team.

(05-07-2015 03:13 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-07-2015 02:41 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-07-2015 01:29 PM)Artifice Wrote:  

(05-07-2015 09:30 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-06-2015 10:38 AM)Artifice Wrote:  The math here doesn't work. Some actuarial type work needs to be done to prove it, but what are the chances that 64% (82 of 128 teams) in FBS finish with 6-6 or better records? It cannot be high.

This means that FBS programs are even more dependent on FCS programs to pad their win totals, unless they change the eligibility rule (which would be ridiculous). If anything, it puts pressure on FBS to allow more FCS games to count for bowl eligibility.

During the past four seasons these are the actual numbers:

Teams with 6 or more wins, % of total FBS teams, Total wins vs FCS

2011 74...61.7%...91
2012 76...61.3%...98
2013 81...64.8%...98
2014 83...64.8%..100

It's even tighter than I thought. Thanks for the #s ken.

My two teams are CUSA & SEC, so I am on one hand happy for more G5 access to bowl games. However, those additional bowls are all G5 vs G5. I find it much more interesting to see G5 vs P5. Especially since the P5 teams so rarely play G5 away from home.

To be clear, my numbers include teams that met the required # of wins but which were ineligible for other reasons, such as probation. Also, the total number of FBS schools has increased from 120 in 2011 to 128 in 2014. There will only be 127 in 2015 with the departure of UAB, since Charlotte will still be transitional.

Adjusting the earlier years for the increase in teams, it's fair to say that the expected # of qualifying teams would be about 81 at the current FBS membership. The new bowls bring the required # of eligible teams to 82. So without an increase in the number of FBS schools, which can't happen for a few years due to NCAA rules, it's close to a 50-50 chance that we will have to have some bowl teams with losing records.

Or as your data notes: increase the FCS wins to the maximum of 127. In other words, make sure every FBS schedules a counting, but winnable game against an FCS team.

My data showed the number of FCS wins, not games played. There aren't many schools who would have benefited from an FCS game that didn't already have one.

(05-07-2015 02:37 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  Tucson Bowl may not go for 2015

http://www.tucsonnewsnow.com/story/28995...-the-table

There has been a considerable amount of work behind the scenes in recent weeks to land a football bowl game for Tucson.

If it comes to fruition, it would be played in Arizona Stadium at the University of Arizona and be called the Tucson Bowl..

Even though those efforts failed for 2015, conversations are ongoing for 2016.

There is still an outside chance it could be played on 1015 if a title sponsor is found and the organizers decided to go with a "hurry-up" mode.

June 1st is the drop dead date for a decision but it appears the decision has already been made.

"It's not going to happen this year," says Fletcher McCusker, the CEO of Rio Nuevo, who is one of the main organizers of the bowl.

According to a conversation with McCusker, there is a commitment from Conference USA and Mountain West.

The fans of both conferences "travel well and are good fans," according to McCusker.

McCusker says it's too late in the year to move forward without a title sponsor but the door is still open for 2016.

Ali Farhang, a Tucson attorney also leading the effort says the NCAA has approved the bowl for 2015 but agrees without a title sponsor it would be difficult to move ahead right now.

"It possibly could be done," he says. "But I'm not sure we want to rush it."

He says the group is looking at a possible three day event with a block party downtown.

Too bad, was looking forward to this one. However, it allow more time for the MW to kill off the Potato Bowl and have this one replace it.

(05-07-2015 03:38 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Too bad, was looking forward to this one. However, it allow more time for the MW to kill off the Potato Bowl and have this one replace it.

I don't think you want to kill off the Potato Bowl. It's a bowl in a MWC stadium, so you have the backstop of knowing it's not going to leave the MWC; the Tucson bowl would be a bowl in a Pac-12 stadium. Also, the bowls in San Diego may go away if the Chargers leave town and San Diego tears down the stadium. There's no guarantee that there would be new bowls in LA anytime soon or that a bowl would want to operate in a bare-bones on-campus stadium, which is what SDSU is likely to build if Qualcomm Stadium goes away.

(05-07-2015 04:00 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-07-2015 03:38 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Too bad, was looking forward to this one. However, it allow more time for the MW to kill off the Potato Bowl and have this one replace it.

I don't think you want to kill off the Potato Bowl. It's a bowl in a MWC stadium, so you have the backstop of knowing it's not going to leave the MWC; the Tucson bowl would be a bowl in a Pac-12 stadium. Also, the bowls in San Diego may go away if the Chargers leave town and San Diego tears down the stadium. There's no guarantee that there would be new bowls in LA anytime soon or that a bowl would want to operate in a bare-bones on-campus stadium, which is what SDSU is likely to build if Qualcomm Stadium goes away.

No I do want the Potato Bowl to be done with. Attendance, is lacking even if the weather isn't a factor. The bowl is too cheap to cover the endzones with the school's name or the name of the bowl. It is just too cheap.
I understand the risk regarding the Arizona bowl, but that is less of a risk now with PAC-12 having the bowls line-up already. I think the Potato bowl committee knows it is getting very weak as the bowl was created for Idaho and BSU during the WAC/Big West days. It just doesn't fit the MW. If anything it'll be better to relocate to San Jose or if the Australia bowl come to fruition....

(05-07-2015 03:31 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-07-2015 03:13 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-07-2015 02:41 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-07-2015 01:29 PM)Artifice Wrote:  

(05-07-2015 09:30 AM)ken d Wrote:  During the past four seasons these are the actual numbers:

Teams with 6 or more wins, % of total FBS teams, Total wins vs FCS

2011 74...61.7%...91
2012 76...61.3%...98
2013 81...64.8%...98
2014 83...64.8%..100

It's even tighter than I thought. Thanks for the #s ken.

My two teams are CUSA & SEC, so I am on one hand happy for more G5 access to bowl games. However, those additional bowls are all G5 vs G5. I find it much more interesting to see G5 vs P5. Especially since the P5 teams so rarely play G5 away from home.

To be clear, my numbers include teams that met the required # of wins but which were ineligible for other reasons, such as probation. Also, the total number of FBS schools has increased from 120 in 2011 to 128 in 2014. There will only be 127 in 2015 with the departure of UAB, since Charlotte will still be transitional.

Adjusting the earlier years for the increase in teams, it's fair to say that the expected # of qualifying teams would be about 81 at the current FBS membership. The new bowls bring the required # of eligible teams to 82. So without an increase in the number of FBS schools, which can't happen for a few years due to NCAA rules, it's close to a 50-50 chance that we will have to have some bowl teams with losing records.

Or as your data notes: increase the FCS wins to the maximum of 127. In other words, make sure every FBS schedules a counting, but winnable game against an FCS team.

My data showed the number of FCS wins, not games played. There aren't many schools who would have benefited from an FCS game that didn't already have one.

Yes, I know you said FCS wins ... hence why I said FCS wins.

Hindsight isn't relevant. You never know which teams are going to be close to bowl eligibility at the start of a new season.

So the more FCS wins the FBS has, the higher their floor on potential bowl eligible numbers*. As I said, FCS wins are a positive offset.

* noting of course that each team can only count one FCS win max per season.

(05-07-2015 04:11 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(05-07-2015 04:00 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-07-2015 03:38 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Too bad, was looking forward to this one. However, it allow more time for the MW to kill off the Potato Bowl and have this one replace it.

I don't think you want to kill off the Potato Bowl. It's a bowl in a MWC stadium, so you have the backstop of knowing it's not going to leave the MWC; the Tucson bowl would be a bowl in a Pac-12 stadium. Also, the bowls in San Diego may go away if the Chargers leave town and San Diego tears down the stadium. There's no guarantee that there would be new bowls in LA anytime soon or that a bowl would want to operate in a bare-bones on-campus stadium, which is what SDSU is likely to build if Qualcomm Stadium goes away.

No I do want the Potato Bowl to be done with. Attendance, is lacking even if the weather isn't a factor. The bowl is too cheap to cover the endzones with the school's name or the name of the bowl. It is just too cheap.
I understand the risk regarding the Arizona bowl, but that is less of a risk now with PAC-12 having the bowls line-up already. I think the Potato bowl committee knows it is getting very weak as the bowl was created for Idaho and BSU during the WAC/Big West days. It just doesn't fit the MW. If anything it'll be better to relocate to San Jose or if the Australia bowl come to fruition....

Plus, who wants to travel to Boise, ID in winter to watch a college football game outside??

Arizona makes a lot more sense, even if it's PAC country.

Just add a 13th game already. The CFP has made bowl games virtually meaningless. Only a handful of bowls pay enough money for the teams to not lose money. At least with 13 games you get a home game every other year and the associated revenue.

(05-07-2015 08:00 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  Just add a 13th game already. The CFP has made bowl games virtually meaningless. Only a handful of bowls pay enough money for the teams to not lose money. At least with 13 games you get a home game every other year and the associated revenue.

"Just another game" wouldn't mean the same thing to players, coaches and fans. People might not watch most of the games on TV, but it's something special for the people at the stadium.

We're going to play in the Fresh from Florida Meth Bowl next year (or similar). I'm going to go and have a good time and it's going to be awesome. All of y'all can suck it.

(05-07-2015 01:31 PM)HuskieJohn Wrote:  On a side note I am totally for removing of a win vs a FCS team as a qualifying 6th win for a bowl game.

We tried that and the size of FBS increased rapidly because schools content to play FCS and pick-up a money game or two or three lost access to that revenue and moved FBS.

(05-07-2015 03:03 PM)FIUFan Wrote:  For those complaining about too many bowls; it's better football content than the NFL Networks round the clock coverage of the NFL Combine (splitting hairs over a 1/10th of a second or an inch and a half vertical) or everyone's mock draft....ad nausum.

At least they're games someone might care about.

Exactly the games draw viewers.

Most teams (from G5 to P5) have their largest TV audience of the season in a bowl.

And for all the bellyaching I see about it being a participation trophy, you have to win six regular season games to get in. A participation trophy would mean a 0-12 team got to play.

(05-07-2015 08:00 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  Just add a 13th game already. The CFP has made bowl games virtually meaningless. Only a handful of bowls pay enough money for the teams to not lose money. At least with 13 games you get a home game every other year and the associated revenue.

You have to win 6 regular season games to play in one. So it means you at least played .500 ball in the regular season. The last refuge if we come up short of teams is for the NCAA to produce a list of to the ten best APR scores among 5-7 teams and allow a bowl to fill remaining vacancies from that list. We've never gone that far down the list.

(05-07-2015 04:22 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-07-2015 04:11 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(05-07-2015 04:00 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-07-2015 03:38 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Too bad, was looking forward to this one. However, it allow more time for the MW to kill off the Potato Bowl and have this one replace it.

I don't think you want to kill off the Potato Bowl. It's a bowl in a MWC stadium, so you have the backstop of knowing it's not going to leave the MWC; the Tucson bowl would be a bowl in a Pac-12 stadium. Also, the bowls in San Diego may go away if the Chargers leave town and San Diego tears down the stadium. There's no guarantee that there would be new bowls in LA anytime soon or that a bowl would want to operate in a bare-bones on-campus stadium, which is what SDSU is likely to build if Qualcomm Stadium goes away.

No I do want the Potato Bowl to be done with. Attendance, is lacking even if the weather isn't a factor. The bowl is too cheap to cover the endzones with the school's name or the name of the bowl. It is just too cheap.
I understand the risk regarding the Arizona bowl, but that is less of a risk now with PAC-12 having the bowls line-up already. I think the Potato bowl committee knows it is getting very weak as the bowl was created for Idaho and BSU during the WAC/Big West days. It just doesn't fit the MW. If anything it'll be better to relocate to San Jose or if the Australia bowl come to fruition....

Plus, who wants to travel to Boise, ID in winter to watch a college football game outside??

People who want to combine a ski trip with a bowl game?