(05-07-2015 04:19 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(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:  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.

FWIW, during the past two seasons, only one school who missed out on a bowl would have gained eligibility if they had played and beaten an FCS opponent instead of losing to an FBS opponent. That was Michigan last year, which had 2 OOC losses (Notre Dame and Utah). They also beat Appalachian State, but they moved up to FBS after the game was scheduled.

People forget that App State, Ga Southern and ODU were bowl eligible if there were open spots ahead of APR losing teams last year due to FCS transition. So it really is not fair to say only 81 would have been eligible when it should be 84.

Still with 82 teams now going to bowl games, you have to think the NCAA has to look at increasing the number of FBS teams to ensure more winning teams into the bowls. I know some people don't want to add teams but I think it is getting to where there is no choice. Probably the cheapest way is to allow for 8-10 independents to get to 135-37 to get it back only 60%. Have the CFP pay them a 1 million a year, I think 8 mil could easily be found for these schools for the CFP. Create an existing bowl spot for the independent that does not have an existing Bowl Tie-in. With the talk of the Austriala Bowl, let the Potato Bowl have the independent from the MWC.

Using 2013 numbers cutting off at 15K it would be 8 teams. To go along with UMASS, Army, BYU and soon to be Idaho and NMSU if SBC doesn't keep them.
Rank School G Attendance Average
3. James Madison 7 147,076 21,011
4. Southern U. 5 100,536 20,107
6. Montana St. 6 118,222 19,704
7. North Dakota St. 9 167,600 18,622
8. Delaware 7 126,754 18,108
9. Jackson St. 4 69,143 17,286
10. Jacksonville St. 7 110,695 15,814

(05-08-2015 11:07 AM)msm96wolf Wrote:  People forget that App State, Ga Southern and ODU were bowl eligible if there were open spots ahead of APR losing teams last year due to FCS transition. So it really is not fair to say only 81 would have been eligible when it should be 84.

Still with 82 teams now going to bowl games, you have to think the NCAA has to look at increasing the number of FBS teams to ensure more winning teams into the bowls. I know some people don't want to add teams but I think it is getting to where there is no choice. Probably the cheapest way is to allow for 8-10 independents to get to 135-37 to get it back only 60%. Have the CFP pay them a 1 million a year, I think 8 mil could easily be found for these schools for the CFP. Create an existing bowl spot for the independent that does not have an existing Bowl Tie-in. With the talk of the Austriala Bowl, let the Potato Bowl have the independent from the MWC.

Using 2013 numbers cutting off at 15K it would be 8 teams. To go along with UMASS, Army, BYU and soon to be Idaho and NMSU if SBC doesn't keep them.
Rank School G Attendance Average
3. James Madison 7 147,076 21,011
4. Southern U. 5 100,536 20,107
6. Montana St. 6 118,222 19,704
7. North Dakota St. 9 167,600 18,622
8. Delaware 7 126,754 18,108
9. Jackson St. 4 69,143 17,286
10. Jacksonville St. 7 110,695 15,814

I didn't forget them. They were included in my totals as if they were eligible, since they would have been if not for their transition status. The fact remains - we are now right up against the expected number of eligible teams compared with available slots. But why would the NCAA want to increase the number of schools just so it can add yet more bowls? Since when is anybody's goal to maximize the number of bowl games?

(05-08-2015 09:56 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-07-2015 04:19 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(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:  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.

FWIW, during the past two seasons, only one school who missed out on a bowl would have gained eligibility if they had played and beaten an FCS opponent instead of losing to an FBS opponent. That was Michigan last year, which had 2 OOC losses (Notre Dame and Utah). They also beat Appalachian State, but they moved up to FBS after the game was scheduled.

Doesn't mean more winnable FCS games shouldn't be scheduled, since as I said you never know who is going to be able to make use of that win early in the season.

(05-08-2015 11:21 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-08-2015 11:07 AM)msm96wolf Wrote:  People forget that App State, Ga Southern and ODU were bowl eligible if there were open spots ahead of APR losing teams last year due to FCS transition. So it really is not fair to say only 81 would have been eligible when it should be 84.

Still with 82 teams now going to bowl games, you have to think the NCAA has to look at increasing the number of FBS teams to ensure more winning teams into the bowls. I know some people don't want to add teams but I think it is getting to where there is no choice. Probably the cheapest way is to allow for 8-10 independents to get to 135-37 to get it back only 60%. Have the CFP pay them a 1 million a year, I think 8 mil could easily be found for these schools for the CFP. Create an existing bowl spot for the independent that does not have an existing Bowl Tie-in. With the talk of the Austriala Bowl, let the Potato Bowl have the independent from the MWC.

Using 2013 numbers cutting off at 15K it would be 8 teams. To go along with UMASS, Army, BYU and soon to be Idaho and NMSU if SBC doesn't keep them.
Rank School G Attendance Average
3. James Madison 7 147,076 21,011
4. Southern U. 5 100,536 20,107
6. Montana St. 6 118,222 19,704
7. North Dakota St. 9 167,600 18,622
8. Delaware 7 126,754 18,108
9. Jackson St. 4 69,143 17,286
10. Jacksonville St. 7 110,695 15,814

I didn't forget them. They were included in my totals as if they were eligible, since they would have been if not for their transition status. The fact remains - we are now right up against the expected number of eligible teams compared with available slots. But why would the NCAA want to increase the number of schools just so it can add yet more bowls? Since when is anybody's goal to maximize the number of bowl games?

Easiest solution: allow two FCS wins to count.

(05-08-2015 11:07 AM)msm96wolf Wrote:  People forget that App State, Ga Southern and ODU were bowl eligible if there were open spots ahead of APR losing teams last year due to FCS transition. So it really is not fair to say only 81 would have been eligible when it should be 84.

Still with 82 teams now going to bowl games, you have to think the NCAA has to look at increasing the number of FBS teams to ensure more winning teams into the bowls. I know some people don't want to add teams but I think it is getting to where there is no choice. Probably the cheapest way is to allow for 8-10 independents to get to 135-37 to get it back only 60%. Have the CFP pay them a 1 million a year, I think 8 mil could easily be found for these schools for the CFP. Create an existing bowl spot for the independent that does not have an existing Bowl Tie-in. With the talk of the Austriala Bowl, let the Potato Bowl have the independent from the MWC.

Using 2013 numbers cutting off at 15K it would be 8 teams. To go along with UMASS, Army, BYU and soon to be Idaho and NMSU if SBC doesn't keep them.
Rank School G Attendance Average
3. James Madison 7 147,076 21,011
4. Southern U. 5 100,536 20,107
6. Montana St. 6 118,222 19,704
7. North Dakota St. 9 167,600 18,622
8. Delaware 7 126,754 18,108
9. Jackson St. 4 69,143 17,286
10. Jacksonville St. 7 110,695 15,814

Actually, I did forget that part bringing in the Independents is to have a bowl moratorium until the next CFP negotiations. But there does need to have one or two bowl slots created with the bowls. Possibly something with the ESPN bowls maybe Bahama, Boise, Poinsettia or Boise. I just think some FCS schools should be given a window to join FBS independent if they would like. Have a two year window to join then the moratorium on fcs to fbs and bowls happen when the window shuts.

(05-08-2015 11:21 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-08-2015 11:07 AM)msm96wolf Wrote:  People forget that App State, Ga Southern and ODU were bowl eligible if there were open spots ahead of APR losing teams last year due to FCS transition. So it really is not fair to say only 81 would have been eligible when it should be 84.

Still with 82 teams now going to bowl games, you have to think the NCAA has to look at increasing the number of FBS teams to ensure more winning teams into the bowls. I know some people don't want to add teams but I think it is getting to where there is no choice. Probably the cheapest way is to allow for 8-10 independents to get to 135-37 to get it back only 60%. Have the CFP pay them a 1 million a year, I think 8 mil could easily be found for these schools for the CFP. Create an existing bowl spot for the independent that does not have an existing Bowl Tie-in. With the talk of the Austriala Bowl, let the Potato Bowl have the independent from the MWC.

Using 2013 numbers cutting off at 15K it would be 8 teams. To go along with UMASS, Army, BYU and soon to be Idaho and NMSU if SBC doesn't keep them.
Rank School G Attendance Average
3. James Madison 7 147,076 21,011
4. Southern U. 5 100,536 20,107
6. Montana St. 6 118,222 19,704
7. North Dakota St. 9 167,600 18,622
8. Delaware 7 126,754 18,108
9. Jackson St. 4 69,143 17,286
10. Jacksonville St. 7 110,695 15,814

I didn't forget them. They were included in my totals as if they were eligible, since they would have been if not for their transition status. The fact remains - we are now right up against the expected number of eligible teams compared with available slots. But why would the NCAA want to increase the number of schools just so it can add yet more bowls? Since when is anybody's goal to maximize the number of bowl games?

Lets take a look at some stadiums that could seat 15,000 as well. Alabama State, New Haven and North Alabama. Even Florida A&M, and we can not forget to bring Grambling State to go with Southern, and Montana to go with Montana State. Eastern Washington is expanding their stadium to reach that number.

http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/sports/i...me_by.html

Quote:48,256

The official attendance. Largest crowd ever for a Patriot League game.

Like I said, we need to look at a single home game. Southern U. Vs Grambling State draws a crowd.

Plus, we need to look at schools who wants to move up. Sometimes a home game for a FCS school goes up when they host an FBS team. Villanova hosted Temple which gave them a boast.

(05-09-2015 06:10 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(05-08-2015 11:21 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-08-2015 11:07 AM)msm96wolf Wrote:  People forget that App State, Ga Southern and ODU were bowl eligible if there were open spots ahead of APR losing teams last year due to FCS transition. So it really is not fair to say only 81 would have been eligible when it should be 84.

Still with 82 teams now going to bowl games, you have to think the NCAA has to look at increasing the number of FBS teams to ensure more winning teams into the bowls. I know some people don't want to add teams but I think it is getting to where there is no choice. Probably the cheapest way is to allow for 8-10 independents to get to 135-37 to get it back only 60%. Have the CFP pay them a 1 million a year, I think 8 mil could easily be found for these schools for the CFP. Create an existing bowl spot for the independent that does not have an existing Bowl Tie-in. With the talk of the Austriala Bowl, let the Potato Bowl have the independent from the MWC.

Using 2013 numbers cutting off at 15K it would be 8 teams. To go along with UMASS, Army, BYU and soon to be Idaho and NMSU if SBC doesn't keep them.
Rank School G Attendance Average
3. James Madison 7 147,076 21,011
4. Southern U. 5 100,536 20,107
6. Montana St. 6 118,222 19,704
7. North Dakota St. 9 167,600 18,622
8. Delaware 7 126,754 18,108
9. Jackson St. 4 69,143 17,286
10. Jacksonville St. 7 110,695 15,814

I didn't forget them. They were included in my totals as if they were eligible, since they would have been if not for their transition status. The fact remains - we are now right up against the expected number of eligible teams compared with available slots. But why would the NCAA want to increase the number of schools just so it can add yet more bowls? Since when is anybody's goal to maximize the number of bowl games?

Lets take a look at some stadiums that could seat 15,000 as well. Alabama State, New Haven and North Alabama. Even Florida A&M, and we can not forget to bring Grambling State to go with Southern, and Montana to go with Montana State. Eastern Washington is expanding their stadium to reach that number.

http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/sports/i...me_by.html

Quote:48,256

The official attendance. Largest crowd ever for a Patriot League game.

Like I said, we need to look at a single home game. Southern U. Vs Grambling State draws a crowd.

Plus, we need to look at schools who wants to move up. Sometimes a home game for a FCS school goes up when they host an FBS team. Villanova hosted Temple which gave them a boast.

Grambling can barely keep their doors open and has had huge controversy within their athletic department, and you want them to go FBS?

(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.

Oh boy...pulled this little nugget

"Austin bowl officials have spoken to University of Texas officials about playing the game in Darrell K. Royal-Texas Memorial Stadium. Playing at a nearby minor league baseball stadium remains a possibility, too"

That minor league stadium has to be in Round Rock...mistake Round Rock 25 miles north of downtown. You would be better served moving it to San Marcos and play at Texas St...which is a cool small city about 20-25 miles south of downtown.

BTW, which of these three bowls will be on ESPN?

http://www.wkyt.com/sports/headlines/Thr...64231.html

(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.

(05-08-2015 11:07 AM)msm96wolf Wrote:  People forget that App State, Ga Southern and ODU were bowl eligible if there were open spots ahead of APR losing teams last year due to FCS transition. So it really is not fair to say only 81 would have been eligible when it should be 84.

Still with 82 teams now going to bowl games, you have to think the NCAA has to look at increasing the number of FBS teams to ensure more winning teams into the bowls. I know some people don't want to add teams but I think it is getting to where there is no choice. Probably the cheapest way is to allow for 8-10 independents to get to 135-37 to get it back only 60%. Have the CFP pay them a 1 million a year, I think 8 mil could easily be found for these schools for the CFP. Create an existing bowl spot for the independent that does not have an existing Bowl Tie-in. With the talk of the Austriala Bowl, let the Potato Bowl have the independent from the MWC.

Using 2013 numbers cutting off at 15K it would be 8 teams. To go along with UMASS, Army, BYU and soon to be Idaho and NMSU if SBC doesn't keep them.
Rank School G Attendance Average
3. James Madison 7 147,076 21,011
4. Southern U. 5 100,536 20,107
6. Montana St. 6 118,222 19,704
7. North Dakota St. 9 167,600 18,622
8. Delaware 7 126,754 18,108
9. Jackson St. 4 69,143 17,286
10. Jacksonville St. 7 110,695 15,814

A football only conference would be ideal .
A scheduling agreement for seven games would be just as good.
Having a independent championship game pitting the top two would make sense.

U Mass ,Idaho and NMSU would be the base of the group.
JSU ,Liberty ,JMU, and NDSU would be obvious candidates because they don't have a fit in FBS. JMU only because they are choosy the others geography or their being blocked.

You could write in rules like you must play six games against independents to be eligible for the championship game. That way BYU or especially Army could choose to join the group certain years.
The independent programs would benefit from a looser association.
Having a scheduling coordinator schedule six to eight games.
Also having the option to schedule more vs this group.
So a championship game or independent bowl before the bowl could look like this.
NDSU 8-4 and 5-2 vs indy group against U Mass 9-3 and 7-1 vs indy group.
The overall record is all that matters not conference games.
Play the game at the top ranked team and split the TV money between the group.
That is after paying the scheduling coordinator and travel for the other team.

Gives schools FBS options without sacrificing Olympic sports.
Forcing schools to choose poor option just to be FBS.

(05-08-2015 12:51 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-08-2015 09:56 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-07-2015 04:19 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-07-2015 03:31 PM)ken d Wrote:  

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

FWIW, during the past two seasons, only one school who missed out on a bowl would have gained eligibility if they had played and beaten an FCS opponent instead of losing to an FBS opponent. That was Michigan last year, which had 2 OOC losses (Notre Dame and Utah). They also beat Appalachian State, but they moved up to FBS after the game was scheduled.

Doesn't mean more winnable FCS games shouldn't be scheduled, since as I said you never know who is going to be able to make use of that win early in the season.

Starting this year there will be fewer games scheduled against FCS teams, not more. As a matter of policy the Big Ten has decided that none of its teams should schedule FCS opponents. That policy will take effect this coming season. Other P5 leagues are also at least discouraging the practice.

As weaker G5 schools struggle with the demands of FCOA and pay for use of image, they are going to be more likely to try to replace FCS teams as "buy" games for P5 schools looking for a winnable 7th home game. Stronger G5 teams, hoping to boost their SOS for CFP consideration, are also more likely to swap an FCS opponent for a P5 one.

That means that more G5 teams (who also lose to the P5 at a very high rate) will have one fewer win. The ones who were already barely qualifying until now will stay home. Since pretty much all new bowls are aimed at matching G5 teams, they are the ones who will be looking at adding sub-.500 teams.

There are a lot more reasons to assume that the percentage of bowl eligible teams will decrease in the future than there are to assume there will be more teams eligible.

(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.

Yes, when I said "make it economically", I was referring to all revenue streams, TV included. If a bowl has paltry attendance but can get a network to give them TV money that makes them viable, that's legitimate.

And heck, FWIW, I enjoyed watching the new games last year. The Bahamas Bowl score was 49-48, with the losing team, CMU, scoring 34 unanswered points in the 4th quarter to turn an abject blowout into one of the most exciting finishes ever, and one of the most amazing Hail Mary passes you'll ever see, and the Miami Beach Bowl score was something like 51-48, an OT game. Both very fun to watch.

IMO, the more bowls to watch around Christmas and New Year's, the better for me.

So, we could see a Northern Iowa, Missouri State and Eastern Washington up there as well? If Montana, Montana State and North Dakota State be up there and join the FBS ranks? Them and Eastern Washington could be top choices to join the MWC if any of those teams get picked by the P5 conferences. They would get in before Idaho and New Mexico State.

Tuskegee has an average of 15,000 + the past couple of years as well. They are D2.

Liberty
N.C. A&T
Youngstown State
The Citadel
McNeese State
Tennessee State
South Carolina State
Alabama State
Florida A&M
Lafayette
Lehigh

All get up their in attendance.

Schools that wanted to go FBS or looking to go FBS are some that we mentioned, but here are a few others.
Delaware State
Northern Iowa
Sam Houston State
SFA
Stony Brook
North Alabama
alabama State

David...I think you are going to see anywhere from 65-80 teams playing at the highest level...the rest will be in the best of the rest.

(05-09-2015 12:35 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  David...I think you are going to see anywhere from 65-80 teams playing at the highest level...the rest will be in the best of the rest.

Well, If I were the head of any conference say like the Sun Belt, I would push for all members to have football. They will have a 5 years to decide to add the sport. If they do not? Schools in mainly football conferences will be booted.

Arkansas State
UAB
UTA
Texas A&M-C.C.
New Orleans

Now those 5 could form an all no football conference and add schools like UAFS, Oral Roberts, Rogers State, and others in the area.

Then I will tell the schools leaders of the Sun Belt that we should not be choosy on who to invite. If we wait too long? The conference could be the next WAC. Should look at schools like Jacksonville State, Alabama State, Jackson State, Chattanooga, Eastern Kentucky, Mercer, West Florida, North Alabama, and others. Maybe look at West Texas A&M and Central Oklahoma as possible members. Central Oklahoma could rent out where the Sooners play for major games until they upgrade their own stadium. I was at a band competition in high school, and we went to Central Oklahoma where it was held. It was a pretty big campus, and the football stadium to me at the time was big. Not like the one where the Sooners play.

(05-06-2015 09:38 AM)msm96wolf Wrote:  http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...-landscape

Good news for the G5 getting some more bowls.

(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.

(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.