(11-30-2015 03:29 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-30-2015 03:17 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-30-2015 03:10 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-30-2015 03:05 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-30-2015 01:03 AM)stever20 Wrote:  there has always been a sitout for transitional teams....

the conferences have absolutely NO interest in 5-7 teams going bowling.

they just aren't going to approve any more games. and they are going to have a process in place where if there's not enough teams in place that certain games would not get played.

I don't see how that can work.

Tickets are sold, rooms and flights are booked, people are hired to manage this and that and prepare for this and that. Catering, entertainment, transportation. People to work in the concession stands. Etc.


Oops! Sorry. All that is cancelled now, three weeks before the game. There wasn't enough teams that meet some arbitrary minimum requirement to be able to play in the game. So you won't be getting paid.

Come on ...


Oh, and conferences don't want as many of their teams as possible to go bowling, with national cable viewership?

Come on.

Has Delaney said anything? at all? He's got the most to "lose" this time, but we've not heard a peep from him.

And sorry- but finishing .500 is far from arbitrary. If you are 5-7 you are a losing team.

Which is an arbitrary minimum requirement.

An 0-12 team should be allowed to go bowling, if their conference signed an agreement that allows for such. It should be no one else's place to say otherwise.

Do you go around to various community gymnasiums and tell amateur boxers that they shouldn't be allowed to fight that night?


I don't care what Delaney hasn't said.

He hasn't said that I'm not going to be the next commissioner of the B1G. So it must be that I am!

There are requirements though that don't allow amateur boxers to fight in a night.

Show me ANYONE who matters who thinks 5-7 teams should be allowed to go bowling. Just 1. (which is kind of like your moronic posture that Oklahoma won't make the playoffs this year).

(separate thread, not relevant here: I didn't say OU won't make the playoff.)

I don't care what people haven't said. I care what I think. I'm sharing with you all what I think. No one has attempted to make an argument for why what I think is false.

You just think something else. Fine.

I had been scribblin this together earlier, and after reading this figured I'd post it now: (and it does have some holes in the process, not to mention some P5 schools that "Don't want to" face off with G5 schools on a neutral field.)

1) This set up requires 66 bowl-eligible teams. (again, you can adjust if a conference doesn't fill it's slots). If you have more than 66, you can have them in one-offs.. (or add another set of three games if you get do get a year with 71 teams.). The one-offs ONLY occur when you do have 68 or 70 teams qualifying teams. (Note if you have 67 or 69 teams, someone's getting left out, sorry!).
2) If you have 10 more bowl locations, you can add them (Austin, SC , I'm looking at you guys.. since you're so adamant) as the "round 2" (or put them as round 1, and move one of the better known bowls to the Round 2).
3) Yes, some schools will have 3 more games on their schedule. Deal with it :)
4) The bowls selected are just "arbitrary", there was no reason for these choices other than to put multiple conferences in each set of 5 teams.

===========
We leave the big 8 bowls as is

Cotton/Orange/Rose/Sugar/Fiesta/Citrus/Outback/Peach , so we'll have 16 teams out of the mix

(This is for nostalgia purposes, and in case they do decide on a playoff system of 16 teams at some point.)

Each conference then selects one bowl of the remaining as their "big bowl"... they get to put top "non New Years Day" representative in (these are only examples, so don't hate on my choices, again these were only chosen arbitrarily (a: Based on highest payoffs, and b: Bowls best associated with a conference) )

Big 12 - Alamo
PAC 12 - Cactus
Big 10 - Russel Athletic
SEC - Texas bowl
ACC - Taxslayer/Gator (I hate using the TaxSlayer name)
American - Liberty
C-USA - HOD
MWC - Holiday
MAC - Music City
Sun Belt - New Orleans

That's 10 more teams off, so 26.

You then pair off the remaining bowls (into a three game set)... that takes 40 more out of the picture, so that's 66 total teams needed.

Example:

Belk Bowl (SEC/AAC) and the Pinstripe for instance (ACC/B10). Winners play one another in ??? Bowl (or you move the bigger named/older bowl here and put the newer bowl as one of the round 1 bowls), and then take on the B12 in the Alamo Bowl.

Poinsetta (MWC/B10) vs. Camelia (MAC/SB) - Cactus Bowl (P12)
Independence (SEC/MAC) vs. Hawaii (MWC/American) - Russel Athletic (B10)
Military (ACC/American) vs. Idaho (MAC/MWC) - Texas Bowl (SEC)
Go Daddy (MAC/SB) vs. Birmingham (SEC/American) - Taxslayer Gator (ACC)
NMex (C-USA/MWC) Vs. Boca Raton (SB/MAC) - Liberty (American)
Armed Forces (B12/American) vs. St. Pete (AAC/ACC) - HOD (C-USA)
Sun Bowl (ACC/P12) vs. Bahamas (C-USA/MAC) - Holiday (MWC)
Quick Lane (ACC/B10) vs. Miami Beach (American/CUSA) vs. Music City (Mac)
Arizona (CUSA/MWC) vs. Foster Farms(B10/P12) vs. NO BOwl (Sun Belt)


I tried to make picks so that no duplicate conferences can meet on the "big bowl" week, unless some obligations couldn't be fulfilled. (so I tried to prevent a Sun Belt vs. Sun Belt in the NO bowl for instance)

66 teams needed to complete the entire lineup... if you have 68 bowl eligble teams, you add in a one-off game, if you have 70, you add in two one-offs.

Conferences get the payoffs for each bowl game as normal. (haven't figured out how I'd do "round 2").

The scheduling would take some work though.

10 "first round" bowls on 12/13
10 "first round" bowls on 12/14

(you do have the gap from the 15th to the 19th, but you could put the one-off bowls (mentioned above) in here?)

then 12/20 to 12/24 you set up the bowl winner vs. bowl winner, 2 or 3 per day (forget what I had written on the breakdown).

25th (christmas) and 26th you give to the NBA...

then 12/27 to 12/31 the bigger 10 bowl games (2 per day)

Then you have your big 8 games all on NYD (moving the Peach bowl to NYD as well), or 6 on NYD and the 2 (current) Playoff games on 1/2.

Lots of logistics (such as NYD) would be needed for it to work (such as payouts and Independents), but you keep all the bowls (actually +10 "bowl" games), you set the base number of teams needed to 66, and you keep the current tie ins. (Independents: I guess you put ND as an ACC tie in/option, BYU as a MWC tie in/option.. and Army... well I'm not sure what you do with Army), and again, i Know some schools wouldn't want to play 3 more games.. but that's just the way it goes.

(11-30-2015 01:03 AM)stever20 Wrote:  there has always been a sitout for transitional teams....

No there hasn't.
1991 Nevada loses to Youngstown State by 2 in the I-AA quarterfinals
1992 Nevada loses to Bowling Green in the Las Vegas Bowl

1996 Marshall defeats Montana in the I-AA title game
1997 Marshall loses by 3 to Ole Miss in the Motor City Bowl

(11-30-2015 03:29 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-30-2015 03:17 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-30-2015 03:10 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-30-2015 03:05 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-30-2015 01:03 AM)stever20 Wrote:  there has always been a sitout for transitional teams....

the conferences have absolutely NO interest in 5-7 teams going bowling.

they just aren't going to approve any more games. and they are going to have a process in place where if there's not enough teams in place that certain games would not get played.

I don't see how that can work.

Tickets are sold, rooms and flights are booked, people are hired to manage this and that and prepare for this and that. Catering, entertainment, transportation. People to work in the concession stands. Etc.


Oops! Sorry. All that is cancelled now, three weeks before the game. There wasn't enough teams that meet some arbitrary minimum requirement to be able to play in the game. So you won't be getting paid.

Come on ...


Oh, and conferences don't want as many of their teams as possible to go bowling, with national cable viewership?

Come on.

Has Delaney said anything? at all? He's got the most to "lose" this time, but we've not heard a peep from him.

And sorry- but finishing .500 is far from arbitrary. If you are 5-7 you are a losing team.

Which is an arbitrary minimum requirement.

An 0-12 team should be allowed to go bowling, if their conference signed an agreement that allows for such. It should be no one else's place to say otherwise.

Do you go around to various community gymnasiums and tell amateur boxers that they shouldn't be allowed to fight that night?


I don't care what Delaney hasn't said.

He hasn't said that I'm not going to be the next commissioner of the B1G. So it must be that I am!

There are requirements though that don't allow amateur boxers to fight in a night.

Show me ANYONE who matters who thinks 5-7 teams should be allowed to go bowling. Just 1. (which is kind of like your moronic posture that Oklahoma won't make the playoffs this year).

How about the members of the NCAA committee who adopted the procedure to permit 5-7 teams to play to avoid games going dark? More than one person on that committee.

(11-30-2015 04:16 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(11-30-2015 03:29 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-30-2015 03:17 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-30-2015 03:10 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-30-2015 03:05 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  I don't see how that can work.

Tickets are sold, rooms and flights are booked, people are hired to manage this and that and prepare for this and that. Catering, entertainment, transportation. People to work in the concession stands. Etc.


Oops! Sorry. All that is cancelled now, three weeks before the game. There wasn't enough teams that meet some arbitrary minimum requirement to be able to play in the game. So you won't be getting paid.

Come on ...


Oh, and conferences don't want as many of their teams as possible to go bowling, with national cable viewership?

Come on.

Has Delaney said anything? at all? He's got the most to "lose" this time, but we've not heard a peep from him.

And sorry- but finishing .500 is far from arbitrary. If you are 5-7 you are a losing team.

Which is an arbitrary minimum requirement.

An 0-12 team should be allowed to go bowling, if their conference signed an agreement that allows for such. It should be no one else's place to say otherwise.

Do you go around to various community gymnasiums and tell amateur boxers that they shouldn't be allowed to fight that night?


I don't care what Delaney hasn't said.

He hasn't said that I'm not going to be the next commissioner of the B1G. So it must be that I am!

There are requirements though that don't allow amateur boxers to fight in a night.

Show me ANYONE who matters who thinks 5-7 teams should be allowed to go bowling. Just 1. (which is kind of like your moronic posture that Oklahoma won't make the playoffs this year).

How about the members of the NCAA committee who adopted the procedure to permit 5-7 teams to play to avoid games going dark? More than one person on that committee.

I think frankly they never thought this would come to fruition.

This offseason will be really interesting to see what happens with this whole issue. I think if there were like 79 teams or something like that- there isn't anywhere near the clamor there is with this year being with 75 teams eligible.

By the way, who the heck started the use of the "games going dark" idiom??

Not like it's the national power grid, or something.

Missouri has decided not to accept a bowl invitation. So Rice is getting closer.

Bronco Beat ‏@IDS_BroncoBeat · 3h3 hours ago
Big 12 5-7 team could bump MW out of Cactus Bowl, Craig Thompson says

Missouri already said they are not going to going bowling with 5 wins. Would KSU decline also?
I wonder if there is some set standard that if the bowl has a backup (i.e. MW with the Catcus), then the 5-7 team can only be filled if the bowl doesn't have a backup or that backup conference can't provide a team.

If the Cactus takes KSU at 5-7 then the MW should void the backup with them. What good is being a backup if they take a losing team anyway.
I would hope and think since they still have a say in who they want, they will take a MW team so they won't be one of the bowls who get embarrassed by the public for taking a 5 win team.

5-7 Mizzou says thanks but no thanks, no bowl for us.

(Remember, Pinkel retired, they're still looking for a new head coach, all of the assistants are probably working on trying to find new jobs.)

Quote:Brett McMurphy
‏@McMurphyESPN

Missouri, which would have received a bid at 5-7 with its APR, will not participate in a bowl game

2:18 PM - 30 Nov 2015

Oh, and the NCAA announced today that for 5-7 teams that don't say no to the bowls, the teams with the highest APR get to go bowling. Highest APR among 5-win teams other than Mizzou: Nebraska, K-State (who could still get to 6), Minnesota, San Jose State, Illinois, Rice.

Quote:NCAA Football
‏@NCAAFootball

Without enough 6-6 teams, remaining bowl bids will be filled by 5-7 teams based on highest Academic Progress Rate.

1:56 PM - 30 Nov 2015

(11-29-2015 06:20 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 05:44 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 03:53 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 02:51 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(11-28-2015 06:53 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  That's what bowls and some conferences are claiming the rule means, though the NCAA claims it means the best five APR schools ... the top five among 5-7 schools would actually make sense in the context, and if one assumes that NCAA rules only rarely make sense, then that assumption would be reinforced by the NCAA position.

NCAA is trying to force some bowls to go dark despite the only intelligent reading of what they passed is that the NCAA is supposed to look at the 5-7 and compile a list of the top 5 APR among the group.

I'm really hoping NCAA tries to force an ESPN owned bowl to go dark. ESPN can sue and finally make their ownership of the NCAA an open fact.

Bob Bowlsby is saber-rattling about bowls "going dark":

Big 12 commissioner: Bowls could go dark without enough 6-6 teams

Quote:Although bowls going dark seems unlikely to happen this season, there is deep frustration by some administrators within college football that teams with 5-7 records will be in the postseason. At least two 5-7 teams, and possibly up to five, would have to participate since there aren't enough 6-6 teams to fill the 80 slots created by a record 40 bowl games. About five cities have applied to stage future bowls.

“If we add more bowls next year, where are we going to find 84, 86, 88 eligible teams?” said Bowlsby, chairman of the Football Oversight Committee. “Having bowls go dark may be the way to slow the process down. There are a lot of people that don't even like 6-6, much less 5-7. There are people who absolutely want bowls to go dark.”

Quote:“I can promise you this one thing: We won't be dealing with this next year,” Bowlsby said. “We could cap standards to be in a bowl and not have a waiver process. They would (go dark).”

His league is why we are in our current state.

Bowl eligible was 7 with an exception at 6-6 to honor existing contracts. The Big XII pushed to make it 6-6 so they wouldn't have a 6-6 unable to go fill a vacancy while some 7 or 8 MAC or CUSA filled an at-large.

At the time of the vote the now departed Sun Belt and MAC commissioners warned if the non-AQ were frozen out they would have to create new games.

Now we have:
Camellia: MAC Sun Belt
Bahamas: MAC CUSA
Miami Beach AAC CUSA
Boca: CUSA MAC
Tucson: MWC CUSA
Cure: AAC Sun Belt

When 7 or better had protection in at-large selection the G5 weren't rocking the boat. Remember also a number of games kicked G5 teams out such as Liberty and Texas. An age old trend embraced by Independence, Fiesta and Holiday.

So many in the CFB business want to pretend that bowl games are a reward for an outstanding season, as they might have been 40 years ago when there were only 10 bowl games. Now everyone wants one so that they can call their season great.

But to finance this oversupply of bowl games, they make promises to the brand-conscious people financing them, which leads to those guys insisting on getting teams from the P5 conferences they signed up, even if their contract says they get the 11th choice from the SEC, even it's a 6-6 team, instead of a 7-5 or 8-4 G5 team. That leads to what you mentioned, the G5 teams creating their own bowls so that all of their winning teams, and why not, 6-6 teams too, can have a bowl and call their season a shining success.

So now they've built a system where (almost) everyone gets a trophy, and somehow they are upset that there are a few trophies left over from the truckload of trophies they bought.

But why be upset? Just admit the bowl games are fun post-season exhibitions and not Nobel Prizes for excellence in football, and who cares if 5-7 teams play in them. If I don't want to watch any particular game, I won't, but why should it bother me if teams with losing records play in a bowl game?

Fact is, the vast majority of bowls are money losers for the schools.

(11-30-2015 03:04 PM)AuzGrams Wrote:  The funny thing is the new bowl game in Detroit was a 6-6 vs 7-5 P5 matchup that had low attendance. I think all of the MAC games for the Motor City Bowl had better attendance than the new Quick Lane Bowl.

The inaugural Quick Lane Bowl in 2014 pitting the Big Ten vs the ACC drew 23,876. Over the 17-year history of the MAC vs. someone else in the Motor City Bowl (later renamed the Little Caesars Pizza Bowl), only one crowd was smaller. Attendance for that particular game was expected to reach about 40K, but abominable road conditions prevented it from happening in that 2012 contest.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nca.../76581408/

There are 75 teams with at least six victories and a .500 record going into the final weekend of the regular season. Only three more can get to six wins.

Based on 2013-14, Nebraska has the best APR among 5-7 teams at 985. Kansas State can become bowl eligible Saturday at West Virginia, but with a 976 APR, the Wildcats should get in either way.

Missouri, also at 976, sent out a release saying the 5-7 Tigers would decline any bowl invitation.

Minnesota and San Jose State are next on the list at 975. Illinois and Rice are at 973.

(11-30-2015 03:05 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-30-2015 01:03 AM)stever20 Wrote:  there has always been a sitout for transitional teams....

the conferences have absolutely NO interest in 5-7 teams going bowling.

they just aren't going to approve any more games. and they are going to have a process in place where if there's not enough teams in place that certain games would not get played.

I don't see how that can work.

Tickets are sold, rooms and flights are booked, people are hired to manage this and that and prepare for this and that. Catering, entertainment, transportation. People to work in the concession stands. Etc.


Oops! Sorry. All that is cancelled now, three weeks before the game. There wasn't enough teams that meet some arbitrary minimum requirement to be able to play in the game. So you won't be getting paid.

Come on ...


Oh, and conferences don't want as many of their teams as possible to go bowling, with national cable viewership?

Come on.

Who has book the flights and hotels if they don't know where there team is playing? There still is time to cancel some bowl games for a year. The would be a good example/punishment for the bowls who signed up for a #10 and #11 P5 team.

Since the Detroit bowl is in the lowest tier for both the BigTen and ACC, odds are good that most season one conference will be short and the MAC will fill one of the slots.

Of course that was assuming the BigTen would rarely be sending a 5-7 team to the Detroit bowl.

Based on this NCAA press release, I think the 5-7 situation is this:

1) "All teams eligible for postseason play and reaching six victories will be selected." ==> All teams with 6 or more wins get a bowl game because there are 40 bowls and fewer than 80 6-win teams. We already knew that.

2) "the Division I Football Oversight Committee will identify 5-7 teams with the highest Academic Progress Rates to bring the total of eligible bowl teams to 80 or 81" ==> 5-7 teams with the highest APR fill in as needed to bring the number of eligible teams to 80 or 81. There will be 75 to 78 6-win teams depending on the outcome of this week's games.

Why "80 or 81"? Apparently because, with Mizzou having taken themselves out of the running, there are ties for 3rd place and 5th place on the list. So, if they get down to (3) on the list and need one more team to fill a bowl, Minnesota and San Jose State are both eligible and the bowls get to choose one, and if none of the 5-win teams other than K-State win this weekend and they get all the way down to (5) on the list, the bowls can choose between Illinois and Rice.

This assumes that none of the teams on this list will take themselves out of the running as Missouri did today.

Quote:1) Nebraska (985)
2) Kansas State (976)
3) Minnesota (975)
3) San Jose State (975)
5) Illinois (973)
5) Rice (973)

Wait, Twitter has more tidbits.

Quote:Ralph D. Russo
‏@ralphDrussoAP

San Jose State and Nebraska have said they will accept a bowl invitation if invited.

4:33 PM - 30 Nov 2015

Quote:Ralph D. Russo
‏@ralphDrussoAP

Re: Bowl
Illinois will continue to monitor situation and, when appropriate, talk with the B1G and Illinois staff before making a decision.

4:35 PM - 30 Nov 2015

Quote:Ralph D. Russo
‏@ralphDrussoAP

Rice spokesman said the school is unsure if it would accept a bowl bid.

4:38 PM - 30 Nov 2015

... and McMurphy reports Kansas State and Minnesota would also accept a bowl bid.

That means Nebraska and Kansas State are already "in".

Minnesota should absolutely accept a bowl bid. They deserve it as much as anyone in the B1G, with the schedule they had to play. The only real let down was Nebraska. NW turned out to be a top 15 team. Nebraska is also way better than anyone will give them credit for. Then the stretch with Michigan, Ohio St, Iowa, Illinois and Wisconsin. Ridiculous.

With the coaching staff hired from within (hugely smart move) and the amount of youth on the team, they should accept for no other reason than the extra 15 practices.

(11-30-2015 06:10 PM)goofus Wrote:  Since the Detroit bowl is in the lowest tier for both the BigTen and ACC, odds are good that most season one conference will be short and the MAC will fill one of the slots.

Of course that was assuming the BigTen would rarely be sending a 5-7 team to the Detroit bowl.

And, of course, the BigTen doesn't get to send a 5-7 team to the Detroit Bowl unless there is a place for all 7 bowl eligible MAC teams.

I doubt that Akron would very much mind if they went to New Orleans to fill in for the Sunbelt commitment against CUSA, instead of going to Detroit.

(12-01-2015 04:34 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(11-30-2015 06:10 PM)goofus Wrote:  Since the Detroit bowl is in the lowest tier for both the BigTen and ACC, odds are good that most season one conference will be short and the MAC will fill one of the slots.

Of course that was assuming the BigTen would rarely be sending a 5-7 team to the Detroit bowl.

And, of course, the BigTen doesn't get to send a 5-7 team to the Detroit Bowl unless there is a place for all 7 bowl eligible MAC teams.

I doubt that Akron would very much mind if they went to New Orleans to fill in for the Sunbelt commitment against CUSA, instead of going to Detroit.

You think New Orleans is going to pass on Arkansas State in order to get Akron?

(12-01-2015 11:56 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(12-01-2015 04:34 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(11-30-2015 06:10 PM)goofus Wrote:  Since the Detroit bowl is in the lowest tier for both the BigTen and ACC, odds are good that most season one conference will be short and the MAC will fill one of the slots.

Of course that was assuming the BigTen would rarely be sending a 5-7 team to the Detroit bowl.

And, of course, the BigTen doesn't get to send a 5-7 team to the Detroit Bowl unless there is a place for all 7 bowl eligible MAC teams.

I doubt that Akron would very much mind if they went to New Orleans to fill in for the Sunbelt commitment against CUSA, instead of going to Detroit.

You think New Orleans is going to pass on Arkansas State in order to get Akron?

Sun Belt already has New Orleans Bowl. It's the CUSA slot that would be open.

(12-01-2015 11:59 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-01-2015 11:56 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(12-01-2015 04:34 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(11-30-2015 06:10 PM)goofus Wrote:  Since the Detroit bowl is in the lowest tier for both the BigTen and ACC, odds are good that most season one conference will be short and the MAC will fill one of the slots.

Of course that was assuming the BigTen would rarely be sending a 5-7 team to the Detroit bowl.

And, of course, the BigTen doesn't get to send a 5-7 team to the Detroit Bowl unless there is a place for all 7 bowl eligible MAC teams.

I doubt that Akron would very much mind if they went to New Orleans to fill in for the Sunbelt commitment against CUSA, instead of going to Detroit.

You think New Orleans is going to pass on Arkansas State in order to get Akron?

Sun Belt already has New Orleans Bowl. It's the CUSA slot that would be open.

I'm aware, but that wasn't what the post said.