The way to fix "too many bowl" is to increase the minimum payout.

(12-08-2015 01:26 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  The way to fix "too many bowl" is to increase the minimum payout.

Not really, because the bowls can cook the books in a variety of ways. Such as force teams to pay for "x" number of tickets at obscenely high prices.

(12-08-2015 11:30 AM)OUVan Wrote:  While I am 100% behind your idea it's just not going to happen. There is no way in he11 that the big boys would let a rule be put in place that hurts them and helps us.

That is indeed the challenge. The best bet for the Go5 is finding some system that protects them while also serving some more powerful interest. And the system I sketched does retain some favoritism for the P5 schools, since if all 6-6 schools become eligible once all 7+ win teams are placed, while the is some constraint on the number of bowls, it will typically be 6-6 P5 schools filling those spots, because that's the way the bowls will reckon the media value of teams with mediocre seasons.

Having 5-7 teams go bowling weakens the brand all around, and that is the leverage for making reform in the first place. What the Go5 would be doing in that is trading its votes for some system that protects its interests.

But then Schlabach at ESPN ranks a bowl with a 5-7 team #19 out of 40, since it includes two P5 name brands in UCLA and Nebraska.

OTOH, he ranks the Detroit bowl #37, with a 7-5 CMU and a 5-7 non-name Brand P5 in Minnesota, and its the all Go5 bowl with a 5-7 San Jose State against a 6-6 Georgia State that he ranks last. And ranks two other all-Go5 bowls below Detroit.

So if we were trimming two bowls looking at that particular bowl hype-list from ESPN's Schlabach, it would be the Cure Bowl and the Camellia Bowl that would be trimmed, even though its the P5 that caused the issue through their agreements with "just in case we need an unusually large number of places" bowls.

(12-08-2015 02:31 PM)Okie Chippewa Wrote:  

(12-08-2015 01:26 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  The way to fix "too many bowl" is to increase the minimum payout.

Not really, because the bowls can cook the books in a variety of ways. Such as force teams to pay for "x" number of tickets at obscenely high prices.

clean that up along with raising payouts..

The MWC commish can't be too upset...the way I see it, 2 MWC teams competing against each other could've been prevented:

1) One of the teams could've turned the bid down
2) That would've "driven" the bowl down to the next 5-7 team

If the next highest APR team was a MWC team, they too, turns down the bid until eventually a non-MWC 5-7 teams accepted.

In the end, the 2 MWC teams playing are ok with the outcome, since they decided to accept.

(12-08-2015 11:07 PM)wleakr Wrote:  The MWC commish can't be too upset...the way I see it, 2 MWC teams competing against each other could've been prevented:

1) One of the teams could've turned the bid down

But then San Jose State from the MWC would have been taking a bid at 5-7 when one actually bowl eligible school was staying home.

San Jose State could have declined the bid to the Cure Bowl in favor of one of the two MWC schools. But that was not a MWC bowl, it was a back up to the AAC ... maybe the Cure Bowl could have taken the next 5-7 school in line and still leave the MWC with two schools in that bowl, except with one fewer bowl-bound school.

(12-09-2015 12:31 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(12-08-2015 11:07 PM)wleakr Wrote:  The MWC commish can't be too upset...the way I see it, 2 MWC teams competing against each other could've been prevented:

1) One of the teams could've turned the bid down

But then San Jose State from the MWC would have been taking a bid at 5-7 when one actually bowl eligible school was staying home.

San Jose State could have declined the bid to the Cure Bowl in favor of one of the two MWC schools. But that was not a MWC bowl, it was a back up to the AAC ... maybe the Cure Bowl could have taken the next 5-7 school in line and still leave the MWC with two schools in that bowl, except with one fewer bowl-bound school.

Very True.
I'll say this. Yes, I was a little miffed about the AZ bowl setup and how CUSA didn't take care of business on their end. But in the end, this bowl has received more free publicity than they ever could have dreamed.
It is also in the best interest of the MW to have this bowl succeed. They player are happy to being playing instead of sitting at home. The Tucson community is very happy to support it and being how the new MW is only 3 years old. It is sort of an old matchup of WAC vs MW.

http://bigstory.ap.org/urn:publicid:ap.o...601637b438

They are talking big, but as usual, it's out of both sides of their mouths: when you think 6-6 teams need to be "rewarded" for their stellar seasons, you will find yourself in the situation they currently have. You get past 36 or 37 bowls, you risk 5-7 teams playing. This year, at 40, there were two too many bowls to cap the participants at 6-6. It could have been worse.

OK - they bowl system has gotten stupid now.

At this point, they should just tell all the teams to find a postseason game to play. If it's no longer a reward for the good teams, there's no longer a reason to stop the bad teams from playing a game.

The real stupid part is that these games cost schools money. They make sense when schools make a profit on them. When a school has to guarantee ticket sales, and have to eat travel costs, they don't make sense. They only make sense when the schools are being paid to play

(12-07-2015 02:15 AM)sank Wrote:  Glad that didn't happen to the MAC, mainly because we'd have to hear twice as many "we are humble" ads.

It's okay, "The Sun Belt isn't an easy conference" and "everything is a step up, the speed of the game" and

The conference commercial that plays every commercial break is a nightmare.

(12-10-2015 01:25 PM)ericsaid Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 02:15 AM)sank Wrote:  Glad that didn't happen to the MAC, mainly because we'd have to hear twice as many "we are humble" ads.

It's okay, "The Sun Belt isn't an easy conference" and "everything is a step up, the speed of the game" and

The conference commercial that plays every commercial break is a nightmare.

So we're not alone then. Haven't seen the Sun Belt one but the MAC one I am so sick of.....

If the bowls and their sponsors don't want 5-7 FBS teams playing than invite one of the FCS teams that got eliminated in their playoff bracket. By the end of FBS conference championship weekend, the FCS 2nd round has been played and only 8 teams remain. For bowls that are scheduled near New Years Day they could even wait until the results of games played the 2nd week of December, which means any FCS team is available except one of the Final 4.

Montana, Northern Iowa, McNeese, Chattanooga and James Madison all available and draw decently. Would likely be thrilled to be picked for an FBS bowl game