(12-10-2015 03:35 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 10:21 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 08:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 08:51 AM)bearcatfan Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 08:49 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  How would a 7-5 record requirement hurt the G5 more than the P5? Doesn't compute.

With less bowl games the P5 will have enough 7-5 teams to fill them all.

So you are predicting that shrinkage will occur among bowls with contracts with G5 conferences, not P5 conferences. Yes, that makes sense.

Obviously it would occur for both.

... but the idea might be that with fewer bowls, those bowls would sign agreements with the P5 leagues and leave the G5 leagues out.

I guess the G5 could go ahead and create their own bowls, like they did with the Bahamas and Miami Beach Bowls.

If a 7-5 record is required to be in a bowl I believe that would imply that all 7-5 teams would have to be placed in bowl games before 6-6 teams could go.

That means you wouldn't need as many G5 bowls if you could count on some openings in P5 games every year. Whether those openings are for a lack of teams in a power conference having 7 wins or extra teams in a NY6 bowl it will happen.

G5 fans generally feel a higher # of wins for a bowl in their favor because when the rule is 6-6 you'll have schools that normally are losing programs like Georgia State back into bowl games. Since they've been losing for years up until the last 3 weeks of the season they don't have energized fanbases.

G5 fanbases are more apathetic as a whole and cognitive of an easier schedule playing in a G5 conference. They prefer not to see their team get blown out at 6-6 with only 500 traveling fans.

(12-10-2015 04:15 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 09:42 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(12-09-2015 05:07 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  This is only fourth time in the history of college football that EVERY team that had a winning record (6-6 isn't winning) has been placed in a bowl game.

Teams with losing records have no business playing in a bowl game. 6-6 is bad enough.

Three year average is just over 79 6-6 per year I'll take the risk to avoid 8 win teams staying home which has happened recently.

I've always thought the line for a G5 where going to a bowl was a must was 10 wins. The MAC has had some double digit win teams not find a spot in a bowl game.

Georgia State's 6-6 or Akron's 7-5 were late season surprises. 8-4 is a grey area. When a team has won 9 or 10 it has to be good most of the year so you are getting a season long buzz going into the bowl game.

(12-10-2015 03:35 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 10:21 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 08:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 08:51 AM)bearcatfan Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 08:49 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  How would a 7-5 record requirement hurt the G5 more than the P5? Doesn't compute.

With less bowl games the P5 will have enough 7-5 teams to fill them all.

So you are predicting that shrinkage will occur among bowls with contracts with G5 conferences, not P5 conferences. Yes, that makes sense.

Obviously it would occur for both.

... but the idea might be that with fewer bowls, those bowls would sign agreements with the P5 leagues and leave the G5 leagues out.

I guess the G5 could go ahead and create their own bowls, like they did with the Bahamas and Miami Beach Bowls.

Well per the analysis I did for this year, there could only be 17 P5 v P5 bowl games and only 14 G5 v G5 bowl games, using only 7-5 and higher teams (excluding four P5 for the CFP).

So if there were contracts for more than 17 P5 v P5 bowl games, I guess they'd have to decide to take G5 or "go dark" that year.

Quote:"With the exception of the GoDaddy Bowl, where our number one and number two teams are alternated every year, we now have flexibility as to placing teams in bowls," Steinbrecher told Hustle Belt. "We can now pay attention to match ups, history, institutional preferences and the preferences of our broadcast partner in bowl placement."

Likewise, many people are dismissive of a team with only five wins becoming bowl eligible. Not so fast! "A procedure was developed in the event there was an insufficient number of bowl eligible teams to fill the bowl slots", was Steinbrecher's response. A 5-7 team can be deemed a deserving team if it maintained a high Academic Progress Rate. Minnesota, who will be playing against Central Michigan in the Quick Lane Bowl, is one of those teams. Having said that, Dr. Steinbrecher did indicate that he would like to see the definition of a deserving team begin with seven game winners. If that cuts down on the number of bowls, the Commissioner sees nothing wrong with that.

http://www.hustlebelt.com/mac-football/2...bowl-games

Quote from the MAC Commissioner about preferring 7 wins for bow eligibility......

Well, the higher bowls want to hold out, and take a 6-6 team over a 7-5 team. The problem is usually schools that sucks getting in over teams that are more deserving. Like Boise State or TCU who went undefeated but had to face each other in a bowl game when they deserved to be in title game. Just like Oklahoma State should have been in the game over Alabama to face LSU in the bowl game.

(12-11-2015 07:38 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  Well, the higher bowls want to hold out, and take a 6-6 team over a 7-5 team. The problem is usually schools that sucks getting in over teams that are more deserving. Like Boise State or TCU who went undefeated but had to face each other in a bowl game when they deserved to be in title game. Just like Oklahoma State should have been in the game over Alabama to face LSU in the bowl game.

Maybe you can have a 6-6 team back up your own conference bowl slot but not swap conferences like they are doing at the moment.

They could still limit a conference to having no more tie-ins than what it had 7 game winners over a 3 year period. In other words you wouldn't be able to sign 10 bowls as P5 but closer to 7-8 games.

That would scale things back by 2-4 bowls max. Still better than we are today.

The Big 12 have too many bowls tie in for the small numbers that they have. Even SEC seems to have too many bowl tie ins as well. Last year, they got 12 out of 14 in the bowl games. It hurt the G5 schools because of them.

(12-11-2015 12:15 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

Quote: ... "A procedure was developed in the event there was an insufficient number of bowl eligible teams to fill the bowl slots", was Steinbrecher's response. A 5-7 team can be deemed a deserving team if it maintained a high Academic Progress Rate. Minnesota, who will be playing against Central Michigan in the Quick Lane Bowl, is one of those teams. Having said that, Dr. Steinbrecher did indicate that he would like to see the definition of a deserving team begin with seven game winners. If that cuts down on the number of bowls, the Commissioner sees nothing wrong with that.

http://www.hustlebelt.com/mac-football/2...bowl-games

Quote from the MAC Commissioner about preferring 7 wins for bowl eligibility...

Yes ... if the threshold was 7 wins, and a minimum of 6 wins and maximum of 6 losses the first fallback, with eligibility of 6-6 teams contingent on 7-5 teams being place, that protects the best finishers in each MAC division.

It protects, on the one hand, their access to bowls.

And it protects, on the other hand, the value of that access.

It is, after all, the bowl subdivision, where a school that has fallen out of contention for the conference championship ... whether early or late ... can then turn and focus its efforts on doing well enough to qualify for a bowl ... and if they are bowl eligible, on doing well enough to qualify for the best possible bowl bid.

Pragmatically, if bowls you can contract with outside of the NY6 are tied to the maximum schools that are bowl eligible at 7+ wins and under 6 regular season losses but not placed in the NY6:
(1) there will be extra spots in the average year;
(2) there normally will be a number of 6-6 schools becoming eligible annually; and
(3) it will be P5 6-6 schools with a bowl and Go5 6-6 schools staying home.

But at least a winning Go5 team can win on the field the right to go to a bowl game that cannot be taken away in favor of an FBS losing record 5-6 P5 school for commercial media value reasons. And, on the other hand, they won't be headed to a bowl system so devalued that a 4-7 FBS record can take you to a bowl game (San Jose State ... neither Minnesota nor Nebraska scheduled an FCS team this season).

As far as the FCS qualifier ... if the eligibility is 7 wins, then if one of those wins is an FCS schools, you still have 6 FBS wins, so you are 6-5 at the FBS level. So the formal 7+ win, maximum 5 loss eligibility would de facto be an "FBS winning record" requirement.

I would not be personally against counting 7 FBS wins ahead of 6 FBS wins and 1 FCS win, but asking for 7+ wins on its own would be an uphill struggle, so if 7+ wins was obtainable, I would be content with that.

Correct me if I'm wrong, folks... but isn't the current 6-win requirement a relic from the time that the standard season consisted of eleven games?

If so, then how is would this be any different?

A .500 season means you're bowl elligible. A .500+1 season means you're guaranteed a bowl.

Sounds damned good to me.

(12-11-2015 01:22 PM)49erlew Wrote:  Correct me if I'm wrong, folks... but isn't the current 6-win requirement a relic from the time that the standard season consisted of eleven games?

If so, then how is would this be any different?

A .500 season means you're bowl elligible. A .500+1 season means you're guaranteed a bowl.

Sounds damned good to me.

I think a winning record should mean you're bowl eligible. 7-5, or 7-6 if you somehow manage to make your CCG with a 7-5 record and lose.

But IMO just on general principle, no team that wasn't a winner should be in a bowl. Too much like the way they give all the kids a "participation trophy" in little league these days.

(12-11-2015 01:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-11-2015 01:22 PM)49erlew Wrote:  Correct me if I'm wrong, folks... but isn't the current 6-win requirement a relic from the time that the standard season consisted of eleven games?

If so, then how is would this be any different?

A .500 season means you're bowl elligible. A .500+1 season means you're guaranteed a bowl.

Sounds damned good to me.

I think a winning record should mean you're bowl eligible. 7-5, or 7-6 if you somehow manage to make your CCG with a 7-5 record and lose.

But IMO just on general principle, no team that wasn't a winner should be in a bowl. Too much like the way they give all the kids a "participation trophy" in little league these days.

Hey, I'm with you there.

I'd go so far as to advocate for a system where each conference gets enough bowl slots to send their top 25%... and no more.

Some day we'll go to a bowl game. I hope it actually means something more than just a consolation trip to Boise in December.

(12-11-2015 01:22 PM)49erlew Wrote:  Correct me if I'm wrong, folks... but isn't the current 6-win requirement a relic from the time that the standard season consisted of eleven games?

If so, then how is would this be any different?

A .500 season means you're bowl elligible. A .500+1 season means you're guaranteed a bowl.

Sounds damned good to me.

No it was 7. It wasn't until we went to 12 game seasons that it dropped to 6.

“Our feeling is that a 6-6 team from the Big 12 that has played five teams in the top 25 should not be in a different position from a 7-5 team from another conference that may have only played one or no teams in the top 25. The six-win team is probably more marketable in some cases than the others, so it should be treated the same.”
http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/NCAANewsArchive/..._news.html

(12-11-2015 03:17 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(12-11-2015 01:22 PM)49erlew Wrote:  Correct me if I'm wrong, folks... but isn't the current 6-win requirement a relic from the time that the standard season consisted of eleven games?

If so, then how is would this be any different?

A .500 season means you're bowl elligible. A .500+1 season means you're guaranteed a bowl.

Sounds damned good to me.

No it was 7. It wasn't until we went to 12 game seasons that it dropped to 6.

“Our feeling is that a 6-6 team from the Big 12 that has played five teams in the top 25 should not be in a different position from a 7-5 team from another conference that may have only played one or no teams in the top 25. The six-win team is probably more marketable in some cases than the others, so it should be treated the same.”
http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/NCAANewsArchive/..._news.html

If the ACC & MAC has its way we'll go back to the way it was 5 years ago.

7 game winner maximum over 2013-15 years:
AAC (6)
ACC (12)-ND Counts here
B12 (6)
B1G (9)
CUSA (7)
Indy (2)-Both BYU & Army count
MAC (7)
MWC (6)
PAC (8)
SEC (12)
SBC (5)

That adds up to 80. Let's say no P5 wants to go deeper than 10. Then 2 P5 bowls go away. Three bowls go away if the MAC sticks at 5 tie-ins.

(12-11-2015 03:17 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(12-11-2015 01:22 PM)49erlew Wrote:  Correct me if I'm wrong, folks... but isn't the current 6-win requirement a relic from the time that the standard season consisted of eleven games?

If so, then how is would this be any different?

A .500 season means you're bowl elligible. A .500+1 season means you're guaranteed a bowl.

Sounds damned good to me.

No it was 7. It wasn't until we went to 12 game seasons that it dropped to 6.

No it was 6 wins back when there were 11 regular season games. that was considered ok becasuse 6-5 was still a winning record and if they lost they would still need at least be .500.

(12-11-2015 04:53 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  If the ACC & MAC has its way we'll go back to the way it was 5 years ago.

7 game winner maximum over 2013-15 years:
AAC (6)
ACC (12)-ND Counts here
B12 (6)
B1G (9)
CUSA (7)
Indy (2)-Both BYU & Army count
MAC (7)
MWC (6)
PAC (8)
SEC (12)
SBC (5)

Which years was each of those in?

This is why Max(7+) is guaranteed to make room for 6-6 teams anyway. Average(7+), rounded up to a whole number, would also make room, but not for as many.

At least Max(7+) would halt the expansion, and if the SEC and ACC would have only signed 11 bowls under this system, to allow signing longer term agreements without the risk of losing their credential, we would only have had one FBS losing team playing this year.

Quote: That adds up to 80. Let's say no P5 wants to go deeper than 10. Then 2 P5 bowls go away. Three bowls go away if the MAC sticks at 5 tie-ins.

I expect that the MAC would go to six if there was a bowl in a warm weather location or a reasonably accessible location that wanted a primary MAC tie-in badly enough to offer an agreement without an excessively high ticket quota.

I'd also add that if wins in the FCS exemption game was not counted for establishing a conference's number of bowl eligible teams, it might be that some of those counts would be reduced. That would reduce the MAC this season to 5 "counters". That could even be one of those "either/or" rules that the NCAA loves so much: either the average number of 7+ win teams in the past three years, or the maximum number of 7+ FBS win teams in the past three years.

(12-11-2015 09:14 PM)goofus Wrote:  

(12-11-2015 03:17 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(12-11-2015 01:22 PM)49erlew Wrote:  Correct me if I'm wrong, folks... but isn't the current 6-win requirement a relic from the time that the standard season consisted of eleven games?

If so, then how is would this be any different?

A .500 season means you're bowl elligible. A .500+1 season means you're guaranteed a bowl.

Sounds damned good to me.

No it was 7. It wasn't until we went to 12 game seasons that it dropped to 6.

No it was 6 wins back when there were 11 regular season games. that was considered ok becasuse 6-5 was still a winning record and if they lost they would still need at least be .500.

It went to 7 with the 12 game seasons. More precisely it was more wins than losses until the Big XII got the votes to go to 6-6.

(12-11-2015 01:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-11-2015 01:22 PM)49erlew Wrote:  Correct me if I'm wrong, folks... but isn't the current 6-win requirement a relic from the time that the standard season consisted of eleven games?

If so, then how is would this be any different?

A .500 season means you're bowl elligible. A .500+1 season means you're guaranteed a bowl.

Sounds damned good to me.

I think a winning record should mean you're bowl eligible. 7-5, or 7-6 if you somehow manage to make your CCG with a 7-5 record and lose.

But IMO just on general principle, no team that wasn't a winner should be in a bowl. Too much like the way they give all the kids a "participation trophy" in little league these days.

But you can't explain why that makes sense.

You can only give an arbitrary preference. In that case, I dismiss your arbitrary preference.

who gives a fudge what you dismiss. It's obvious that the commissioners have absolutely no interest in having this scenario ever happen again with 5-7 teams going bowling.

(12-13-2015 11:38 AM)stever20 Wrote:  who gives a fudge what you dismiss. It's obvious that the commissioners have absolutely no interest in having this scenario ever happen again with 5-7 teams going bowling.

Obvious to your mind-reading, perhaps.

But the old adage usually holds true: people read what they want to read.


I challenge ANYONE to logically explain why 7 wins should be the standard, *beyond* an arbitrary preference.

Doubt anyone can do it.

7 is consistent with "tradition" where bowls were available to conference champs and teams with a winning record that tickled the fancy of bowl committees.