Brett McMurphy ‏@McMurphyESPN · 5m5 minutes ago
John Swofford said ACC AD’s voted to increase bowl eligibility to 7-5 record. Obviously would have to pass nationally before any changes


Brett McMurphy ‏@McMurphyESPN · 1h1 hour ago
Bob Bowlsby said there is “growing conversations” toward making 7-5 records requirement for being bowl eligible


Sounds like some good conversations are happening in light of the number of 5-7 teams bowling this year.

what? don't tell Bison. he'll be pissed....

So are they just going to cancel a bunch of bowl games then? They have 80 bowl games currently and they could not even fill them with teams with at least a 6-6 records. By my count there are 14 teams playing in bowls this year. Assuming this is a typical year they would have to cut about 7-8 bowl games.

I see were this is headed. The G5 schools will be the ones affected by all this. I can remember the days when an 8-3 program would be left out of a bowl game because of the stature of their program. Meanwhile a team in the Big 10 would finish 6-5 and make a bowl. College football is one of the few industries where leadership does not want to take its product forward, but wants to go backwards to a model that worked 30 years ago.

(12-09-2015 02:29 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  So are they just going to cancel a bunch of bowl games then? They have 80 bowl games currently and they could not even fill them with teams with at least a 6-6 records. By my count there are 14 teams playing in bowls this year. Assuming this is a typical year they would have to cut about 7-8 bowl games.

I see were this is headed. The G5 schools will be the ones affected by all this. I can remember the days when an 8-3 program would be left out of a bowl game because of the stature of their program. Meanwhile a team in the Big 10 would finish 6-5 and make a bowl. College football is one of the few industries where leadership does not want to take its product forward, but wants to go backwards to a model that worked 30 years ago.

Not this time, as you may have notice the G5 conferences have created bowls for themselves so their 7 and 8 wins team go to a bowl.
Yes, there would be some bowls on the G5 end that'll be dropped but also on the P5 side tool.

Brett McMurphy ‏@McMurphyESPN · 59s60 seconds ago
John Swofford said ACC AD’s voted for 7-5 bowl eligibility would allow 6-6 teams to fill any open spots, but no 5-7’s

(12-09-2015 02:35 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Brett McMurphy ‏@McMurphyESPN · 59s60 seconds ago
John Swofford said ACC AD’s voted for 7-5 bowl eligibility would allow 6-6 teams to fill any open spots, but no 5-7’s

This is fine. I'm fine with allowing only 6-6 teams but no 5-7 teams in. I think most would be on board with this. If bowls go without teams then so be it.

(12-09-2015 02:35 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Brett McMurphy ‏@McMurphyESPN · 59s60 seconds ago
John Swofford said ACC AD’s voted for 7-5 bowl eligibility would allow 6-6 teams to fill any open spots, but no 5-7’s

Title should read ACC will not send 5-7 teams to bowls.

Folks from an ACC perspective, nothing to see here. Basically, the ACC is just saying it will not send a 5-7 bowl to one of it slots if it is an APR approved team. I think the rule still is a conference must place all 7 win teams in a bowl prior to any 6-6 team. Last year the team had more teams than bowl slots. Technically, they could not place a 6-6 team in a contracted bowl before a 7-5 team. If it looks like the ACC will have more teams than bowls, Swofford cuts a 1 year agreement to a bowl that comes up short to place the ACC team. That is what he did with Pitt and AF Bowl last year. 6-6 is not going anywhere.

This makes it more like it used to be. Obviously the amount of bowls has skyrocketed, however in the early 2000's there were only 11 regular season games, and you had to win 6 to get a bowl bid. When they expanded the regular season to 12 games, they kept the bowl eligibility requirement at 6 which made it easier to make a bowl. I'm all for requiring teams to have a winning record in order to be rewarded with a bowl. Back fill with deserving .500 teams based on APR.

(12-09-2015 02:59 PM)TopperCard Wrote:  This makes it more like it used to be. Obviously the amount of bowls has skyrocketed, however in the early 2000's there were only 11 regular season games, and you had to win 6 to get a bowl bid. When they expanded the regular season to 12 games, they kept the bowl eligibility requirement at 6 which made it easier to make a bowl. I'm all for requiring teams to have a winning record in order to be rewarded with a bowl. Back fill with deserving .500 teams based on APR.

I be glad to take a bet the NO P5 will agree to not allowing 6-6 in contracted bowls, especially the ACC.

This would be a good change - it would also put some risk in schedule-building for some teams -

a likely 8-4 team is going to have to ask if they want to schedule a couple tougher non-con opponents, and risk being 6-6, or risk on the other end going 11-1 w/a good SOS and being in big bowl contention.

Never understood how 6-6 makes you eligible for post-season.

Quote:Ralph D. Russo
‏@ralphDrussoAP

SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey: "For the Southeastern Conference, the opportunity for 6-6 teams to participate (in bowls) is important."

11:12 AM - 9 Dec 2015

(12-09-2015 03:16 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

Quote:Ralph D. Russo
‏@ralphDrussoAP

SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey: "For the Southeastern Conference, the opportunity for 6-6 teams to participate (in bowls) is important."

11:12 AM - 9 Dec 2015

Yet, they didn't fulfill their bowls and caused some of the problems.

The SEC is one of the leagues who complained back when 7+ win teams had to be selected first. They got pissed that 8 win MAC teams were being chosen over 6-6 SEC teams.

Tough on the SEC. People rather want to watch a Toledo team than a 6-6 Auburn.

(12-09-2015 04:01 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Tough on the SEC. People rather want to watch a Toledo team than a 6-6 Auburn.

You have repeated similar sentiments many times, and I'll point out again that your view is patently untrue based on TV ratings.

(12-09-2015 02:50 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(12-09-2015 02:35 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Brett McMurphy ‏@McMurphyESPN · 59s60 seconds ago
John Swofford said ACC AD’s voted for 7-5 bowl eligibility would allow 6-6 teams to fill any open spots, but no 5-7’s

Title should read ACC will not send 5-7 teams to bowls.

Folks from an ACC perspective, nothing to see here. Basically, the ACC is just saying it will not send a 5-7 bowl to one of it slots if it is an APR approved team. I think the rule still is a conference must place all 7 win teams in a bowl prior to any 6-6 team. Last year the team had more teams than bowl slots. Technically, they could not place a 6-6 team in a contracted bowl before a 7-5 team. If it looks like the ACC will have more teams than bowls, Swofford cuts a 1 year agreement to a bowl that comes up short to place the ACC team. That is what he did with Pitt and AF Bowl last year. 6-6 is not going anywhere.

Good observation. Your interpretation is much more likely to be correct than the knee-jerk "The ACC wants to change bowl eligibility requirements!"

I think you allow for enough bowls to satisfy years where there are a maximum number of 7-5 teams, then allow 6-6 to fill up the slack when the are fewer 7-5 teams. As far as the SEC, most 6-6 SEC schools would probably make it anyway as most bowls are in the South and they'd jump at the SEC to fill.

65 teams had 7 wins this year. Lets say computer simulated seasons (WAG) have 70 teams or less 99% of the time. Cut it off at 35 bowls. Backfill with as many 6-6 teams as needed. This year it would be 5 from a pool of Auburn, AZ, ASU, Wash, Nev, Utah State, Indiana, Kansas State, Virginia Tech, Tulsa, UCnn. Basically shift the backfilling from 5-7 teams to 6-6 teams.

“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

I'll hang up and listen

I don't care one way or the other, that being said... I thought they added 2 many new bowls last year. With the P5 toughening schedule requirements, there will be no need for more than 76 spots and that may be too many. You could lose 3 bowls now.