Looking at next year, it seems there could are technically three more bowls. I think the Australia location is insane. I could see it do what Sydney did and try to get a game the week before the season. So assuming that one does not happen, does Charleston with SB vs MAC and Austin with AAC vs SB happen? You now go to 84 teams.

I would like to see the NCAA state you can have as many bowl games as you like, but no 5-7 teams and the bowl goes dark if it can't find a team. I just don't see the NCAA willing to do that.

No... I think they won't happen with the talk and movement toward 7 wins to be bowl eligible.
Melbourne won't happen as a bowl but will be a OOC type game like they have setup for next year with Hawaii and Cal playing.

Please God no or enact a rule allowing FCS teams also to compete in bowls. No one wants to see 5-7 teams in bowls and barely approve 6-6 teams there.

(12-09-2015 03:11 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  Please God no or enact a rule allowing FCS teams also to compete in bowls. No one wants to see 5-7 teams in bowls and barely approve 6-6 teams there.

If an FCS team went to a bowl it would be FBS.

I like the idea of the two winless/worst teams playing each other. Kansas and UCF this year.

Call it the Irrelevant Bowl.

(12-09-2015 03:11 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  Please God no or enact a rule allowing FCS teams also to compete in bowls. No one wants to see 5-7 teams in bowls and barely approve 6-6 teams there.

Australians might. They don't get much gridiron football, so a "bad" game for us is still something of a treat. I went to London this year and watched British people actually cheer for the Jacksonville Jaguars.

There wouldn't be a winless team every season.

As for FCS teams, they could be called up for one game. Much more enjoyable and refreshing than below average FBS teams. It likely won't happen though.

(12-09-2015 03:06 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  No... I think they won't happen with the talk and movement toward 7 wins to be bowl eligible.
Melbourne won't happen as a bowl but will be a OOC type game like they have setup for next year with Hawaii and Cal playing.

Sorry, I don't think there is any momentum to make the floor at 7 wins. ACC just said no 5-7 from their conference. SEC want to keep 6 game minimum. My bet is allowing schools a pathway as FBS independents with some type of crumbs being thrown their way with inclusion into the next CFP contract. Look for P5 schools to pay them big for Home game only series to help them get by too the next CFP contract.

(12-09-2015 03:11 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  Please God no or enact a rule allowing FCS teams also to compete in bowls. No one wants to see 5-7 teams in bowls and barely approve 6-6 teams there.

But with playoff expansion in FCS, you'd be getting 6-5 teams in the bowls. Unless you think teams would be willing to forgo the playoffs for a bowl payout, which I suppose is possible.

(12-09-2015 03:41 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(12-09-2015 03:11 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  Please God no or enact a rule allowing FCS teams also to compete in bowls. No one wants to see 5-7 teams in bowls and barely approve 6-6 teams there.

But with playoff expansion in FCS, you'd be getting 6-5 teams in the bowls. Unless you think teams would be willing to forgo the playoffs for a bowl payout, which I suppose is possible.

MEAC and SWAC are doing this for the Heritage bowl.

(12-09-2015 03:48 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(12-09-2015 03:41 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(12-09-2015 03:11 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  Please God no or enact a rule allowing FCS teams also to compete in bowls. No one wants to see 5-7 teams in bowls and barely approve 6-6 teams there.

But with playoff expansion in FCS, you'd be getting 6-5 teams in the bowls. Unless you think teams would be willing to forgo the playoffs for a bowl payout, which I suppose is possible.

MEAC and SWAC are doing this for the Heritage bowl.

But for their own bowl, not to play in the New Mexico or Camellia Bowl. Plus a matchup between the top two HBCUs is a unique situation. Don't see anyone outside ASN bidding for a CAA-SoCon bowl.

FBS was only two teams short this year, and there are two more teams coming on board in 2017. I don't think this will be an issue, unless if everyone starts dropping FCS opponents for FBS opponents.

(12-09-2015 03:11 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  Please God no or enact a rule allowing FCS teams also to compete in bowls. No one wants to see 5-7 teams in bowls and barely approve 6-6 teams there.

Nonsense.

The same number of people who watch 6-6 P5 teams play each other would watch 5-7 P6 teams play each other. Or 4-8, for that matter.

It's just the main fan bases watching the game, with a handful of curious, casual viewers.

Those don't change from 7-5, 6-6, 5-7, 4-8, whatever.

(12-09-2015 03:48 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(12-09-2015 03:41 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(12-09-2015 03:11 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  Please God no or enact a rule allowing FCS teams also to compete in bowls. No one wants to see 5-7 teams in bowls and barely approve 6-6 teams there.

But with playoff expansion in FCS, you'd be getting 6-5 teams in the bowls. Unless you think teams would be willing to forgo the playoffs for a bowl payout, which I suppose is possible.

MEAC and SWAC are doing this for the Heritage bowl.

You could get FCS teams eliminated from the playoffs. Some may cry foul though because teams that didn't advance far would get more publicity than winners of the FCS playoffs.

For example, Portland State is already available. They beat two FBS teams this year, one that was ranked for a time and another in humilating fashion. I'd love to see them one more time as opposed to 5-7 San Jose State.

(12-09-2015 07:49 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-09-2015 03:11 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  Please God no or enact a rule allowing FCS teams also to compete in bowls. No one wants to see 5-7 teams in bowls and barely approve 6-6 teams there.

Nonsense.

The same number of people who watch 6-6 P5 teams play each other would watch 5-7 P6 teams play each other. Or 4-8, for that matter.

It's just the main fan bases watching the game, with a handful of curious, casual viewers.

Those don't change from 7-5, 6-6, 5-7, 4-8, whatever.

You are correct, I'll concede a point. People would watch a 7-5 Michigan against a 6-6 Notre Dame more than a 11-1 Ball State against a 11-1 Georgia Southern.

Am I the only one here who doesn't watch the P5? Haven't watched a single game...no interest.

Big Sky, MVFC, Southland and some CAA schools have beaten P5 teams. These conferences are like FBS type of strength. Some Southern and OVC also win games like Jacksonville State, The Citadel and Furman.

(12-10-2015 02:05 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  Am I the only one here who doesn't watch the P5? Haven't watched a single game...no interest.

I have little interest in the P5 myself. I'll watch sometimes but find myself watching the AAC the most.

One for the underdogs.

(12-09-2015 04:06 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  FBS was only two teams short this year, and there are two more teams coming on board in 2017. I don't think this will be an issue, unless if everyone starts dropping FCS opponents for FBS opponents.

Coastal Carolina and who else????

(12-10-2015 06:16 AM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  

(12-09-2015 04:06 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  FBS was only two teams short this year, and there are two more teams coming on board in 2017. I don't think this will be an issue, unless if everyone starts dropping FCS opponents for FBS opponents.

Coastal Carolina and who else????

UAB

(12-10-2015 12:54 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(12-09-2015 07:49 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-09-2015 03:11 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  Please God no or enact a rule allowing FCS teams also to compete in bowls. No one wants to see 5-7 teams in bowls and barely approve 6-6 teams there.

Nonsense.

The same number of people who watch 6-6 P5 teams play each other would watch 5-7 P6 teams play each other. Or 4-8, for that matter.

It's just the main fan bases watching the game, with a handful of curious, casual viewers.

Those don't change from 7-5, 6-6, 5-7, 4-8, whatever.

You are correct, I'll concede a point. People would watch a 7-5 Michigan against a 6-6 Notre Dame more than a 11-1 Ball State against a 11-1 Georgia Southern.

That point is also correct, but not the point I was making.

I'm saying that the number of people who will watch a 7-5 Michigan team play a 6-6 Notre Dame team in a bowl game, is exactly the same number of people who will watch a 4-8 Michigan team play a 5-7 Notre Dame team in a bowl game.


At most, they'll lose a tiny fraction of each viewer base who think of themselves as "too good to watch 'losing' teams in a bowl game". Good riddance to such "fans", anyway.