(01-21-2016 07:58 PM)AppfanInCAAland Wrote:  5-7 teams weren't the problem with this year's bowls, many of the games themselves were. Personally, I found two MWC teams playing each other in a bowl game much more "offensive" than the 5-7 teams.

That's the fault of the MWC for signing a bowl without a National TV deal.

(01-21-2016 04:14 PM)boroeagle2 Wrote:  The bowls that featured 5-7 teams didn't do significantly worse in ratings then their prior years, as long as the ratings/ad revenues are worth it, ESPN doesn't give a crap if sub .500 teams make bowls. They won't be going dark unannounced, you could see contraction possibly in the off-season, but not calling off a bowl at the end of the season mere weeks before it is supposed to happen.

Actually, the some of the bowls with 5-7 teams actually picked those teams over teams with winning records,

My feeling is that 5-7 teams should not be available for selection until ALL other qualified teams have been exhausted through direct ties, backup ties, and at large selections. It should only be allowed if a 6-6 team declines a bowl bid.

Let's say the Big12 has only 6 bowl qualified teams, then te Big12's 7th bowl tie would simply move on to its backup tie-in (even if a 5-7 Big12 team happens to be available due to to its APR). In the big picture, 5-7 teams are stop gap fillers. They should not be slotted ahead of any 6-6 school regardless of bowl tie agreements with conferences. That's the NCAA's call---not the bowl. It's very simple---a 5-7 power 5 (or G5) team is not available to be selected until all the 6-6 teams are picked.

(01-22-2016 03:02 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-21-2016 04:14 PM)boroeagle2 Wrote:  The bowls that featured 5-7 teams didn't do significantly worse in ratings then their prior years, as long as the ratings/ad revenues are worth it, ESPN doesn't give a crap if sub .500 teams make bowls. They won't be going dark unannounced, you could see contraction possibly in the off-season, but not calling off a bowl at the end of the season mere weeks before it is supposed to happen.

Actually, the some of the bowls with 5-7 teams actually picked those teams over teams with winning records,

My feeling is that 5-7 teams should not be available for selection until ALL other qualified teams have been exhausted through direct ties, backup ties, and at large selections. It should only be allowed if a 6-6 team declines a bowl bid.

Let's say the Big12 has only 6 bowl qualified teams, then te Big12's 7th bowl tie would simply move on to its backup tie-in (even if a 5-7 Big12 is happens to be available due to to its APR). In the big picture, 5-7 teams are stop gap fillers. They should not be slotted ahead of any 6-6 school regardless of bowl tie agreements with conferences. That's the NCAA's call---not the bowl. It's very simple---a 5-7 power 5 (of G5) team is not available to be selected until all the 6-6 teams are picked.

Agreed. and congrats on a great season.

(01-22-2016 03:02 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-21-2016 04:14 PM)boroeagle2 Wrote:  The bowls that featured 5-7 teams didn't do significantly worse in ratings then their prior years, as long as the ratings/ad revenues are worth it, ESPN doesn't give a crap if sub .500 teams make bowls. They won't be going dark unannounced, you could see contraction possibly in the off-season, but not calling off a bowl at the end of the season mere weeks before it is supposed to happen.

Actually, the some of the bowls with 5-7 teams actually picked those teams over teams with winning records,

My feeling is that 5-7 teams should not be available for selection until ALL other qualified teams have been exhausted through direct ties, backup ties, and at large selections. It should only be allowed if a 6-6 team declines a bowl bid.

Let's say the Big12 has only 6 bowl qualified teams, then te Big12's 7th bowl tie would simply move on to its backup tie-in (even if a 5-7 Big12 is happens to be available due to to its APR). In the big picture, 5-7 teams are stop gap fillers. They should not be slotted ahead of any 6-6 school regardless of bowl tie agreements with conferences. That's the NCAA's call---not the bowl. It's very simple---a 5-7 power 5 (of G5) team is not available to be selected until all the 6-6 teams are picked.

+1

(01-21-2016 08:01 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(01-21-2016 07:58 PM)AppfanInCAAland Wrote:  5-7 teams weren't the problem with this year's bowls, many of the games themselves were. Personally, I found two MWC teams playing each other in a bowl game much more "offensive" than the 5-7 teams.

That's the fault of the MWC for signing a bowl without a National TV deal.

No. It's CUSA and Sunbelt fault for not getting enough teams eligible.

(01-22-2016 09:47 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(01-21-2016 08:01 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(01-21-2016 07:58 PM)AppfanInCAAland Wrote:  5-7 teams weren't the problem with this year's bowls, many of the games themselves were. Personally, I found two MWC teams playing each other in a bowl game much more "offensive" than the 5-7 teams.

That's the fault of the MWC for signing a bowl without a National TV deal.

No. It's CUSA and Sunbelt fault for not getting enough teams eligible.

It's not our responsibility to fill a backup tie in.

ARizona is a bowl that should never have existed. The reason you guys got 2 MWC teams in that bowl was because you put a bunch of eggs and a primary tie in on the line for a bowl with no national TV deal. Thus, when it came time to horse trade, no one was interested in trading to put their team on the freaking American Sports Network.

I think we should all band together on here and start a Kickstarter to fund a new bowl. Clearly, we don't have to worry about a TV deal, and the seal has been broken on multiple 5-7 teams in the postseason. Anyone got a good location we could rent on the cheap for one afternoon in mid-December?

(01-22-2016 10:01 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(01-22-2016 09:47 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(01-21-2016 08:01 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(01-21-2016 07:58 PM)AppfanInCAAland Wrote:  5-7 teams weren't the problem with this year's bowls, many of the games themselves were. Personally, I found two MWC teams playing each other in a bowl game much more "offensive" than the 5-7 teams.

That's the fault of the MWC for signing a bowl without a National TV deal.

No. It's CUSA and Sunbelt fault for not getting enough teams eligible.

It's not our responsibility to fill a backup tie in.

ARizona is a bowl that should never have existed. The reason you guys got 2 MWC teams in that bowl was because you put a bunch of eggs and a primary tie in on the line for a bowl with no national TV deal. Thus, when it came time to horse trade, no one was interested in trading to put their team on the freaking American Sports Network.

No CUSA should have had a team with 13 members, but they really crapped out.
And yet was a pretty successful bowl. I liked watching the game on ASN via OTA vs ESPN anyway.

(01-22-2016 01:44 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(01-22-2016 10:01 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(01-22-2016 09:47 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(01-21-2016 08:01 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(01-21-2016 07:58 PM)AppfanInCAAland Wrote:  5-7 teams weren't the problem with this year's bowls, many of the games themselves were. Personally, I found two MWC teams playing each other in a bowl game much more "offensive" than the 5-7 teams.

That's the fault of the MWC for signing a bowl without a National TV deal.

No. It's CUSA and Sunbelt fault for not getting enough teams eligible.

It's not our responsibility to fill a backup tie in.

ARizona is a bowl that should never have existed. The reason you guys got 2 MWC teams in that bowl was because you put a bunch of eggs and a primary tie in on the line for a bowl with no national TV deal. Thus, when it came time to horse trade, no one was interested in trading to put their team on the freaking American Sports Network.

No CUSA should have had a team with 13 members, but they really crapped out.
And yet was a pretty successful bowl. I liked watching the game on ASN via OTA vs ESPN anyway.

You could. The game was not on television here.

(01-22-2016 02:19 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(01-22-2016 01:44 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(01-22-2016 10:01 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(01-22-2016 09:47 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(01-21-2016 08:01 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  That's the fault of the MWC for signing a bowl without a National TV deal.

No. It's CUSA and Sunbelt fault for not getting enough teams eligible.

It's not our responsibility to fill a backup tie in.

ARizona is a bowl that should never have existed. The reason you guys got 2 MWC teams in that bowl was because you put a bunch of eggs and a primary tie in on the line for a bowl with no national TV deal. Thus, when it came time to horse trade, no one was interested in trading to put their team on the freaking American Sports Network.

No CUSA should have had a team with 13 members, but they really crapped out.
And yet was a pretty successful bowl. I liked watching the game on ASN via OTA vs ESPN anyway.

You could. The game was not on television here.

The ASN affiliate in Savannah GA didn't carry the game either. I just don't see how the Arizona Bowl will make it without a true TV partner.

(01-22-2016 03:14 PM)Georgia_Power_Company Wrote:  

(01-22-2016 02:19 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(01-22-2016 01:44 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(01-22-2016 10:01 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(01-22-2016 09:47 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  No. It's CUSA and Sunbelt fault for not getting enough teams eligible.

It's not our responsibility to fill a backup tie in.

ARizona is a bowl that should never have existed. The reason you guys got 2 MWC teams in that bowl was because you put a bunch of eggs and a primary tie in on the line for a bowl with no national TV deal. Thus, when it came time to horse trade, no one was interested in trading to put their team on the freaking American Sports Network.

No CUSA should have had a team with 13 members, but they really crapped out.
And yet was a pretty successful bowl. I liked watching the game on ASN via OTA vs ESPN anyway.

You could. The game was not on television here.

The ASN affiliate in Savannah GA didn't carry the game either. I just don't see how the Arizona Bowl will make it without a true TV partner.

I agree with you overall but the (hopefully) good news is that the ASN is slowly building. They just started a 24 hour network of OTA channels in 13 markets and said will expand.

http://americansportsnet.com/asn-launche...on-monday/

http://www.ncaa.com/news/football/articl...bowl-games There was suppose to be a task force established in January. I haven't seen or heard anything if this task force was established. I assume it would have happened during the NCAA conference but did not see any mention of it.

If UAB not been shuttered, either the Blazers or someone else would have been bowl eligible, especially since the other 13 teams in C-USA would have had another team over which to distribute 4 more losses (56 conference games instead of 52). Rice and UTEP both finished at 5-7 and would have played UAB as members of C-USA West.

Coastal Carolina enters their second year of transition in 2017 and will certainly help the situation. If the Chanticleers win a game against an opponent from FCS, go .500 in conference play (which in theory would be neutral to the rest of the conference), that gets them to 5-4 without actually reducing anyone else's chance of becoming bowl eligible. As long as UAB and CCU teams each go 1-2 in non-conference play (if they don't play each other), on average it should result in two more bowl eligible team.

(01-22-2016 04:46 PM)rokamortis Wrote:  

(01-22-2016 03:14 PM)Georgia_Power_Company Wrote:  

(01-22-2016 02:19 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(01-22-2016 01:44 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(01-22-2016 10:01 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  It's not our responsibility to fill a backup tie in.

ARizona is a bowl that should never have existed. The reason you guys got 2 MWC teams in that bowl was because you put a bunch of eggs and a primary tie in on the line for a bowl with no national TV deal. Thus, when it came time to horse trade, no one was interested in trading to put their team on the freaking American Sports Network.

No CUSA should have had a team with 13 members, but they really crapped out.
And yet was a pretty successful bowl. I liked watching the game on ASN via OTA vs ESPN anyway.

You could. The game was not on television here.

The ASN affiliate in Savannah GA didn't carry the game either. I just don't see how the Arizona Bowl will make it without a true TV partner.

I agree with you overall but the (hopefully) good news is that the ASN is slowly building. They just started a 24 hour network of OTA channels in 13 markets and said will expand.

http://americansportsnet.com/asn-launche...on-monday/

How is that good news for us? We're not tied to ASN.

(01-22-2016 07:03 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(01-22-2016 04:46 PM)rokamortis Wrote:  

(01-22-2016 03:14 PM)Georgia_Power_Company Wrote:  

(01-22-2016 02:19 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(01-22-2016 01:44 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  No CUSA should have had a team with 13 members, but they really crapped out.
And yet was a pretty successful bowl. I liked watching the game on ASN via OTA vs ESPN anyway.

You could. The game was not on television here.

The ASN affiliate in Savannah GA didn't carry the game either. I just don't see how the Arizona Bowl will make it without a true TV partner.

I agree with you overall but the (hopefully) good news is that the ASN is slowly building. They just started a 24 hour network of OTA channels in 13 markets and said will expand.

http://americansportsnet.com/asn-launche...on-monday/

How is that good news for us? We're not tied to ASN.

I didn't say "for us". It is good news for the bowls tied to it and the teams shown as well as the sports fans that get it. Where it could be beneficial to the Sun Belt is that it could be an option in the future.