(04-11-2016 05:03 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 04:15 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 02:29 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  As a college football fan I have a hard time seeing what the problem is. If I turn on the TV and there are two 3-9 teams facing off in the Sioux City Sham-Wow Bowl I'm probably going to watch it because it's college football.

Someone please explain to me what all the heartburn is all about.

Because they feel their level of privilege may diminish. I mean would you rather watch two 5-7 teams or The Grinch Stole Christmas for the 11th time that year.

I'd rather watch two losing teams play in a bowl game than the average regular season college basketball game.

I'm not interested in watching yet another lame reality show. Does that mean I should be able to tell somebody else that they shouldn't have it either? If there are enough fans who want to watch another bowl game, that's OK. I'm not being forced to watch it. And if there aren't enough fans, ESPN and Fox won't air it. That's how this should be decided. By the market.

(04-11-2016 04:01 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  To me, postseason implies the thing you play in to determine a champion.

But it hasn't primarily been that in football since before you were born, so to some other people it might mean something else closer to what it actually has been.

(04-11-2016 02:39 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 02:29 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  As a college football fan I have a hard time seeing what the problem is. If I turn on the TV and there are two 3-9 teams facing off in the Sioux City Sham-Wow Bowl I'm probably going to watch it because it's college football.

Someone please explain to me what all the heartburn is all about.

Because in the mind of the majority of fans (casual and followers) the bowl is a perception of a reward for a winning season. It is a post season game and not a regular season game.

Usually too a team with a losing record has their coach fired at the end of the regular season. Backing into bowl games with 5-7 or 6-6 seasons is not what any fan wants to see.

The year before, 8 schools were bowl eligible that had 6-6 and 7-5 records that got left out. Last year was a bad year. You would get too many schools qualify, and then you get the likes of last year. They should look at FCS schools who could actually bring in the viewers to watch the bowl games. Would a North Dakota State team be a much better team to be in a bowl game last year than a San Jose State?

(04-11-2016 08:57 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  The year before, 8 schools were bowl eligible that had 6-6 and 7-5 records that got left out. Last year was a bad year. You would get too many schools qualify, and then you get the likes of last year. They should look at FCS schools who could actually bring in the viewers to watch the bowl games. Would a North Dakota State team be a much better team to be in a bowl game last year than a San Jose State?

No. No matter how many times you post it, North Dakota State is not going to be invited to a bowl game. At least not without a) North Dakota State moving to FBS or b) some major, MAJOR rule changes.

I'm old school. I'm fine with ties. I liked it when the only bowl ties were for conference champs.

But back then bowls were sending out invites when teams had as much as a half a season left to play, so the NCAA set an earliest date for invites and the bowls worked around it by tying to conferences.

Then we got the 7 win rule with 6 being an exception if needed to fill a tie, for at-large 7's had to be placed before 6's. But the Big XII had the insult of having a six with no place to go so we got the 6 win rule.

Back when we had the 7 win rule the G5 of the day could usually snag some at-large berths and things (mostly) worked out. With the 6 win rule, the at-large opportunities for G5 went away so the G5 did what was in their best interest which was work with promoters to create new bowls.

Because of that and a reduced number of 6 win teams compared to the year before no one was available at 7 or 6 wins to go at-large to fill the Big 10 spot in San Francisco, the AAC slot in Orlando, and only one of the spots vacated by Big 10 and ACC in Detroit (Central Michigan took one), so for the most part the new bowls absorbed the back up plans of P5 tied bowls.

(04-11-2016 06:03 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 05:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 04:15 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 12:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The 5-7 teams should get the low end slots---not the better slots.

None of the three 5-7 bowl teams were in "better" bowl games. The only beef anyone could really have with the bowl placement last season was that two MWC teams had to play in the Arizona Bowl. The MWC tried to get other teams to switch into that bowl but couldn't, probably due to the almost non-existent TV exposure offered by that game. If the game had been on an ESPN channel, other teams would have been happy to play in Tucson instead of a less desirable location.

I mean, c'mon: "I wish they'd have let our team play in the Quick Lane Bowl in Detroit, instead of sending 5-7 Minnesota there" is something said by no one, ever.

5-7 Nebraska lined up against 8-4 UCLA in California. Ill bet you both of those MW teams would have considered playing 8-4 UCLA in California a better bowl.

Ok, so you're conceding (as you have to, really) that Santa Clara in December is not a better destination than Tucson.

But now you want 6-6 teams to be able to select not only a bowl location, but also the opponent, regardless of what the bowl or the opponent wants? That's way too much privilege to confer on a team just for having a .500 record. If a ranked 9-3 or 8-4 team is being denied a quality bowl opponent, that would be a valid gripe. 6-6, though, shouldn't entitle anyone to complain that they "deserve" a "better" opponent.

And the bottom line is still that if the Arizona Bowl had not failed so miserably in lining up a TV deal, there would have been at least a couple of non-MWC teams who would have been happy to play in Tucson instead of someplace else.

Huh? Where exactly did I say the team would select the bowl? Im saying all the 6-6 teams should be picked before you pick a 5-7 squad. How is that having the team "select" the location or opponent? You said the 5-7 teams didn't land in a better situation than any 6-6 schools. I simply showed you where one 5-7 team got a much better game.

If the bowls with vacant slots were to select from the "at large" pool based on pay out, then the bowls that pay the least wil be the last to select from the "at large" pool. The bowls that will be getting the 5-7 teams would be the bowls that pay the least. Their choice is to go dark or pick from the 5-7 teams that are qualified by APR. Now, I would be for making the available pool of 5-7 teams customized to fit the open bowls. Maybe dump the APR provision altogether in favor of a geographical system---or maybe only apply the APR to 5-7 teams within a 500 mile radius of games that have openings. So, the 5-7 options might differ from bowl to bowl. That way the remaining bowls would have opportunity to get a team that might be near enough to work well. I think you can set up a system that fills the bowls with all the available bowl qualified schools before dipping into the 5-7 schools---and still make the economics work reasonably well for the last few bowls to select.

(04-11-2016 10:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  If the bowls with vacant slots were to select from the "at large" pool based on pay out, then the bowls that pay the least wil be the last to select from the "at large" pool. The bowls that will be getting the 5-7 teams would be the bowls that pay the least.

That would be different from what you wanted above, when you were saying one of the MWC teams in the Arizona Bowl would be in Santa Clara, instead of Nebraska.

If each bowl with a vacancy chose teams in order, the end result is a wash. At best you're taking a 5-7 team out of a fourth-tier bowl and moving them to a fifth-tier bowl so that a 6-6 team (which is not significantly "more deserving" anyway) gets the privilege of playing in a fourth-tier bowl. That's nothing worth even changing a rule for.

(04-11-2016 11:57 PM)Wedge Wrote:  If each bowl with a vacancy chose teams in order, the end result is a wash. At best you're taking a 5-7 team out of a fourth-tier bowl and moving them to a fifth-tier bowl so that a 6-6 team (which is not significantly "more deserving" anyway) gets the privilege of playing in a fourth-tier bowl. That's nothing worth even changing a rule for.

If each bowl with a vacancy under the status quo, maybe.

Mind, the "not significantly 'more deserving'" line of argument is a slippery slope argument for no threshold at all ... but while 6-6 may not be significantly different from 7-5, and 5-7 not significantly different from 6-6, and 4-8 not significantly different from 5-7 ... 7-5 is clearly significantly different from 4-8.

And once you start defining a place where bowls have to exhaust a pick order of more deserving teams before less deserving teams can get a spot, there's no reason not to start the primary bowl eligibility at "a winning FBS record" and then 6-6 and 5-7 are the first and second round of back-ups.

But at this moment, it looks to me like it would be more useful would be limiting conference to no more primary tie-ins than their largest number of 7 win schools in the past five years, and no more secondary tie-ins than their largest number of 6 win schools in the past five years, and require every bowl to get two primary tie-ins to get up.

(04-12-2016 07:24 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 11:57 PM)Wedge Wrote:  If each bowl with a vacancy chose teams in order, the end result is a wash. At best you're taking a 5-7 team out of a fourth-tier bowl and moving them to a fifth-tier bowl so that a 6-6 team (which is not significantly "more deserving" anyway) gets the privilege of playing in a fourth-tier bowl. That's nothing worth even changing a rule for.

If each bowl with a vacancy under the status quo, maybe.

Mind, the "not significantly 'more deserving'" line of argument is a slippery slope argument for no threshold at all ... but while 6-6 may not be significantly different from 7-5, and 5-7 not significantly different from 6-6, and 4-8 not significantly different from 5-7 ... 7-5 is clearly significantly different from 4-8.

And once you start defining a place where bowls have to exhaust a pick order of more deserving teams before less deserving teams can get a spot, there's no reason not to start the primary bowl eligibility at "a winning FBS record" and then 6-6 and 5-7 are the first and second round of back-ups.

But at this moment, it looks to me like it would be more useful would be limiting conference to no more primary tie-ins than their largest number of 7 win schools in the past five years, and no more secondary tie-ins than their largest number of 6 win schools in the past five years, and require every bowl to get two primary tie-ins to get up.

Actually, the bigger rub from last year, was that the conferences still held the bowl tie-in even when they didn't have a 6-6 team eligible. So perhaps a Colorado St team should have play UCLA instead of Nebraska. But I do cede the point that since Nebraska was eligible due to APR, that made the bowl to have to take them due to the contract with the conferences otherwise, if some other G5 team was only eligible due to APR, then perhaps a MW team would have played in that bowl.
So the year before there weren't enough bowls for eligible teams and last year their were too little eligible teams for the bowls. The pause was in order and we'll see what the upcoming seasons brings. A FG miss here or an extra point missed there would have given several teams to be bowl eligible and the AZ bowl would have had a CUSA or Sunbelt team on the opposite side instead of a MW.

There might only be few who agree, but more football is good football to me. I don't care if you have an end of season exhibition game for every team. Would be fun to see some more out of conference match-ups.

(04-11-2016 09:03 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Thanks to the playoffs,bowl games are now purely for the businesses that run them and the fans that want to see their team play one more time for one more win. As long as those two camps are happy with that arrangement then why not?

I think that you're being myopic. Arguably, there are more teams involved than the two in the game. I contend that the prestige of the actual games, on the whole, is impacted by who is allowed to play in them. Therefore, a 6-6 team vs. a 5-7 team playing in a bowl cheapens a bowl game between a 9-3 team and a 10-2 team. That's why people have an issue with bowl expansion.

And I agree that the FF reduced bowl prestige, but I don't think that it eliminated it.

(04-12-2016 07:24 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 11:57 PM)Wedge Wrote:  If each bowl with a vacancy chose teams in order, the end result is a wash. At best you're taking a 5-7 team out of a fourth-tier bowl and moving them to a fifth-tier bowl so that a 6-6 team (which is not significantly "more deserving" anyway) gets the privilege of playing in a fourth-tier bowl. That's nothing worth even changing a rule for.

If each bowl with a vacancy under the status quo, maybe.

Mind, the "not significantly 'more deserving'" line of argument is a slippery slope argument for no threshold at all ... but while 6-6 may not be significantly different from 7-5, and 5-7 not significantly different from 6-6, and 4-8 not significantly different from 5-7 ... 7-5 is clearly significantly different from 4-8.

And once you start defining a place where bowls have to exhaust a pick order of more deserving teams before less deserving teams can get a spot, there's no reason not to start the primary bowl eligibility at "a winning FBS record" and then 6-6 and 5-7 are the first and second round of back-ups.

But at this moment, it looks to me like it would be more useful would be limiting conference to no more primary tie-ins than their largest number of 7 win schools in the past five years, and no more secondary tie-ins than their largest number of 6 win schools in the past five years, and require every bowl to get two primary tie-ins to get up.

1) I'd agree that if you're going to have a cutoff point, 7 wins overall or 6 wins over FBS opponents is as good a place to start as any. (As I said above, I don't care if teams with losing records play in bowls, but it's clear that many in the college football establishment are worried that it diminishes bowl prestige even more than having 40 bowls does).

2) To give more flexibility in placing at-large teams: A bowl tie-in is "released" if the tie-in conference doesn't have a 7-win or 6-FBS-win team to fill the place, and "secondary tie-ins" are not permitted. Then, there would be several clear vacancies and it would be easier to place at-large teams in games that make both the bowl and the teams satisfied (e.g., make it easier to avoid sending an east coast team to a lower-tier bowl on the west coast and vice versa, and make it easier to create matchups that appeal to both participating teams).

(04-12-2016 10:57 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 07:24 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 11:57 PM)Wedge Wrote:  If each bowl with a vacancy chose teams in order, the end result is a wash. At best you're taking a 5-7 team out of a fourth-tier bowl and moving them to a fifth-tier bowl so that a 6-6 team (which is not significantly "more deserving" anyway) gets the privilege of playing in a fourth-tier bowl. That's nothing worth even changing a rule for.

If each bowl with a vacancy under the status quo, maybe.

Mind, the "not significantly 'more deserving'" line of argument is a slippery slope argument for no threshold at all ... but while 6-6 may not be significantly different from 7-5, and 5-7 not significantly different from 6-6, and 4-8 not significantly different from 5-7 ... 7-5 is clearly significantly different from 4-8.

And once you start defining a place where bowls have to exhaust a pick order of more deserving teams before less deserving teams can get a spot, there's no reason not to start the primary bowl eligibility at "a winning FBS record" and then 6-6 and 5-7 are the first and second round of back-ups.

But at this moment, it looks to me like it would be more useful would be limiting conference to no more primary tie-ins than their largest number of 7 win schools in the past five years, and no more secondary tie-ins than their largest number of 6 win schools in the past five years, and require every bowl to get two primary tie-ins to get up.

1) I'd agree that if you're going to have a cutoff point, 7 wins overall or 6 wins over FBS opponents is as good a place to start as any. (As I said above, I don't care if teams with losing records play in bowls, but it's clear that many in the college football establishment are worried that it diminishes bowl prestige even more than having 40 bowls does).

2) To give more flexibility in placing at-large teams: A bowl tie-in is "released" if the tie-in conference doesn't have a 7-win or 6-FBS-win team to fill the place, and "secondary tie-ins" are not permitted. Then, there would be several clear vacancies and it would be easier to place at-large teams in games that make both the bowl and the teams satisfied (e.g., make it easier to avoid sending an east coast team to a lower-tier bowl on the west coast and vice versa, and make it easier to create matchups that appeal to both participating teams).

I think it's unrealistic to think that a bowl tie-in would be released based on a conference not having teams that meet some threshold. What the bowls want, and what the conferences want, are stability and predictability above all. Neither wants to enter into a game of musical chairs, in which they risk being left without a seat. They tie-in because it usually makes geographical and/or competitive sense to do that.

Even if the NCAA were to mandate that a secondary tie-in be released, that bowl would probably still want to invite a team from the conference they already have a contractual relationship with unless there is a firm rule limiting bowl eligibility based on wins.

(04-12-2016 12:40 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 10:57 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 07:24 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 11:57 PM)Wedge Wrote:  If each bowl with a vacancy chose teams in order, the end result is a wash. At best you're taking a 5-7 team out of a fourth-tier bowl and moving them to a fifth-tier bowl so that a 6-6 team (which is not significantly "more deserving" anyway) gets the privilege of playing in a fourth-tier bowl. That's nothing worth even changing a rule for.

If each bowl with a vacancy under the status quo, maybe.

Mind, the "not significantly 'more deserving'" line of argument is a slippery slope argument for no threshold at all ... but while 6-6 may not be significantly different from 7-5, and 5-7 not significantly different from 6-6, and 4-8 not significantly different from 5-7 ... 7-5 is clearly significantly different from 4-8.

And once you start defining a place where bowls have to exhaust a pick order of more deserving teams before less deserving teams can get a spot, there's no reason not to start the primary bowl eligibility at "a winning FBS record" and then 6-6 and 5-7 are the first and second round of back-ups.

But at this moment, it looks to me like it would be more useful would be limiting conference to no more primary tie-ins than their largest number of 7 win schools in the past five years, and no more secondary tie-ins than their largest number of 6 win schools in the past five years, and require every bowl to get two primary tie-ins to get up.

1) I'd agree that if you're going to have a cutoff point, 7 wins overall or 6 wins over FBS opponents is as good a place to start as any. (As I said above, I don't care if teams with losing records play in bowls, but it's clear that many in the college football establishment are worried that it diminishes bowl prestige even more than having 40 bowls does).

2) To give more flexibility in placing at-large teams: A bowl tie-in is "released" if the tie-in conference doesn't have a 7-win or 6-FBS-win team to fill the place, and "secondary tie-ins" are not permitted. Then, there would be several clear vacancies and it would be easier to place at-large teams in games that make both the bowl and the teams satisfied (e.g., make it easier to avoid sending an east coast team to a lower-tier bowl on the west coast and vice versa, and make it easier to create matchups that appeal to both participating teams).

I think it's unrealistic to think that a bowl tie-in would be released based on a conference not having teams that meet some threshold. What the bowls want, and what the conferences want, are stability and predictability above all. Neither wants to enter into a game of musical chairs, in which they risk being left without a seat. They tie-in because it usually makes geographical and/or competitive sense to do that.

Even if the NCAA were to mandate that a secondary tie-in be released, that bowl would probably still want to invite a team from the conference they already have a contractual relationship with unless there is a firm rule limiting bowl eligibility based on wins.

That's a big political obstacle to any reasonable fix, yeah. When 5-7 Nebraska is deemed bowl eligible, a bowl with a Big Ten tie is going to want Nebraska instead of a 6-6 non-P5 team because of $$$. And any conference is going to want to use all of its bowl ties, whether or not its "eligible" teams are 5-7, rather than seeing those conference members go without a bowl game.

Let's be honest here.....there are only a handful of bowls that have any real prestige so how exactly are you hurting something that doesn't exist? I mean is anybody really going to think less of the Popeye's Bahamas Bow, Quick Lane Bowl, or Fosters Farms Bowl if there are two 5-7 teams facing off?

(04-12-2016 12:55 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Let's be honest here.....there are only a handful of bowls that have any real prestige so how exactly are you hurting something that doesn't exist? I mean is anybody really going to think less of the Popeye's Bahamas Bow, Quick Lane Bowl, or Fosters Farms Bowl if there are two 5-7 teams facing off?

This.

Prestige has nothing to do with it. Frankly, the most important thing these lesser bowls do is give more teams an opportunity for extra practice time. Who needs that more than the teams that are struggling to reach 6 wins? Except for a few games, I'd bet a lot of the extra reps in practice are going to the kids coming back next year - just like a head start on spring practice.

(04-12-2016 12:55 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Let's be honest here.....there are only a handful of bowls that have any real prestige so how exactly are you hurting something that doesn't exist? I mean is anybody really going to think less of the Popeye's Bahamas Bow, Quick Lane Bowl, or Fosters Farms Bowl if there are two 5-7 teams facing off?

This

And to add to that, is anybody going to think less of the Sugar Bowl if there is a Poulan Weed-Eater Bowl?

(04-12-2016 12:55 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Let's be honest here.....there are only a handful of bowls that have any real prestige so how exactly are you hurting something that doesn't exist? I mean is anybody really going to think less of the Popeye's Bahamas Bow, Quick Lane Bowl, or Fosters Farms Bowl if there are two 5-7 teams facing off?

I contend that going to a bowl used to inherently mean something of value. Now it doesn't for the reason that you listed. Unless you disagree, I don't see how that loss doesn't represent some level of very real value. And, if it does, then that's the argument against handing out bowls like participation ribbons.

(04-12-2016 02:41 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 12:55 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Let's be honest here.....there are only a handful of bowls that have any real prestige so how exactly are you hurting something that doesn't exist? I mean is anybody really going to think less of the Popeye's Bahamas Bow, Quick Lane Bowl, or Fosters Farms Bowl if there are two 5-7 teams facing off?

I contend that going to a bowl used to inherently mean something of value. Now it doesn't for the reason that you listed. Unless you disagree, I don't see how that loss doesn't represent some level of very real value. And, if it does, then that's the argument against handing out bowls like participation ribbons.

Bowls became participation trophies long ago, at least as long ago as they began frequently including 6-win teams. The system broke down because coaches and ADs realized that bowls gave them more job security, and they exploited that realization as far as they could take it.