http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...bowl-games

Committee will continue to discuss the 'post season issue' and bowl eligibility criteria.

Glad to see the Arizona bowl really pushed to get that bowl started last year for the MW and CUSA or SB.

I'd like to see more bowls created for the selfish reason of driving existing ones out of the market.

The upside it does sound like the NCAA is serious about making an adjustment to bowl eligibility here. Requiring 7 wins is a good start.

(04-11-2016 08:07 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  I'd like to see more bowls created for the selfish reason of driving existing ones out of the market.

The upside it does sound like the NCAA is serious about making an adjustment to bowl eligibility here. Requiring 7 wins is a good start.

I'd rather FCS teams didn't count, before increasing the minimum

I don't think they're that worried about 6-6 teams going bowling. What they don't want is losing teams to go bowling.

(04-11-2016 08:27 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I don't think they're that worried about 6-6 teams going bowling. What they don't want is losing teams to go bowling.

Bingo.

I'm glad for this, but I do think the conference championship exception should remain. A 6-7 team that makes it to its conference championship game may not be good, but it did earn something.

On the other hand, a super difficult schedule OOC could mean a 6-7 conference championship team could be 6-2 in conference with losses to 3 really good teams. If each of those games were field goal games, then we may say we don't know much about the actual strength of that team.

Why should we care who gets to play in a meaningless exhibition that somebody else is willing to pay for?

I do not see why there is a problem with having a bunch of bowl games.

They are fun to watch and are good for the sport as a whole.

Make it to 6-6 and go to a small bowl game.

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?

(04-11-2016 08:31 AM)ValleyBoy Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 08:27 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I don't think they're that worried about 6-6 teams going bowling. What they don't want is losing teams to go bowling.

Bingo.

Yes, for the sake of college football glory and honor, at least draw the line there!

The first bowl game was created to promote a local tourism event.
Someone please explain what has changed? Bowls were never a noble exercise to pit quality teams. They've always been about $$$ for the sponsor.

(04-11-2016 09:27 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  The first bowl game was created to promote a local tourism event.
Someone please explain what has changed? Bowls were never a noble exercise to pit quality teams. They've always been about $$$ for the sponsor.

But they have no morphed into a reward for the season. The core of hosting a bowl may still be the core, but the outward appearances have morphed into something different.

I think each bowl should have a minimum level of payout to where the teams playing in the bowl make at least 100k each. That way there isn't any addition cost to the teams participating. Bowls like the Potato Bowl that only offer $325k each where the teams still have to pay some money out of their pocket or the conference's coffers shouldn't be allowed unless they make a the schools involved get a minimum of a small profit from the bowl directly.
If the Potato Bowl can't afford it then it should close down or move to a different location where it could be supported better for the payout necessary to meet the payout standard.

I remember over 40 years of bowls, I always liked the bowl system. However, even as a bowl advocate, there are t0o many. My preference is it should be no more than 50% of the teams and that really is still too high. The conference Tie-Ins were the worst thing that happened to the bowls. I miss the at-large spots and the times when not all teams had to go to a bowl because the were bowl eligible. Sadly, that shipped has sailed and not really sure how you could ever go back to at-large.

(04-11-2016 09:59 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  I think each bowl should have a minimum level of payout to where the teams playing in the bowl make at least 100k each. That way there isn't any addition cost to the teams participating.

Revealed preference says that schools are willing to pay the cost to have a bowl game. That makes it hard to say "oh the poor schools are losing money." I'm pretty sure the only entity making money on the lower half of the bowl ecology is ESPN. Everyone else is in it for the non-monetary rewards (advertising, job security, career promotion, etc.)

(I know it's strange to rate job security and career promotion as non-monetary, but a big part of the value of the Great Caesar's Salad Bowl Brought To You By Pompey's Fabulous Breadsticks to U of Pennsyltucky is that making a bowl game 3 years out of 5 means that UPK's coach and AD probably keep their job. Since it's the AD and president making these decisions, that's worth losing $100,000-$250,000 on a bowl nobody travels to.)

(04-11-2016 08:31 AM)ValleyBoy Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 08:27 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I don't think they're that worried about 6-6 teams going bowling. What they don't want is losing teams to go bowling.

Bingo.

I agree...not all 6-6 teams are created equally though.

Austin should have moved forward when they had the chance. That one year delay might cost them ever having a bowl.

(04-11-2016 08:59 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I do not see why there is a problem with having a bunch of bowl games.

They are fun to watch and are good for the sport as a whole.

Make it to 6-6 and go to a small bowl game.

There's no problem for us as fans. Watch the 6-6 vs. 6-6 games, or don't watch. No big deal either way.

However, there has been a negative reaction within the college football industry to 5-7 teams in bowl games. Best guess is that the coaches and ADs and bowl organizers who gain job security from 6-6 teams playing in bowls are concerned about a potential backlash that might lead to bowls being restricted to teams with at least 7 wins, which would cut out 20 or so teams from bowl games and wipe away about 10 bowl games.

The only way to ensure that 5-7 teams will never play in bowl games is to restrict the supply of games, and the moratorium is a start on that. The end of that process would have to be limiting the number of games so that at least some 6-6 teams are left out every year, because having an oversupply of 6-6 teams is the only practical way to ensure that 5-7 teams never get into a bowl.

(04-11-2016 08:22 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 08:07 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  I'd like to see more bowls created for the selfish reason of driving existing ones out of the market.

The upside it does sound like the NCAA is serious about making an adjustment to bowl eligibility here. Requiring 7 wins is a good start.

I'd rather FCS teams didn't count, before increasing the minimum

Require 7 FBS wins with schools that have 6 FBS wins allowed to fill in slots based on APR rankings.

The best thing about it is it would shore up the marketplace for bowl games. Some of the weaker bowl games would have to go under. As a G5 fan that is what I want, removal of unappealing destinations. Also don't want to be on the hook of supporting teams with 6-6 records.

Independence, Birmingham, Camellia, Potato, Detroit, New Mexico could all be pared back.

Keep newer ones like Florida, Boca Raton, Bahamas in more appealing locations. Maybe add a game like Charleston to the mix.

dude they are not going to take it to 7 wins, let alone 7 FBS wins. All they care is that no 5-7 teams go in the future. That is their problem.