Maybe someone can post a good article on it.

Is it a recommendation to the full NCAA or is it fact? EDIT: fact

I think the bottom line, as we all know, is that the bowls are essentially 'maxed out.'

I can see individual bowls folding and being replaced that is 'net zero.'

It's a good idea.

I'm for it. As more P5 teams and conferences push for fewer FCS games, there will be fewer 6 win teams at FBS level. No reason to expand bowls unless a large wave of FCS schools move to FBS. I don't see that happening.

This should help the new lower bowls get themselves established.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/12/sports...games.html

Recommended by oversight committee. Approved by the Division I Council.

(04-12-2016 09:43 AM)exCincy Kid1 Wrote:  It's a good idea.

I'm trying to figure out why it's a good idea? What difference does it make how many bowls there are? We are well past the point where being a bowl team is no longer exclusive club. The only bowls I even pay attention to now are those with MAC teams in them. But what is the "good" thing about denying more bowls?

(04-13-2016 10:13 AM)OUVan Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 09:43 AM)exCincy Kid1 Wrote:  It's a good idea.

I'm trying to figure out why it's a good idea? What difference does it make how many bowls there are? We are well past the point where being a bowl team is no longer exclusive club. The only bowls I even pay attention to now are those with MAC teams in them. But what is the "good" thing about denying more bowls?

What is the "good" thing about adding more bowls?

(04-13-2016 06:01 PM)wleakr Wrote:  

(04-13-2016 10:13 AM)OUVan Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 09:43 AM)exCincy Kid1 Wrote:  It's a good idea.

I'm trying to figure out why it's a good idea? What difference does it make how many bowls there are? We are well past the point where being a bowl team is no longer exclusive club. The only bowls I even pay attention to now are those with MAC teams in them. But what is the "good" thing about denying more bowls?

What is the "good" thing about adding more bowls?

I don't care if we have more or less bowls but I have to agree with OUVan on this. Why must we implement some rule to prevent them? What problem is being solved by this rule? Let market forces decide whether there's a need or not. If someone wants to pit two 5-7 teams against one another, let them.

(04-13-2016 06:01 PM)wleakr Wrote:  What is the "good" thing about adding more bowls?

What's good about the bowl that Ohio played in last year? We are well past the "only deserving teams" get to go to bowl games. But I guarantee that the last two teams that were selected for a bowl game last year were happy they were and the first two out were disappointed. If someone wants to hold another football game with mediocre teams in the hopes they can promote their town and/or make some money, why not? I just don't get why they are drawing the line here.

(04-12-2016 04:52 PM)emu steve Wrote:  http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/12/sports...games.html

Recommended by oversight committee. Approved by the Division I Council.

All it is a moratorium.

There is nothing about changing the requirements for bowl eligibility.

Whenever a new bowl cycle begins there is a marketplace dash by conferences to upgrade their bowl opportunities. It starts with the P5 and trickles down to the G5. Amazingly after 150 years of college football a lot of bowls are still very new and conferences aren't settled into there bowl alignments.

Of course any conference realignment magnifies bowl realignment. B12 adding two teams will mean the B12 needs about 2 more bowl games.

With interest in new bowls, for the MAC it may mean new opportunities. It should at a minimum be able to get out of 1 of the Alabama bowls. It might even be able to get a 6th tie-in somewhere.