Ron Zook gets fired, but 6-6 Illinois will most likely go bowling under an interim coach. It's not the first time it's happened and won't be the last.
But there's something terribly wrong here.
If your coach was "good enough" to "earn" your school a bowl berth, you shouldn't be firing him. Otherwise, don't ACCEPT a bowl, when other eligible teams are left out in the cold.
Next Up? Probably UCLA, which will most likely be bowl-bound at 6-7 and looking for a new coach.
(11-27-2011 05:30 PM)Okie Chippewa Wrote: [ -> ]Ron Zook gets fired, but 6-6 Illinois will most likely go bowling under an interim coach. It's not the first time it's happened and won't be the last.
But there's something terribly wrong here.
If your coach was "good enough" to "earn" your school a bowl berth, you shouldn't be firing him. Otherwise, don't ACCEPT a bowl, when other eligible teams are left out in the cold.
Next Up? Probably UCLA, which will most likely be bowl-bound at 6-7 and looking for a new coach.
The 6-7 rule only applies if there are no other 6-6 teams available.
It happened to Miami a couple of seasons ago finishing 6-7 after losing to Ohio in the regular season final and in the MAC Championship game.
The bowl games are for players...it really doesn't matter about the coach...whether your coach rides with you to the bowl has no bearing on accepting a bid...why punish the players by pushing them out of a bowl game because you fire the coach???
If you have a 6-6 record and eligible, then you should be considered...considering how many teams have "stolen" away successful MAC coaches who always leave prior to the bowl game being played, a rule like that would actually impact the non-AQs more than the AQs...lol!!
(11-27-2011 06:46 PM)wleakr Wrote: [ -> ]The bowl games are for players...it really doesn't matter about the coach...whether your coach rides with you to the bowl has no bearing on accepting a bid...why punish the players by pushing them out of a bowl game because you fire the coach???
If you have a 6-6 record and eligible, then you should be considered...considering how many teams have "stolen" away successful MAC coaches who always leave prior to the bowl game being played, a rule like that would actually impact the non-AQs more than the AQs...lol!!
Because they played horrible enough to get their HC fired. If they were bad enough for the HC to be fired, then they aren't good enough for a bowl game. Just like 6-6 teams shouldn't be goo enough for a bowl game. The same with 7-5 teams.
There are 120 teams. There are 35 bowl games. That means 70 out of 120 will go to bowl games. When you are picking 10 teams out of the bottom half of college football, what do you expect? Basic math will tell you that all of the 7-5 teams will be needed most years, and most of the 6-6 teams. If they add more bowls, they will have to dispense of the 6-6 requirement.
(11-27-2011 07:13 PM)axeme Wrote: [ -> ]There are 120 teams. There are 35 bowl games. That means 70 out of 120 will go to bowl games. When you are picking 10 teams out of the bottom half of college football, what do you expect? Basic math will tell you that all of the 7-5 teams will be needed most years, and most of the 6-6 teams. If they add more bowls, they will have to dispense of the 6-6 requirement.
That's why there should be 20-25 bowl games at the most.
(11-27-2011 07:25 PM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote: [ -> ] (11-27-2011 07:13 PM)axeme Wrote: [ -> ]There are 120 teams. There are 35 bowl games. That means 70 out of 120 will go to bowl games. When you are picking 10 teams out of the bottom half of college football, what do you expect? Basic math will tell you that all of the 7-5 teams will be needed most years, and most of the 6-6 teams. If they add more bowls, they will have to dispense of the 6-6 requirement.
That's why there should be 20-25 bowl games at the most.
..which would eliminate almost all of the ones that invite MAC teams.
(11-27-2011 07:27 PM)axeme Wrote: [ -> ] (11-27-2011 07:25 PM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote: [ -> ] (11-27-2011 07:13 PM)axeme Wrote: [ -> ]There are 120 teams. There are 35 bowl games. That means 70 out of 120 will go to bowl games. When you are picking 10 teams out of the bottom half of college football, what do you expect? Basic math will tell you that all of the 7-5 teams will be needed most years, and most of the 6-6 teams. If they add more bowls, they will have to dispense of the 6-6 requirement.
That's why there should be 20-25 bowl games at the most.
..which would eliminate almost all of the ones that invite MAC teams.
I don't care. Quality over quantity. 6-6/7-5 non-BC$ teams do NOT deserve a bowl bid, just like 6-6/7-5 BC$ teams do not deserve bowl bids either.
I think there should be 30 bowl games, get rid of 5. 10 teams don't deserve it. I can deal with that, because with 20 or 25 bowls then you have teams like the 2000 Rockets at 10-1 who get shafted and that isn't right.
(11-27-2011 05:30 PM)Okie Chippewa Wrote: [ -> ]Ron Zook gets fired, but 6-6 Illinois will most likely go bowling under an interim coach. It's not the first time it's happened and won't be the last.
But there's something terribly wrong here.
If your coach was "good enough" to "earn" your school a bowl berth, you shouldn't be firing him. Otherwise, don't ACCEPT a bowl, when other eligible teams are left out in the cold.
Next Up? Probably UCLA, which will most likely be bowl-bound at 6-7 and looking for a new coach.
Illinois won't turn down a bowl bid:
"Thomas plans on "moving quickly" with the search. Although university hiring policies could delay the process, Thomas wants to work fast and get a coach in place before Illinois' bowl game in late December or early January."
http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_...um=twitter
Of course, everybody's 2nd favorite former CMU HC Butch Jones' name will be coming up as Illinois' current AD was just hired away from Cinci. If that happens beware MAC programs, UC seems to like our coaches. Although I think CMU is safe this time around.
(11-27-2011 07:57 PM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote: [ -> ]I don't care. Quality over quantity. 6-6/7-5 non-BC$ teams do NOT deserve a bowl bid, just like 6-6/7-5 BC$ teams do not deserve bowl bids either.
If it's about quality, then there should be like five bowls.
Another re-tread coach proves the rule.
(11-27-2011 08:50 PM)OZoner Wrote: [ -> ] (11-27-2011 07:57 PM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote: [ -> ]I don't care. Quality over quantity. 6-6/7-5 non-BC$ teams do NOT deserve a bowl bid, just like 6-6/7-5 BC$ teams do not deserve bowl bids either.
If it's about quality, then there should be like five bowls.
How about you try and be realistic in this argument. Your post was just idiotic.
You said nothing about realism. I consider your stance unrealistic in the first place. Bowls aren't about deserving teams, they're about money.
After escaping with a 3 point win over WMU, Illinois stood at 4 - 0. They beat NW at home and won at Indiana to move to 6 - 0. What was rarely mentioned, though, was that Zook's kids played the first five games AT HOME and went 5 - 3 at home and 1 - 3 on the road. That's correct - they played their first 5 games at home, only one a conference game.
If you can't finish above .500 while playing 8 home games (2/3 of the schedule), you suck and deserve to be fired.
But THIS is an example of how mediocre teams from the big six power conferences play the game to get into bowl games. Play 7 or 8 home games, get 4 non conference wins, squeak out two more in conference wins and *presto* - you get a bowl bid, despite finishing in the bottom half of your league.
Once upon a time teams had to have at least a 6-5 record to go bowling. Not enough BCS schools were eligible, so the rule was changed.
Then teams had to have at least a 6-5 record to go bowling, with a win versus 1-AA schools counting toward a 6-win total only once over any given four-year period. Not enough BCS schools were eligible, so the rule was changed.
Then teams had to have at least a 6-6 record to go bowling, with a win versus 1-AA schools counting toward a 6-win total only once over any given four-year period. Not enough BCS schools were eligible, so the rule was changed.
Then teams had to have at least a 6-6 record to go bowling, with a win versus 1-AA schools counting every year. Not enough BCS schools were eligible, so the rule was changed.
Then teams with 6-6 records would go bowling over schools with better records, so long as their leagues had something called a "bowl alliance", which automatically trumps teams with winning records from other conferences. Not enough BCS schools were eligible, so the rule was changed.
Now teams with 6-6 records can go bowling over schools with better records, regardless of the circumstances. Enough BCS schools are now eligible, except for those on probation.
What's next?
Imagine how many times they would need to change the rules if somehow, magically, non-AQ schools could financially afford to do what the so called "big boys" do and schedule 8 home games. Suddenly, the bowl scenarios would be awash with 95 teams bowl eligible and then you'd hear denunciations from the BCS schools about how this team or that (non-AQ) team doesn't belong in a bowl because of who and where they played. Of course, not a peep would be said about AQ schools in the same situation. But, it would be rather amusing to let the whole country in on what a scam the bowl situation really is.