Among other things, these new rules might prevent a forced bowl pairing of two teams from the same conference, as in the 2015 Arizona Bowl.
http://www.ncaa.com/news/football/articl...on-process
Quote:The Council determined that all bowl-eligible teams with 6-6 records must be selected for a bowl game before any teams with a 5-7 record can be considered.
After all bowl-eligible teams are selected, the 5-7 teams – which will be considered alternates – will be deemed eligible in descending order from the highest multiyear Academic Progress Rate in the Football Bowl Subdivision for the most recent reporting year. Those teams will then select the bowl in which they will participate.
If two or more teams have a tie in the multiyear APR, then the highest APR for the most recent single year will break the tie. This process will continue until all the bowl slots are filled.
Also, some clarification in this NCAA release on the new-bowl moratorium that I hadn't previously seen: There will be no new bowl games until at least the 2020 football season.
(06-29-2016 12:01 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]Also, some clarification in this NCAA release on the new-bowl moratorium that I hadn't previously seen: There will be no new bowl games until at least the 2020 football season.
Thank God. Otherwise they'll need to draft Princeton and Yale
I still don't see how this would have prevented the Arizona Bowl from having to MWC teams play each other. Nebraska and Minnesota are going to do what the B10 tells them for the B10 bowl-tie ins happen. San Jose still probably chooses the bowl that has a TV Contract over the Az Bowl. Still appears to be be the exact same process.
I think the main difference is that the 5-7 teams choose the bowl, rather than the bowl choosing the teams -- which is what happens normally, for all normally eligible teams.
As to folks acting like it's a big deal to have more bowl games: then don't call it a "Bowl game"! Gee whiz. Just call it a "postseason exhibition game". Nothing wrong with that. And it's none of your business if Purdue(4-8) agrees to play a postseason exhibition game against Missouri(3-9) in the old St Louis Rams dome. None of your business!
Yeah I don't see how if there's 3 openings and 2 would be Big Ten how you could force the bowl to take someone else....
I think the problem was the Arizona Bowl. Matchup was supposed to be C-USA vs MWC. But C-USA didn't have enough teams. So the thing would have been that Nevada or Colorado St would have had to be placed before 5-7 teams. End result probably would be that they probably would have wound up in Cure Bowl and San Jose St would have wound up in Arizona.
I think part of things is setting up for the future where if there's only 1 spot open quite frankly....
(06-29-2016 12:51 PM)msm96wolf Wrote: [ -> ]I still don't see how this would have prevented the Arizona Bowl from having to MWC teams play each other. Nebraska and Minnesota are going to do what the B10 tells them for the B10 bowl-tie ins happen. San Jose still probably chooses the bowl that has a TV Contract over the Az Bowl. Still appears to be be the exact same process.
The new rules are intended to push bowls to take available 6-6 teams so that they don't get stuck with a 5-7 team that gets to choose which vacancy it wants.
Also, 5-7 teams are now "alternates" and not strictly bowl-eligible, so a 5-7 team does not get to claim one of its conference's bowl ties. The ties are only valid when a conference has enough 6-6 or better teams available.
So, for example, 5-7 Nebraska could not have locked itself into a Big Ten bowl tie last season; the tie would have been void and the FF Bowl would have had the option of choosing any available 6-6 or better team.
It's a fix, but it's not perfect. In 2015 the first-in-line 5-7 team would still have been Nebraska based on the APR rules, so the FF Bowl
might have chosen to "roll the dice" and not take (for example) 6-6 Nevada in the hopes they'd still end up with 5-7 Nebraska. But if the first-in-line 5-7 team had been any team less attractive than Nebraska, the FF Bowl would have taken Nevada. A bowl is likely to prefer a G5 team that is 200 miles away to a team that is 1,500 miles away, unless the faraway team is a football "king" like Nebraska.
(06-29-2016 01:13 PM)MplsBison Wrote: [ -> ]I think the main difference is that the 5-7 teams choose the bowl, rather than the bowl choosing the teams -- which is what happens normally, for all normally eligible teams.
As to folks acting like it's a big deal to have more bowl games: then don't call it a "Bowl game"! Gee whiz. Just call it a "postseason exhibition game". Nothing wrong with that. And it's none of your business if Purdue(4-8) agrees to play a postseason exhibition game against Missouri(3-9) in the old St Louis Rams dome. None of your business!
The problem is for a lot of folks that it does devalue the existing bowl games. And it's pretty clear that we're not going to see a whole lot more bowl games added any time soon. Or Postseason exhibition games. Or whatever.
(06-29-2016 12:51 PM)msm96wolf Wrote: [ -> ]I still don't see how this would have prevented the Arizona Bowl from having to MWC teams play each other. Nebraska and Minnesota are going to do what the B10 tells them for the B10 bowl-tie ins happen. San Jose still probably chooses the bowl that has a TV Contract over the Az Bowl. Still appears to be be the exact same process.
What would have happen under the new rules is that perhaps Nevada or Colorado St would have play against UCLA in the Foster Farms bowl game and then Nebraska play in the AZ bowl or whichever 5-7 team that want to go bowling would have been in that spot.
"a lot of folks" don't get to have a say. Go shake your fist a TV, if you like.
(06-29-2016 01:22 PM)MplsBison Wrote: [ -> ]"a lot of folks" don't get to have a say. Go shake your fist a TV, if you like.
The problem is a lot of folks includes guys in power. Why do you think there's a moratorium on new bowls for 5 years now? If folks were so gung ho on adding more bowls, why are we seeing that? It's pretty clear that folks don't want to see losing teams in bowls regularly.
(06-29-2016 01:20 PM)MWC Tex Wrote: [ -> ] (06-29-2016 12:51 PM)msm96wolf Wrote: [ -> ]I still don't see how this would have prevented the Arizona Bowl from having to MWC teams play each other. Nebraska and Minnesota are going to do what the B10 tells them for the B10 bowl-tie ins happen. San Jose still probably chooses the bowl that has a TV Contract over the Az Bowl. Still appears to be be the exact same process.
What would have happen under the new rules is that perhaps Nevada or Colorado St would have play against UCLA in the Foster Farms bowl game and then Nebraska play in the AZ bowl or whichever 5-7 team that want to go bowling would have been in that spot.
No, the difference would be that San Jose St and Nevada/Colorado St would have just traded places. That's all.
SOME folks subscribe to an ideology that says "losing" teams shouldn't get to play in a "bowl game".
(nevermind that certain non-losing teams only achieved that by beating an FCS team ...)
That ideology is bunk, like so many ideologies.
We agree to disagree. Don't want to sidetrack the thread topic anymore.
(06-29-2016 01:35 PM)MWC Tex Wrote: [ -> ] (06-29-2016 01:29 PM)stever20 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-29-2016 01:20 PM)MWC Tex Wrote: [ -> ] (06-29-2016 12:51 PM)msm96wolf Wrote: [ -> ]I still don't see how this would have prevented the Arizona Bowl from having to MWC teams play each other. Nebraska and Minnesota are going to do what the B10 tells them for the B10 bowl-tie ins happen. San Jose still probably chooses the bowl that has a TV Contract over the Az Bowl. Still appears to be be the exact same process.
What would have happen under the new rules is that perhaps Nevada or Colorado St would have play against UCLA in the Foster Farms bowl game and then Nebraska play in the AZ bowl or whichever 5-7 team that want to go bowling would have been in that spot.
No, the difference would be that San Jose St and Nevada/Colorado St would have just traded places. That's all.
No, I think SJSU would still have go to the Cure Bowl because when given the choice they wouldn't want to play another MW team. If Nebraska or Minn declined the AZ bowl, then it would fall to Illinois and then Rice. Rice would have gone to the AZ bowl if the list made it to them.
It wouldn't have been SJSU's choice. Nevada or Colorado St would have gotten to choose 1st and wouldn't have chosen the Arizona Bowl. SJSU would have had last choice.
(06-29-2016 01:32 PM)MplsBison Wrote: [ -> ]SOME folks subscribe to an ideology that says "losing" teams shouldn't get to play in a "bowl game".
(nevermind that certain non-losing teams only achieved that by beating an FCS team ...)
That ideology is bunk, like so many ideologies.
We agree to disagree. Don't want to sidetrack the thread topic anymore.
So why is there a moratorium then? It's pretty crystal clear that a MAJORITY of folks in power don't think that losing teams should get to play in bowl games.
(06-29-2016 01:22 PM)MplsBison Wrote: [ -> ]"a lot of folks" don't get to have a say. Go shake your fist a TV, if you like.
Not like bowls have ever been about anything other than money for the sponsor and money/awareness for the participants.
You can go back decade after decade and find columns written about the flaws of the system. Whether it was bowls locking teams up in mid-October under the old "purer" system or teams refusing certain attractive match-ups to either get an easier win or to get more of their fans involved, or to avoid a lesser regarded opponent (remember several at-large ranked teams refused to play BYU in the Holiday Bowl with the national championship at stake), the system has always been ugly and messy.
What has changed is the power is shifting more to the schools and conferences and away from the bowl organizers. If we've accomplished nothing else good, they've done that.
(06-29-2016 01:29 PM)stever20 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-29-2016 01:20 PM)MWC Tex Wrote: [ -> ] (06-29-2016 12:51 PM)msm96wolf Wrote: [ -> ]I still don't see how this would have prevented the Arizona Bowl from having to MWC teams play each other. Nebraska and Minnesota are going to do what the B10 tells them for the B10 bowl-tie ins happen. San Jose still probably chooses the bowl that has a TV Contract over the Az Bowl. Still appears to be be the exact same process.
What would have happen under the new rules is that perhaps Nevada or Colorado St would have play against UCLA in the Foster Farms bowl game and then Nebraska play in the AZ bowl or whichever 5-7 team that want to go bowling would have been in that spot.
No, the difference would be that San Jose St and Nevada/Colorado St would have just traded places. That's all.
I guess that could be under the new rules that 5-7 team choose the bowl. So to play this out. Nebraska would have first choice and probably would choose the Quick Lane. Minnesota would then have either the AZ or Cure bowl. The could choose AZ, but say due to the Cure bowl being on CBS Sport Net, they may prefer that. So that would mean SJSU next in line would fall into the AZ bowl
(06-29-2016 01:40 PM)stever20 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-29-2016 01:35 PM)MWC Tex Wrote: [ -> ] (06-29-2016 01:29 PM)stever20 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-29-2016 01:20 PM)MWC Tex Wrote: [ -> ] (06-29-2016 12:51 PM)msm96wolf Wrote: [ -> ]I still don't see how this would have prevented the Arizona Bowl from having to MWC teams play each other. Nebraska and Minnesota are going to do what the B10 tells them for the B10 bowl-tie ins happen. San Jose still probably chooses the bowl that has a TV Contract over the Az Bowl. Still appears to be be the exact same process.
What would have happen under the new rules is that perhaps Nevada or Colorado St would have play against UCLA in the Foster Farms bowl game and then Nebraska play in the AZ bowl or whichever 5-7 team that want to go bowling would have been in that spot.
No, the difference would be that San Jose St and Nevada/Colorado St would have just traded places. That's all.
No, I think SJSU would still have go to the Cure Bowl because when given the choice they wouldn't want to play another MW team. If Nebraska or Minn declined the AZ bowl, then it would fall to Illinois and then Rice. Rice would have gone to the AZ bowl if the list made it to them.
It wouldn't have been SJSU's choice. Nevada or Colorado St would have gotten to choose 1st and wouldn't have chosen the Arizona Bowl. SJSU would have had last choice.
You responded before I deleted my post. My new post played it out to your results.
(06-29-2016 01:46 PM)MWC Tex Wrote: [ -> ] (06-29-2016 01:29 PM)stever20 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-29-2016 01:20 PM)MWC Tex Wrote: [ -> ] (06-29-2016 12:51 PM)msm96wolf Wrote: [ -> ]I still don't see how this would have prevented the Arizona Bowl from having to MWC teams play each other. Nebraska and Minnesota are going to do what the B10 tells them for the B10 bowl-tie ins happen. San Jose still probably chooses the bowl that has a TV Contract over the Az Bowl. Still appears to be be the exact same process.
What would have happen under the new rules is that perhaps Nevada or Colorado St would have play against UCLA in the Foster Farms bowl game and then Nebraska play in the AZ bowl or whichever 5-7 team that want to go bowling would have been in that spot.
No, the difference would be that San Jose St and Nevada/Colorado St would have just traded places. That's all.
I guess that could be under the new rules that 5-7 team choose the bowl. So to play this out. Nebraska would have first choice and probably would choose the Quick Lane. Minnesota would then have either the AZ or Cure bowl. The could choose AZ, but say due to the Cure bowl being on CBS Sport Net, they may prefer that. So that would mean SJSU next in line would fall into the AZ bowl
FF very possibly would have been open as well. They wouldn't be forced to take someone else- then when the 5-7 teams start being able to be taken- they take Nebraska just like they did.
(06-29-2016 01:51 PM)stever20 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-29-2016 01:46 PM)MWC Tex Wrote: [ -> ] (06-29-2016 01:29 PM)stever20 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-29-2016 01:20 PM)MWC Tex Wrote: [ -> ] (06-29-2016 12:51 PM)msm96wolf Wrote: [ -> ]I still don't see how this would have prevented the Arizona Bowl from having to MWC teams play each other. Nebraska and Minnesota are going to do what the B10 tells them for the B10 bowl-tie ins happen. San Jose still probably chooses the bowl that has a TV Contract over the Az Bowl. Still appears to be be the exact same process.
What would have happen under the new rules is that perhaps Nevada or Colorado St would have play against UCLA in the Foster Farms bowl game and then Nebraska play in the AZ bowl or whichever 5-7 team that want to go bowling would have been in that spot.
No, the difference would be that San Jose St and Nevada/Colorado St would have just traded places. That's all.
I guess that could be under the new rules that 5-7 team choose the bowl. So to play this out. Nebraska would have first choice and probably would choose the Quick Lane. Minnesota would then have either the AZ or Cure bowl. The could choose AZ, but say due to the Cure bowl being on CBS Sport Net, they may prefer that. So that would mean SJSU next in line would fall into the AZ bowl
FF very possibly would have been open as well. They wouldn't be forced to take someone else- then when the 5-7 teams start being able to be taken- they take Nebraska just like they did.
The new rules give a bit more leverage to 6-6 teams in that a 5-7 team now can't get a bowl invitation until the 6-6 and better teams all have a spot. A 6-6 team could hold up the process if bowls are trying to force two 6-6 or better teams into an interconference game just so one of the bowls can keep a seat warm for 5-7 Nebraska.