(11-19-2014 02:58 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(11-11-2014 05:00 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Rice has 3 games left, two as road underdogs. Rice will be lightly favored in the home game against UTEP. Rice needs to win one of these three to elevate itself above the ruck of 6-6 teams. Rice will not be selected by any bowl that has the option of another 6-6 team, so that seventh win is critical.

Until Rice gets a seventh win, this discussion is premature.

Just fyi, the former rule that no 6-6 team can be placed in a bowl unless and until all 7+ win teams are placed is no longer in effect.

I can't find anything on that rule change except an unsourced sentence someone recently inserted into the wikipedia article. Do you have a reference? In any case I don't like our chances of being chosen over a 7-5 team.

Also, C-USA rules prohibit a 6-6 member over a 7-5 member:
http://m.conferenceusa.com/m/sports/m-fo...14-19.html

(11-19-2014 03:37 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Also, C-USA rules prohibit a 6-6 member over a 7-5 member:
http://m.conferenceusa.com/m/sports/m-fo...14-19.html

Thanks for the link. Here's the relevant statement on the conference's bowl-assignment procedure:

Conference USA Wrote:Conference USA's champion will select which bowl it would like to attend and the remainder of the selections will follow after that, with no particular set order. C-USA teams with seven or more wins will be placed in bowls prior to 6-6 teams.

(11-19-2014 03:37 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(11-19-2014 02:58 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(11-11-2014 05:00 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Rice has 3 games left, two as road underdogs. Rice will be lightly favored in the home game against UTEP. Rice needs to win one of these three to elevate itself above the ruck of 6-6 teams. Rice will not be selected by any bowl that has the option of another 6-6 team, so that seventh win is critical.

Until Rice gets a seventh win, this discussion is premature.

Just fyi, the former rule that no 6-6 team can be placed in a bowl unless and until all 7+ win teams are placed is no longer in effect.

I can't find anything on that rule change except an unsourced sentence someone recently inserted into the wikipedia article. Do you have a reference? In any case I don't like our chances of being chosen over a 7-5 team.

Also, C-USA rules prohibit a 6-6 member over a 7-5 member:
http://m.conferenceusa.com/m/sports/m-fo...14-19.html

NCAA Postseason Bowl Handbook - see page 6. This section of the handbook just essentially restates NCAA Bylaw 18.7.2.1 & its subsections, which can be looked up at ncaa.org or elsewhere. The automatic preference for 7-wins-or-better teams over 6-6 teams has been gone for a couple years now, I believe.

So just to clarify: a CUSA team with 7+ wins could not be locked out of a CUSA bowl slot by any 6-6 CUSA team. However, if there are more 7+-win CUSA teams than CUSA bowl slots (5) at the end of the season, a 7+-win team could be passed over, and any bowl with an open slot could choose freely from amongst all 6-6 or better available teams.

I really have no interest in going to the bowl game if Rice are only 6-6.

(11-19-2014 04:24 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(11-19-2014 03:37 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(11-19-2014 02:58 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(11-11-2014 05:00 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Rice has 3 games left, two as road underdogs. Rice will be lightly favored in the home game against UTEP. Rice needs to win one of these three to elevate itself above the ruck of 6-6 teams. Rice will not be selected by any bowl that has the option of another 6-6 team, so that seventh win is critical.

Until Rice gets a seventh win, this discussion is premature.

Just fyi, the former rule that no 6-6 team can be placed in a bowl unless and until all 7+ win teams are placed is no longer in effect.

I can't find anything on that rule change except an unsourced sentence someone recently inserted into the wikipedia article. Do you have a reference? In any case I don't like our chances of being chosen over a 7-5 team.

Also, C-USA rules prohibit a 6-6 member over a 7-5 member:
http://m.conferenceusa.com/m/sports/m-fo...14-19.html

NCAA Postseason Bowl Handbook - see page 6. This section of the handbook just essentially restates NCAA Bylaw 18.7.2.1 & its subsections, which can be looked up at ncaa.org or elsewhere. The automatic preference for 7-wins-or-better teams over 6-6 teams has been gone for a couple years now, I believe.

So just to clarify: a CUSA team with 7+ wins could not be locked out of a CUSA bowl slot by any 6-6 CUSA team. However, if there are more 7+-win CUSA teams than CUSA bowl slots (5) at the end of the season, a 7+-win team could be passed over, and any bowl with an open slot could choose freely from amongst all 6-6 or better available teams.

(11-19-2014 11:53 PM)OldOwl Wrote:  I really have no interest in going to the bowl game if Rice are only 6-6.

I am in your camp. I am looking forward to Friday night and hoping to cheer on the October Owls to a decisive win over a winning record opponent.

But if we end November on a three game losing streak, this may be the year to go to Hawaii, where we can all watch on tv.

I thought 6-6 was too low a bar for a bowl team, but that is forced by the number of bowls.

sometimes a 6-6 team can be pretty good. For example, MissSt last year.

I will go to a bowl based (in order) on geographic location, date, and opponent. Rice's record is barely any consideration. Call it a tiebreaker.

(11-20-2014 10:55 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I thought 6-6 was too low a bar for a bowl team, but that is forced by the number of bowls.

sometimes a 6-6 team can be pretty good. For example, MissSt last year.

I will go to a bowl based (in order) on geographic location, date, and opponent. Rice's record is barely any consideration. Call it a tiebreaker.

For each their own. From my perspective, we don't deserve to go bowling if we lose our last 3 games, and don't have a single win against a team ranked inside the Top 100. Sorry, I just can't get excited about going to such a bowl; particularly (if we end up 6-6) if we get a directional opponent like Western Michigan. I'd rather save my travel funds to roadtrip the first 3 weeks of the baseball season (vs. UT, Arizona and Stanford).

And before people start jumping on me for not supporting the football program, I roadtripped to 3 football games this year (Notre Dame, West Point, UTSA).

If Marshall wins out and is selected for the Peach Bowl, would their unfettered right as CUSA champion to choose their own CUSA bowl transfer to the West division winner? Anyone know?

(11-20-2014 11:10 AM)illiniowl Wrote:  If Marshall wins out and is selected for the Peach Bowl, would their unfettered right as CUSA champion to choose their own CUSA bowl transfer to the West division winner? Anyone know?

No, not automatically by rule. The conference's procedure for assigning teams to bowls is intentionally informal - a collaborative process arbitrated by the conference director. If Marshall gets called up to the majors, the rest of the conference bowlers will figure things out as they go (unless there's been another rules change I don't know about).

(11-20-2014 11:00 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(11-20-2014 10:55 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I thought 6-6 was too low a bar for a bowl team, but that is forced by the number of bowls.

sometimes a 6-6 team can be pretty good. For example, MissSt last year.

I will go to a bowl based (in order) on geographic location, date, and opponent. Rice's record is barely any consideration. Call it a tiebreaker.

For each their own. From my perspective, we don't deserve to go bowling if we lose our last 3 games, and don't have a single win against a team ranked inside the Top 100. Sorry, I just can't get excited about going to such a bowl; particularly (if we end up 6-6) if we get a directional opponent like Western Michigan. I'd rather save my travel funds to roadtrip the first 3 weeks of the baseball season (vs. UT, Arizona and Stanford).

I can see the lack of enthusiasm for a team that finishes 6-6 with a 3 game losing streak, and I understand the concept of limited funds and budgeting. I just don't see 7-5 as being a difference maker in that decision. For me, my situation, I would go see a 6-6 Rice in Fort Worth or Dallas, probably in Shreveport or Albuquerque If they were 8-4, I would go see them in Fort Worth or Dallas, probably in Shreveport or Albuquerque. If they were 10-3, I would go see them in Fort Worth or Dallas, probably in Shreveport or Albuquerque. If they were 13-0, I would probably go anywhere. I sure would like to face that decision someday.

Back we were on a 40+ season bowless streak, I vowed to go and support the team if they ever made a bowl. So far, I have been to them all (since 1961), but that may end this year. It's getting to be the norm to go to a bowl. Not a bad thing.

I think the concept of "deserve" in regard to bowls went out the window a long time a go. I'm from the time when there were few bowls and a lot of 7 and 8 win teams (out of a 10 game schedule) stayed home. If we were going to use "deserve" as a measure, I would set the bar at 8-4. JMHO

In 2006 and 2012, we were pretty happy to make bowls at 6-6. I am pleased that the expectations have changed, but I agree that the excitement level will be a lot better if we can win one or both of the final games, both of which are against decent, bowl-eligible opponents.

(11-20-2014 11:18 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-20-2014 11:00 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(11-20-2014 10:55 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I thought 6-6 was too low a bar for a bowl team, but that is forced by the number of bowls.

sometimes a 6-6 team can be pretty good. For example, MissSt last year.

I will go to a bowl based (in order) on geographic location, date, and opponent. Rice's record is barely any consideration. Call it a tiebreaker.

For each their own. From my perspective, we don't deserve to go bowling if we lose our last 3 games, and don't have a single win against a team ranked inside the Top 100. Sorry, I just can't get excited about going to such a bowl; particularly (if we end up 6-6) if we get a directional opponent like Western Michigan. I'd rather save my travel funds to roadtrip the first 3 weeks of the baseball season (vs. UT, Arizona and Stanford).

I can see the lack of enthusiasm for a team that finishes 6-6 with a 3 game losing streak, and I understand the concept of limited funds and budgeting. I just don't see 7-5 as being a difference maker in that decision. For me, my situation, I would go see a 6-6 Rice in Fort Worth or Dallas, probably in Shreveport or Albuquerque If they were 8-4, I would go see them in Fort Worth or Dallas, probably in Shreveport or Albuquerque. If they were 10-3, I would go see them in Fort Worth or Dallas, probably in Shreveport or Albuquerque. If they were 13-0, I would probably go anywhere. I sure would like to face that decision someday.

Back we were on a 40+ season bowless streak, I vowed to go and support the team if they ever made a bowl. So far, I have been to them all (since 1961), but that may end this year. It's getting to be the norm to go to a bowl. Not a bad thing.

I think the concept of "deserve" in regard to bowls went out the window a long time a go. I'm from the time when there were few bowls and a lot of 7 and 8 win teams (out of a 10 game schedule) stayed home. If we were going to use "deserve" as a measure, I would set the bar at 8-4. JMHO

Again, it's not just the 6-6 record, but rather the reality that we wouldn't have beaten any team not ranked amongst the worst 25 teams in FBS. Sorry, that's not a team that deserves to go bowling in any era and under any criteria. We're not talking about a 6-6 MSU team that lost all 6 of it's games against Top 25 ranked opponents, and played many of them close.

(11-20-2014 11:35 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(11-20-2014 11:18 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-20-2014 11:00 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(11-20-2014 10:55 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I thought 6-6 was too low a bar for a bowl team, but that is forced by the number of bowls.

sometimes a 6-6 team can be pretty good. For example, MissSt last year.

I will go to a bowl based (in order) on geographic location, date, and opponent. Rice's record is barely any consideration. Call it a tiebreaker.

For each their own. From my perspective, we don't deserve to go bowling if we lose our last 3 games, and don't have a single win against a team ranked inside the Top 100. Sorry, I just can't get excited about going to such a bowl; particularly (if we end up 6-6) if we get a directional opponent like Western Michigan. I'd rather save my travel funds to roadtrip the first 3 weeks of the baseball season (vs. UT, Arizona and Stanford).

I can see the lack of enthusiasm for a team that finishes 6-6 with a 3 game losing streak, and I understand the concept of limited funds and budgeting. I just don't see 7-5 as being a difference maker in that decision. For me, my situation, I would go see a 6-6 Rice in Fort Worth or Dallas, probably in Shreveport or Albuquerque If they were 8-4, I would go see them in Fort Worth or Dallas, probably in Shreveport or Albuquerque. If they were 10-3, I would go see them in Fort Worth or Dallas, probably in Shreveport or Albuquerque. If they were 13-0, I would probably go anywhere. I sure would like to face that decision someday.

Back we were on a 40+ season bowless streak, I vowed to go and support the team if they ever made a bowl. So far, I have been to them all (since 1961), but that may end this year. It's getting to be the norm to go to a bowl. Not a bad thing.

I think the concept of "deserve" in regard to bowls went out the window a long time a go. I'm from the time when there were few bowls and a lot of 7 and 8 win teams (out of a 10 game schedule) stayed home. If we were going to use "deserve" as a measure, I would set the bar at 8-4. JMHO

Again, it's not just the 6-6 record, but rather the reality that we wouldn't have beaten any team not ranked amongst the worst 25 teams in FBS. Sorry, that's not a team that deserves to go bowling in any era and under any criteria. We're not talking about a 6-6 MSU team that lost all 6 of it's games against Top 25 ranked opponents, and played many of them close.

Again, to each their own. Again, I think 'deserve" is not part of the equation anymore, if it ever was, unless it is part of the individual fan's equation. I think that basically, you are saying that if the team finishes 6-6, and has not beaten anybody of note, they don't deserve to go and they don't deserve to have you attend if they do go.

At least that is how I interpret your words. If I am wrong, I think there is a good chance you will tell me.

Sure would be nice to beat UTEP, and see if 7-5 changes any minds. It will have close to zero effect on me.

Then it would be good to beat LaTech, and see if that changes any minds. It will have close to zero effect on me. At least as far as bowl attendance decisions go, that is. I would be very happy with both those wins.

(11-20-2014 11:49 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-20-2014 11:35 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(11-20-2014 11:18 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-20-2014 11:00 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(11-20-2014 10:55 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I thought 6-6 was too low a bar for a bowl team, but that is forced by the number of bowls.

sometimes a 6-6 team can be pretty good. For example, MissSt last year.

I will go to a bowl based (in order) on geographic location, date, and opponent. Rice's record is barely any consideration. Call it a tiebreaker.

For each their own. From my perspective, we don't deserve to go bowling if we lose our last 3 games, and don't have a single win against a team ranked inside the Top 100. Sorry, I just can't get excited about going to such a bowl; particularly (if we end up 6-6) if we get a directional opponent like Western Michigan. I'd rather save my travel funds to roadtrip the first 3 weeks of the baseball season (vs. UT, Arizona and Stanford).

I can see the lack of enthusiasm for a team that finishes 6-6 with a 3 game losing streak, and I understand the concept of limited funds and budgeting. I just don't see 7-5 as being a difference maker in that decision. For me, my situation, I would go see a 6-6 Rice in Fort Worth or Dallas, probably in Shreveport or Albuquerque If they were 8-4, I would go see them in Fort Worth or Dallas, probably in Shreveport or Albuquerque. If they were 10-3, I would go see them in Fort Worth or Dallas, probably in Shreveport or Albuquerque. If they were 13-0, I would probably go anywhere. I sure would like to face that decision someday.

Back we were on a 40+ season bowless streak, I vowed to go and support the team if they ever made a bowl. So far, I have been to them all (since 1961), but that may end this year. It's getting to be the norm to go to a bowl. Not a bad thing.

I think the concept of "deserve" in regard to bowls went out the window a long time a go. I'm from the time when there were few bowls and a lot of 7 and 8 win teams (out of a 10 game schedule) stayed home. If we were going to use "deserve" as a measure, I would set the bar at 8-4. JMHO

Again, it's not just the 6-6 record, but rather the reality that we wouldn't have beaten any team not ranked amongst the worst 25 teams in FBS. Sorry, that's not a team that deserves to go bowling in any era and under any criteria. We're not talking about a 6-6 MSU team that lost all 6 of it's games against Top 25 ranked opponents, and played many of them close.

Again, to each their own. Again, I think 'deserve" is not part of the equation anymore, if it ever was, unless it is part of the individual fan's equation. I think that basically, you are saying that if the team finishes 6-6, and has not beaten anybody of note, they don't deserve to go and they don't deserve to have you attend if they do go.

At least that is how I interpret your words. If I am wrong, I think there is a good chance you will tell me.

Yup, that's how I feel...and, BTW, it's not so much that we haven't beaten anyone of note (that was the case last year, as well), it's that we haven't beaten anyone ranked inside the Top 100. In other words, we've only beaten up on the absolute dregs of college football, and we actually lost a game to one of those teams, and at home no less.

(11-20-2014 11:53 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(11-20-2014 11:49 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-20-2014 11:35 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(11-20-2014 11:18 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-20-2014 11:00 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  For each their own. From my perspective, we don't deserve to go bowling if we lose our last 3 games, and don't have a single win against a team ranked inside the Top 100. Sorry, I just can't get excited about going to such a bowl; particularly (if we end up 6-6) if we get a directional opponent like Western Michigan. I'd rather save my travel funds to roadtrip the first 3 weeks of the baseball season (vs. UT, Arizona and Stanford).

I can see the lack of enthusiasm for a team that finishes 6-6 with a 3 game losing streak, and I understand the concept of limited funds and budgeting. I just don't see 7-5 as being a difference maker in that decision. For me, my situation, I would go see a 6-6 Rice in Fort Worth or Dallas, probably in Shreveport or Albuquerque If they were 8-4, I would go see them in Fort Worth or Dallas, probably in Shreveport or Albuquerque. If they were 10-3, I would go see them in Fort Worth or Dallas, probably in Shreveport or Albuquerque. If they were 13-0, I would probably go anywhere. I sure would like to face that decision someday.

Back we were on a 40+ season bowless streak, I vowed to go and support the team if they ever made a bowl. So far, I have been to them all (since 1961), but that may end this year. It's getting to be the norm to go to a bowl. Not a bad thing.

I think the concept of "deserve" in regard to bowls went out the window a long time a go. I'm from the time when there were few bowls and a lot of 7 and 8 win teams (out of a 10 game schedule) stayed home. If we were going to use "deserve" as a measure, I would set the bar at 8-4. JMHO

Again, it's not just the 6-6 record, but rather the reality that we wouldn't have beaten any team not ranked amongst the worst 25 teams in FBS. Sorry, that's not a team that deserves to go bowling in any era and under any criteria. We're not talking about a 6-6 MSU team that lost all 6 of it's games against Top 25 ranked opponents, and played many of them close.

Again, to each their own. Again, I think 'deserve" is not part of the equation anymore, if it ever was, unless it is part of the individual fan's equation. I think that basically, you are saying that if the team finishes 6-6, and has not beaten anybody of note, they don't deserve to go and they don't deserve to have you attend if they do go.

At least that is how I interpret your words. If I am wrong, I think there is a good chance you will tell me.

Yup, that's how I feel...and, BTW, it's not so much that we haven't beaten anyone of note (that was the case last year, as well), it's that we haven't beaten anyone ranked inside the Top 100. In other words, we've only beaten up on the absolute dregs of college football, and we actually lost a game to one of those teams, and at home no less.

Thanks, Walt.

Would you favor a system in which not only wins, but the quality of those wins were used to determine who deserves bowl bids (or playoff spots, once it expands to 16) and who doesn't? I can see a 5-7 SEC team getting in over a 12-1 Marshall on that basis, but hey, if they deserve it, they deserve it.

(11-20-2014 12:26 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Would you favor a system in which not only wins, but the quality of those wins were used to determine who deserves bowl bids (or playoff spots, once it expands to 16) and who doesn't? I can see a 5-7 SEC team getting in over a 12-1 Marshall on that basis, but hey, if they deserve it, they deserve it.

Not going to bother counting the actual numbers, but as I understand it there are bowls for 64 teams. I'd find it highly suspect that THIS YEARS 12-1 (if that is how it works out) Marshall team wouldn't be in the top 64.... but certainly someone COULD put together a 12-1 team with wins over teams ranked #100 or worse and a blowout loss to a team at #60 or so. Would that team be worthy of a bowl?

By the current rules, yes.... but by many people's opinions of what appears to be the purpose behind bowls, no. Who (other than their own fans) would want to see them play and likely get blown out by another +/- 60 ranked team?

If the 5-7 team lost only to teams in the top 25 and beat teams ranked between 60 and 20, wouldn't they be more deserving?

It's actually part of the reason why I think we have a slim shot at getting into a big conference. The structures makes it tougher for them to get to bowls by penalizing them for playing tougher conference schedules while rewarding us for playing weaker ones.

(11-20-2014 12:49 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-20-2014 12:26 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Would you favor a system in which not only wins, but the quality of those wins were used to determine who deserves bowl bids (or playoff spots, once it expands to 16) and who doesn't? I can see a 5-7 SEC team getting in over a 12-1 Marshall on that basis, but hey, if they deserve it, they deserve it.

Not going to bother counting the actual numbers, but as I understand it there are bowls for 64 teams. I'd find it highly suspect that THIS YEARS 12-1 (if that is how it works out) Marshall team wouldn't be in the top 64.... but certainly someone COULD put together a 12-1 team with wins over teams ranked #100 or worse and a blowout loss to a team at #60 or so. Would that team be worthy of a bowl?

By the current rules, yes.... but by many people's opinions of what appears to be the purpose behind bowls, no. Who (other than their own fans) would want to see them play and likely get blown out by another +/- 60 ranked team?

If the 5-7 team lost only to teams in the top 25 and beat teams ranked between 60 and 20, wouldn't they be more deserving?

It's actually part of the reason why I think we have a slim shot at getting into a big conference. The structures makes it tougher for them to get to bowls by penalizing them for playing tougher conference schedules while rewarding us for playing weaker ones.

There are 76 bowl berths this year. According to here, there are 63 now eligible and 35 ineligible. With 128 total teams, and a few of them still FCS transitional (Georgia Southern is counted as eligible, though transitional - the note says they go bowling only if there aren't enough eligible teams), that means there are 30 teams still alive for 14 slots.

Not going to speculate yet on the P5 needing more bad teams. But an interesting question to ask is - if moving up, would Rice fans be happy with the strong possibility of more time in the bowlless wilderness? Having lived through it, I think I can say I would, but it's something to ask.

(11-20-2014 12:49 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-20-2014 12:26 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Would you favor a system in which not only wins, but the quality of those wins were used to determine who deserves bowl bids (or playoff spots, once it expands to 16) and who doesn't? I can see a 5-7 SEC team getting in over a 12-1 Marshall on that basis, but hey, if they deserve it, they deserve it.

Not going to bother counting the actual numbers, but as I understand it there are bowls for 64 teams. I'd find it highly suspect that THIS YEARS 12-1 (if that is how it works out) Marshall team wouldn't be in the top 64.... but certainly someone COULD put together a 12-1 team with wins over teams ranked #100 or worse and a blowout loss to a team at #60 or so. Would that team be worthy of a bowl?

By the current rules, yes.... but by many people's opinions of what appears to be the purpose behind bowls, no. Who (other than their own fans) would want to see them play and likely get blown out by another +/- 60 ranked team?

If the 5-7 team lost only to teams in the top 25 and beat teams ranked between 60 and 20, wouldn't they be more deserving?

It's actually part of the reason why I think we have a slim shot at getting into a big conference. The structures makes it tougher for them to get to bowls by penalizing them for playing tougher conference schedules while rewarding us for playing weaker ones.

When you get to the last 25 or so spots to fill, that is the point at which a 5-7 SEC team could get in ahead of a 10-2 Rice. Maybe even a 4-8 SEC team. They would deserve it more based on who they played and how well they did. Close losses to ranked teams could even propel them over the top. Close wins over bottom 100 teams could hurt. RUTS would be very important. A system based on "deservedness" would really discriminate again the G5 teams in favor of the P5, I think.

Nobody has suggested or even implied that they want such a system.

(11-20-2014 01:20 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Nobody has suggested or even implied that they want such a system.

How then can we tell if a team "deserves" a bowl bid? maybe use a 6 win threshold? Yay, Rice deserves a bowl this year!


when the playoffs expand, I think some version of this will be used to fill the playoff bracket, maybe not the rest of the bowls. Kind of like the old BCS system.