http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...-landscape

Good news for the G5 getting some more bowls.

I have said it repeatedly... The NCAA needs to put a moratorium on the creation of new Bowl games.

(05-06-2015 09:41 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  I have said it repeatedly... The NCAA needs to put a moratorium on the creation of new Bowl games.

As long as 6-6 P5 schools gets to go to a bowl, so should 6-6 G5 schools. If new bowls need to be created then so be it.

I think it's a good thing. It doesn't hurt anybody and its a positive for the players.

I see no real argument against letting them play.

Dang TV has so much football on it I am miserable. Think I'll give up cable and just use an antenna to save me from having to see all that football.

All bowl games are converging to P5 v P5 or G5 v G5.

So the G5 need roughly the sane number of bowls as the P5 have.

(05-06-2015 09:45 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(05-06-2015 09:41 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  I have said it repeatedly... The NCAA needs to put a moratorium on the creation of new Bowl games.

As long as 6-6 P5 schools gets to go to a bowl, so should 6-6 G5 schools. If new bowls need to be created then so be it.

I don't see why everybody can't go to a bowl. If you are going to allow schools with a losing record against FBS opponents (which is what 6-6 usually is) then why have a rule? Let the weak teams who actually need the extra couple of weeks practice have them. Who does it hurt?

G5 fans need to let the P5 worry and wring hands about "too many bowls".

The G5 have had 8-4 sit at home and as long as that is a possibility while 6-6 P5's go to bowls....bring on more bowls.

If P5 thinks there are too many....they can start weeding out their own bowl inflation.

(05-06-2015 10:09 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  G5 fans need to let the P5 worry and wring hands about "too many bowls".

They're not doing that. They want more bowls, too. Lower-tier bowls are job security for coaches who win only 6 games. A shiny toy to distract disgruntled boosters. ("Look at our new Asparagus Bowl trophy! Ignore the fact that I won only 6 games while the coach who won the conference title has half my football budget and half my salary!")

I don't get enthusiastic about 6-6 teams in bowls, but hell, if someone wants to put 0-12 teams in bowls starting the Tuesday after the conference championship games, it shouldn't bother anyone. Just don't watch it if you don't like it.

The math here doesn't work. Some actuarial type work needs to be done to prove it, but what are the chances that 64% (82 of 128 teams) in FBS finish with 6-6 or better records? It cannot be high.

This means that FBS programs are even more dependent on FCS programs to pad their win totals, unless they change the eligibility rule (which would be ridiculous). If anything, it puts pressure on FBS to allow more FCS games to count for bowl eligibility.

(05-06-2015 10:37 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-06-2015 10:09 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  G5 fans need to let the P5 worry and wring hands about "too many bowls".

They're not doing that. They want more bowls, too. Lower-tier bowls are job security for coaches who win only 6 games. A shiny toy to distract disgruntled boosters. ("Look at our new Asparagus Bowl trophy! Ignore the fact that I won only 6 games while the coach who won the conference title has half my football budget and half my salary!")

I don't get enthusiastic about 6-6 teams in bowls, but hell, if someone wants to put 0-12 teams in bowls starting the Tuesday after the conference championship games, it shouldn't bother anyone. Just don't watch it if you don't like it.

My point was that G5 fans don't need to be the fans who are upset at too many bowls. I really don't disagree with your reply.

(05-06-2015 10:38 AM)Artifice Wrote:  The math here doesn't work. Some actuarial type work needs to be done to prove it, but what are the chances that 64% (82 of 128 teams) in FBS finish with 6-6 or better records? It cannot be high.

This means that FBS programs are even more dependent on FCS programs to pad their win totals, unless they change the eligibility rule (which would be ridiculous). If anything, it puts pressure on FBS to allow more FCS games to count for bowl eligibility.

The big thing is the number of really bad FBS teams.

Last year Temple finished 6-6, they defeated two league opponents who went 2-10. Texas made it to 6-6 with a 3 point home win over 2-10 Iowa State. Oklahoma State also reached 6-6 by defeating Iowa State. Ohio reached 6-6 winning two games determined by a FG over 2-9 Kent State and 2-10 Miami (OH). Central Michigan reached 6-6 defeating Miami (OH) and 2-10 Eastern Michigan. South Alabama reached 6-6 defeating 1-10 Idaho and 1-11 Georgia State (a 3pt home win).

That's only look at league play.

(05-06-2015 10:38 AM)Artifice Wrote:  The math here doesn't work. Some actuarial type work needs to be done to prove it, but what are the chances that 64% (82 of 128 teams) in FBS finish with 6-6 or better records? It cannot be high.

This means that FBS programs are even more dependent on FCS programs to pad their win totals, unless they change the eligibility rule (which would be ridiculous). If anything, it puts pressure on FBS to allow more FCS games to count for bowl eligibility.

The easiest way would be to take the entire 2015 schedule of FBS games, determine every permutation of assigning team A or team B the winner of each game, tally the wins for each team in every permutation, tally the number of teams with at least six wins in every permutation and then find the maximum of 6+ win teams over the permutations.

My guess is somewhere between 50% and 75% of teams is the maximum number than can possibly get 6+ wins.

And yes, FCS wins are the key to boosting the number higher. They basically act like a positive offset for the number.


Of course, the NCAA already defined criteria enabling teams with records less than 6-6 to be eligible for bowl invites.

(05-06-2015 10:38 AM)Artifice Wrote:  The math here doesn't work. Some actuarial type work needs to be done to prove it, but what are the chances that 64% (82 of 128 teams) in FBS finish with 6-6 or better records? It cannot be high.

This means that FBS programs are even more dependent on FCS programs to pad their win totals, unless they change the eligibility rule (which would be ridiculous). If anything, it puts pressure on FBS to allow more FCS games to count for bowl eligibility.

Correct - if without the infusion of 70-80 wins from FCS a year, the math gets very difficult

(05-06-2015 09:48 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  All bowl games are converging to P5 v P5 or G5 v G5.

So the G5 need roughly the sane number of bowls as the P5 have.

AAC has 4-5 bowl games so called "P5" opponents

- Birmingham bowl vs SEC
- Military Bowl vs. ACC
- St Pete Bowl vs. ACC (every other year)
- Armed Forces bowl vs. B12 (every other year)
- Miami Beach bowl (likely to be traded out for P5 opponent)
- Hawaii bowl likely will have BYU like Miami did last year.

IMHO, the creation of these bowls is just one more way to continue / increase the separation of the Cartel from the rest of us...........and the sheep shall blindly follow into oblivion.

I'm all for more football. If somebody wants to make another bowl I have no issue. The players work their butts off anyway.

(05-06-2015 12:18 PM)ECUPirated Wrote:  IMHO, the creation of these bowls is just one more way to continue / increase the separation of the Cartel from the rest of us...........and the sheep shall blindly follow into oblivion.

Doesn't matter. The alternative for these teams is no bowl at all.

(05-06-2015 09:38 AM)msm96wolf Wrote:  http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...-landscape

Good news for the G5 getting some more bowls.