(12-09-2015 02:29 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  I see were this is headed. The G5 schools will be the ones affected by all this. I can remember the days when an 8-3 program would be left out of a bowl game because of the stature of their program. Meanwhile a team in the Big 10 would finish 6-5 and make a bowl. College football is one of the few industries where leadership does not want to take its product forward, but wants to go backwards to a model that worked 30 years ago.

Yes. P5 leagues are coming out and saying they only want to play other P5 in OOC games. And now they want to limit bowls so that only P5 teams play in every bowl game.

The P5 should just go ahead and split already instead of humiliating the P5 any further and enjoying watching the G5 die a slow death.

And the reason for this is of course - $$$$$

(12-10-2015 08:42 AM)bearcatfan Wrote:  

(12-09-2015 02:29 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  I see were this is headed. The G5 schools will be the ones affected by all this. I can remember the days when an 8-3 program would be left out of a bowl game because of the stature of their program. Meanwhile a team in the Big 10 would finish 6-5 and make a bowl. College football is one of the few industries where leadership does not want to take its product forward, but wants to go backwards to a model that worked 30 years ago.

Yes. P5 leagues are coming out and saying they only want to play other P5 in OOC games. And now they want to limit bowls so that only P5 teams play in every bowl game.

The P5 should just go ahead and split already instead of humiliating the P5 any further and enjoying watching the G5 die a slow death.

And the reason for this is of course - $$$$$

How would a 7-5 record requirement hurt the G5 more than the P5? Doesn't compute.

(12-10-2015 08:49 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 08:42 AM)bearcatfan Wrote:  

(12-09-2015 02:29 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  I see were this is headed. The G5 schools will be the ones affected by all this. I can remember the days when an 8-3 program would be left out of a bowl game because of the stature of their program. Meanwhile a team in the Big 10 would finish 6-5 and make a bowl. College football is one of the few industries where leadership does not want to take its product forward, but wants to go backwards to a model that worked 30 years ago.

Yes. P5 leagues are coming out and saying they only want to play other P5 in OOC games. And now they want to limit bowls so that only P5 teams play in every bowl game.

The P5 should just go ahead and split already instead of humiliating the P5 any further and enjoying watching the G5 die a slow death.

And the reason for this is of course - $$$$$

How would a 7-5 record requirement hurt the G5 more than the P5? Doesn't compute.

With less bowl games the P5 will have enough 7-5 teams to fill them all.

(12-10-2015 08:51 AM)bearcatfan Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 08:49 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 08:42 AM)bearcatfan Wrote:  

(12-09-2015 02:29 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  I see were this is headed. The G5 schools will be the ones affected by all this. I can remember the days when an 8-3 program would be left out of a bowl game because of the stature of their program. Meanwhile a team in the Big 10 would finish 6-5 and make a bowl. College football is one of the few industries where leadership does not want to take its product forward, but wants to go backwards to a model that worked 30 years ago.

Yes. P5 leagues are coming out and saying they only want to play other P5 in OOC games. And now they want to limit bowls so that only P5 teams play in every bowl game.

The P5 should just go ahead and split already instead of humiliating the P5 any further and enjoying watching the G5 die a slow death.

And the reason for this is of course - $$$$$

How would a 7-5 record requirement hurt the G5 more than the P5? Doesn't compute.

With less bowl games the P5 will have enough 7-5 teams to fill them all.

So you are predicting that shrinkage will occur among bowls with contracts with G5 conferences, not P5 conferences. Yes, that makes sense.

(12-10-2015 08:35 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-09-2015 09:01 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  Bowls are exhibition games. There need be NO other requirements.

If a Bowl wants to invite 0-12 Kansas to play, I see no problem.

Generally, I take a liberal attitude towards bowls as well. I do NOT pine for the good old days when there were 15 bowls. I like that we have 40 bowls, it's more college football to watch.

BUT I do think a minimal standard is warranted. Bowls are, historically, not just exhibitions, but rewards for a "good season". To me, you can't let in teams with losing records and still have that concept.

Allowing teams with losing records into bowls is like these newfangled PC children's sports leagues where they don't keep score in the games and at the end of the 'season' everyone gets a huge participation trophy so nobody's kid gets his feelings hurt. It's too much, it makes a joke/mockery of the proceedings.

While I do see the points everyone else has been making about who cares if there are a bowl for everyone, the bolded part is a big key to keep expanding the playoffs.
That statements that I have understood so far is that they commissioners still want to protect the bowls and the integrity of those bowls by not expanding the playoff to 8. However, this year the integrity of the bowls is being even more watered down by having 3 5-7 teams in the bowls. Now sure, I understand they are more or less talking about the top bowls but it would actually affect all bowls and their meaning.
Besides some of the talking heads, the public perception of a losing team (and perhaps even 6-6 teams) going to a bowl game hurts the bowl system more than helps.

(12-09-2015 05:07 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  This is only fourth time in the history of college football that EVERY team that had a winning record (6-6 isn't winning) has been placed in a bowl game.

Teams with losing records have no business playing in a bowl game. 6-6 is bad enough.

(12-09-2015 09:01 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  Bowls are exhibition games. There need be NO other requirements.

If a Bowl wants to invite 0-12 Kansas to play, I see no problem.

Exactly correct.


From what I can tell, it's only a handful of people displaying OFS (old far sentiments) of "back in my day ... only teams with winning records went to bowl games! And that's how we liked it! Baagh!!"

(12-10-2015 08:32 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-09-2015 08:39 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-09-2015 06:06 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Yes, a losing record should never qualify for a bowl.

And all homes ought to be heated with wood-burning stoves. That's the only real, true way to do it -- how it use to be done!


Equally obsolete sentiments.

Yeah, you're right, because teams with losing records playing in bowls has been super-common for decades now, like wood burning stoves have been super-rare for decades now.

Gotcha! Good one there!

Just means how people think about bowl games is long overdue for change.

Took people (in the south) a long time to come to grips that slaves were actually humans with rights, too.

(12-10-2015 08:35 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-09-2015 09:01 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  Bowls are exhibition games. There need be NO other requirements.

If a Bowl wants to invite 0-12 Kansas to play, I see no problem.

Generally, I take a liberal attitude towards bowls as well. I do NOT pine for the good old days when there were 15 bowls. I like that we have 40 bowls, it's more college football to watch.

BUT I do think a minimal standard is warranted. Bowls are, historically, not just exhibitions, but rewards for a "good season". To me, you can't let in teams with losing records and still have that concept.

Allowing teams with losing records into bowls is like these newfangled PC children's sports leagues where they don't keep score in the games and at the end of the 'season' everyone gets a huge participation trophy so nobody's kid gets his feelings hurt. It's too much, it makes a joke/mockery of the proceedings.

Of course it doesn't. That's just your obsolete sentiment.

It's also a matter of fairness. Teams that go to a bowl game get to have extra practices.

(12-10-2015 10:09 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-09-2015 09:01 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  Bowls are exhibition games. There need be NO other requirements.

If a Bowl wants to invite 0-12 Kansas to play, I see no problem.

Exactly correct.


From what I can tell, it's only a handful of people displaying OFS (old far sentiments) of "back in my day ... only teams with winning records went to bowl games! And that's how we liked it! Baagh!!"

Go back far enough and the B1G only allowed it's champ to go bowling.

If only winning teams allowed this year and 6-6 allowed to fill vacancies, we would only lose 2 bowls.

(12-10-2015 08:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 08:51 AM)bearcatfan Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 08:49 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 08:42 AM)bearcatfan Wrote:  

(12-09-2015 02:29 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  I see were this is headed. The G5 schools will be the ones affected by all this. I can remember the days when an 8-3 program would be left out of a bowl game because of the stature of their program. Meanwhile a team in the Big 10 would finish 6-5 and make a bowl. College football is one of the few industries where leadership does not want to take its product forward, but wants to go backwards to a model that worked 30 years ago.

Yes. P5 leagues are coming out and saying they only want to play other P5 in OOC games. And now they want to limit bowls so that only P5 teams play in every bowl game.

The P5 should just go ahead and split already instead of humiliating the P5 any further and enjoying watching the G5 die a slow death.

And the reason for this is of course - $$$$$

How would a 7-5 record requirement hurt the G5 more than the P5? Doesn't compute.

With less bowl games the P5 will have enough 7-5 teams to fill them all.

So you are predicting that shrinkage will occur among bowls with contracts with G5 conferences, not P5 conferences. Yes, that makes sense.

Obviously it would occur for both.

As Kitton pointed out, there were 37 P5 conference teams at 7 wins or higher plus Notre Dame, while only 26 for the G5 conferences plus BYU.

Then four P5 go to the CFP. That gives 34 P5+ND teams and 27 G5+BYU teams.

So if we assume that all bowl games are P5 v P5 or G5 v G5:

- 17 bowl games for P5+ND
- 14 bowl games for G5+BYU (some 6-6 G5 team fills in the last spot)

Total of 31 games.

(12-10-2015 10:18 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 10:09 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-09-2015 09:01 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  Bowls are exhibition games. There need be NO other requirements.

If a Bowl wants to invite 0-12 Kansas to play, I see no problem.

Exactly correct.


From what I can tell, it's only a handful of people displaying OFS (old far sentiments) of "back in my day ... only teams with winning records went to bowl games! And that's how we liked it! Baagh!!"

Go back far enough and the B1G only allowed it's champ to go bowling.

If only winning teams allowed this year and 6-6 allowed to fill vacancies, we would only lose 2 bowls.

And go back far enough, you'll find that people didn't have toilets.

So what?

(12-10-2015 10:24 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 10:18 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 10:09 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-09-2015 09:01 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  Bowls are exhibition games. There need be NO other requirements.

If a Bowl wants to invite 0-12 Kansas to play, I see no problem.

Exactly correct.


From what I can tell, it's only a handful of people displaying OFS (old far sentiments) of "back in my day ... only teams with winning records went to bowl games! And that's how we liked it! Baagh!!"

Go back far enough and the B1G only allowed it's champ to go bowling.

If only winning teams allowed this year and 6-6 allowed to fill vacancies, we would only lose 2 bowls.

And go back far enough, you'll find that people didn't have toilets.

So what?

Just saying that we've gone from one extreme to another. I prefer more bowls than less but have a lot less motivation to travel to a bowl with teams sporting 5-7 records.

Quote:Tier 1: 7 or more FBS wins
Tier 2: 7 wins counting one "counter" FCS team
Tier 3: 6 FBS wins (with no FCS win)
Tier 4: 6 wins counting one "counter" FCS team

What about 2 FCS teams, and also playing 0 P5 teams? :) The latter helps P5 teams because they can't avoid it. Basically, to avoid "padding the record". Because sometimes, some 7W teams may be left out. Several years ago when Temple was in the MAC, they had 8W, lost tie-breaker to win MAC East, and didn't get to go to a bowl. That should always be avoided.

Here's my take... where only 1 FCS game will count as a "win", and "full wins" are FBS teams, unless an FCS game was a team seeded in their playoffs that year @8W+ (non-fluke in their playoff) -- then it's treated as non-FCS.

Tier 1: 8 or more wins [1 regular FCS on schedule]
Tier 2: 7 or more "full" wins
Tier 3: 6 "full" wins + 2 or more P5 teams on schedule [No regular FCS on schedule; Many times IS a 7-5 team]
Tier 4: 7 wins + 2 or more P5 teams on schedule [1 regular FCS on schedule]
Tier 5: 7 wins + 1 P5 team on schedule [1 regular FCS on schedule]
Tier 6: 6 "full" wins + 1 P5 team on schedule
Tier 7: 7 wins + 0 P5 teams on schedule [1 regular FCS on schedule]
Tier 8: 6 "full wins" + 0 P5 teams on schedule
Tier 9: 6 wins + 2 or more P5 teams on schedule [1 regular FCS on schedule]
Tier 10: 6 wins + 1 P5 team on schedule
Tier 11: 6 wins + 0 P5 teams on schedule

(12-10-2015 10:32 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 10:24 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 10:18 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 10:09 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-09-2015 09:01 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  Bowls are exhibition games. There need be NO other requirements.

If a Bowl wants to invite 0-12 Kansas to play, I see no problem.

Exactly correct.


From what I can tell, it's only a handful of people displaying OFS (old far sentiments) of "back in my day ... only teams with winning records went to bowl games! And that's how we liked it! Baagh!!"

Go back far enough and the B1G only allowed it's champ to go bowling.

If only winning teams allowed this year and 6-6 allowed to fill vacancies, we would only lose 2 bowls.

And go back far enough, you'll find that people didn't have toilets.

So what?

Just saying that we've gone from one extreme to another. I prefer more bowls than less but have a lot less motivation to travel to a bowl with teams sporting 5-7 records.

But the "first extreme" was in the context where there was no CFP. The CFP is what matters.

Bowl games are just exhibitions that are only viewed by their respective fanbases, now.


Why does it bother you if two teams you don't care about play an exhibition game that you won't watch anyway???

That's the part that boggles my mind. Where does this busy body sensibility come from?

(12-09-2015 04:01 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Tough on the SEC. People rather want to watch a Toledo team than a 6-6 Auburn.

No, no they wouldnt. Dont be silly

(12-10-2015 01:09 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 10:32 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 10:24 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 10:18 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 10:09 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Exactly correct.


From what I can tell, it's only a handful of people displaying OFS (old far sentiments) of "back in my day ... only teams with winning records went to bowl games! And that's how we liked it! Baagh!!"

Go back far enough and the B1G only allowed it's champ to go bowling.

If only winning teams allowed this year and 6-6 allowed to fill vacancies, we would only lose 2 bowls.

And go back far enough, you'll find that people didn't have toilets.

So what?

Just saying that we've gone from one extreme to another. I prefer more bowls than less but have a lot less motivation to travel to a bowl with teams sporting 5-7 records.

But the "first extreme" was in the context where there was no CFP. The CFP is what matters.

Bowl games are just exhibitions that are only viewed by their respective fanbases, now.


Why does it bother you if two teams you don't care about play an exhibition game that you won't watch anyway???

That's the part that boggles my mind. Where does this busy body sensibility come from?

Millineal thinking. They will next want a metric to describe it in tiers. Just reach out to them.

Lol. Goofs

(12-10-2015 10:21 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 08:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 08:51 AM)bearcatfan Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 08:49 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 08:42 AM)bearcatfan Wrote:  Yes. P5 leagues are coming out and saying they only want to play other P5 in OOC games. And now they want to limit bowls so that only P5 teams play in every bowl game.

The P5 should just go ahead and split already instead of humiliating the P5 any further and enjoying watching the G5 die a slow death.

And the reason for this is of course - $$$$$

How would a 7-5 record requirement hurt the G5 more than the P5? Doesn't compute.

With less bowl games the P5 will have enough 7-5 teams to fill them all.

So you are predicting that shrinkage will occur among bowls with contracts with G5 conferences, not P5 conferences. Yes, that makes sense.

Obviously it would occur for both.

... but the idea might be that with fewer bowls, those bowls would sign agreements with the P5 leagues and leave the G5 leagues out.

I guess the G5 could go ahead and create their own bowls, like they did with the Bahamas and Miami Beach Bowls.

(12-10-2015 03:35 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 10:21 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 08:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 08:51 AM)bearcatfan Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 08:49 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  How would a 7-5 record requirement hurt the G5 more than the P5? Doesn't compute.

With less bowl games the P5 will have enough 7-5 teams to fill them all.

So you are predicting that shrinkage will occur among bowls with contracts with G5 conferences, not P5 conferences. Yes, that makes sense.

Obviously it would occur for both.

... but the idea might be that with fewer bowls, those bowls would sign agreements with the P5 leagues and leave the G5 leagues out.

I guess the G5 could go ahead and create their own bowls, like they did with the Bahamas and Miami Beach Bowls.

And AZ, Cure, Camellia...etc.
These bowls were created for the 6-6 G5 teams so I don't think the G5 bowls would be cut to extent people have stated because most of the bowls recently created are G5 bowls not P5 ones tied to a G5 team.
The 7 win requirement would cut some G5 bowls sure...but also the P5 ones also.

(12-10-2015 09:42 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(12-09-2015 05:07 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  This is only fourth time in the history of college football that EVERY team that had a winning record (6-6 isn't winning) has been placed in a bowl game.

Teams with losing records have no business playing in a bowl game. 6-6 is bad enough.

Three year average is just over 79 6-6 per year I'll take the risk to avoid 8 win teams staying home which has happened recently.