(06-29-2016 05:58 PM)ESE84 Wrote:  

(06-29-2016 03:30 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Yep. All hypothetical aside, this actually will help the G5 schools that have excess teams eligible.

Yes. It will help the G5 place more 6-6 teams, and it will also help 5-7 G5 teams that have historically high APRs.

The Rice rule.

(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.

This is pretty much it since they get to pick 1 by 1.

Surplus 6-6 teams looking for openings would still be forced into cutting deals. This could hurt some of the G5's with less athltic name recognition.

Bowls are apparently assuming that 5-7 teams will end up with the least desirable bowl slots... keep in mind this comment comes from the former Sun Belt commissioner, so it's undoubtedly a pro-G5 perspective.

https://twitter.com/DanWolken/status/748198943897456640

Quote:Dan Wolken
‏@DanWolken

Just spoke with Wright Waters of the bowl association. He confirmed the rule ensures you won’t have a 5-7 team get a better bowl than 6-6.

9:58 AM - 29 Jun 2016

(06-29-2016 05:56 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-29-2016 03:25 PM)goofus Wrote:  

(06-29-2016 02:04 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  My understanding is that the last 6-6 has to be taken, before any bowl slot can be filled by a 5-7.

I also thought that there was a "selection order" that bowls went. But here's the tricky question: can the bowl "pass" on its turn? It seems to be so, from reading responses above.


So what about this hypothetical below, for teams 77-80, with four slots left?

- Last 6-6 team left: meh
- 1st APR 5-7 team: BIG PRIZE for any bowl (TV ratings, ticket sales, etc.)
- 2nd APR 5-7: meh
- 3rd APR 5-7: meh

- Bowls 37-40 have one slot filled and one slot open

- Bowl 37 is up: pass (hoping another bowl takes the last 6-6 team ...)
- Bowl 38 is up: pass (hoping another bowl takes the last 6-6 team ...)
- Bowl 39 is up: pass (hoping another bowl takes the last 6-6 team ...)
- Bowl 40 is up: pass (hoping another bowl takes the last 6-6 team ...)
......


Someone eventually has to take that 6-6 team, but none of them want to because they all want that big prize 5-7 team.

It also not clear to me how which bowl is ranked #37, which one is #38. Etc. How is that determined?

Basically all conference ties and back-up agreements are exercised. Then the remaining 6-6 schools would be selected and Im assuming the bowls would select those 6-6 schools in order of highest payout first until the pool of remaining 6-6 teams is exhausted. Then the 5-7 teams that are eligible would select their bowls.

Yes, but which leftover bowls pick first? And which bowls are left over with the 5-7 teams. I am sorry, I am just slow, I guess. This does not make sense at all to me.

(06-29-2016 06:28 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Bowls are apparently assuming that 5-7 teams will end up with the least desirable bowl slots... keep in mind this comment comes from the former Sun Belt commissioner, so it's undoubtedly a pro-G5 perspective.

https://twitter.com/DanWolken/status/748198943897456640

Quote:Dan Wolken
‏@DanWolken

Just spoke with Wright Waters of the bowl association. He confirmed the rule ensures you won’t have a 5-7 team get a better bowl than 6-6.

9:58 AM - 29 Jun 2016

A s a G5 guy what can happen is when a G5 conference has a surplus 6-6 team they can deal its champ to a P5 bowl since they can fill all of their own conference tie-ins.

Especially if that G5 champ is 11-2 or 12-1 they need a reward if not in a CFP bowl. A 9-4/10-3 champ not so much.

(06-29-2016 01:44 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(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.

Well its going to the schools and ESPN who owns most of the bowls. I don't think they need any more and don't want losing teams either.

(06-29-2016 02:08 PM)stever20 Wrote:  because to a lot of folks in charge, they see Bowls as being rewards for good seasons. And they see losing teams being in bowls as devaluing all the bowls.

On top of that, 1) the teams usually aren't too interested; 2) the fans aren't too interested; and 3) the schools lose money.

This helps the Sun Belt, CUSA, and MAC the most. Those conferences have the fewest annual tie ins, and are most likely to have an excess 6-6 team.

(06-29-2016 06:28 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Bowls are apparently assuming that 5-7 teams will end up with the least desirable bowl slots... keep in mind this comment comes from the former Sun Belt commissioner, so it's undoubtedly a pro-G5 perspective.

https://twitter.com/DanWolken/status/748198943897456640

Quote:Dan Wolken
‏@DanWolken

Just spoke with Wright Waters of the bowl association. He confirmed the rule ensures you won’t have a 5-7 team get a better bowl than 6-6.

9:58 AM - 29 Jun 2016

So what determines a better bowl? Is it based on payout?

I just don't see how in a situation like last year- you can force the FF bowl to take a team instead of waiting for Nebraska(the #1 5-7 team by APR).

What makes you think the FF bowl can "wait"?

Why isn't it that when it's FF's turn to go, it has to pick a team ... and if there is a 6-6 team left, it can't bypass that team in hopes of landing a prize 5-7 team??

(06-29-2016 10:25 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  What makes you think the FF bowl can "wait"?

Why isn't it that when it's FF's turn to go, it has to pick a team ... and if there is a 6-6 team left, it can't bypass that team in hopes of landing a prize 5-7 team??

but there isn't a draft of bowl spots quite frankly. After all the conference bowl tie-ins get taken, it's pretty much open season...

Then back to my previous counter-point: why wouldn't the other remaining bowls, competing with FF for the prize 5-7 team, also just "wait"? Who can "wait" longer??

I think we need exact clarity on the rules and common procedure for how bowl slots are filled, before the point can be wrapped up.

well last year had the following openings...
Arizona- for CUSA
Armed forces- for Big Ten/Big 12
Quick Lane- for Big Ten and for ACC
Independence- for SEC
Heart of Dallas- for Big Ten/Big 12
Foster Farms- for Big Ten
Poinsettia- for Army
New Mexico- for C-USA
Cure- for AAC

of those slots-
Poinsettia- auto went to MAC since Army wasn't eligible.
Quick Lane- MAC back-up
Independence- AAC back-up

so right there- had 3 of the 10 slots taken by the MAC and AAC.
leaves- Arizona, Armed Forces, Quick Lane, Heart of Dallas, Foster Farms, New Mexico, and Cure...
teams that were left....
Nevada, California, Washington, and Arizona for the 6-6 or better group
Minnesota, Nebraska, and San Jose St for the 5-7 group

Armed Forces and New Mexico were more than happy to take Pac 12 schools California and Arizona. Heart of Dallas more than happy to take Washington. Leaves Nevada- and Quick Lane, Foster Farms, Cure, and Arizona bowls. Like I've said- I don't see how you can force Foster Farms to take Nevada there.

The draft would have been Nebraska, Minnesota, and San Jose St. So here's the one thing as well. Even if Foster Farms was forced to take Nevada- that would have left Quick Lane, Cure, and Arizona bowls. And you can bet that Nebraska and Minnesota would have selected Quick Lane and Cure 1 and 2 and so even still San Jose St would have been stuck in Arizona playing conference rival.

(06-29-2016 06:22 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(06-29-2016 05:58 PM)ESE84 Wrote:  

(06-29-2016 03:30 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Yep. All hypothetical aside, this actually will help the G5 schools that have excess teams eligible.

Yes. It will help the G5 place more 6-6 teams, and it will also help 5-7 G5 teams that have historically high APRs.

The Rice rule.

This could also get really messy in years that Army and/or Navy are playing to a potential 5-7 record and bowl slots are open. Both Army and Navy are traditionally high APR, and the system will have to wait on the game's outcome before placing those 5-7 teams with lower APRs than the service academies.

(06-29-2016 10:56 PM)stever20 Wrote:  well last year had the following openings...
Arizona- for CUSA
Armed forces- for Big Ten/Big 12
Quick Lane- for Big Ten and for ACC
Independence- for SEC
Heart of Dallas- for Big Ten/Big 12
Foster Farms- for Big Ten
Poinsettia- for Army
New Mexico- for C-USA
Cure- for AAC

of those slots-
Poinsettia- auto went to MAC since Army wasn't eligible.
Quick Lane- MAC back-up
Independence- AAC back-up

so right there- had 3 of the 10 slots taken by the MAC and AAC.
leaves- Arizona, Armed Forces, Quick Lane, Heart of Dallas, Foster Farms, New Mexico, and Cure...
teams that were left....
Nevada, California, Washington, and Arizona for the 6-6 or better group
Minnesota, Nebraska, and San Jose St for the 5-7 group

Armed Forces and New Mexico were more than happy to take Pac 12 schools California and Arizona. Heart of Dallas more than happy to take Washington. Leaves Nevada- and Quick Lane, Foster Farms, Cure, and Arizona bowls. Like I've said- I don't see how you can force Foster Farms to take Nevada there.

The draft would have been Nebraska, Minnesota, and San Jose St. So here's the one thing as well. Even if Foster Farms was forced to take Nevada- that would have left Quick Lane, Cure, and Arizona bowls. And you can bet that Nebraska and Minnesota would have selected Quick Lane and Cure 1 and 2 and so even still San Jose St would have been stuck in Arizona playing conference rival.

It sounds like they still left it up to the bowls but I guess who 'waits' longer would be the case as Bison mentioned.
However, after seeing the low attendance even with even Nebraska in it (fans were apathic to see their own 5-7 team go bowling), I think the bowls will choose base on geography to get the most fans in the stands. If a MW team was in the FF Bowl last year, the 'actual' attendance would have been a bit better than the few fans from Nebraska that actually showed up.
I think the precedence may have been set that a 5-7 P5 team isn't a panacea to get big crowds even with a school like Nebraska who has fans that do travel.

(06-29-2016 01:15 PM)stever20 Wrote:  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....

Yes this works with one 5-7 but it seems backwards to let the 5-7 team pick and not the 6-6 at large. It is a fiasco if you use last years scenario.

Neb and Minn picking ahead of San Jose St.

I just don't see Nebraska or Minn not going to the B10 bowls or the B10 bowls taking a 6-6 non B10 team. Cure or AZ may not want the 6-6 team but the 5-7 team, so who forces that pick? It seems, the the last At Larges should get to pick the bowls not the 5-7 teams. Thus 6-6 At-Large get to pick their bowl using APR as a ranking tie breaker for who picks first. In this scenario, CSU would have gotten to pick Detroit, San Fran or Orlando. Then 5-7 sent by Region unless it is same conference match-up. Appears to be less chance to manipulate the system. But then if this was no manipulation, it would not be FBS football.

So I guess no one (here) can answer the below question with a definitive answer:

if it's the 2016 season and the exact scenario that stever outlined above has happened, and none of the FF, QL, Cure or Arizona bowls want to take Nevada ... but none of the 5-7 teams can pick a bowl to go to until one of those four takes Nevada as the last 6-6 ... how do you break the stalemate???


Secondary question: why did Armed Forces, New Mexico and Heart of Dallas bowls get to send invitations out to Cal, Arizona and Washington respectively, before FF, QL Cure or Arizona bowls could??? In other words, why couldn't the Arizona bowl, for example, have sent an invite to Washington before the HoD bowl did??

(06-30-2016 09:31 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  So I guess no one (here) can answer the below question with a definitive answer:

if it's the 2016 season and the exact scenario that stever outlined above has happened, and none of the FF, QL, Cure or Arizona bowls want to take Nevada ... but none of the 5-7 teams can pick a bowl to go to until one of those four takes Nevada as the last 6-6 ... how do you break the stalemate???


Secondary question: why did Armed Forces, New Mexico and Heart of Dallas bowls get to send invitations out to Cal, Arizona and Washington respectively, before FF, QL Cure or Arizona bowls could??? In other words, why couldn't the Arizona bowl, for example, have sent an invite to Washington before the HoD bowl did??

They probably could have- but given the situation with that Bowl game- why would Washington choose that? You can send invites to the 6-6+ teams to your hearts content- but they have to be accepted.

Fair enough, that reasonably answers the secondary question: all of those seven bowls probably did send invites to those remaining P5 6-6 teams, and AF, NM and HoD won.


But the primary question remains: what happens then if the remaining four bowls, which lost out on the remaining P5 6-6 teams, all refuse to send an invite to 6-6 Nevada??? IE, they all tell the NCAA and/or CFP(?) that "we don't want Nevada, we will NOT be sending them an invite, come try to make us!"

Then what?


I for one, will be hoping for a scenario like that. Because every time the NCAA tries to tweak it's precious little bowl rules, it ends up blowing up in their faces somehow. So eventually, with enough egg on their faces, I'm hoping the NCAA will just throw its hands in the air and do what should be done right now: let all bowls fill their slots via contracts with conferences, regardless what the records are for the teams that the conferences send them!


Also, does no one else see the ridiculous irony here?? 6-6 Nevada, which plays by the rules of eligibility, is likely forced into one of the crummiest bowls because none of the bowls want them, while 5-7 San Jose St gets to pick and choose which bowl it wants to go to. What a joke.