(01-26-2017 11:00 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(01-26-2017 10:46 AM)f1do Wrote:  This change doesn't really impact things for 2017. BYU didn't have a bowl agreement for 2017 and will be looking for an at-large bid or a bid arranged by the TV partners. Having not gone through this arrangement yet as an independent, it leaves some extra uncertainty since that scenario now will apply to both 2017 and 2018. It will be interesting to see how it plays out. I'm not worried about getting shut out if they are bowl eligible--as the last few years teams below 6 wins have been getting bowl games as the slots all ran out. Its just a matter of which bowl you get in what part of the country against what opponent.

We have a few more schools coming online again with CCU and UAB they will provide some extra wins.
BYU will be frozen out of the bowls if all conferences tie-ins are fulfilled. I think it will happen this year that the bowl tie-ins will all be fulfilled despite having 5 win teams the past 2 years.
Also, I can see 1 MW team getting left out due to the Poinsettia Bowl if the Access Bowl goes to the MW next year.
We'll just have to wait and see. BYU could be sitting out of the bowl with 9 wins....which is why Notre Dame has the ACC for its bowls.

It is highly unlikely that a 9 win BYU would get iced out of a bowl game. Elimination of the Poinsettia bowl for 2017 removes a tie in for MWC and MAC. But if you look the MWC sent sub-.500 teams to bowl games the past 2 years. The MAC has been sending teams for their bowl eligible teams during this same time.

2015 sub-.500 teams in bowl games:
Nebraska 5-7
Minnesota 5-7
San Jose State 5-7
2016 sub-.500 teams in bowl games:
North Texas 5-7
Mississippi State 5-7
Hawaii 6-7
Army 6-5 but with 2 FCS wins
South Alabama 6-6 but with 2 FCS wins

If there was a 9-win BYU team with no bowl tie-ins for either 2015 or 2016, they would get in a bowl over one of the teams above who would be traditionally not "bowl-eligible". Who knows how 2017 plays out but unless there is a significant shift in teams increasing losses and the corresponding wins helping teams who have been sub-.500 get above that mark it would not be an issue.