Granted, there will be four more FCS moveup teams to beat up in 2014 and there are other mitigating circumstances such as tougher scheduling that could offset that, but there could be a shortage of bowl-eligible teams for the new allotment of bowls.

So far this season, there are 65 teams that have been declared bowl-eligible, and it looks like at least another 9 teams will reach that status as well. But that only makes 74 teams. There are 70 direct-bid bowl spots for this season, so it looks like at least 4 teams will be eligible, but get snubbed. But in 2014, there will be 38 direct-bid bowl games seeking teams to include (inclusive of the CFP and Access Bowls). That means that there could be one bowl that doesn't fill its obligation.

IMO, there are too many bowls today. A bowl game should not reward mediocrity. I doubt it will ever happen but next year they should reduce the number of bowls to 25 plus the playoffs. I just don't think 6-6 is worthy of bowl bid, let alone a 6-7 team that has made it in previous years after they lost their conference championship game.

(11-19-2013 12:43 AM)Aztec Since 88 Wrote:  IMO, there are too many bowls today. A bowl game should not reward mediocrity. I doubt it will ever happen but next year they should reduce the number of bowls to 25 plus the playoffs. I just don't think 6-6 is worthy of bowl bid, let alone a 6-7 team that has made it in previous years after they lost their conference championship game.

I don't mind. BCS bowls are the actual accomplishment and we as fans already recognize that. They are just great OOC match ups we normally wouldn't see. They are basically the 13th game of the season for the top halves of every conference.

I watch all the bowl games.

The more the merrier.

Of course, there must be limits set on the records of the participants. No more of this 8-4 sits home because of a 6-6 BCS team.

(11-19-2013 12:43 AM)Aztec Since 88 Wrote:  IMO, there are too many bowls today. A bowl game should not reward mediocrity. I doubt it will ever happen but next year they should reduce the number of bowls to 25 plus the playoffs. I just don't think 6-6 is worthy of bowl bid, let alone a 6-7 team that has made it in previous years after they lost their conference championship game.

You reduce it to 25, and 6-6 P5 teams will be bowling while 9-2 2nd place G5 schools will be sitting at home.

The 2nd level basketball tournaments are able to take teams without winning records. Have a few 2nd level football tournaments, and everyone with a winning record gets into the post-season. Also, it gives the NCAA a place to dump 6-7 teams that lose conference championship games and BCS teams that schedule two IAA teams. (I still hate the FCS/FBS distinction, and think that games between them should only count as exhibitions)

At the same time, 6-6 teams where one of the wins is over a IAA team could be relegated from bowl games to 2nd level tournaments, helping the bowl games put on a better show and encouraging teams not to play down a level.

(11-19-2013 12:28 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  Granted, there will be four more FCS moveup teams to beat up in 2014 and there are other mitigating circumstances such as tougher scheduling that could offset that, but there could be a shortage of bowl-eligible teams for the new allotment of bowls.

So far this season, there are 65 teams that have been declared bowl-eligible, and it looks like at least another 9 teams will reach that status as well. But that only makes 74 teams. There are 70 direct-bid bowl spots for this season, so it looks like at least 4 teams will be eligible, but get snubbed. But in 2014, there will be 38 direct-bid bowl games seeking teams to include (inclusive of the CFP and Access Bowls). That means that there could be one bowl that doesn't fill its obligation.

Hasn't happened yet but it could. If it does it will be the Weed-whacker Bowl that was supposed to match the SEC's 17th place team against the 13th place ACC team. Oh well.

(11-19-2013 09:19 AM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  Of course, there must be limits set on the records of the participants. No more of this 8-4 sits home because of a 6-6 BCS team.

A team that goes 8-4 by beating 8 lousy teams and losing to every decent team on their schedule is not more "deserving" than a 6-6 team that wins some and loses some against a tough schedule.

Either way it's irrelevant because, let's say it again, folks: BOWL GAMES ARE NOT A MERIT-BASED PLAYOFF. To quote a line from an Eastwood movie, "Deserve's got nothin' to do with it." Bowl games have always been driven by $$$ and always will be.

The bowl wants a "name" 6-6 team more than a 9-3 team from a G5 league, because the bowl wants to sell tickets, keep their sponsors happy, and get as good a TV rating as their time slot allows. Hell, if they can make enough money putting 3-win teams in bowl games and ESPN wants to put it on the air, let 'em. It's like your friend who wants to open up a store that sells only Scotch tape. They're free to do it and if they make enough money to stay in business, then bully for them.

(11-19-2013 12:43 AM)Aztec Since 88 Wrote:  IMO, there are too many bowls today. A bowl game should not reward mediocrity. I doubt it will ever happen but next year they should reduce the number of bowls to 25 plus the playoffs. I just don't think 6-6 is worthy of bowl bid, let alone a 6-7 team that has made it in previous years after they lost their conference championship game.

I'm good with as many bowls as are needed to ensure that the Sun Belt Conference (ranked higher than CUSA for 2 straight years) has bowl equality.

How about this....Lets make 7-5 teams be taken first, before going to the 6-6 teams. If a Bowl has to take a team with a 6-6 record, then it should be fined. If a Bowl has to take a team with a 5-7 record, then it should be fined some more. If a Bowl cannot find teams with a winning record for 75% of its slots over a four year period, then it should be decertified.

Problem solved.

(11-19-2013 12:42 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 12:43 AM)Aztec Since 88 Wrote:  IMO, there are too many bowls today. A bowl game should not reward mediocrity. I doubt it will ever happen but next year they should reduce the number of bowls to 25 plus the playoffs. I just don't think 6-6 is worthy of bowl bid, let alone a 6-7 team that has made it in previous years after they lost their conference championship game.

I'm good with as many bowls as are needed to ensure that the Sun Belt Conference (ranked higher than CUSA for 2 straight years) has bowl equality.

How about this....Lets make 7-5 teams be taken first, before going to the 6-6 teams. If a Bowl has to take a team with a 6-6 record, then it should be fined. If a Bowl has to take a team with a 5-7 record, then it should be fined some more. If a Bowl cannot find teams with a winning record for 75% of its slots over a four year period, then it should be decertified.

Problem solved.

Nah. A 6-6 power conference team is generally better than a 7-5, 8-4, or in some cases 9-3 non-power conference team.

I think they just need to be consistent in bowl selection process. A 6-7 Georgia Tech team should not be given a waiver to play in a bowl over 8-4 MTSU. Make it so winning records go first, then 6-6, then FCS teams formerly ineligible from bowl play, then losing records (like GT).

But, I don't mind having so many bowls at all. We all love football, bowls give us the chance to compare the best teams of the conferences with each other. I just wish that there were more G5 vs. P5 games out there, I'd much rather see NIU or Fresno State play a good Pac-12 or Big Ten team than one from the Belt or C-USA (no offense)..

(11-19-2013 12:56 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  I think they just need to be consistent in bowl selection process. A 6-7 Georgia Tech team should not be given a waiver to play in a bowl over 8-4 MTSU. Make it so winning records go first, then 6-6, then FCS teams formerly ineligible from bowl play, then losing records (like GT).

But, I don't mind having so many bowls at all. We all love football, bowls give us the chance to compare the best teams of the conferences with each other. I just wish that there were more G5 vs. P5 games out there, I'd much rather see NIU or Fresno State play a good Pac-12 or Big Ten team than one from the Belt or C-USA (no offense)..

GT scenario is a bad one. Because Miami and UNC were on probation, GT was forced to play in the ACCCG to end up at 6-7.

(11-19-2013 12:53 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 12:42 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 12:43 AM)Aztec Since 88 Wrote:  IMO, there are too many bowls today. A bowl game should not reward mediocrity. I doubt it will ever happen but next year they should reduce the number of bowls to 25 plus the playoffs. I just don't think 6-6 is worthy of bowl bid, let alone a 6-7 team that has made it in previous years after they lost their conference championship game.

I'm good with as many bowls as are needed to ensure that the Sun Belt Conference (ranked higher than CUSA for 2 straight years) has bowl equality.

How about this....Lets make 7-5 teams be taken first, before going to the 6-6 teams. If a Bowl has to take a team with a 6-6 record, then it should be fined. If a Bowl has to take a team with a 5-7 record, then it should be fined some more. If a Bowl cannot find teams with a winning record for 75% of its slots over a four year period, then it should be decertified.

Problem solved.

Nah. A 6-6 power conference team is generally better than a 7-5, 8-4, or in some cases 9-3 non-power conference team.

Every circumstance is different. Many of the P5 schools play 3-4 OOC games at home and the G5 schools play 6 home games and 6 road games.
Sometimes I pull up Big Ten schedules and those teams start the season with 4-5 home games in a row, they don't leave home until mid October.
Some of them get 8 home games and 4 road games. Major advantage.

(11-19-2013 01:02 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 12:53 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 12:42 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 12:43 AM)Aztec Since 88 Wrote:  IMO, there are too many bowls today. A bowl game should not reward mediocrity. I doubt it will ever happen but next year they should reduce the number of bowls to 25 plus the playoffs. I just don't think 6-6 is worthy of bowl bid, let alone a 6-7 team that has made it in previous years after they lost their conference championship game.

I'm good with as many bowls as are needed to ensure that the Sun Belt Conference (ranked higher than CUSA for 2 straight years) has bowl equality.

How about this....Lets make 7-5 teams be taken first, before going to the 6-6 teams. If a Bowl has to take a team with a 6-6 record, then it should be fined. If a Bowl has to take a team with a 5-7 record, then it should be fined some more. If a Bowl cannot find teams with a winning record for 75% of its slots over a four year period, then it should be decertified.

Problem solved.

Nah. A 6-6 power conference team is generally better than a 7-5, 8-4, or in some cases 9-3 non-power conference team.

Every circumstance is different. Many of the P5 schools play 3-4 OOC games at home and the G5 schools play 6 home games and 6 road games.
Sometimes I pull up Big Ten schedules and those teams start the season with 4-5 home games in a row, they don't leave home until mid October.
Some of them get 8 home games and 4 road games. Major advantage.

Yes but if most of your conference schedules are against teams that would challenge or even win the G5 leagues you understand why the big boys have more home games. (well there's the money thing too)

(11-19-2013 12:53 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 12:42 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 12:43 AM)Aztec Since 88 Wrote:  IMO, there are too many bowls today. A bowl game should not reward mediocrity. I doubt it will ever happen but next year they should reduce the number of bowls to 25 plus the playoffs. I just don't think 6-6 is worthy of bowl bid, let alone a 6-7 team that has made it in previous years after they lost their conference championship game.

I'm good with as many bowls as are needed to ensure that the Sun Belt Conference (ranked higher than CUSA for 2 straight years) has bowl equality.

How about this....Lets make 7-5 teams be taken first, before going to the 6-6 teams. If a Bowl has to take a team with a 6-6 record, then it should be fined. If a Bowl has to take a team with a 5-7 record, then it should be fined some more. If a Bowl cannot find teams with a winning record for 75% of its slots over a four year period, then it should be decertified.

Problem solved.

Nah. A 6-6 power conference team is generally better than a 7-5, 8-4, or in some cases 9-3 non-power conference team.

Then don't complain about the number of bowls.

(11-19-2013 03:43 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 12:53 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 12:42 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 12:43 AM)Aztec Since 88 Wrote:  IMO, there are too many bowls today. A bowl game should not reward mediocrity. I doubt it will ever happen but next year they should reduce the number of bowls to 25 plus the playoffs. I just don't think 6-6 is worthy of bowl bid, let alone a 6-7 team that has made it in previous years after they lost their conference championship game.

I'm good with as many bowls as are needed to ensure that the Sun Belt Conference (ranked higher than CUSA for 2 straight years) has bowl equality.

How about this....Lets make 7-5 teams be taken first, before going to the 6-6 teams. If a Bowl has to take a team with a 6-6 record, then it should be fined. If a Bowl has to take a team with a 5-7 record, then it should be fined some more. If a Bowl cannot find teams with a winning record for 75% of its slots over a four year period, then it should be decertified.

Problem solved.

Nah. A 6-6 power conference team is generally better than a 7-5, 8-4, or in some cases 9-3 non-power conference team.

Then don't complain about the number of bowls.

I didn't. I like the bowls.

(11-19-2013 01:08 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 01:02 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 12:53 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 12:42 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 12:43 AM)Aztec Since 88 Wrote:  IMO, there are too many bowls today. A bowl game should not reward mediocrity. I doubt it will ever happen but next year they should reduce the number of bowls to 25 plus the playoffs. I just don't think 6-6 is worthy of bowl bid, let alone a 6-7 team that has made it in previous years after they lost their conference championship game.

I'm good with as many bowls as are needed to ensure that the Sun Belt Conference (ranked higher than CUSA for 2 straight years) has bowl equality.

How about this....Lets make 7-5 teams be taken first, before going to the 6-6 teams. If a Bowl has to take a team with a 6-6 record, then it should be fined. If a Bowl has to take a team with a 5-7 record, then it should be fined some more. If a Bowl cannot find teams with a winning record for 75% of its slots over a four year period, then it should be decertified.

Problem solved.

Nah. A 6-6 power conference team is generally better than a 7-5, 8-4, or in some cases 9-3 non-power conference team.

Every circumstance is different. Many of the P5 schools play 3-4 OOC games at home and the G5 schools play 6 home games and 6 road games.
Sometimes I pull up Big Ten schedules and those teams start the season with 4-5 home games in a row, they don't leave home until mid October.
Some of them get 8 home games and 4 road games. Major advantage.

Yes but if most of your conference schedules are against teams that would challenge or even win the G5 leagues you understand why the big boys have more home games. (well there's the money thing too)

Generally the P5, especially Big Ten, SEC, fill up larger stadiums so it is
easier to do the buy games, and not return them. The statement of
A 6-6 power conference team is generally better than a 7-5, 8-4, or in some cases 9-3 non-power conference team I have to see the schedule.

A G5 school with 8-10 wins very likely gets a and equal or worse bowl
game than a 6-6 P5 school.

(11-19-2013 01:00 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 12:56 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  I think they just need to be consistent in bowl selection process. A 6-7 Georgia Tech team should not be given a waiver to play in a bowl over 8-4 MTSU. Make it so winning records go first, then 6-6, then FCS teams formerly ineligible from bowl play, then losing records (like GT).

But, I don't mind having so many bowls at all. We all love football, bowls give us the chance to compare the best teams of the conferences with each other. I just wish that there were more G5 vs. P5 games out there, I'd much rather see NIU or Fresno State play a good Pac-12 or Big Ten team than one from the Belt or C-USA (no offense)..

GT scenario is a bad one. Because Miami and UNC were on probation, GT was forced to play in the ACCCG to end up at 6-7.

And GTech won their bowl game.

Has Penn State's eligibility for the 2014 postseason been settled yet?

If Charlotte and/or Old Dominion play a C-USA schedule next year, that should help with bowl eligibility as the rest of their conference mates should be winning against them instead of beating up each other as in years past.

(11-19-2013 08:06 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  Has Penn State's eligibility for the 2014 postseason been settled yet?

If Charlotte and/or Old Dominion play a C-USA schedule next year, that should help with bowl eligibility as the rest of their conference mates should be winning against them instead of beating up each other as in years past.

Charlotte Will Be An Easy Win But We Are Going To Be Taking Some Of The Wins Against Our Conference Mates.