(11-26-2017 06:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-26-2017 04:32 PM)ken d Wrote:  My point is basically that they should treat eligibility the same whatever cutoff they choose. If you say that the contractual arrangements should prevail, then they should prevail the same way for 5-7 teams as 6-6 ones. 5-7 is no more or less arbitrary than 6-6 is. If you are pretending to care about academics at one level of wins, pretend to care at the other level.

First, since your agenda is to violate contracts so as to benefit the G5, be careful what you wish for. You may be assuming that G5 tend to have higher APR than P5, and I don't see why that would be the case. E.g., I bet the PAC, B1G, and ACC have higher academic standards than all G5 conferences, even though occasionally you have a football mercenary school like FSU with a terrible APR. Your rule could involve G5 teams losing out on bowls their conferences are contracted to in favor of P5 with higher APR. E.g., I could easily envision a 6-6 LA-Tech losing out on the New Orleans bowl to a 6-6 Texas that has a higher APR with the Big 12 having filled all its slots already.

Second, if you think all cutoffs are "arbitrary", why stop at 6-6? Why not just carry your logic all the way through to 12-0, eliminating all conference contracts with bowls in favor of APR determining everything?

Of course, bowls would raise hell because they sign contracts for a reason, they have determined that a particular conference has schools that the bowl believes are attractive in terms of traveling fan base and publicity.

The line between 6-6 and 5-7 has a logical basis: It's the difference between a losing record and a non-losing record. Contracts should be honored to the extent possible, and that's a reasonable place to draw the line.

I think you are assuming I have an agenda, and that you know what it is.

Just because one can give a reason why there should be a difference between 6-6 teams and 5-7 ones accumulated against different opponents doesn't mean it isn't an arbitrary distinction. Personally, I would have no problem letting bowls invite whomever they want (and can get to accept) regardless of their W-L records. This is the way the system worked when there were far fewer bowls than there are today. Teams with better records were routinely passed over because the records weren't what mattered to the bowls. What matters is who "the bowl believes are attractive in terms of traveling fan base and publicity" to quote a very astute observer.

If, however, the NCAA or its members think it's more important to have some "fairness" to the system than it is to allow a free market to work, then why not at least be consistent in whatever principal of fairness or institutional purpose they choose?

(11-26-2017 02:21 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(11-26-2017 01:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-26-2017 09:11 AM)ken d Wrote:  My vote is to use the same criterion as is used to decide which 5-7 teams get in - APR score. What do you think?

Eliminate all of those who have just lost their head coach. I suggest this for two reasons. 1. Any school who has just lost their head coach (regardless of record) seldom plays a great bowl game. 2. We need for the sake of the sport to eliminate coaches leaving before the bowls and playoffs are played. This method may eliminate both issues.

Do you really want to punish the players because their coach bailed on them? I don't think this change would stop coaches from leaving early for a new job.

It would if the NCAA put a substantial financial penalty upon the schools who encourage or initiate the moves.

Change the rules so that teams have to play 6 home and 6 away games every season (Hawaii provides an exception as always). We wouldn't be seeing so many teams with .500 or better records if they weren't playing seven or eight games at home.

The APR is a "tie-breaker" since a large number of teams would be at 5-7 competing for a bowl slot. In that case all 6-6 teams are already in. If you're going to be "uniform" by applying it to 6-6 teams, what about overall... including teams with winning records. Then a bunch of SEC and B12 schools wouldn't be eligible at all, or else Northwestern and Vandy and Duke would all be in the New Years games who wants that? At some point it just becomes stupid, especially because the bulk of APR scores in the middle are separated only by a few points.

(11-26-2017 06:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-26-2017 04:32 PM)ken d Wrote:  My point is basically that they should treat eligibility the same whatever cutoff they choose. If you say that the contractual arrangements should prevail, then they should prevail the same way for 5-7 teams as 6-6 ones. 5-7 is no more or less arbitrary than 6-6 is. If you are pretending to care about academics at one level of wins, pretend to care at the other level.

First, since your agenda is to violate contracts so as to benefit the G5, be careful what you wish for. You may be assuming that G5 tend to have higher APR than P5, and I don't see why that would be the case. E.g., I bet the PAC, B1G, and ACC have higher academic standards than all G5 conferences, even though occasionally you have a football mercenary school like FSU with a terrible APR. Your rule could involve G5 teams losing out on bowls their conferences are contracted to in favor of P5 with higher APR. E.g., I could easily envision a 6-6 LA-Tech losing out on the New Orleans bowl to a 6-6 Texas that has a higher APR with the Big 12 having filled all its slots already.

Second, if you think all cutoffs are "arbitrary", why stop at 6-6? Why not just carry your logic all the way through to 12-0, eliminating all conference contracts with bowls in favor of APR determining everything?

Of course, bowls would raise hell because they sign contracts for a reason, they have determined that a particular conference has schools that the bowl believes are attractive in terms of traveling fan base and publicity.

The line between 6-6 and 5-7 has a logical basis: It's the difference between a losing record and a non-losing record. Contracts should be honored to the extent possible, and that's a reasonable place to draw the line.

Im fine with the way its done now. League contracts govern all the teams that are actually 6-6 bowl eligible by NCAA rules. After that, lets keep in mind--its the bowls that are begging to be bailed out because there are not enough teams to fill thier games. They are looking at "going dark" for a year. So, I have no problem with a few strings being attached to the "bail out". Making sure all legit 6-6 bowl eligible squads are placed before seeding teams that should be sitting at home is really kind of hard to argue with. The NCAA rules for eligibility comes before bowl contracts....I have no issue with that very basic hierarchy.

(11-26-2017 08:13 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(11-26-2017 06:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-26-2017 04:32 PM)ken d Wrote:  My point is basically that they should treat eligibility the same whatever cutoff they choose. If you say that the contractual arrangements should prevail, then they should prevail the same way for 5-7 teams as 6-6 ones. 5-7 is no more or less arbitrary than 6-6 is. If you are pretending to care about academics at one level of wins, pretend to care at the other level.

First, since your agenda is to violate contracts so as to benefit the G5, be careful what you wish for. You may be assuming that G5 tend to have higher APR than P5, and I don't see why that would be the case. E.g., I bet the PAC, B1G, and ACC have higher academic standards than all G5 conferences, even though occasionally you have a football mercenary school like FSU with a terrible APR. Your rule could involve G5 teams losing out on bowls their conferences are contracted to in favor of P5 with higher APR. E.g., I could easily envision a 6-6 LA-Tech losing out on the New Orleans bowl to a 6-6 Texas that has a higher APR with the Big 12 having filled all its slots already.

Second, if you think all cutoffs are "arbitrary", why stop at 6-6? Why not just carry your logic all the way through to 12-0, eliminating all conference contracts with bowls in favor of APR determining everything?

Of course, bowls would raise hell because they sign contracts for a reason, they have determined that a particular conference has schools that the bowl believes are attractive in terms of traveling fan base and publicity.

The line between 6-6 and 5-7 has a logical basis: It's the difference between a losing record and a non-losing record. Contracts should be honored to the extent possible, and that's a reasonable place to draw the line.

I think you are assuming I have an agenda, and that you know what it is.

I didn't assume it, you spelled it out in a prior post:

"The alternative will usually mean that P5 schools will get preferential treatment over G5 teams, since they will almost always be able to command more and better tie-ins with the bowls. Why does the system need to be rigged even more in favor of the P5? It's not like they need the extra money more than the G5 conferences do."

You haven't put forth a compelling reason to apply the APR standard at the 6-6 level. There's a good reason to have 6-6 as the general line for bowl eligibility, it is the point where a team is no longer a loser. And as A-Coog notes above, when bowls want to allow 5-7 teams, they are asking for special dispensation, and as i noted above, the conference contract really isn't in effect at that point because the conference hasn't produced an eligible team, so it is fair for the NCAA to add the APR stipulation.

The current system makes sense.

(11-26-2017 05:26 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  I rather see a 7-5 G5 team gets a bowl slot over a 6-6 lousy P5 team.

We already have seen too many good G5 teams get left out of bowl games with the better records for schools that are P5 that went 6-6 and loses to an FCS team.

Since 2010, a 7-5 G5 bowl eligible team has been left out twice (1 of these teams lost to an FCS team). On neither occasion did a 6-6 P5 team that lost to an FCS team make it in over these teams.

Ditch the P5 schools that are 6-6. With them being so much better than G5 schools, they have no excuse for going 6-6.

(11-27-2017 07:54 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-26-2017 08:13 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(11-26-2017 06:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-26-2017 04:32 PM)ken d Wrote:  My point is basically that they should treat eligibility the same whatever cutoff they choose. If you say that the contractual arrangements should prevail, then they should prevail the same way for 5-7 teams as 6-6 ones. 5-7 is no more or less arbitrary than 6-6 is. If you are pretending to care about academics at one level of wins, pretend to care at the other level.

First, since your agenda is to violate contracts so as to benefit the G5, be careful what you wish for. You may be assuming that G5 tend to have higher APR than P5, and I don't see why that would be the case. E.g., I bet the PAC, B1G, and ACC have higher academic standards than all G5 conferences, even though occasionally you have a football mercenary school like FSU with a terrible APR. Your rule could involve G5 teams losing out on bowls their conferences are contracted to in favor of P5 with higher APR. E.g., I could easily envision a 6-6 LA-Tech losing out on the New Orleans bowl to a 6-6 Texas that has a higher APR with the Big 12 having filled all its slots already.

Second, if you think all cutoffs are "arbitrary", why stop at 6-6? Why not just carry your logic all the way through to 12-0, eliminating all conference contracts with bowls in favor of APR determining everything?

Of course, bowls would raise hell because they sign contracts for a reason, they have determined that a particular conference has schools that the bowl believes are attractive in terms of traveling fan base and publicity.

The line between 6-6 and 5-7 has a logical basis: It's the difference between a losing record and a non-losing record. Contracts should be honored to the extent possible, and that's a reasonable place to draw the line.

I think you are assuming I have an agenda, and that you know what it is.

I didn't assume it, you spelled it out in a prior post:

"The alternative will usually mean that P5 schools will get preferential treatment over G5 teams, since they will almost always be able to command more and better tie-ins with the bowls. Why does the system need to be rigged even more in favor of the P5? It's not like they need the extra money more than the G5 conferences do."

You haven't put forth a compelling reason to apply the APR standard at the 6-6 level. There's a good reason to have 6-6 as the general line for bowl eligibility, it is the point where a team is no longer a loser. And as A-Coog notes above, when bowls want to allow 5-7 teams, they are asking for special dispensation, and as i noted above, the conference contract really isn't in effect at that point because the conference hasn't produced an eligible team, so it is fair for the NCAA to add the APR stipulation.

The current system makes sense.

And what is the agenda that you discerned from that statement? Does there always have to be an agenda?

(11-26-2017 03:57 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(11-26-2017 01:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-26-2017 09:11 AM)ken d Wrote:  My vote is to use the same criterion as is used to decide which 5-7 teams get in - APR score. What do you think?

Eliminate all of those who have just lost their head coach. I suggest this for two reasons. 1. Any school who has just lost their head coach (regardless of record) seldom plays a great bowl game. 2. We need for the sake of the sport to eliminate coaches leaving before the bowls and playoffs are played. This method may eliminate both issues.

My version has been fired their coach regardless of record. If you thought it was such a bad year you need to change coaches, you need to stay home.

What if you had a great season and lost your coach to another school?

(11-27-2017 09:56 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(11-26-2017 03:57 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(11-26-2017 01:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-26-2017 09:11 AM)ken d Wrote:  My vote is to use the same criterion as is used to decide which 5-7 teams get in - APR score. What do you think?

Eliminate all of those who have just lost their head coach. I suggest this for two reasons. 1. Any school who has just lost their head coach (regardless of record) seldom plays a great bowl game. 2. We need for the sake of the sport to eliminate coaches leaving before the bowls and playoffs are played. This method may eliminate both issues.

My version has been fired their coach regardless of record. If you thought it was such a bad year you need to change coaches, you need to stay home.

What if you had a great season and lost your coach to another school?

Yeah, that's an extremely punitive proposal. I see this as taking a fairly minor problem (poor play of teams that lost their coaches, whether willingly or not) and using a sledgehammer approach with a lot more negative fallout by comparison.

(11-27-2017 10:16 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 09:56 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(11-26-2017 03:57 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(11-26-2017 01:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-26-2017 09:11 AM)ken d Wrote:  My vote is to use the same criterion as is used to decide which 5-7 teams get in - APR score. What do you think?

Eliminate all of those who have just lost their head coach. I suggest this for two reasons. 1. Any school who has just lost their head coach (regardless of record) seldom plays a great bowl game. 2. We need for the sake of the sport to eliminate coaches leaving before the bowls and playoffs are played. This method may eliminate both issues.

My version has been fired their coach regardless of record. If you thought it was such a bad year you need to change coaches, you need to stay home.

What if you had a great season and lost your coach to another school?

Yeah, that's an extremely punitive proposal. I see this as taking a fairly minor problem (poor play of teams that lost their coaches, whether willingly or not) and using a sledgehammer approach with a lot more negative fallout by comparison.

Lost coach to another school ain't fired.

But when a university says "A 7-5 record doesn't meet our standards and you are relieved of duty as head coach" I think that school should sit out the bowls. The head coach is not solely responsible for the record, the players are part of it as well and if the school doesn't believe the performance is acceptable it should not be rewarded with a bowl trip and bowl swag.

If that means the 7-5 team waits until after the bowl game to fire, then so be it but teams that fire their coach (other than for cause such as NCAA violations or personal behavior) should not go to bowls. PERIOD.

And to paraphrase the commissioner of the Big 10. There are schools where 6-6 is a very disappointing year and schools where that is a successful year and the bowl eligibility rules should take that into account. If I remember correctly he argued that eligibility should be 7-5 but 6-6 considered eligible if the school hadn't been bowl eligible the year before or something like that.