Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Changing bowl eligibility
Author Message
46566 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 853
Joined: Dec 2019
Reputation: 12
I Root For: Gonzaga
Location: California
Post: #1
Changing bowl eligibility
What would you guys want if you guys could tweak bowl eligibility? For me make all FCS playable by removing the scholarship limit. That basically frees up schools to play the Ivy,NEC, Pioneer schools and Georgetown in football. Tied to that though any team with similar record regardless of conference affiliation who played all FBS teams will get into a bowl ahead of a team who played a FCS team. Basically a 7-5 Sun Belt team who played all FBS team will get in a bowl ahead of a 7-5 SEC team who played a FCS team.

Another would be each conference can have 3 guaranteed bowl berths a year not counting the New year 6 bowls and playoffs. I will consider independent schools separate so they can sign a bowl deal themselves. Notre Dame for example can qualify for the ACC NY6 spot if the ACC champions are in the playoffs or earn a NY6 at large. If not it goes to what ever bowl Notre Dame signed a deal with.
(This post was last modified: 04-14-2020 04:04 PM by 46566.)
04-14-2020 03:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


DoubleRSU Offline
All American

Posts: 3,780
Joined: Aug 2015
I Root For: Seattle U
Location:
Post: #2
RE: Changing bowl eligibility
Bowls don’t want 7-5 SBC teams over SEC teams, no matter the record.

All conferences get 3+ bowl slots already
04-14-2020 04:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Michael in Raleigh Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,633
Joined: Jul 2014
Reputation: 325
I Root For: App State
Location:
Post: #3
RE: Changing bowl eligibility
(04-14-2020 04:59 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  Bowls don’t want 7-5 SBC teams over SEC teams, no matter the record.

All conferences get 3+ bowl slots already

I think it's a minimum 5 for each conference. The SB gets 5, and that's tied with the Big 12 as the smallest FBS league, with only 10 members. Surely the other, larger G5 leagues have 5 or more bowl tie ins., and the P5's most definitely do.
04-14-2020 08:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,012
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #4
RE: Changing bowl eligibility
(04-14-2020 03:54 PM)46566 Wrote:  What would you guys want if you guys could tweak bowl eligibility? For me make all FCS playable by removing the scholarship limit. That basically frees up schools to play the Ivy,NEC, Pioneer schools and Georgetown in football. Tied to that though any team with similar record regardless of conference affiliation who played all FBS teams will get into a bowl ahead of a team who played a FCS team. Basically a 7-5 Sun Belt team who played all FBS team will get in a bowl ahead of a 7-5 SEC team who played a FCS team.

Another would be each conference can have 3 guaranteed bowl berths a year not counting the New year 6 bowls and playoffs.

I like the first idea. FCS is D1 so I don't understand the bias in bowl eligibility against FCS. It's a sub-division, not a separate division. Of course, there could be costs to that for FBS teams seeking to rise in CFP rankings, as FCS games would hurt their SOS, but if they are willing to suffer that, their choice.

The second idea (in bold) doesn't make sense to me on two counts: First, it contradicts the point about not penalizing FBS schools for playing FCS. You're going to let them count all FCS wins towards bowl eligibility but then turn around and say you will be ranked behind teams that don't? That cancels out the incentive of the first idea.

Also, the "regardless of conference affiliation" makes no sense, because it ignores the market for bowls, which is conference-based. Bowls and conferences mutually agree on ties, that's how it should be. And, it ignores overall SOS. That is, a 7-5 SEC team with two FCS wins might have played a harder schedule than the 7-5 Sun Belt team that played none, so there's no basis for prioritizing the latter over the former.

Finally, why limit each conference to 3 guaranteed bowl berths? Again, that is something best left to the conferences themselves. As someone else said, all conferences have a minimum of 5 ties anyway, so what's the point of creating more uncertainty by forcing so many more "at large" slots? Bowls sure wouldn't like it. They want certainty at the conference level.

Conferences wouldn't either, because one thing conferences try to do is create matchups with other conferences that their fans have more of a natural interest in. E.g., the B1G and SEC have several bowl ties together because there is a common interest in that kind of north-south combat. Bowls too want to match conferences in their games that draw interest, like having a local "anchor" conference matched vs a distant conference that the locals don't get to see much of in person and that also draws in out-of-town visitors and their money.
(This post was last modified: 04-14-2020 08:30 PM by quo vadis.)
04-14-2020 08:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,012
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #5
RE: Changing bowl eligibility
(04-14-2020 08:14 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  
(04-14-2020 04:59 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  Bowls don’t want 7-5 SBC teams over SEC teams, no matter the record.

All conferences get 3+ bowl slots already

I think it's a minimum 5 for each conference. The SB gets 5, and that's tied with the Big 12 as the smallest FBS league, with only 10 members. Surely the other, larger G5 leagues have 5 or more bowl tie ins., and the P5's most definitely do.

I think what he's saying is that he wants to *cap* each conference at three guaranteed bowl slots. That would mean a lot of bowls would be "at large vs at large" or "at large vs conference", rather than the current "conference vs conference". Why, I have no idea.
04-14-2020 08:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Michael in Raleigh Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,633
Joined: Jul 2014
Reputation: 325
I Root For: App State
Location:
Post: #6
RE: Changing bowl eligibility
(04-14-2020 08:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-14-2020 08:14 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  
(04-14-2020 04:59 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  Bowls don’t want 7-5 SBC teams over SEC teams, no matter the record.

All conferences get 3+ bowl slots already

I think it's a minimum 5 for each conference. The SB gets 5, and that's tied with the Big 12 as the smallest FBS league, with only 10 members. Surely the other, larger G5 leagues have 5 or more bowl tie ins., and the P5's most definitely do.

I think what he's saying is that he wants to *cap* each conference at three guaranteed bowl slots. That would mean a lot of bowls would be "at large vs at large" or "at large vs conference", rather than the current "conference vs conference". Why, I have no idea.

At large vs. At large was how it used to be for most bowl games in the early 90's and earlier, with exceptions for certain conference champions.
04-14-2020 08:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,012
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #7
RE: Changing bowl eligibility
(04-14-2020 08:28 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  
(04-14-2020 08:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-14-2020 08:14 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  
(04-14-2020 04:59 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  Bowls don’t want 7-5 SBC teams over SEC teams, no matter the record.

All conferences get 3+ bowl slots already

I think it's a minimum 5 for each conference. The SB gets 5, and that's tied with the Big 12 as the smallest FBS league, with only 10 members. Surely the other, larger G5 leagues have 5 or more bowl tie ins., and the P5's most definitely do.

I think what he's saying is that he wants to *cap* each conference at three guaranteed bowl slots. That would mean a lot of bowls would be "at large vs at large" or "at large vs conference", rather than the current "conference vs conference". Why, I have no idea.

At large vs. At large was how it used to be for most bowl games in the early 90's and earlier, with exceptions for certain conference champions.

Yes, I remember that. But what's the motivation to go back to it? There were also a whole lot fewer bowls back then. E.g., as late as 1997, the last year of the pre-BCS era, there were only 18 bowl games.
04-14-2020 08:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
goofus Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,285
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 148
I Root For: Iowa
Location: chicago suburbs
Post: #8
RE: Changing bowl eligibility
I would change the number of bowls so that about 50% of 7-5 teams make a bowl. What is that, about 30 bowls?

Then set it up so that 8-4 always gets a bowl before any 7-5 teams. Then make the rule that the 7-5 teams that have gone the longest without a bowl are elligible first.
04-14-2020 08:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
46566 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 853
Joined: Dec 2019
Reputation: 12
I Root For: Gonzaga
Location: California
Post: #9
RE: Changing bowl eligibility
(04-14-2020 08:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-14-2020 08:14 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  
(04-14-2020 04:59 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  Bowls don’t want 7-5 SBC teams over SEC teams, no matter the record.

All conferences get 3+ bowl slots already

I think it's a minimum 5 for each conference. The SB gets 5, and that's tied with the Big 12 as the smallest FBS league, with only 10 members. Surely the other, larger G5 leagues have 5 or more bowl tie ins., and the P5's most definitely do.

I think what he's saying is that he wants to *cap* each conference at three guaranteed bowl slots. That would mean a lot of bowls would be "at large vs at large" or "at large vs conference", rather than the current "conference vs conference". Why, I have no idea.

It was meant as a cap. Basically 4 spots guaranteed the NY6 bid plus 3 bowls of conferences chosing. The rest would either be at large or tied with a independent school. It basically would free each bowl to have a option to choose who they want. By trying to force FBS games(due to the FCS thing) it will force less FBS-FCS games. Basically P5 SEC teams playing a Sun Belt school or C-USA vs Sun Belt to try and get into a good bowl. It was basically me trying to give teams a incentive to schedule FBS and winnable games.
The changes to how bowls were was the hope to try and bring local interest into the bowl.
04-15-2020 12:03 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DavidSt Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,011
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 732
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #10
RE: Changing bowl eligibility
No more 6-6 and 6-7 teams in bowl games. This could encourage the P5 to expand to 16 for all 5 for the best G5 schools. This would open up FCS schools that want to move up to help with travel when G5 goes to 16 schools. FCS will raid the best D2 schools.
04-15-2020 12:08 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kit-Cat Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,000
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 125
I Root For: Championships
Location:

CrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappies
Post: #11
RE: Changing bowl eligibility
(04-15-2020 12:08 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  No more 6-6 and 6-7 teams in bowl games. This could encourage the P5 to expand to 16 for all 5 for the best G5 schools. This would open up FCS schools that want to move up to help with travel when G5 goes to 16 schools. FCS will raid the best D2 schools.

In the past I would have agreed with you but once you run the numbers on 7-5 w/ 6-6 backups not many total bowls go away. Maybe 2 or 3 max.

This is because of the P5 oversigning for the potential of 10 or 11 teams with 7 wins.
04-15-2020 12:15 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


46566 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 853
Joined: Dec 2019
Reputation: 12
I Root For: Gonzaga
Location: California
Post: #12
RE: Changing bowl eligibility
(04-15-2020 12:08 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  No more 6-6 and 6-7 teams in bowl games. This could encourage the P5 to expand to 16 for all 5 for the best G5 schools. This would open up FCS schools that want to move up to help with travel when G5 goes to 16 schools. FCS will raid the best D2 schools.

I'd prefer P5 conferences with a mandatory 9 games for all conferences. This will force the Sun Belt to go to 12 and independent schools to try to schedule amongst themselves for late season games. Maybe a independent will get lucky and a conference game will be played week 0-2 and their scheduled in October or November.
04-15-2020 12:30 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
schmolik Offline
CSNBB's Big 10 Cheerleader
*

Posts: 8,573
Joined: Sep 2019
Reputation: 640
I Root For: UIUC, PSU, Nova
Location: Philadelphia Suburbs
Post: #13
RE: Changing bowl eligibility
(04-15-2020 12:30 AM)46566 Wrote:  
(04-15-2020 12:08 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  No more 6-6 and 6-7 teams in bowl games. This could encourage the P5 to expand to 16 for all 5 for the best G5 schools. This would open up FCS schools that want to move up to help with travel when G5 goes to 16 schools. FCS will raid the best D2 schools.

I'd prefer P5 conferences with a mandatory 9 games for all conferences. This will force the Sun Belt to go to 12 and independent schools to try to schedule amongst themselves for late season games. Maybe a independent will get lucky and a conference game will be played week 0-2 and their scheduled in October or November.

That will open happen when we get Florida/Florida State, Georgia/Georgia Tech, South Carolina/Clemson, Kentucky/Louisville, etc all in the same conference(s). Those teams likely won't want to play 9 games plus their in state rivals. Now do you see why most of my realignment plans try to get all of these pairs in the same conference(s)? I'd love to get Texas/Texas A&M and Penn State/Pittsburgh in the same conferences as well (in their cases so they'll actually play each other).
04-15-2020 05:04 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jt_knight Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 11
Joined: Jul 2019
Reputation: 5
I Root For: UCF
Location:
Post: #14
RE: Changing bowl eligibility
Ideally, there would only be about 20-22 bowl games. With 130 teams in D-1 that limits the reward of a bowl game to about 30-33% of teams.

Conference champion with at least 7 wins = automatic bowl bid.

12+ wins = automatic NY6 berth if not selected for for College Football Invitational (CFI). In other words, no worse than a NY6 game.

11 wins = NY6/CFI eligible (not automatic). (Conference champ w/ 11 wins priority for NY6/CFI over non-conf. champ w/ 10 or 11 wins).

10 wins = NY6/CFI eligible (not automatic).

9 wins = automatic bowl bid. (not eligible for NY6 or CFI).

7-8 wins = bowl eligible (not automatic).

6 wins = better luck next season.

Only 1 FCS win per season counts toward eligibility. Limit 2 FCS opponents every four years otherwise, not bowl eligible in the year the limitation is violated.
04-15-2020 09:25 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Erictelevision Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,253
Joined: Jan 2016
Reputation: 52
I Root For: Uconn hoops
Location:
Post: #15
RE: Changing bowl eligibility
I'd personally nuke the ESPN owned bowls. Only alums, and more likely, degenerate gamblers, watch them.
(This post was last modified: 05-02-2020 04:20 PM by Erictelevision.)
04-15-2020 12:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
webster Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 449
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 42
I Root For: Old Dominion
Location:
Post: #16
RE: Changing bowl eligibility
I think there are way too many bowl games. It's also weird that all it usually takes is to go .500. I'm not a fan in rewarding mediocrity.
Let's increase the playoffs to 16 teams (10 of which are an auto-bid for each conference champion. The remaining 6 by selection committee or rankings).
Each playoff game is considered a bowl game. Outside of the playoffs there are no other bowl games ~aka better luck next year.
Yes this drops the overall percentage of a school getting to a bowl, but it would be so much better imo.
04-15-2020 12:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,012
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #17
RE: Changing bowl eligibility
(04-15-2020 12:03 AM)46566 Wrote:  
(04-14-2020 08:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-14-2020 08:14 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  
(04-14-2020 04:59 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  Bowls don’t want 7-5 SBC teams over SEC teams, no matter the record.

All conferences get 3+ bowl slots already

I think it's a minimum 5 for each conference. The SB gets 5, and that's tied with the Big 12 as the smallest FBS league, with only 10 members. Surely the other, larger G5 leagues have 5 or more bowl tie ins., and the P5's most definitely do.

I think what he's saying is that he wants to *cap* each conference at three guaranteed bowl slots. That would mean a lot of bowls would be "at large vs at large" or "at large vs conference", rather than the current "conference vs conference". Why, I have no idea.

It was meant as a cap. Basically 4 spots guaranteed the NY6 bid plus 3 bowls of conferences chosing. The rest would either be at large or tied with a independent school. It basically would free each bowl to have a option to choose who they want. By trying to force FBS games(due to the FCS thing) it will force less FBS-FCS games. Basically P5 SEC teams playing a Sun Belt school or C-USA vs Sun Belt to try and get into a good bowl. It was basically me trying to give teams a incentive to schedule FBS and winnable games.
The changes to how bowls were was the hope to try and bring local interest into the bowl.

What I don't get though is that you say you want to "free" the bowls up to choose who they want, but they bowls do not want that "freedom". They prefer to have ties with particular conferences. That's why they sign deals with conferences.

And there is a good variety there. If a bowl has a deal with the B1G and ACC, that's a lot of combinations of teams that can appear in the bowl.
04-15-2020 12:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,012
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #18
RE: Changing bowl eligibility
(04-15-2020 09:25 AM)jt_knight Wrote:  Ideally, there would only be about 20-22 bowl games. With 130 teams in D-1 that limits the reward of a bowl game to about 30-33% of teams.

Conceptually, I agree. Bowls have gone from being a "reward for a good season" to a participation trophy for everyone who earned a C or better.

But practically? No way. I like the 40 bowls. It's fun to watch them during the Christmas/New Year's break. Why would I want to have less college football to watch? We get so little of it as it is.

07-coffee3
04-15-2020 12:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
46566 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 853
Joined: Dec 2019
Reputation: 12
I Root For: Gonzaga
Location: California
Post: #19
RE: Changing bowl eligibility
(04-15-2020 05:04 AM)schmolik Wrote:  
(04-15-2020 12:30 AM)46566 Wrote:  
(04-15-2020 12:08 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  No more 6-6 and 6-7 teams in bowl games. This could encourage the P5 to expand to 16 for all 5 for the best G5 schools. This would open up FCS schools that want to move up to help with travel when G5 goes to 16 schools. FCS will raid the best D2 schools.

I'd prefer P5 conferences with a mandatory 9 games for all conferences. This will force the Sun Belt to go to 12 and independent schools to try to schedule amongst themselves for late season games. Maybe a independent will get lucky and a conference game will be played week 0-2 and their scheduled in October or November.

That will open happen when we get Florida/Florida State, Georgia/Georgia Tech, South Carolina/Clemson, Kentucky/Louisville, etc all in the same conference(s). Those teams likely won't want to play 9 games plus their in state rivals. Now do you see why most of my realignment plans try to get all of these pairs in the same conference(s)? I'd love to get Texas/Texas A&M and Penn State/Pittsburgh in the same conferences as well (in their cases so they'll actually play each other).

I see that. It was a thought I had. Right now there's no reason to standard a conference season. It factored in to my initial post here on my thoughts on favoring full FBS schedules over one with FCS. Teams with OOC to rivals need to fill only two OOC games a season. Basically Penn State and Pittsburgh could schedule Temple on rotating years and a MAC team. Schedule Villanova if desperate for 12. I actually don't mind FCS games. Out of my ideas my second idea (regarding FBS scheduling) is probably the least one I'm tied to.
04-15-2020 02:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jt_knight Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 11
Joined: Jul 2019
Reputation: 5
I Root For: UCF
Location:
Post: #20
RE: Changing bowl eligibility
(04-15-2020 12:50 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-15-2020 09:25 AM)jt_knight Wrote:  Ideally, there would only be about 20-22 bowl games. With 130 teams in D-1 that limits the reward of a bowl game to about 30-33% of teams.

Conceptually, I agree. Bowls have gone from being a "reward for a good season" to a participation trophy for everyone who earned a C or better.

But practically? No way. I like the 40 bowls. It's fun to watch them during the Christmas/New Year's break. Why would I want to have less college football to watch? We get so little of it as it is.

07-coffee3

I expected someone might say this and, while I also enjoy watching some of the lower-tier bowl games, on balance, I think bowl season would be significantly more entertaining by reducing the number of games and limiting the participants to teams who truly had good or great seasons. One reason is because if teams made it to a bowl game less frequently, then the fans would be more likely to travel to those games. That would result in a larger attendance. And larger attendance usually makes for a better event than a smaller attendance. And somehow that comes through on the television set.

As with everything else, diminishing returns is at play and, in my opinion, 40 games is well-beyond that point. 20 seems about right. But that's just my opinion--I get it if others disagree.
04-15-2020 02:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.