(12-29-2022 08:43 AM)gdunn Wrote:  If you haven't, and even though it's old and much of the information doesn't apply anymore, read "Death the the BCS". In that book it outlines who profits from the Bowl games.. Spoiler alert, it's not the universities.

I feel like they used La Tech as an example the season they were bowl eligible but opted out the bowl game. Most schools lose money when they go to a bowl game with the travel, housing of the players, and they are responsible for tickets that need to be sold. Granted I'm pulling all this from the dark recesses of my mind.

I'll take USM for example. USM goes 6-6 and we get invited to the Pinstripe Bowl in NY. So we have to pay for travel to the game. That's a little further than our SBC footprint, but ok, not a deal breaker. The Pinstripe Bowl states that the players, coaches, and staff have to stay in the Plaza hotel (again I'm throwing stuff against the wall). On top of that USM is responsible for a block of 40+ additional rooms that need to be filled and will pay for them regardless of if anyone stays in them or not. If USM opts of not using them, they're billed, and the Plaza has the option of letting others have that room (double money). The players get a swag bag which ok is cool for the players. They get media exposure. USM also has to be able to sell their allotment of tickets and what is not purchased, the school is financially responsible for. If by a certain date the tickets are not sold, then the bowl can sell them. USM won't see any of this money and the bowl game gets paid by USM and if they sell the ticket, a random fan. I don't recall a restriction on meals, but I doubt an athletic department is going to want their players eating Wendy's, McDonald's, etc., prior to a game so they're going to be eating somewhere that can fuel their body and it's not going to be fast food or cheap.

On the flip side, each bowl has a CEO. I'll use my example above of the Pinstripe Bowl. Let's say Skully is the CEO of the Pinstripe Bowl. Congrats Skully.

Skully gets a yearly salary of $200k. Full benefits. It's also part of his deal that he gets to hire his staff but has to keep the cost of the staff under $3 million. Skully also as CEO gets a Mercedes as a lease paid for by the bowl. As a reminder, the Pinstripe Bowl is only one day and that's technically the only day he has to really work.

Now all this above sounds horrible for poor ol' Skully. Big salary, full benefits, hires his own staff to work one day a year, and a free luxury car. It's horrible I tell you. Oh yea, Skully also gets to go to any College Football game he chooses each weekend and travel for free.

Bama and Southern Cal are playing in Texas opening weekend, Skully is there.
Oregon and Florida playing in Eugene, Skully wants to check it out.

When bowls start getting closer he'll start going to games of prospective teams, but in the mean time he goes wherever for free.

Ladies and gentlemen, college football is a business. Only now some of the players are making more than just scholarships.


Again see above I could have some of this confused, it's been a few years since I read the book and could have some of my facts skewed or flat out wrong.

Edited to add:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nc...892410002/

Jeff Hundley, CEO of the Sugar Bowl, his annual salary is $869k

Death to the BCS is a great book. Even with the bowl landscape changed now a lot of it still applies. The story about I think it was either FAU or FIU going to the Motor City Bowl was crazy to me.

I read the book when we were still in FCS and it gave me some pause as to whether or not we could financially cope with the move to FBS, but luckily the SBC's financial model for bowl teams makes it a lot easier to handle.

(12-29-2022 11:54 AM)WARDAWG93 Wrote:  

(12-29-2022 10:37 AM)GreenBison Wrote:  

(12-29-2022 08:43 AM)gdunn Wrote:  I feel like they used La Tech as an example the season they were bowl eligible but opted out the bowl game. Most schools lose money when they go to a bowl game with the travel, housing of the players, and they are responsible for tickets that need to be sold.

So LaTech just denied their football team several extra weeks of valuable practice time?

Smart

Losing money had zero to do with what happened with latech. The powers that be in ruston were not going to allow them to play ULM in a bowl game. They were hoping to get a Liberty Bowl invite but that didn't happen. The coaches and the players were pissed. We could have used that to our advantage, but yet another golden opportunity ULM let slip through their fingers.

Yea I went back and found that I was wrong.

The best reason for a .500 team to make a bowl game is the extra practices and exposure. I'm sure it helps recruiting at some level.

(12-29-2022 10:35 AM)GreenBison Wrote:  

(12-29-2022 08:42 AM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  Perfect, let’s start with canceling the P5 tie in bowls and see how it works. I love all the “there are too many bowls” people, you are going to be the first ones crying when your team is sitting at home at 8-4. You do realize which bowls will be eliminated first right? You either weren’t here or forget when we only had the New Orleans bowl.

If we all refuse to play P5 during regular season, then the P5's will have more losses and less P5s will be bowl eligible. This will increase bowls for the G5 including bigger bowls with bigger payouts.

Lmao, okay..good luck with that. They make the rules bud, not sure what Rock you have been living under.

(12-29-2022 11:43 AM)Volkmar Wrote:  

(12-29-2022 07:49 AM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  Getting rid of bowl tie-ins would be great.

If they did make it to where you had to be 7-5 then this year we’d have had the following 6-6 teams not qualify:
Florida
Oklahoma
Baylor
Arkansas
Kansas
Missouri
Wisconsin
Memphis
Louisiana
UAB
Georgia Southern
Southern Miss
Utah State
Buffalo
UConn
Bowling Green
Miami OH
New Mexico State
App State (didn’t qualify anyway I know)

That’s a LOT of bowl games to get rid of - it won’t happen.

That's 18 teams, and would therefore be 9 bowl games. I didn't read the article, but remember that they're expanding the CFP to 12 teams next year, which, I believe, means that an additional six of the regular bowl games would be part of that CFP process. That would actually cut the number of bowl games lost out on down to just three.

May be a silly article to some, but I've felt for a long time now that there are just too many bowl games. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I watched the Buffalo/Georgia Southern game and just found it amusing how, at season's end, a team can get a trophy and have their coach carried off the field for beating a 6-6 opponent. That SCREAMS mediocrity to me, but I guess some are more into that kind of scene than others are.

That’s this year, number of bowl eligible teams changes year to year, you can’t plan a bowl game at the end of a season. Therefore they will just eliminate “smaller bowls” which will only affect us. A bunch of 7-5 P5 teams one year? Sorry UTSA I know you’re 10-2 but we are going to take 7-5 Texas tech instead. Take the blinders off and actually look at how this will play out. That’s why they want to “ease the tie ins” so they aren’t contractually obligated to G5’s. I also can’t understand how people who are not forced to watch bowl games really care if they are played? You could just not watch Buffalo/Georgia Southern. Just change the channel

(12-29-2022 04:11 PM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  

(12-29-2022 10:35 AM)GreenBison Wrote:  

(12-29-2022 08:42 AM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  Perfect, let’s start with canceling the P5 tie in bowls and see how it works. I love all the “there are too many bowls” people, you are going to be the first ones crying when your team is sitting at home at 8-4. You do realize which bowls will be eliminated first right? You either weren’t here or forget when we only had the New Orleans bowl.

If we all refuse to play P5 during regular season, then the P5's will have more losses and less P5s will be bowl eligible. This will increase bowls for the G5 including bigger bowls with bigger payouts.

Lmao, okay..good luck with that. They make the rules bud, not sure what Rock you have been living under.

Actually, all FBS makes the rules so.... if the P5 (which isn't a real designation) decide to ice the rest of us out then they would have to leave the NCAA to do so.

Not only would I not get rid of bowls, I would add more.

(12-29-2022 04:57 PM)GreenBison Wrote:  

(12-29-2022 04:11 PM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  

(12-29-2022 10:35 AM)GreenBison Wrote:  

(12-29-2022 08:42 AM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  Perfect, let’s start with canceling the P5 tie in bowls and see how it works. I love all the “there are too many bowls” people, you are going to be the first ones crying when your team is sitting at home at 8-4. You do realize which bowls will be eliminated first right? You either weren’t here or forget when we only had the New Orleans bowl.

If we all refuse to play P5 during regular season, then the P5's will have more losses and less P5s will be bowl eligible. This will increase bowls for the G5 including bigger bowls with bigger payouts.

Lmao, okay..good luck with that. They make the rules bud, not sure what Rock you have been living under.

Actually, all FBS makes the rules so.... if the P5 (which isn't a real designation) decide to ice the rest of us out then they would have to leave the NCAA to do so.

First, the ncaa doesn’t operate the bowl games…they grant bowls the right to use their teams. Secondly we would have made the first move by refusing to play them, they would love nothing more than for us to do that…no monopoly claim if we make the first move. Also, which bowls do you think will get dismantled? The 15 bowls that are less then
20 years old? Some not even 5-10 years old, Or the ones that have been around forever and are established? You know which conference all those new bowls belong to right? We had one bowl game tie in until 2010, ours will be the first to go

Lastly…”all of fbs makes the rules” lmao ?

If finishing with a losing season actually bothers people, then go back to an 11 game regular season schedule with playoffs coming and require 6-5 to go bowling, problem solved. Could even consider allowing a tune up game against fcs that doesn’t count towards your record of a school wants to buy a warm up game

(12-29-2022 11:56 AM)Volkmar Wrote:  

(12-29-2022 11:50 AM)WARDAWG93 Wrote:  

(12-29-2022 11:43 AM)Volkmar Wrote:  

(12-29-2022 07:49 AM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  Getting rid of bowl tie-ins would be great.

If they did make it to where you had to be 7-5 then this year we’d have had the following 6-6 teams not qualify:
Florida
Oklahoma
Baylor
Arkansas
Kansas
Missouri
Wisconsin
Memphis
Louisiana
UAB
Georgia Southern
Southern Miss
Utah State
Buffalo
UConn
Bowling Green
Miami OH
New Mexico State
App State (didn’t qualify anyway I know)

That’s a LOT of bowl games to get rid of - it won’t happen.

That's 18 teams, and would therefore be 9 bowl games. I didn't read the article, but remember that they're expanding the CFP to 12 teams next year, which, I believe, means that an additional six of the regular bowl games would be part of that CFP process. That would actually cut the number of bowl games lost out on down to just three.

May be a silly article to some, but I've felt for a long time now that there are just too many bowl games. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I watched the Buffalo/Georgia Southern game and just found it amusing how, at season's end, a team can get a trophy and have their coach carried off the field for beating a 6-6 opponent. That SCREAMS mediocrity to me, but I guess some are more into that kind of scene than others are.

My understanding is that the 1st 2 rounds will not be bowl games but will be hosted by the higher seeded team at home.

We were both partly right. I just looked it up. The first round of games will indeed be hosted by the higher seed. The quarterfinals and semifinals will be played in bowls. So the CFP process will actually only use four more of the remaining bowl games. That would cause us to miss out on 5 bowl games.

Gotcha! Thanks for looking that up.

(12-29-2022 01:34 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(12-29-2022 11:54 AM)WARDAWG93 Wrote:  

(12-29-2022 10:37 AM)GreenBison Wrote:  

(12-29-2022 08:43 AM)gdunn Wrote:  I feel like they used La Tech as an example the season they were bowl eligible but opted out the bowl game. Most schools lose money when they go to a bowl game with the travel, housing of the players, and they are responsible for tickets that need to be sold.

So LaTech just denied their football team several extra weeks of valuable practice time?

Smart

Losing money had zero to do with what happened with latech. The powers that be in ruston were not going to allow them to play ULM in a bowl game. They were hoping to get a Liberty Bowl invite but that didn't happen. The coaches and the players were pissed. We could have used that to our advantage, but yet another golden opportunity ULM let slip through their fingers.

Yea I went back and found that I was wrong.

My wife handles that for me.

(12-29-2022 04:18 PM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  

(12-29-2022 11:43 AM)Volkmar Wrote:  

(12-29-2022 07:49 AM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  Getting rid of bowl tie-ins would be great.

If they did make it to where you had to be 7-5 then this year we’d have had the following 6-6 teams not qualify:
Florida
Oklahoma
Baylor
Arkansas
Kansas
Missouri
Wisconsin
Memphis
Louisiana
UAB
Georgia Southern
Southern Miss
Utah State
Buffalo
UConn
Bowling Green
Miami OH
New Mexico State
App State (didn’t qualify anyway I know)

That’s a LOT of bowl games to get rid of - it won’t happen.

That's 18 teams, and would therefore be 9 bowl games. I didn't read the article, but remember that they're expanding the CFP to 12 teams next year, which, I believe, means that an additional six of the regular bowl games would be part of that CFP process. That would actually cut the number of bowl games lost out on down to just three.

May be a silly article to some, but I've felt for a long time now that there are just too many bowl games. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I watched the Buffalo/Georgia Southern game and just found it amusing how, at season's end, a team can get a trophy and have their coach carried off the field for beating a 6-6 opponent. That SCREAMS mediocrity to me, but I guess some are more into that kind of scene than others are.

That’s this year, number of bowl eligible teams changes year to year, you can’t plan a bowl game at the end of a season. Therefore they will just eliminate “smaller bowls” which will only affect us. A bunch of 7-5 P5 teams one year? Sorry UTSA I know you’re 10-2 but we are going to take 7-5 Texas tech instead. Take the blinders off and actually look at how this will play out. That’s why they want to “ease the tie ins” so they aren’t contractually obligated to G5’s. I also can’t understand how people who are not forced to watch bowl games really care if they are played? You could just not watch Buffalo/Georgia Southern. Just change the channel

There were 81 bowl-eligible teams this year, and only 48 ineligible. I think that speaks volumes. And yes, the number of bowl-eligible teams varies a bit from year to year, but the number of bowl spots have out-numbered the number of bowl-eligible teams in nine of the last ten years. We’ve reached the point where we’re actually celebrating mediocrity.

Not trying to step on anyone’s shoes either. If UTSA were 6-6, I’d be the first to say we don’t belong in a bowl. And I say that even though there were three times we finished with a winning record and didn’t even make a bowl. In 2012, we were 8-4 in the WAC, but because it was an FBS-transition year for us, we didn’t qualify. The next year we finished 7-5 in C-USA but didn’t qualify again because of the same rule. We also finished 6-5 in 2017 (one game was cancelled), but missed out again even though we were actually above .500.

Mind you, if there’s nothing else on, and there are a pair of 6-6 teams playing each other in a bowl game, I’ll probably still watch because I love football. But I’d be lying if I said I didn’t find the concept of one 6-6 team getting a trophy for beating another 6-6 team a bit silly.

Football should start in October so I don't sweat my balls off at The Vet.

(12-29-2022 07:25 PM)Trojanbybirth Wrote:  Football should start in October so I don't sweat my balls off at The Vet.

But at the same time I want it to start in July. LOL

(12-29-2022 07:07 PM)Volkmar Wrote:  

(12-29-2022 04:18 PM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  

(12-29-2022 11:43 AM)Volkmar Wrote:  

(12-29-2022 07:49 AM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  Getting rid of bowl tie-ins would be great.

If they did make it to where you had to be 7-5 then this year we’d have had the following 6-6 teams not qualify:
Florida
Oklahoma
Baylor
Arkansas
Kansas
Missouri
Wisconsin
Memphis
Louisiana
UAB
Georgia Southern
Southern Miss
Utah State
Buffalo
UConn
Bowling Green
Miami OH
New Mexico State
App State (didn’t qualify anyway I know)

That’s a LOT of bowl games to get rid of - it won’t happen.

That's 18 teams, and would therefore be 9 bowl games. I didn't read the article, but remember that they're expanding the CFP to 12 teams next year, which, I believe, means that an additional six of the regular bowl games would be part of that CFP process. That would actually cut the number of bowl games lost out on down to just three.

May be a silly article to some, but I've felt for a long time now that there are just too many bowl games. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I watched the Buffalo/Georgia Southern game and just found it amusing how, at season's end, a team can get a trophy and have their coach carried off the field for beating a 6-6 opponent. That SCREAMS mediocrity to me, but I guess some are more into that kind of scene than others are.

That’s this year, number of bowl eligible teams changes year to year, you can’t plan a bowl game at the end of a season. Therefore they will just eliminate “smaller bowls” which will only affect us. A bunch of 7-5 P5 teams one year? Sorry UTSA I know you’re 10-2 but we are going to take 7-5 Texas tech instead. Take the blinders off and actually look at how this will play out. That’s why they want to “ease the tie ins” so they aren’t contractually obligated to G5’s. I also can’t understand how people who are not forced to watch bowl games really care if they are played? You could just not watch Buffalo/Georgia Southern. Just change the channel

There were 81 bowl-eligible teams this year, and only 48 ineligible. I think that speaks volumes. And yes, the number of bowl-eligible teams varies a bit from year to year, but the number of bowl spots have out-numbered the number of bowl-eligible teams in nine of the last ten years. We’ve reached the point where we’re actually celebrating mediocrity.

Not trying to step on anyone’s shoes either. If UTSA were 6-6, I’d be the first to say we don’t belong in a bowl. And I say that even though there were three times we finished with a winning record and didn’t even make a bowl. In 2012, we were 8-4 in the WAC, but because it was an FBS-transition year for us, we didn’t qualify. The next year we finished 7-5 in C-USA but didn’t qualify again because of the same rule. We also finished 6-5 in 2017 (one game was cancelled), but missed out again even though we were actually above .500.

Mind you, if there’s nothing else on, and there are a pair of 6-6 teams playing each other in a bowl game, I’ll probably still watch because I love football. But I’d be lying if I said I didn’t find the concept of one 6-6 team getting a trophy for beating another 6-6 team a bit silly.

So what makes it mean something when a 7-5 P5 gets in and and 9-3 or 10-2 G5 gets left out? Will they become meaningful then? No it will be a popularity contest. Like I said, I’d be willing to entertain going back to 11 game schedule and requiring 6-5. I promise you, “getting rid of too many bowls” will not work out the way some of you think it will. I’m not sure how many times the P5 has to show us our place before people believe them. Especially when it come to things like this, that are decided in a room somewhere and not on a field. We don’t win the closed door battles, we just don’t.

(12-29-2022 08:37 PM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  

(12-29-2022 07:07 PM)Volkmar Wrote:  

(12-29-2022 04:18 PM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  

(12-29-2022 11:43 AM)Volkmar Wrote:  

(12-29-2022 07:49 AM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  Getting rid of bowl tie-ins would be great.

If they did make it to where you had to be 7-5 then this year we’d have had the following 6-6 teams not qualify:
Florida
Oklahoma
Baylor
Arkansas
Kansas
Missouri
Wisconsin
Memphis
Louisiana
UAB
Georgia Southern
Southern Miss
Utah State
Buffalo
UConn
Bowling Green
Miami OH
New Mexico State
App State (didn’t qualify anyway I know)

That’s a LOT of bowl games to get rid of - it won’t happen.

That's 18 teams, and would therefore be 9 bowl games. I didn't read the article, but remember that they're expanding the CFP to 12 teams next year, which, I believe, means that an additional six of the regular bowl games would be part of that CFP process. That would actually cut the number of bowl games lost out on down to just three.

May be a silly article to some, but I've felt for a long time now that there are just too many bowl games. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I watched the Buffalo/Georgia Southern game and just found it amusing how, at season's end, a team can get a trophy and have their coach carried off the field for beating a 6-6 opponent. That SCREAMS mediocrity to me, but I guess some are more into that kind of scene than others are.

That’s this year, number of bowl eligible teams changes year to year, you can’t plan a bowl game at the end of a season. Therefore they will just eliminate “smaller bowls” which will only affect us. A bunch of 7-5 P5 teams one year? Sorry UTSA I know you’re 10-2 but we are going to take 7-5 Texas tech instead. Take the blinders off and actually look at how this will play out. That’s why they want to “ease the tie ins” so they aren’t contractually obligated to G5’s. I also can’t understand how people who are not forced to watch bowl games really care if they are played? You could just not watch Buffalo/Georgia Southern. Just change the channel

There were 81 bowl-eligible teams this year, and only 48 ineligible. I think that speaks volumes. And yes, the number of bowl-eligible teams varies a bit from year to year, but the number of bowl spots have out-numbered the number of bowl-eligible teams in nine of the last ten years. We’ve reached the point where we’re actually celebrating mediocrity.

Not trying to step on anyone’s shoes either. If UTSA were 6-6, I’d be the first to say we don’t belong in a bowl. And I say that even though there were three times we finished with a winning record and didn’t even make a bowl. In 2012, we were 8-4 in the WAC, but because it was an FBS-transition year for us, we didn’t qualify. The next year we finished 7-5 in C-USA but didn’t qualify again because of the same rule. We also finished 6-5 in 2017 (one game was cancelled), but missed out again even though we were actually above .500.

Mind you, if there’s nothing else on, and there are a pair of 6-6 teams playing each other in a bowl game, I’ll probably still watch because I love football. But I’d be lying if I said I didn’t find the concept of one 6-6 team getting a trophy for beating another 6-6 team a bit silly.

So what makes it mean something when a 7-5 P5 gets in and and 9-3 or 10-2 G5 gets left out? Will they become meaningful then? No it will be a popularity contest. Like I said, I’d be willing to entertain going back to 11 game schedule and requiring 6-5. I promise you, “getting rid of too many bowls” will not work out the way some of you think it will. I’m not sure how many times the P5 has to show us our place before people believe them. Especially when it come to things like this, that are decided in a room somewhere and not on a field. We don’t win the closed door battles, we just don’t.

You keep bringing up how so many worthy G5’s will be left out of bowls, even 10-2 and 9-3 teams, if a 7-5 record were required for bowl eligibility, and the number of available bowls were cut. I'm not sure you actually looked at the numbers though, so let’s start with the 7-5 eligibility requirement.



If 7 wins were required, then in the last 5 full seasons (not counting COVID 2020), the number of bowl-eligible P5 teams would’ve been 36 per year on average, which would fill 18 bowls. The most in any of those 5 years was 38 btw, which would fill 19 bowls. In that same span, the number of bowl-eligible G5 teams was 29 per year. Let’s round it to an even 30, which fills 15 more bowls. For the sake of argument though, let's use the high end for the P5's and go with 38 teams (19 bowls for P5's) rather than the 36 average.

Nineteen bowls for P5's and another 15 for G5's means we’re looking at 34 of the 41 bowls filled on average. Now, if we take out two bowls for the CFP semis, that brings the available bowls down to 39. If we also take out another 4 bowls for the CFP quarterfinals, it brings the available bowls down to 35, which still leaves us with an extra bowl for a couple more teams if there are extra eligible teams.

The worst case scenario if 7 wins are required, and four more bowls are used for the CFP quarterfinals, is that we might see a 7-5 team miss a bowl now and then. 



Now, I get that some people probably aren’t cool with an occasional one or two 7-5 teams missing a bowl, but I prefer that to seeing a plethora of 6-6 programs (even an occasional 5-7 team) playing in these games every year. You are free to disagree, as that comes down to a matter of personal preference, and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with having different opinions. It simply won’t be as you describe it though, where 10-2 or 9-3 G5’s miss out, far from it actually.

(12-29-2022 10:34 PM)Volkmar Wrote:  

(12-29-2022 08:37 PM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  

(12-29-2022 07:07 PM)Volkmar Wrote:  

(12-29-2022 04:18 PM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  

(12-29-2022 11:43 AM)Volkmar Wrote:  That's 18 teams, and would therefore be 9 bowl games. I didn't read the article, but remember that they're expanding the CFP to 12 teams next year, which, I believe, means that an additional six of the regular bowl games would be part of that CFP process. That would actually cut the number of bowl games lost out on down to just three.

May be a silly article to some, but I've felt for a long time now that there are just too many bowl games. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I watched the Buffalo/Georgia Southern game and just found it amusing how, at season's end, a team can get a trophy and have their coach carried off the field for beating a 6-6 opponent. That SCREAMS mediocrity to me, but I guess some are more into that kind of scene than others are.

That’s this year, number of bowl eligible teams changes year to year, you can’t plan a bowl game at the end of a season. Therefore they will just eliminate “smaller bowls” which will only affect us. A bunch of 7-5 P5 teams one year? Sorry UTSA I know you’re 10-2 but we are going to take 7-5 Texas tech instead. Take the blinders off and actually look at how this will play out. That’s why they want to “ease the tie ins” so they aren’t contractually obligated to G5’s. I also can’t understand how people who are not forced to watch bowl games really care if they are played? You could just not watch Buffalo/Georgia Southern. Just change the channel

There were 81 bowl-eligible teams this year, and only 48 ineligible. I think that speaks volumes. And yes, the number of bowl-eligible teams varies a bit from year to year, but the number of bowl spots have out-numbered the number of bowl-eligible teams in nine of the last ten years. We’ve reached the point where we’re actually celebrating mediocrity.

Not trying to step on anyone’s shoes either. If UTSA were 6-6, I’d be the first to say we don’t belong in a bowl. And I say that even though there were three times we finished with a winning record and didn’t even make a bowl. In 2012, we were 8-4 in the WAC, but because it was an FBS-transition year for us, we didn’t qualify. The next year we finished 7-5 in C-USA but didn’t qualify again because of the same rule. We also finished 6-5 in 2017 (one game was cancelled), but missed out again even though we were actually above .500.

Mind you, if there’s nothing else on, and there are a pair of 6-6 teams playing each other in a bowl game, I’ll probably still watch because I love football. But I’d be lying if I said I didn’t find the concept of one 6-6 team getting a trophy for beating another 6-6 team a bit silly.

So what makes it mean something when a 7-5 P5 gets in and and 9-3 or 10-2 G5 gets left out? Will they become meaningful then? No it will be a popularity contest. Like I said, I’d be willing to entertain going back to 11 game schedule and requiring 6-5. I promise you, “getting rid of too many bowls” will not work out the way some of you think it will. I’m not sure how many times the P5 has to show us our place before people believe them. Especially when it come to things like this, that are decided in a room somewhere and not on a field. We don’t win the closed door battles, we just don’t.

You keep bringing up how so many worthy G5’s will be left out of bowls, even 10-2 and 9-3 teams, if a 7-5 record were required for bowl eligibility, and the number of available bowls were cut. I'm not sure you actually looked at the numbers though, so let’s start with the 7-5 eligibility requirement.



If 7 wins were required, then in the last 5 full seasons (not counting COVID 2020), the number of bowl-eligible P5 teams would’ve been 36 per year on average, which would fill 18 bowls. The most in any of those 5 years was 38 btw, which would fill 19 bowls. In that same span, the number of bowl-eligible G5 teams was 29 per year. Let’s round it to an even 30, which fills 15 more bowls. For the sake of argument though, let's use the high end for the P5's and go with 38 teams (19 bowls for P5's) rather than the 36 average.

Nineteen bowls for P5's and another 15 for G5's means we’re looking at 34 of the 41 bowls filled on average. Now, if we take out two bowls for the CFP semis, that brings the available bowls down to 39. If we also take out another 4 bowls for the CFP quarterfinals, it brings the available bowls down to 35, which still leaves us with an extra bowl for a couple more teams if there are extra eligible teams.

The worst case scenario if 7 wins are required, and four more bowls are used for the CFP quarterfinals, is that we might see a 7-5 team miss a bowl now and then. 



Now, I get that some people probably aren’t cool with an occasional one or two 7-5 teams missing a bowl, but I prefer that to seeing a plethora of 6-6 programs (even an occasional 5-7 team) playing in these games every year. You are free to disagree, as that comes down to a matter of personal preference, and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with having different opinions. It simply won’t be as you describe it though, where 10-2 or 9-3 G5’s miss out, far from it actually.

Imagine this, stay with me here…two 6-6 teams playing in a bowl game on tv, you take the remote and watch something else on TV…it’s literally like it never happened. As a fan of a school who got left out of bowls games several times with a winning record, not really looking to go back. Again you don’t “have to see” anything

(12-29-2022 11:00 PM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  

(12-29-2022 10:34 PM)Volkmar Wrote:  

(12-29-2022 08:37 PM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  

(12-29-2022 07:07 PM)Volkmar Wrote:  

(12-29-2022 04:18 PM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  That’s this year, number of bowl eligible teams changes year to year, you can’t plan a bowl game at the end of a season. Therefore they will just eliminate “smaller bowls” which will only affect us. A bunch of 7-5 P5 teams one year? Sorry UTSA I know you’re 10-2 but we are going to take 7-5 Texas tech instead. Take the blinders off and actually look at how this will play out. That’s why they want to “ease the tie ins” so they aren’t contractually obligated to G5’s. I also can’t understand how people who are not forced to watch bowl games really care if they are played? You could just not watch Buffalo/Georgia Southern. Just change the channel

There were 81 bowl-eligible teams this year, and only 48 ineligible. I think that speaks volumes. And yes, the number of bowl-eligible teams varies a bit from year to year, but the number of bowl spots have out-numbered the number of bowl-eligible teams in nine of the last ten years. We’ve reached the point where we’re actually celebrating mediocrity.

Not trying to step on anyone’s shoes either. If UTSA were 6-6, I’d be the first to say we don’t belong in a bowl. And I say that even though there were three times we finished with a winning record and didn’t even make a bowl. In 2012, we were 8-4 in the WAC, but because it was an FBS-transition year for us, we didn’t qualify. The next year we finished 7-5 in C-USA but didn’t qualify again because of the same rule. We also finished 6-5 in 2017 (one game was cancelled), but missed out again even though we were actually above .500.

Mind you, if there’s nothing else on, and there are a pair of 6-6 teams playing each other in a bowl game, I’ll probably still watch because I love football. But I’d be lying if I said I didn’t find the concept of one 6-6 team getting a trophy for beating another 6-6 team a bit silly.

So what makes it mean something when a 7-5 P5 gets in and and 9-3 or 10-2 G5 gets left out? Will they become meaningful then? No it will be a popularity contest. Like I said, I’d be willing to entertain going back to 11 game schedule and requiring 6-5. I promise you, “getting rid of too many bowls” will not work out the way some of you think it will. I’m not sure how many times the P5 has to show us our place before people believe them. Especially when it come to things like this, that are decided in a room somewhere and not on a field. We don’t win the closed door battles, we just don’t.

You keep bringing up how so many worthy G5’s will be left out of bowls, even 10-2 and 9-3 teams, if a 7-5 record were required for bowl eligibility, and the number of available bowls were cut. I'm not sure you actually looked at the numbers though, so let’s start with the 7-5 eligibility requirement.



If 7 wins were required, then in the last 5 full seasons (not counting COVID 2020), the number of bowl-eligible P5 teams would’ve been 36 per year on average, which would fill 18 bowls. The most in any of those 5 years was 38 btw, which would fill 19 bowls. In that same span, the number of bowl-eligible G5 teams was 29 per year. Let’s round it to an even 30, which fills 15 more bowls. For the sake of argument though, let's use the high end for the P5's and go with 38 teams (19 bowls for P5's) rather than the 36 average.

Nineteen bowls for P5's and another 15 for G5's means we’re looking at 34 of the 41 bowls filled on average. Now, if we take out two bowls for the CFP semis, that brings the available bowls down to 39. If we also take out another 4 bowls for the CFP quarterfinals, it brings the available bowls down to 35, which still leaves us with an extra bowl for a couple more teams if there are extra eligible teams.

The worst case scenario if 7 wins are required, and four more bowls are used for the CFP quarterfinals, is that we might see a 7-5 team miss a bowl now and then. 



Now, I get that some people probably aren’t cool with an occasional one or two 7-5 teams missing a bowl, but I prefer that to seeing a plethora of 6-6 programs (even an occasional 5-7 team) playing in these games every year. You are free to disagree, as that comes down to a matter of personal preference, and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with having different opinions. It simply won’t be as you describe it though, where 10-2 or 9-3 G5’s miss out, far from it actually.

Imagine this, stay with me here…two 6-6 teams playing in a bowl game on tv, you take the remote and watch something else on TV…it’s literally like it never happened. As a fan of a school who got left out of bowls games several times with a winning record, not really looking to go back. Again you don’t “have to see” anything

Really? I just proved everything you said would happen to be false by looking at actual data from the past 5 years, and that's your response? I know I don't "have to see" anything, but my personal preference is to see 7-5 teams in bowl games rather than 6-6 (or even 5-7) teams. Again, comes down to personal preference and you're free to feel differently about that. But let's just completely ignore the whole part about 10-2 and 9-3 G5's missing out being a figment of your imagination.

I think there is now a rule mandating the higher win teams always go to a bowl. But, maybe I am misremembering it due to the rule that all 6-6 must go before a 5-7 team goes. In any case, bowls earn so much money even poorly attended ones, and espn has said they will just create bowls if there are ever teams that qualify, but can't go, that I think if this 7-5 min. rule were in place there would be no teams left out.

That being said I don't see the issue. I enjoyed the heck out of our bowl game and glad we got a chance to go.

(12-29-2022 11:11 PM)Volkmar Wrote:  

(12-29-2022 11:00 PM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  

(12-29-2022 10:34 PM)Volkmar Wrote:  

(12-29-2022 08:37 PM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  

(12-29-2022 07:07 PM)Volkmar Wrote:  There were 81 bowl-eligible teams this year, and only 48 ineligible. I think that speaks volumes. And yes, the number of bowl-eligible teams varies a bit from year to year, but the number of bowl spots have out-numbered the number of bowl-eligible teams in nine of the last ten years. We’ve reached the point where we’re actually celebrating mediocrity.

Not trying to step on anyone’s shoes either. If UTSA were 6-6, I’d be the first to say we don’t belong in a bowl. And I say that even though there were three times we finished with a winning record and didn’t even make a bowl. In 2012, we were 8-4 in the WAC, but because it was an FBS-transition year for us, we didn’t qualify. The next year we finished 7-5 in C-USA but didn’t qualify again because of the same rule. We also finished 6-5 in 2017 (one game was cancelled), but missed out again even though we were actually above .500.

Mind you, if there’s nothing else on, and there are a pair of 6-6 teams playing each other in a bowl game, I’ll probably still watch because I love football. But I’d be lying if I said I didn’t find the concept of one 6-6 team getting a trophy for beating another 6-6 team a bit silly.

So what makes it mean something when a 7-5 P5 gets in and and 9-3 or 10-2 G5 gets left out? Will they become meaningful then? No it will be a popularity contest. Like I said, I’d be willing to entertain going back to 11 game schedule and requiring 6-5. I promise you, “getting rid of too many bowls” will not work out the way some of you think it will. I’m not sure how many times the P5 has to show us our place before people believe them. Especially when it come to things like this, that are decided in a room somewhere and not on a field. We don’t win the closed door battles, we just don’t.

You keep bringing up how so many worthy G5’s will be left out of bowls, even 10-2 and 9-3 teams, if a 7-5 record were required for bowl eligibility, and the number of available bowls were cut. I'm not sure you actually looked at the numbers though, so let’s start with the 7-5 eligibility requirement.



If 7 wins were required, then in the last 5 full seasons (not counting COVID 2020), the number of bowl-eligible P5 teams would’ve been 36 per year on average, which would fill 18 bowls. The most in any of those 5 years was 38 btw, which would fill 19 bowls. In that same span, the number of bowl-eligible G5 teams was 29 per year. Let’s round it to an even 30, which fills 15 more bowls. For the sake of argument though, let's use the high end for the P5's and go with 38 teams (19 bowls for P5's) rather than the 36 average.

Nineteen bowls for P5's and another 15 for G5's means we’re looking at 34 of the 41 bowls filled on average. Now, if we take out two bowls for the CFP semis, that brings the available bowls down to 39. If we also take out another 4 bowls for the CFP quarterfinals, it brings the available bowls down to 35, which still leaves us with an extra bowl for a couple more teams if there are extra eligible teams.

The worst case scenario if 7 wins are required, and four more bowls are used for the CFP quarterfinals, is that we might see a 7-5 team miss a bowl now and then. 



Now, I get that some people probably aren’t cool with an occasional one or two 7-5 teams missing a bowl, but I prefer that to seeing a plethora of 6-6 programs (even an occasional 5-7 team) playing in these games every year. You are free to disagree, as that comes down to a matter of personal preference, and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with having different opinions. It simply won’t be as you describe it though, where 10-2 or 9-3 G5’s miss out, far from it actually.

Imagine this, stay with me here…two 6-6 teams playing in a bowl game on tv, you take the remote and watch something else on TV…it’s literally like it never happened. As a fan of a school who got left out of bowls games several times with a winning record, not really looking to go back. Again you don’t “have to see” anything

Really? I just proved everything you said would happen to be false by looking at actual data from the past 5 years, and that's your response? I know I don't "have to see" anything, but my personal preference is to see 7-5 teams in bowl games rather than 6-6 (or even 5-7) teams. Again, comes down to personal preference and you're free to feel differently about that. But let's just completely ignore the whole part about 10-2 and 9-3 G5's missing out being a figment of your imagination.

We have been left out at 8-3, Troy was left out at 8-4, MtSU at 8-4 these are just the ones I can recall off the top
Of my head…in 2013 we had 6 bowl eligible teams and only 2 went bowling…but please preach to me about bowl games…in all 13 years of your existence as a football program,