Bowl Eligibility

[cl_1_2008]

I just saw on twitter that yahoo is reporting that there is a very good chance they change bowl eligibility to 7 wins in 2014. I like it. WKU would have gone bowling this year if that rule was in place.

[VideoEagle]

I like that too, but a lot of the AQ conferences are going to cry about it. They have contracts to supply teams to bowls and simple math says they will need to use 6-6 teams to do so.

[greenjoe]

I like it too. As long as North Texas has 7 wins.

GO MEAN GREEN

[cl_1_2008]

There will still be bowl teams that go 6-6, but this will just guarantee every 7-win team a bowl bid.

[VideoEagle]

There will still be bowl teams that go 6-6, but this will just guarantee every 7-win team a bowl bid.

Oh, I like that even better!

[cl_1_2008]

Yeah, they won't decrease the amount of bowls, because they make too much money. But every 7-win team will have to be in a bowl before a 6-win team can be selected.

[greenjoe]

This would be a good reason for a school to become a Division 1 Independent and schedule at least 7 "sure wins."

Of the 120 (+or-) teams in 1-A, how many won 7 games in regular season ?

Edited January 25, 2012 by greenjoe

[Green Otaku]

Great idea. I feel like many teams settle for being 6-6 . 7 wins should be mandatory, it will make the bowl season better.

[shaft]

Anybody have a link for this?

Haven't seen this on any major sports outlets or NCAA reports. Can't imagine the school presidents would agree to less bowl opportunities for their schools.

[Arkstfan]

Personally I thought the old 7 wins, 6 as an exception wasn't awful but just dropping it to 6-6 was bad.

If I were emperor of college sports bowl eligibility would be based on 8 wins with 7 win teams only available to fill in once all the 8's were placed and no bowl for 6-6.

[emmitt01]

Personally I thought the old 7 wins, 6 as an exception wasn't awful but just dropping it to 6-6 was bad.

If I were emperor of college sports bowl eligibility would be based on 8 wins with 7 win teams only available to fill in once all the 8's were placed and no bowl for 6-6.

Says the man whose team is on the uptick and might just get to 8 wins.

[Mean Green 93-98]

Yeah, they won't decrease the amount of bowls, because they make too much money. But every 7-win team will have to be in a bowl before a 6-win team can be selected.

I do not believe that is correct.

The seven-win requirement would also mean a handful of bowls likely would be discontinued because there would not be enough eligible teams to fill all of the current 70 berths.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/16996317/growing-belief-seven-wins-should-be-magic-number-for-bowl-eligibility

[gksmith]

If the arguement against 7 wins to be bowl eligible will not fill out all 35 bowl games...then there are too many bowl games.

So the Cotten Bowl would not get left out, a new bowl game was added to play IN the Cotten Bowl (Ticket City?).

How many of these bowl games with one or both teams at 6-6 sell out? Almost none?

And this may be unpopular but if UNT were to go 6-6 I would not want to go to a bowl game. That is leaving a lot of money on the table. I just think teams in the bowl games need to go better then .500 record.

[Arkstfan]

Says the man whose team is on the uptick and might just get to 8 wins.

I had posted that before back when it took us two years to get 8 wins.

In my lifetime we've gone from 7 win teams staying home being a regular thing on 10 and 11 game schedules (winning percentages of .700 and .636) to people getting mad about being mad about staying home at 6-6 (.500).

I've seen us go from 11 bowls for around 180 schools to 35 for 120, from 12.2% making a bowl to 58.3% making a bowl.

I don't want to see us go back to the 1970's but something closer to the 30% - 35% of the 80's would probably be a good thing.

[GreenFlag]

I don't think there should be a restriction on the number of bowl games - let the free market sort it out. This year it appears the number of bowls is a bit bloated and I suspect we will lose a few in the next couple of years. If a bowl can be certified then so be it. No one is holding a gun to anyones head to watch a couple of 6-6 teams go at it. If the institutions want to play in the game and the alumni want to travel to watch it or view it on TV then great - let'em do it. It's no suprise to me that some BCS officials have a problem with it because it is hurting their pocketbook. I don't care about that - I want to watch the games I want to watch. More than any other bowl, I watch the New Orleans Bowl every year.

This is all about consolidating power and money to the few.

[Arkstfan]

I don't think there should be a restriction on the number of bowl games - let the free market sort it out. This year it appears the number of bowls is a bit bloated and I suspect we will lose a few in the next couple of years. If a bowl can be certified then so be it. No one is holding a gun to anyones head to watch a couple of 6-6 teams go at it. If the institutions want to play in the game and the alumni want to travel to watch it or view it on TV then great - let'em do it. It's no suprise to me that some BCS officials have a problem with it because it is hurting their pocketbook. I don't care about that - I want to watch the games I want to watch. More than any other bowl, I watch the New Orleans Bowl every year.

This is all about consolidating power and money to the few.

Free market cannot solve every issue.

Coaches want an over-abundance of bowl games because they are good for coaches. Athletic directors want an over-abundance of bowl games because they can go tell booster "we were successful" even if the program was in the bottom half of the country. Conferences want an over-supply as well because they want to tout their success (even success by teams with a losing record against peers).

Without some sort of governor on the engine every school would go to a bowl game without regard to record.

At first the NCAA was highly selective and you had to demonstrate a clear need. The Fiesta, Holiday, Indpendence, Las Vegas, Potato, and Motor Pizza only exist because a conference champion was guaranteed a home (the clear need).

The NCAA got sick of the hassle and said pay $750,000 per team and you can have a bowl. So the bowls told conferences we will pay you $375,000 to come play in our game in player awards and real cash and $375,000 in tickets.

So the NCAA said OK you have to win more than half of your games against other FBS schools. The schools didn't like that so an exception of counting an FCS once every four years was added. Then it became every year. Winning half your games became OK if it were to honor a contract. Then it became the standard.

With 123 schools slated to play FBS by 2013, the market would go to 61 bowls absent control.

Remember the Kickoff Classic? It was an extra game at the start of the season. Then they added the Pigskin Classic, then the Eddie Robinson Classic, followed by the Black Coaches Association Classic, then the Hispanic College Fund Classic, then the Jim Thorpe Classic and John Thompson Classic and finally the Black Coaches Association Bowl. In 20 years went from one to eight. We went from a bowl type game at a neutral site for the Kickoff Classic and Pigskin Classic to it just being an extra home game for 7 of the games with only the Kickoff Classic remaining neutral site.

[GreenFlag]

Free market cannot solve every issue.

Coaches want an over-abundance of bowl games because they are good for coaches. Athletic directors want an over-abundance of bowl games because they can go tell booster "we were successful" even if the program was in the bottom half of the country. Conferences want an over-supply as well because they want to tout their success (even success by teams with a losing record against peers).

Without some sort of governor on the engine every school would go to a bowl game without regard to record.

At first the NCAA was highly selective and you had to demonstrate a clear need. The Fiesta, Holiday, Indpendence, Las Vegas, Potato, and Motor Pizza only exist because a conference champion was guaranteed a home (the clear need).

The NCAA got sick of the hassle and said pay $750,000 per team and you can have a bowl. So the bowls told conferences we will pay you $375,000 to come play in our game in player awards and real cash and $375,000 in tickets.

So the NCAA said OK you have to win more than half of your games against other FBS schools. The schools didn't like that so an exception of counting an FCS once every four years was added. Then it became every year. Winning half your games became OK if it were to honor a contract. Then it became the standard.

With 123 schools slated to play FBS by 2013, the market would go to 61 bowls absent control.

Remember the Kickoff Classic? It was an extra game at the start of the season. Then they added the Pigskin Classic, then the Eddie Robinson Classic, followed by the Black Coaches Association Classic, then the Hispanic College Fund Classic, then the Jim Thorpe Classic and John Thompson Classic and finally the Black Coaches Association Bowl. In 20 years went from one to eight. We went from a bowl type game at a neutral site for the Kickoff Classic and Pigskin Classic to it just being an extra home game for 7 of the games with only the Kickoff Classic remaining neutral site.

I agree the free market cannot solve every issue. I just don't see the need for a governor here. Every team is NOT going to a bowl. Are you saying without a governor we would truly have a toilet bowl? Last year that would have pitted FAU vs. Akron. We both know that "bowl" is never going to happen. Even if it did happen who the hell cares. I see the issue as more of an attack against Non AQ's. The deck is already stacked against us with less home games etc. The end result is they (AQ's) get more and we (Non AQ's) get less. I want to watch the New Orleans Bowl and the GoDaddy.com Bowl. I enjoy them, I watch them, I care about them.

Limiting games for the sake of players health is a different issue ala NFL.

Edited January 27, 2012 by GreenFlag

[GrayEagle]

I don't think there should be a restriction on the number of bowl games - let the free market sort it out. This year it appears the number of bowls is a bit bloated and I suspect we will lose a few in the next couple of years. If a bowl can be certified then so be it. No one is holding a gun to anyones head to watch a couple of 6-6 teams go at it. If the institutions want to play in the game and the alumni want to travel to watch it or view it on TV then great - let'em do it. It's no suprise to me that some BCS officials have a problem with it because it is hurting their pocketbook. I don't care about that - I want to watch the games I want to watch. More than any other bowl, I watch the New Orleans Bowl every year.

This is all about consolidating power and money to the few.

Normally, I'm with you on letting the free market decide but not when the deck is stacked. The BCS is the one that benefits from allowing 6-6 teams to go to bowls. Of the 13 teams with 6-6 records that went to bowls this past year, 11 were from the BCS, several playing teams also with .500 records. And, as you know, cinderella Western Kentucky sat at home with a 7-win season.

I realize that some 7-5 teams cannot travel as many fans as BCS 6-6 teams but they should be given a chance to build their fan base. Give them less of the payout to compensate for the tickets that they couldn't sell but reward their players and their school for an exemplary season.

I would hope that the NCAA sees fit to raise the standard to 7-5 with the only exception given to a conference champion.

[GreenFlag]

Normally, I'm with you on letting the free market decide but not when the deck is stacked. The BCS is the one that benefits from allowing 6-6 teams to go to bowls. Of the 13 teams with 6-6 records that went to bowls this past year, 11 were from the BCS, several playing teams also with .500 records. And, as you know, cinderella Western Kentucky sat at home with a 7-win season.

I realize that some 7-5 teams cannot travel as many fans as BCS 6-6 teams but they should be given a chance to build their fan base. Give them less of the payout to compensate for the tickets that they couldn't sell but reward their players and their school for an exemplary season.

I would hope that the NCAA sees fit to raise the standard to 7-5 with the only exception given to a conference champion.

Good points but... AQ teams with a 7-5 record will NEVER get left out. Less bowls = greater chance of a WKU scenario happening in the future. The system isn't perfect and we agree WKU got the shaft this year but let's not encourage an environment that 10 such teams get the shaft. Those shafted teams WONT come from the AQ ranks, they will come from the Non-AQ ranks. Also, the current system benefits both AQ's and Non-AQ's. We are in the BCS.

[forevereagle]

I realize that some 7-5 teams cannot travel as many fans as BCS 6-6 teams but they should be given a chance to build their fan base. Give them less of the payout to compensate for the tickets that they couldn't sell but reward their players and their school for an exemplary season.

I am not sure that I would call 7-5 an exemplary season, but that's fine. I do agree with you that teams with 7 wins should be rewarded for having a good season over a team with 6 wins. If teams from AQ conferences want to complain because of level of competition, then move to a conference where you can win more. They just need to take the good with the bad.

[KoldBeer]

If 5 to 12 bowl games go away, that's probably bad for the Sun Belt. I think you would only see 1 to 2 Sun Belt teams going to a bowl every year. I don't really think we'll get rid of games, but the schools do lose money on these games (bowls may payout $750,000 but they require schools to buy tickets).

Bowls have never been about rewarding the best teams. In the old days, you would sometimes see the more deserving team from the same conference get passed over for the bigger, more popular school. Bowl are only interested in TV audience and attendance (which is fine since they are in the business to make money - and I know they are non-profit but more money equals bigger salary). These are just exhibition games set up to make money.

If the schools and conferences were smart they would organize their own post season games and cut out middlemen (bowls). If I was running Big 12, I would call up SEC and organize a series of games b/t the two conferences. I'd play the games close to the schools so travel would be minimal. The conferences would keep all the TV money, etc. Once you get past top 5 or 6 bowls, fans don't want to travel half way across the country to watch a football game. The Sun Belt could do something similar with the MAC or CUSA.

[shaft]

With 123 schools slated to play FBS by 2013,

You left out UMass.

And there is no such things as too many bowls. If you don't like a bowl don't watch it. The existence of "bad" bowls doesn't take away from "good" bowls. Someone else's game as no effect on your game.

Obviously a reasonable standard is for school to have a winning records to play in the post-season.

Instead of boasting bowl eligibility to 7 wins and more reasonable course of action would be to eliminate FBS vs fcs games.