7-5 new requirement for a bowl?
- Thread starter cyman05
- Start date
Combining thoughts into one post....
With 70 slots, it often comes down to a combination of the final week's results and any sanctions to determine whether or not there will even be 70 eligible teams. It has led to discussion of a contingency for including the "best" 5-7 team. That's not practical.
2011 - 70 slots, 72 eligible (Western Kentucky [7-5] and Ball State [6-6])
2010 - 70 slots, 72 eligible (Temple [8-4] and Western Michigan [6-6])
2009 - 68 slots, 71 eligible (Notre Dame [6-6] declined; UL-Monroe [6-6] and UL-Lafayette [6-6])
2008 - 68 slots, 72 eligible (San Jose State, Arkansas State, UL-Lafayette, and Bowling Green [all 6-6])
***********
Speaking of 30-year bowl runs...
1982 - 16 bowls (97 FBS teams; 33.0% in postseason)
1992 - 18 bowls (107; 33.6%)
2002 - 28 bowls (117; 47.9%)
2012 - 35 bowls (124; 56.4%)
***********
This year, there will be 124 FBS teams, up from 120. Personally, I think 62 bowl slots (50% of all teams) is plenty. That's 31 bowl games, down from 35. Yes, it would likely hurt the mid-majors most, but a 6-6 AQ team is almost always going to be better and/or have played a tougher schedule than a 6-6 non-AQ team.
***********
To go to a 7-5 eligibility standard without changing the rules on which games are countable would have resulted in:
2011 - 58 eligible teams
2010 - 57
2009 - 60
2008 - 59
***********
Over the course of the "6-6 eligible" era (2006-present), there have been 58 teams with a 6-6 record appearing in bowl games. Their combined record in those games, fittingly, is 29-29. So, 6-6 teams do no better (and no worse) in bowl games than they do in the regular season.
I still haven't gotten a direct answer.
Does anyone think 8-4 UL-Lafayette, with their marquee win over Florida International and 0-2 record against BCS conference teams, was more deserving of a bowl bid last year than Iowa State?
Does anyone think 8-4 UL-Lafayette, with their marquee win over Florida International and 0-2 record against BCS conference teams, was more deserving of a bowl bid last year than Iowa State?
No, I don't think so. I think they could be better than us but looking at their resume it would be very hard for me to say yes.
Last edited:
No.
ISU's opp win pct was .5895 (13th).
ULL's opp win pct was .4615 (94th).
How about:
*Any team with a 6-6 or better record AND an opp win pct of .500 or greater is automatically a bowl team
*Any team that is 6-6 or better, but does not meet the opp win pct mark, can only be selected on an "at-large" basis after all automatic teams have been placed
I think this idea actually has some merit. Accounts somewhat for strength of schedule.
Here is what I would see happening if this or any other mass reduction in bowls would come to pass.
Only the top 2 or 3 teams from the BCS conferences would get into bowl games.
The rest of the teams would no longer be able to sell the opportunity to go to a bowl during recruiting. Talent, donations, and season ticket money would dry up for everyone but the elite teams.
This would kill parity in the BCS conferences. A 6-6 quality team like ISU would lose talent and money and rarely have a chance to improve to the 8 win level.
This would also be pretty much a complete death sentence to non-BCS teams. They would have little opportunity to play in bowls and would lose a ton of talent and money. I could see a lot of FBS teams dropping down to FCS in that scenario.
I think if they want to cut a few bowls then that would be fine, but they need to ensure that a 6-6 team from a BCS conference gets an automatic bid and leave the 7 win requirement for at large bids.
I totally disagree with 6-6 teams getting in from BCS conferences automatically. Congrats, you finished 8th out of 10 teams. 3-6 doesn't make you postseason worthy. Hey Vanderbilt, nice job beating 4 high school teams and getting waxed the majority of your SEC schedule. 2-6? Yeah, that's good enough for a bowl.
I think the first requirement should be .500 in your conference.
Last edited:
So if you had your way ISU would have the talent level of a MAC team at this point, because we would almost never get to a bowl game. That sounds great.
I understand you want to go back to the good old days when there were a few bowl games on new years day on your black and white TV.
College football today would die if only the elite teams made it to bowl games on a consistent basis.
Who cares where you finished in your conference? The best teams should be in bowls. In 2010, ISU was better than any team in the MAC (judged by having an easy day with MAC leader Northern Illinois) and stayed home, while Northern Ill, who we beat, went to a bowl.
SOS matters. Just like in basketball a team finishing second in a no-name conference stays home yet half the big 12 gets into the tourney because we're a better conference.
Also, why the hell do people care? If you dont want to watch the game, dont watch it.
Minus the part where not only elite teams make it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Iowa State have a great pair of chances earlier in this decade to start building towards something better than average?
It would in no way resemble college football today. The amount parity would plummet. Right now, with a decent number of teams per BCS conference going to bowls and splitting bowl money, there is a chance for lower tier teams to move their way up the ladder. If only the top 3 conference teams ever go to bowls, those top 3 teams are going to be pretty much the only ones that ever have a chance to go.
Also, factor in the extra practices that you get, which coaches say are one of the best things about being bowl eligible, and the recruiting bonus from exposure and kids knowing they can go to bowls at non-elite schools.
I'm sure the elite schools would think this was awesome. It would make the remaining bowls more important and draw in more sponsorships for the remaining bowls, but at the expense of all the "have nots" yet again.
I'm on the "who cares how many there are" train. NOBODY thinks that the kumquat bowl is reducing the prestige of the Orange or Rose bowl. But what it does is allow teams extra practices etc to improve so the hopefully get out of the cellar and maybe increase their performance the next year. No one is forcing you to watch crappy bowls. Watch or don't watch...nobody cares. If there is an issue with teams being forced to buy tickets...well address that issue. The number of bowls has nothing to do with the ticketing issues.
EDIT: Also doesn't this just up the TV exposure (read as $$$$) for the conferences? If each conference gets money from TV appearances...wouldn't say an average of one more bowl a conference be a good thing for each team? Not even factoring in exposure (limited of course in crappy bowls)
EDIT: Also doesn't this just up the TV exposure (read as $$$$) for the conferences? If each conference gets money from TV appearances...wouldn't say an average of one more bowl a conference be a good thing for each team? Not even factoring in exposure (limited of course in crappy bowls)
Last edited:
In 2011 Iowa State was national title worthy after beating Big 12 Conference Champion Oklahoma State.
And if it wasn't for oversaturation of bowl games, the best teams would go to bowls (assuming no conference ties to bowls). With over half of the teams qualifying for bowls now, it is just drawing the line of what level of suck can you sink to before you aren't bowl eligible.
Also, the "more practices" thing is a whole separate issue. That should be like basketball where you can practice up until the day of the championship game.
And after seeing Iowa State in Yankee Stadium, those bowl practices fixed exactly nothing.
If there were only 20 bowl games, ISU probably wouldn't have gone to any bowl games earlier this decade and the program would be much worse off now.
Basically you would have to be top 40 to even have a chance to go to a bowl and you know there would be high profile teams who had average years being picked over lower prestige teams in the top 40.
2011 "Automatic" bowl teams (46/70); "at-large" teams in italics:
ACC (3/8) - Clemson, Virginia Tech, North Carolina, Virginia (8-4), FSU (8-4), Ga Tech (8-4), NC State (7-5), Wake Forest (6-6)
Big 12 (8/8) - Oklahoma State, Oklahoma, Kansas State, Baylor, Iowa State, Texas, Texas A&M, Missouri
Big East (3/5) - West Virginia, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Rutgers (8-4), Cincinnati (9-3)
Big Ten (8/10) - Nebraska, Penn State, Michigan, Wisconsin, Michigan State, Iowa, Ohio State, Illinois, Northwestern (6-6), Purdue (6-6)
Pac-12 (6/7) - Oregon, Washington, UCLA*, Stanford, Arizona State, California, Utah (7-5)
SEC (9/9) - LSU, Auburn, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Arkansas, Miss. State, Florida, Vanderbilt
CUSA (4/5) - Tulsa, Marshall, Houston, SMU, So. Miss (11-2)
Indep (1/2) - Notre Dame, BYU (9-3)
MAC (1/5) - Toledo, Northern Illinois (10-3), Ohio (9-4), W. Michigan (7-5), Temple (8-4), Ball State (6-6)
MWC (3/5) - TCU, Boise State, Wyoming, San Diego State (8-4), Air Force (7-5)
Sun Belt (0/3) - UL-Lafayette (8-4), Arkansas State (10-2), Florida Int'l (8-4), W. Kentucky (7-5)
WAC (0/3) - Utah State (7-5), La. Tech (8-4), Nevada (7-5)
Last edited:
