Interesting comment on bowl eligibility, may require 7 wins in the future...

[RebelBruiser]

http://www.sbnation.com/n...es-2014-eligibility-rule

Just saw this linked via EDSBS. Supposedly they're considering pushing to where 6 wins is no longer bowl eligible. You have to win 7. I realize this would generally make life more difficult on our two teams, but overall I would be in favor of it. The only caveat I'd have is that you eliminate well more than 7 bowl games. Cut about 14 of them, so that you don't end up having to take every 7-5 CUSA/MAC/Sun Belt team just to fill allotments.

I'm not one to usually push for less football, but there are a ton of bowl games I completely ignored this year because they were between teams that just weren't good football teams. That includes a lot of 7/8 win teams from CUSA and the Sun Belt. That's why I'd like to see more than just 7 or so bowl games cut from the playlist.

Under the current format, it's possible the SEC could end up with 12 bowl eligible teams easily. That's just ridiculous. If you finish 12th out of 14 in the SEC, you don't deserve postseason play.

 

[RebelBruiser]

http://www.sbnation.com/n...es-2014-eligibility-rule

Just saw this linked via EDSBS. Supposedly they're considering pushing to where 6 wins is no longer bowl eligible. You have to win 7. I realize this would generally make life more difficult on our two teams, but overall I would be in favor of it. The only caveat I'd have is that you eliminate well more than 7 bowl games. Cut about 14 of them, so that you don't end up having to take every 7-5 CUSA/MAC/Sun Belt team just to fill allotments.

I'm not one to usually push for less football, but there are a ton of bowl games I completely ignored this year because they were between teams that just weren't good football teams. That includes a lot of 7/8 win teams from CUSA and the Sun Belt. That's why I'd like to see more than just 7 or so bowl games cut from the playlist.

Under the current format, it's possible the SEC could end up with 12 bowl eligible teams easily. That's just ridiculous. If you finish 12th out of 14 in the SEC, you don't deserve postseason play.

 

[Dental Dawg]

nm

 

[DerHntr]

Don't get me wrong, I am damn glad we were able to play in a bowl game this season. I justthinkthat teams without a winning record dilute the reward of going to a bowl game, regardless of their strength of schedule. Win more than you lose and you should be eligible.

 

[Incognegro]

I barely watched any of the bowl games simply because a lot of the match ups just looked rather pathetic to me. I also concur with bruiser that more than 7 bowl games should be gutted if it ensures that not just any 7 win team gets a bid. Surely, this doesn't mean that all of the matchups will be better, but it will do away with the saturation, and I'm all in favor for that.

 

[ckDOG]

I'd still keep it at 6 wins minimum, but I think it would be interesting to have a ranking (surely, the BCS could ranking could just be expanded to more teams?) place you in a bowl game rather than a preset conference tie-in. The big downside would be strange matchups geographically, but at least it would reward the best teams in the country, all things considered. If a 6 win teams performance against a strong schedule was better than an 7 win team's performance against cupcakes, they are more deserving of placing in a bowl. I haven't thought this through completely --- what else is a big minus to this?

Regardless, I doubt any of this happens. Unless these crap bowls are actually losing many (not sure, but assuming they aren't), they aren't going anywhere.

 

[00Dawg]

someone to tell the Music City, Gator,and Liberty Bowls that rather than 6-6 SEC teams, they'll sometimes be hosting 7 and 8 win Sun Belt-esque teams.
I do think we have too many bowls now, but I'm for keeping the minimum mark at 6.

 

[patdog]

overall I think that's a good rule. I've never been one to gripe about there being too many bowls, but when you start having bowl teams finish with a losing record (like Wake Forest), you've gone too far.

 

[Liverdawg]

nm

 

[Seinfeld]

The reason is that I'm afraid increasing the minimum wins mark will hurt the power conferences much more than anyone else. Let's face it, right now any bowl exec in the nation would take a 6-6 SEC or Big 10 school any day over an 8-4 San Jose State if they have the ability to do so. That new rule would prevent that from happening. Now, I'm not denying that a 6-6 SEC team probably doesn't deserve to go to a bowl game, but I'd argue that they more than likely do over an 7-5 or even 8-4 team from a pitiful conference.

 

[Hanmudog]

I would keep it at 6 because otherwise it is just further punishing teams that play tough schedules. Our finalSagarin rating was 31st which was well ahead of a ton of teams that won 8 to 10 games this past season. I think you would have to put some type of exception in there if it goes to a 7 win requirement. Something like enabling a team with a top 40 rating to be eligible with 6 wins.

 

[engie]

as a flat baseline to all teams. I agree that there are too many bowls. Instead, let's eliminate 10 bowls(20 teams) and take the top 50 overall teams in the BCS standings, regardless of win total. The reason that going to 7 wins as the base is a bad idea, is that it will farther skew the bowls toward the mid-level non-bcs teams, while eliminating bowls for mid-level major conference teams. Just using this past season for C-USA and the SEC, you'd have SMU, Tulsa, and Marshall bowling, while leaving Mississippi State, Florida, and Vanderbilt at home. No way a 7-5 non-bcs team deserves to be bowling over a 6-6 bcs team. In doing this, you cut down on number of bowls, but also cut down on bowl interest by an equal or greater margin(note your comment about "not caring" on games), and actually still end up with a bowl schedule that is just as diluted as before...

It will also farther dilute the OOC regular season. The mid-level teams from the major conferences will be unwilling to play ANY OOC games that they could potentially lose. Won't much effect us, since we're already scheduled for maximum OOC success, but a 7-win floor will cost OM dearly due to their scheduling through 2019. Going to 7-win floor will probably cost you at least 2 bowls over the next 7 years as a 6-win team(almost assured to be ranked top 50)...

 

[engie]

eliminates Pittsburg, Florida, Ohio St, Illinois, Ucla, Vanderbilt, Mississippi State, Wake Forest, Iowa St, Purdue, Arizona St, Marshall...
It only adds Western Ky.
You get rid of one non-bcs team, but you add one non-bcs team to offset this. You lose 11 BCS teams...

 

[ckDOG]

nm

 

[RebelBruiser]

I understand that, and I've heard Memphis talk hosts suggest that you should have to be .500 in your conference at least to be bowl eligible. I think that would be an absurd requirement for similar reasons, because a 3-5 SEC team is usually way better than a 4-4 CUSA team.

I guess ultimately, what I want to see is about 15 bowl games cut period. We've got over half of college football teams playing in bowl games now. Cut it back to around 20 bowl games, and then it's more of a reward.

I think back to our 2001 season when we went 7-4 and stayed at home and your 1997 season when you went 7-4 and stayed at home. Back then you really had to earn your way to a bowl. You couldn't just schedule cream puffs, beat a few bad teams in conference and get rewarded for it.

Again, I realize what I'm saying makes it much harder on programs like our two that have uphill battles in this league as it is, but I think the accomplishment of reaching a bowl is really watered down. The fact that two 6-6 teams played in the Gator Bowl this year is sad. The tie ins have contributed to some of the watering down of bowl season too, but overall, the 12 game schedule and the number of bowls has really lessened the reward of a bowl. Basically, a bowl bid means you didn't suck. That's not a reward.

All that said, I really don't see too many scenarios where bowl games will be cut. There are people making too much money off even the crappy bowls, and the conferences like the payouts.

 

[Johnson85]

It's been said, but all you're going to do is cut the marginal bowl games that at least have some fan interest b/c the AQ teams are playing. If you wanted to cut down on it, I'd rather see something tied to cutting bowls based on the schools attending losing money. Maybe set up a sliding scale of minimum payout for expense required (i.e., guaranteed hotel room and ticket minimums). There's really no reason to have bowl games where the teams don't at least break even. It'd also force a change in the BCS, either preventing the BCS teams from sticking it to teams with guaranteed hotel and ticket minimums.

 

[maroonmania]

we may have been 6-6 last year but we were LOADS better than a multitiude of 7 and 8 win teams out there.

 

[ckDOG]

However, after a couple of bowls, I find myself enjoying them - even if it's after a mediocre season like this past season. I still enjoyed watching the Music City Bowl and I know the extra practice made our team better heading into next season. I don't find anything disgraceful about there being crappy bowls. Some people watch them. Some people don't. Plus, I don't see many people bragging about their PapaJohns.com bowl appearance, or Music City bowl appearance for that matter, as if it were some incredible accomplishment. I think most educated college football fans are cognizant of what is and isn't a quality bowl and take them for what they are - bonus entertainment.

Principally, I'm with you. In reality, I don't really care. Perhaps your stance is currently being swayed by the principle of "misery loves company"?

 

[patdog]

If you don't want to see it, just don't watch it. I actually enjoy watching a lot of the smaller bowl games because I get a chance to see teams I never see otherwise. The only thing I'm not too comfortable with is seeing a bowl team finish 6-7. But I could see maybe a requirement that for a 6-6 team to be eligible, it has to also finish in the top 50 or so in some BCS-type poll.

 

[RebelBruiser]

After thinking about it, here is my idea...

1) Go to an 8 or 16 team playoff.
2) Cut the regular season back to 11 games.
3) Allow 6 wins to be the minimum for bowl eligibility.
4) Change the rule back to where you can only count a 1AA win every 4 years toward your bowl eligibility.

I think that would take care of a lot of it and make it still a reward to get a bowl bid.

I fully understand none of that will ever happen. The last thing they're going to do is remove games from the regular season. I think it would be good because it would force you to count more conference wins toward bowl eligibility, AND it would open up an extra week for teams to take off since you're adding games to the end of the season for the teams that advance furthest in the playoff.

Either way, I think we're going to see a major overhaul of college football in the next 20 years or so. Where it lands is anyone's guess.

I have this feeling that ultimately the major BCS leagues are going to be separated from the non-BCS leagues officially. There will be a playoff that may eventually expand to 8 teams. Bowl games will still exist in some capacity. It's going to be interesting to watch though. I could see it going any number of ways. Change is really the only certainty.

 

[DerHntr]

the games are played in. I don't think we will ever see it go back.

 

[patdog]

1) Go to an 8 or 16 team playoff

16 is too many. 8 will never happen (at least not in the next 20 years or so). 4 may happen in the next few years.

Cut the regular season back to 11 games

This has even less chance than a 16-team playoff. It will never, ever, ever happen. Any why should we cut back?

Change the rule back to where you can only count a 1AA win every 4 years toward your bowl eligibility.

Bad idea. Dogs and Bears both need that easy win (almost) every year.

 

[RebelBruiser]

Like I said, my proposal is full of ideas that would never happen. I know that, though I disagree about the 8 team playoff. I think there is potential for that to happen in my life, though maybe not the next 20 years. We'll be at some version of a 4 team or plus one in the next few years. That's just a step away from expanding to 8. I think the money will eventually drive it.

And yes, I realize that for our programs in the long run, the best thing is for as many 1AA wins to be able to count and for us to be able to do like you did this past year, win 4 games against mid-major opponents, and scrape out a couple wins against the weaker SEC teams on our schedule to get bowl eligible.

Just giving my proposal to make bowl bids mean a little more than they do now. As I said, right now getting a bowl is a reward for not sucking. The only teams from the SEC that didn't get bowl bids this past year were UT, UK, and us. What did those 3 teams have in common? They all sucked. There wasn't even a mediocre SEC team left watching football in December.

If you were to do something comparable with basketball, you'd have an 8 team national title tournament, and you'd have 150 other teams all get to play single game exhibitions or bowl games. Come to think of it, Andy Kennedy would love that. That would be a crappy postseason though, which is what we have in college football, the "best regular season" and by far the worst postseason in all of sports.