Possible changes to Bowl eligibility in the future...

[WildCard]

There is "growing conversation" (Bowlsby's words in a tweet and loosely referenced here) that it may/should take a 7-5 record to become bowl eligible. ACC ADs have already voiced support for this measure. SEC ADs apparently want to keep it at 6. Not reported how other conferences "feel" about raising the bar to 7.

FWIW, if this provision was in effect this year bowl participants from P5 conferences would be:

ACC: 8 teams (9 this year)
BIG: 7 teams (10 this year including two 5-7 teams, NE and MN)
Big XII-II: 6 teams (7 this year)
PAC 12: 7 teams (10 this year)
SEC: 8 teams (10 this year)

Peace

 

[Johnfarrel]

They would have to drop a bunch of bowls if under that criteria.

 

[JasonS.]

Fine by me. In a world when most P5 schools schedule 3 cupcake wins (hopefully that's limited to only two sometime soon), I don't think requiring you win 4 out of your other 9 games to get bowl eligibility is too much to ask.

 

[Poetax]

As much as I love the easier standards so that it's more possible for us to make it to a bowl, I'm sure programs all over would have to make improvements to be able to reach the status of being bowl eligible at 7-5. Maybe in a way, the easier standards have hurt programs like us.

 

[Kats23]

They would have to drop a bunch of bowls if under that criteria.

That, or it could just be a P5 decision to make it 7-5. That would def hurt UK.

 

[Chuckinden]

I would actually be all for it, but too much money is at stake to drop bowls because not enough eligible teams. I actually think with the playoff system ramping up, it won't be too long until everybody gets to go to a bowl.

 

[Grumpyolddawg]

There is "growing conversation" (Bowlsby's words in a tweet and loosely referenced here) that it may/should take a 7-5 record to become bowl eligible. ACC ADs have already voiced support for this measure. SEC ADs apparently want to keep it at 6. Not reported how other conferences "feel" about raising the bar to 7.

FWIW, if this provision was in effect this year bowl participants from P5 conferences would be:

ACC: 8 teams (9 this year)
BIG: 7 teams (10 this year including two 5-7 teams, NE and MN)
Big XII-II: 6 teams (7 this year)
PAC 12: 7 teams (10 this year)
SEC: 8 teams (10 this year)

Peace

If this happens obviously it means the end of quite a few bowls, there wasn't enough 6-6 teams to fill them. I like watching college football as much as the next guy but there are too many bowl games now, its like pee wee ball where everyone gets a trophy

 

[oboroCATfan]

If this happens obviously it means the end of quite a few bowls, there wasn't enough 6-6 teams to fill them. I like watching college football as much as the next guy but there are too many bowl games now, its like pee wee ball where everyone gets a trophy

Everyone except UK football.

 

[Senore2006]

Looking at next season's schedule, it looks like UK has one only cupcake, Austin Peay. So, Miss and NMSU are bringing back some serious talent.

 

[Poetax]

Looking at next season's schedule, it looks like UK has one only cupcake, Austin Peay. So, Miss and NMSU are bringing back some serious talent.

Looking at next season's schedule, it looks like UK has one only cupcake, Austin Peay. So, Miss and NMSU are bringing back some serious talent.

Just curious if you were on your red board would you have any other comments about us like you usually do?

 

[WildcatofNati]

Looking at next season's schedule, it looks like UK has one only cupcake, Austin Peay. So, Miss and NMSU are bringing back some serious talent.

Please. NMSU is nearly as bad as Charlotte and worse than dozens of FCS teams.

 

[Tskware]

Cut bowls back to 30 or so total, minimum of 7 wins, take the top 2 or so teams from the non power 5 conferences, plus the top half or of the power 5, then the post season would still mean something

then you would have 60 or 65 teams make post season (which is still way too many) but make getting a bowl bid mean a little something.

 

[*Bleedingblue*]

Ya I see posts talking about coaches and teams of the past that did not make a bowl or have but 6 wins. Well their wasn't many bowl games back then and you didn't play as many games and have the cup cakes.
Everything about today's schedule is easier than it used to be.

 

[Ldgator]

Way too many bowls these days!

 

[willievic]

My question is, Why does it hurt to have all the bowls? If you don't want to attend, then don't. I and a lot of fans would have gone to a bowl if UK had been in one, even with a 5-7 record. We would have an opportunity to play another game, against a team from another conference, and a time to party and root for the CATS. I've always had a great time with the fans at the bowl games. Beats setting at home and doing nothing.

OLD STOLL FIELD GUY!

 

[trueblujr]

IMO, the playoffs should be a minimum of 8 teams. The P5 conference Champions get automatic bids, plus 3 at large based on their playoff rankings if they didn't win a P5 conference championship or are a non P5 with a high ranking.

I guess I don't mind the 7 win requirement, but I would like to see UK in another bowl game in my lifetime. It would definitely have to spell the end of several bowls.

 

[gobigblue812_rivals29381]

Looking at next season's schedule, it looks like UK has one only cupcake, Austin Peay. So, Miss and NMSU are bringing back some serious talent.

NMSU was 3-9 this year playing in the WAC, please.

They lost to FLA and Ole Miss by a combined 116-16.

 

[Deeeefense]

there's 40 bowls now so you need 80 teams to fill them. Lots of luck trying to find 80 teams with winning records out of 128.

 

[Deeeefense]

Except for the final 4 the bowl games are nothing more than exhibition games. Fans are intelligent enough to understand the significance of the major bowls - Fiasta, Sugar, Rose, Cap1 etc., and treat the minor bowls for what they are, just another football game involving teams that have had a decent season, something to pass the time during the holiday season. The more the better.

 

[FickusDuckus]

I think they are just ramping up for the next move in the playoffs. Its going to go to 8 sooner rather than later. Some wont believe it until it happens but those are the same folks who dint think (and didnt want) the 4 team playoff. The next thing is you trim the fat in regards to bowl games. Make it a supply and demand issue. More good teams (7 wins) than bowl to accomodate them. Lets remember the bowls are losing their luster with the emergence of a playoff. They need to add some sizzle back into making a bowl. Dropping 10-15 of them do just that. The last step is you allow anyone to schedule a "bowl" game in December. The rest of the rest are free to do as they please. The requirement is you have to go 6-6 to get the extra game. The only way you let a team in with a lesser record is if they have a perfect APR or something close.

What this does is create different tiers of post season. You play the also ran games the first two weeks of December, this is the NIT of college hoops. Solid but just not quite solid enough. You play the bowls in order of importance over the last two weeks of December. These are your 7-5 and up teams. This is a little more glamorous than the NIT level teams and you have some marquee names playing in some big bowl games. These teams are like your sweet 16 type second round type (losers) the only exception is they know their ceiling already. They arent in the hunt. Then of course you wrap up with the playoffs in January. This is the Elite 8 and Final 4 all rolled into one. Week 1 you play 2 games in one place and 2 games in another place. Big venues with fields that will hold up. A real moneymaker. Think about sitting in the Orange Dome watching Bama vs Mich St in game one and Clemson vs Oklahoma game 2. The next week two of those teams head to Indianapolis to play the two from the other bracket. The next week you have yoour Championship game and for the first time in my life I feel like its a justifiable title. Not a beauty pageant, not a two game hot streak like OSU went on. 3 Grind it out games against the 3 of the 7 best teams in the country.

To sum it up I think they are going to separate the post season into tiers, expand the tourney and try to add some prestige back into the bowls. To do that they have to cut some bowls. Those bowls may spring back up for the NIT teams but they gotta be cut to narrow that second tier down and make sure there are more good teams than good bowls. I think this is where were headed ever so slowly over the next decade.

 

[KentuckyWildcat4Life]

The way Kentucky played this season they don't deserve a bowl game.
As far as the topic I'm all in raising to bar to 7. Bowl games should be rewards for programs with winning records.... Not like it is now

 

[CatPowered]

These bowls mean $$$$ to the host cities, the participating teams/conferences, and the TV broadcast networks......There is a reason that there has been an explosion of bowl games.....

They are not going to reduce the number of bowls.......

 

[ZakkW]

Ideally there'd be a 24 team tournament like FCS has and get rid of all these useless, archaic, idiotic bowls. They only still exist to line the pockets of organizers, committees, coaches, ADs, etc.

Wouldn't it be better to play the season for a chance to get into a tournament instead of scheduling one's way to 6 or 7 wins and go to some dump and play a meaningless game in late December? IMO

 

[Chuckinden]

My question is, Why does it hurt to have all the bowls? If you don't want to attend, then don't. I and a lot of fans would have gone to a bowl if UK had been in one, even with a 5-7 record. We would have an opportunity to play another game, against a team from another conference, and a time to party and root for the CATS. I've always had a great time with the fans at the bowl games. Beats setting at home and doing nothing.

OLD STOLL FIELD GUY!

If that's the case, we could just have a big pot luck dinner at CWS and invite the team.

 

[Tskware]

If that's the case, we could just have a big pot luck dinner at CWS and invite the team.

Exactly, and that was sort of the NCAA director's point, all we are doing is just scheduling a 13th game, instead of rewarding teams who have a good year.

 

[medeski7]

I feel totally unqualified to have an opinion on this. I also feel most here are totally unqualified to have an opinion on this. So, I asked my friend who played for Oregon during the 90's when they played in bowl games, but not for a national championship.

His opinion is that a bowl game is fantastic for player morale, for the fanbase and for the school no matter how it's achieved. He felt it was especially important for the players who worked incredibly hard to lift an average or below average program to have that feeling of achievement. The players get to travel, to get a nice team meal, to have an event made for them, to have nice hotel accommodations and, most importantly, to feel appreciated. After I heard his opinion I felt like I had the blinders on.

Let these players have their bowl, their moment. Fans look at it like a single game that must be achieved at a very high level. In reality, we have very little understanding of how much goes into earning the right to play in a bowl, any bowl.

 

[willievic]

If that's the case, we could just have a big pot luck dinner at CWS and invite the team.

Chuck, you would probably gripe about the food. No one makes you go anywhere, so don't worry what the other fans do, that would go to a bowl game. If they would enjoy it, would that hurt you?

OLD STOLL FIELD GUY!

 

[Ineverplayedthegame]

Top 16 team playoff = 15 bowl games
Next 32 teams = 16 more bowl games
This gives 48 teams post season play and limits to 31 total bowl games. By giving the next 32 a participation bowl they get a reward plus the extra practice that can help them move into the top 16.

 

[kyhusker2]

My question is, Why does it hurt to have all the bowls? If you don't want to attend, then don't. I and a lot of fans would have gone to a bowl if UK had been in one, even with a 5-7 record. We would have an opportunity to play another game, against a team from another conference, and a time to party and root for the CATS. I've always had a great time with the fans at the bowl games. Beats setting at home and doing nothing.

OLD STOLL FIELD GUY!

Agreed. I don't understand the consternation about this issue. If you don't want to watch a particular bowl game, don't watch and don't attend. There will continue to be 40 bowl games as long as the bowls make money. If they don't make money, they will drop the bowl game.

I don't understand why anyone gives a crap about this issue.

 

[Chuckinden]

IMO, it's just more of the "participation trophy" analysis and weakens the premise for having them.

 

[UKWildcats#8]

I support this. They are going to have to can a bunch of bowl games to do it though. God knows when UK will ever make a bowl again if this passes though.

 

[UKGrad87]

Agree 100% willievic, deeefense et al. Kids get an extra game, extra practices, travel, and some excitement. Fans get something to look forward to, and cities get revenue. What is the negative to letting them all play? Fans are, indeed, intelligent enough to know these games are not really significant.

 

[WildCard]

Top 16 team playoff = 15 bowl games
Next 32 teams = 16 more bowl games
This gives 48 teams post season play and limits to 31 total bowl games. By giving the next 32 a participation bowl they get a reward plus the extra practice that can help them move into the top 16.

The "problem" with this model (and basically any model that mixes bowls and a 16 team playoff) is the "fact" that bowl games depend on large numbers of traveling fans. A 16 team playoff would mean 4 games for the 2 teams that reach the finals. Unlike basketball where each "post season weekend" involves 2 games I just do not think most fans will travel 4 weeks in a row. Will fans spend money traveling to the "first round" bowl or save their money hoping to get to the finals? By and large I just don't think a playoff involving more than 8 teams is logistically (i.e., economically) feasible.

IMO, the current bowl system has lost whatever "meaning" it once had and is wandering in the wilderness. What was once a "nice reward" for a few schools that enjoyed a great season has now become a bloated mess. Furthermore, I think the NCAA missed its' last chance to get a grip on big time college football when it let a playoff system evolve within the existing bowl system. I think they should have instituted a 8 team playoff with a credible selection process played at 7 independently contracted sites (maybe allow the 4 "first round" games to be played at several rotating bowl venues).

But the biggest change would be in the remaining "bowl process". Only teams with winning records (7-5 minimum) would be eligible in the remaining Darwinistic, paired down bowl system of maybe 15 games or so. Furthermore, conference tie ins should be dissolved and replaced with a credible selection process that ensures a 9 or 10 win team from a "group of five" type conference is not passed over for a "good" bowl in favor of a 7-5 P5 team. Perhaps some kind of "tier system" where more wins qualifies you for a "better" bowl?

Lots to be worked out there but I believe feasible. But, of course, it is a moot point because it ain't gonna happen. All JMO.

Peace