7-5 new requirement for a bowl?

[PabloDiablo]

But seriously how does the Beef O'Brady's bowl affect the Rose Bowl? Nothing is diluted by lower tier bowls.

I feel like all this would do is create more space between the football have's and football have not's. Those teams that really need the exposure, in their case the ISU's and Vanderbilt's of the world, would continue to get less money and exposure and the rich (Alabama, Mich, ND) would continue to get richer.

Competitively teams can't match up with the big dogs anymore and fall off the map. Donations dry up and universities like ISU die off and all the sudden no one is there to educate people about agriculture, engineering, etc... No one regulates the beef industry, everyone gets mad cow disease and, boom, we are at zero hour of the Zombie apocalypse.

Don't be at zero hour of the Zombie apocalypse. (said in Directv commercial voice)

It's bad for all parties.

[cyman05]

Yeah, I think it's odd that in the article they call 6-6 teams lousy. Every team ISU lost to last year going into the Rutgers game was top 25 except their loss at Missouri (who was top 25 at one point). And giving Okla St their only loss in addition can't mean ISU was a lousy team last year (although many still said so).

I think it would've been a shame if last years team didn't get the bowl experience because they play murder's row in the Big 12 plus 2 BCS opponents.

It is a shame when a Big10 or SEC school plays 4 non-conference nobodys and then beats some combination of Minnesota/Indiana/Purdue or Vandy/Ole Miss/Kentucky to get to 6-6.

[RotatingColumn]

I'm in favor of more football, not less.

[cyhiphopp]

Upping the requirement to 7 wins would lead to a LOT more teams scheduling the biggest patsies available for non-con. We would be hard pressed to play anyone with a pulse other than Iowa non-con.

I still don't understand anyones reasoning as to why there are too many bowls. It seems like most who think that are purists who think only the bowls that have been around for 30+ years are real bowls.

Let supply and demand dictate how many bowls there are. If the Beef O Brady bowl ceases to be financially stable, it can go bye bye. Two more teams and fanbases going to a lesser bowl does nothing to hurt the blue bloods in teh BCS bowls.

[Goothrey]

It would suck for us, but I think it would be better for college football in general.

Should we really be rewarding having as many wins as losses? No.

[longtimeclone]

"It has put so much strain on the entire system," one athletic director said. "Teams, conferences, sponsors all feel it. Typically these bowls have been hanging by a thread, and somebody's having to bear the cost of keeping them going."

I would like to know who this is. Businesses are not charities and if these bowls can't make money 2 out of 3 years then I doubt they would keep getting sponsors.

I am not a fan of the requirement because I am a fan of having a bunch of bowl games to watch at the end of the year. If I don't want to watch one I don't. Now they just need to condense because I would rather watch a bunch in one day than only one a night.

[cymaniac17]

like another poster said they need to make it like College bball and have a formula and base it off more than a record. Making it 7 wins just makes every team add 1 more fcs or awful team to their schedule to get that 7th win. While basing it on the overall body of work and SOS would make teams add quality opponents to up their chances. last year, even tho ISU was JUST 6-6 we were ranked anywhere from 29-35 in computer rankings, while a 7-5 big ten team like Iowa was ranked in the 40's or 50's.... who was the better team? Pretty obvious.

[Cycl1]

Maybe we can just change the name of the bowls to something less lame. I mean really, how fired up does someone get about watching the San Diego Credit Union bowl, or the PapaJohns.com bowl?

[cyhiphopp]

It would suck for us, but I think it would be better for college football in general.

Should we really be rewarding having as many wins as losses? No.

Why would it be better for college football? How do more bowls hurt college football?

Why shouldn't we reward teams that play a really tough schedule and still get to 6-6?



It doesn't make sense to me to reward an 8-4 Sunbelt team over a 6-6 Big12 team that beat the number 2 team in the nation.
Anyone who isn't on the short bus would know that a Sunbelt team has played and beat next to no one and that 6-6 Big12 team has had multiple tough games and is the better team and more deserving of recognition?

[cymaniac17]

It would suck for us, but I think it would be better for college football in general. Should we really be rewarding having as many wins as losses? No.

Why would it be better for college football? How do more bowls hurt college football? Why shouldn't we reward teams that play a really tough schedule and still get to 6-6? It doesn't make sense to me to reward an 8-4 Sunbelt team over a 6-6 Big12 team that beat the number 2 team in the nation.Anyone who isn't on the short bus would know that a Sunbelt team has played and beat next to no one and that 6-6 Big12 team has had multiple tough games and is the better team and more deserving of recognition?

This

[Go2Guy]

I'm not convinced going to a bowl game with a 6-6 record is an accomplishment...

Also, waiting for the "Need to drop Iowa game" posts....

[rebecacy]

im down for a 7-5 requirement

6 win teams do not deserve a bowl......... count me as one in full support of the 7-5 requirement.

[cymaniac17]

[QUOTE=Go2Guy;2827516]I'm not convinced going to a bowl game with a 6-6 record is an accomplishment[quote]

If that 6th win is against the #2 team in the nation then that seems like a big accomplishment to me.

[IcSyU]

I'd be cool with 7 win requirement. Make every team that qualifies guaranteed a winning record.

[woodie]

then we should start recruiting football studs if we r going to beat a 7-5 record, or we should pad our schedule like tuberville is doing at texas tech so we can go 7-5 on our football schedule...