Bowl eligibility going to 7 wins?

Dumb idea. 7 win rule is good for MAC, Sun Belt, MWC, and WAC teams because their conferences suck. And they bring NO fan base to the Bowl Game PLUS NO ONE wants to see them play.

History has shown that even the mediocre BCS teams are usually better than the Champions of these lesser conferences like the Sun Belt and MAC.

Better off to keep it as it is and let the Bowls decide who they want. It is their money. It is NOT about having the best teams. It is about FANS and TV sets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stormin

Dumb idea. 7 win rule is good for MAC, Sun Belt, MWC, and WAC teams because their conferences suck. And they bring NO fan base to the Bowl Game PLUS NO ONE wants to see them play.

History has shown that even the mediocre BCS teams are usually better than the Champions of these lesser conferences like the Sun Belt and MAC.

Better off to keep it as it is and let the Bowls decide who they want. It is their money. It is NOT about having the best teams. It is about FANS and TV sets.

---

No it isn't. Wins are harder to come by for them because a lot of those teams go play BCS conference schools in there non-con. They don't get the chance to play a bunch of schools with less talent than they do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tre4ISU

Right but at the same time, 7 wins will almost always include three conference wins anyway. All my situation does is cut out 6 win teams who only won two conference games. I don't know how many of those there were but I bet there are a few and maybe even enough to cut 5 bowls.

Also-If everyone is eventually at a nine game conference schedule, my stipulation doesn't matter because you will have to get 3 conference wins to win 6 games.

We need to cut bowls. To me, that is obvious. You have teams playing who aren't any good. Do you want to tell me Illinois deserved to play a bowl game?

Turns out there were only three:

Illinois
Vandy
Miss St.
There are a ton at 3 wins though. 8 of them.

So I guess I don't know if my plan does much other than make Illinois (who was awful) not bowl eligible.

---

No, we don't need to cut bowl games. They deserved it because someone wanted to invite them to their bowl game. That's all that matters. I like watching FBS college football, no matter who is playing. Less bowls means less college football, that is a bad thing for me. I don't think real housewifes, idiot gold miners or Fat rip off artists from Vegas deserve to be on TV either, but I realize that some people like to watch the stuff, so I choose to watch something else, instead of thinking that just because I don't like it means it doesn't have it's place.

I really don't understand why people care how many bowl games there are. In a world where rich get richer, the bowl games are the one point of leverage a team like ISU has when recruiting. The Pinstripe bowl may not seem like a big deal to the outside viewer, but it's a bowl game we went to and their bowl package seemed to be as good as any other bowl package. That matters to recruits.

Seriously, what are the other options that are going to be on. More poker? I'd love to watch a college football game tonight. I miss the season already.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cyhiphopp

College football is huge right now and they want to eliminate some bowl games at the end of the year? The market should dictate if a bowl game sticks around.

---

The market may be speaking, and hence the reduction in number bowls.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rebecacy

Most of these minor bowls are money losing propositions. Perhaps, we should stay home and save the money?? Times are tough.

---

True. The payouts from some bottom tier bowls barely cover (and some times don't cover) what the conferences pay to send the teams to those bowls. There is pressure to increase the bowl payouts of these bowls. If those bowls can't get adequate sponsorship, they will be gone.

From a strictly financial stanpoint, if a revenue-sharing conference (like the Big Ten or Big 12) that sends 8 or more teams to bowls has to subsidize expenses for a couple of lower tier bowls because of an inadequate bowl payout, every conference member's overall payout goes down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by besserheimerphat

Let's just get it over with and have the top 16 revenue generating football programs form one SuperUltraMegaConference. They can play a 32 game schedule for the networks (6 conference games and 24 non-conference cupcakes), then play a double elimination tournament for the national championship. There will be seperate regional, divisional and conference champions too, and you don't have to win a lower title to claim a higher title. ESPN will get the rights to every one of these games, resulting in a few unfortunate 3:30 AM kickoffs, but hey that's what people want. Each school will be guaranteed eleventy-billion dollars from the TV contract.

The rest of us football peons can go about playing geopgraphically appropriate schedules against teams of similar quality, and maybe play an end-of-season exhibition game just for the heck of it since we can't qualify for the national championship.

---

Sarcasm here requires a jimlad Like this:jimlad:, unless your arent being sarcastic

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clonefan94

No, we don't need to cut bowl games. They deserved it because someone wanted to invite them to their bowl game. That's all that matters. I like watching FBS college football, no matter who is playing. Less bowls means less college football, that is a bad thing for me. I don't think real housewifes, idiot gold miners or Fat rip off artists from Vegas deserve to be on TV either, but I realize that some people like to watch the stuff, so I choose to watch something else, instead of thinking that just because I don't like it means it doesn't have it's place.

I really don't understand why people care how many bowl games there are. In a world where rich get richer, the bowl games are the one point of leverage a team like ISU has when recruiting. The Pinstripe bowl may not seem like a big deal to the outside viewer, but it's a bowl game we went to and their bowl package seemed to be as good as any other bowl package. That matters to recruits.

Seriously, what are the other options that are going to be on. More poker? I'd love to watch a college football game tonight. I miss the season already.

---

Because fat cats directing these bowls are padding their pocket book while schools are hooked into guarantees they can't handle as far as tickets, hotels, and such. Either the bowls need to start taking the risks (won't happen) or we need to have less of them so fanbases that won't handle allotments aren't consistently losing money. There are somewhere in the range of 20 bowls that are net negatives. You cut out the bowls, increase the value of external income(advertising primarily) and maybe, just maybe you don't have to hold these schools hostage for tickets they cannot sell and hotels they won't actually fill.

I would like to see something like the rule is 7 wins to get a Bowl unless you have 10 (maybe even 11) games against BCS conferance opponents then 6 wins will get you in.

Iowa and Iowa State can still play each other with this rule in a 9 game conferance schedule and then the lower tier SEC teams would be forced to either get to 7 wins with a bad schedule or drop a creampuff or two and play someone good to try and get to 6 wins.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tre4ISU

No it isn't. Wins are harder to come by for them because a lot of those teams go play BCS conference schools in there non-con. They don't get the chance to play a bunch of schools with less talent than they do.

---

They play one or two body bag games but then spend the rest of the season playing... well, MAC and Sun Belt level talent.

Northern Illinois lost to Kansas and then went 8-1 in conference play to end the season with 11 wins. For example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tre4ISU

Because fat cats directing these bowls are padding their pocket book while schools are hooked into guarantees they can't handle as far as tickets, hotels, and such. Either the bowls need to start taking the risks (won't happen) or we need to have less of them so fanbases that won't handle allotments aren't consistently losing money. There are somewhere in the range of 20 bowls that are net negatives. You cut out the bowls, increase the value of external income(advertising primarily) and maybe, just maybe you don't have to hold these schools hostage for tickets they cannot sell and hotels they won't actually fill.

---

1. a school doesnt have to accept a bowl game. Teams may lose money accepting, they must see other benefits gained from losing that money, or else they wouldnt bother. And there are numerous benefits to playing in a bowl game, so its not just as simple as saying 'they lost money on the bowl' when they may have gained a lot more in terms of other areas (marketing value, donor increases, etc)
2. the answer to the guarantees wouldnt be to eliminate bowl games but for conferences to work to get those guarantees lessened\removed. Seems asinine to punish the fanbases of mid-range major conference teams because some were bad at negotiating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuckd4735

Please tell me what conference is going to have less conference games.

You fail in advance.

---

The ones that see that adding another cupcake to a schedule is more beneficial in order to maximize the number of teams in bowls....Or this could just lead to the end of the Iowa State-Iowa yearly matchup.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alarson

1. a school doesnt have to accept a bowl game. Teams may lose money accepting, they must see other benefits gained from losing that money, or else they wouldnt bother. And there are numerous benefits to playing in a bowl game, so its not just as simple as saying 'they lost money on the bowl' when they may have gained a lot more in terms of other areas (marketing value, donor increases, etc)
2. the answer to the guarantees wouldnt be to eliminate bowl games but for conferences to work to get those guarantees lessened\removed. Seems asinine to punish the fanbases of mid-range major conference teams because some were bad at negotiating.

---

Exactly. Don't forget that bowl games are another - NCAA approved - way to get some extra perks to your student athletes including travel to cool destinations and the famous gift packs.

Also, how much would athletic departments pay if they were told you can have extra practices but it will just cost you. I'm sure it would be a lot more than what is lost here and there on bowl game expense overruns.

The drive to eliminate any exciting regular season non-conference game continues. I really hate this trend in college football.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jbhtexas

The market may be speaking, and hence the reduction in number bowls.

---

This is the key.

I don't think it's so much "cutting" bowl games as it is some of this bowls are on the verge of throwing in the towel.

I think I heard on the radio this week this year had record low (total) attendance for the bowls.

Just for reference, see the 5th page of the link below for the expenses that the Big 12 allows for each bowl game.

http://www.big12sports.com/fls/10410...B_OEM_ID=10410