menu
Logo
Bobcat Attack Menu
Logo
Ohio Football Topic
Topic: "Growing support"...
Page: 1 of 1
C Money
General User
Member Since: 8/28/2010
Post Count: 3,420
mail
C Money
mail
Posted: 1/25/2012 1:03 PM
settings_applications edit_note
...for making 7 wins the minimum for bowl eligibility.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/16996317/growing-belief-seven-wins-should-be-magic-number-for-bowl-eligibility

Probably good for us, since we have been consistently at or above 7 wins the past several years, but bad for the MAC, since we'll probably get squeezed out of our auto-bids. Then again, I don't know if losing guaranteed trips to Detroit or Boise is all that bad.
Alan Swank
General User
AS
Member Since: 12/12/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 7,375
person
mail
Alan Swank
mail
Posted: 1/25/2012 3:40 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Great idea!  Way too many meaningless bowls now.  No one should ever be playing in a bowl and end up with a losing record.  This would be the first step in a bowl meaning something again.
L.C.
General User
LC
Member Since: 9/1/2005
Post Count: 10,584
person
mail
L.C.
mail
Posted: 1/25/2012 4:44 PM
settings_applications edit_note
It's hard to predict how it would affect the MAC,  since few MAC teams go bowling at 6-6, while some MAC teams end up staying at home with 7-5 records. The other problem, not mentioned, is that many of the 6-6 teams got to 6-6 with a win over an FCS school, so they were really only 5-6. I might favor seeing them not count FCS wins at all. That, in turn, would cause football powers to significantly reduce FCS games, and pay more for MAC/Sunbelt etc opponents as substitutes for "likely wins".
Pataskala
General User
P
Member Since: 7/8/2010
Location: At least six feet away from anybody else
Post Count: 9,465
person
mail
Pataskala
mail
Posted: 1/25/2012 10:24 PM
settings_applications edit_note
L.C. wrote:expand_more
It's hard to predict how it would affect the MAC,  since few MAC teams go bowling at 6-6, while some MAC teams end up staying at home with 7-5 records. The other problem, not mentioned, is that many of the 6-6 teams got to 6-6 with a win over an FCS school, so they were really only 5-6. I might favor seeing them not count FCS wins at all. That, in turn, would cause football powers to significantly reduce FCS games, and pay more for MAC/Sunbelt etc opponents as substitutes for "likely wins".


I'd be in favor of six wins against 1A schools.  That way, if they play a 1AA school they have to get seven; eight if they play two.  They could still have the same number of bowls but six-win teams with one win against a 1AA school could be chosen but only after all the legitimate six-plus-win teams were chosen.  That would get MAC-level teams into better bowls and allow some of the lesser bowls to get AQ schools.
brucecuth
General User
B
Member Since: 12/21/2004
Post Count: 1,855
person
mail
brucecuth
mail
Posted: 1/26/2012 8:59 AM
settings_applications edit_note
i am a traditionalist, and traditionally, bowls were a reward for an outstanding season.  That hasn't been the case for years, with teams having 6 or 7 wins getting bids to small time bowls played before half empty stadiums.  If I ruled the football world, the number of bowls would be cut down to to about 15, meaning 30 teams would be bowl eligible, roughly 25% of the entire D-!A football roster.  Bowls would be back to what they were originally meant to be.  More meaningful for both teams and fans...
OUBob
General User
OUB
Member Since: 9/9/2010
Location: Powell, OH
Post Count: 278
person
mail
OUBob
mail
Posted: 1/26/2012 9:42 AM
settings_applications edit_note
Its my understanding that wins against FCS schools do not count toward bowl eligability in the current system.
Alan Swank
General User
AS
Member Since: 12/12/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 7,375
person
mail
Alan Swank
mail
Posted: 1/26/2012 10:44 AM
settings_applications edit_note
brucecuth wrote:expand_more
i am a traditionalist, and traditionally, bowls were a reward for an outstanding season.  That hasn't been the case for years, with teams having 6 or 7 wins getting bids to small time bowls played before half empty stadiums.  If I ruled the football world, the number of bowls would be cut down to to about 15, meaning 30 teams would be bowl eligible, roughly 25% of the entire D-!A football roster.  Bowls would be back to what they were originally meant to be.  More meaningful for both teams and fans...


Here here!  The current menagerie of bowls renders most of them absolutely meaningless.

 I recently read a book that I picked up in the airport titled "52 Things Kids Need from a  Dad."  In looking through the table of contents the chapter that caught my eye and led me to buy the book was "Kids Need their dad to acknowledge the absurdity of participation trophies."  These silly bowls are kind of like that.
L.C.
General User
LC
Member Since: 9/1/2005
Post Count: 10,584
person
mail
L.C.
mail
Posted: 1/26/2012 12:52 PM
settings_applications edit_note
As I understand it, a team can count a maximum of one FCS win towards eligibility every other year.
TUVideo Guy
General User
TG
Member Since: 11/17/2010
Post Count: 224
person
mail
TUVideo Guy
mail
Posted: 1/26/2012 1:28 PM
settings_applications edit_note
So a bowl is going to take a 7-5 Temple team over a 6-6 Penn State team?
Never happen
anorris
General User
Member Since: 7/7/2010
Location: Bristol, CT
Post Count: 2,262
mail
anorris
mail
Posted: 1/26/2012 5:57 PM
settings_applications edit_note
L.C. wrote:expand_more
As I understand it, a team can count a maximum of one FCS win towards eligibility every other year.
You can count an FCS win every year.
DelBobcat
General User
Member Since: 8/27/2010
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Post Count: 1,135
mail
DelBobcat
mail
Posted: 1/27/2012 12:10 AM
settings_applications edit_note
If I had my way it'd be 8 wins minimum.
Showing Messages: 1 - 11 of 11
reply
vertical_align_top
vertical_align_center
vertical_align_bottom
add_comment
MAC News Links



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)