So you guys are arguing for LESS football? Why? Its not like the bowls mean something and the crappy teams are interfering with the good ones. Its just another game.

 

On a side note, I'm all for a playoff, but KEEP the bowls that aren't part of the playoff as they are now. So you've got 7 bowls for the playoff (if 8 teams) and then all the other bowls are filled/played just as they are now.

Maybe the rule is all teams with 7+ wins must be in a bowl game and then you fill in with the 6 win teams if there is still room.

 

That used to be the rule but a couple conferences (I believe Big 10 and Big 12) moved to have that removed a couple years ago. It is directly because of that change that WKU sat home this year.

I would like to see a rule that says 6 wins AND a winning record are required. Let some of the smaller schools get in on the bowl $$$$.

 

Then the bowl will go away. They're not going to make any money with "smaller schools."

I know WKU has 7 and is watching from home...

 

There's a reason they're at home.

Then the bowl will go away. They're not going to make any money with "smaller schools."

Bingo. Exactly the reason WKU is sitting home.

It is all about the $$$$.

Make it 8 wins and cut the bowl games way down and finish on January 1st.

Bingo. Exactly the reason WKU is sitting home.

 

I agree, but I don't think its right. How is a program supposed to grow if they aren't given the same chances as others? Maybe I am crazy for thinking that way, Idk.

Make it 8 wins and cut the bowl games way down and finish on January 1st.

 

Do you hate football? Why get rid of the pointless bowls? They're fun for the fans/teams that go, and they don't affect anyone else. Should we pare March Madness back to 16 teams and only one team per conference?

That used to be the rule but a couple conferences (I believe Big 10 and Big 12) moved to have that removed a couple years ago. It is directly because of that change that WKU sat home this year.

I don't remember there being a seven win requirement, not for a long time.

 

The rule I remember, was requiring a winning record. Of course at that time, 6 wins was a winning record. When they went to a 12 game schedule, they kept 6 wins as the qualifier. I don't think it had anything to do with the Big Ten or the Big 12. I think they realized as whole they had more bowl games then they would have 7 win teams.

 

As long as they have sponsors and advertising dollars to pay for it they will keep all of the bowl games. And that is fine with me. I would rather watch college football more than any other sport.

Do you hate football? Why get rid of the pointless bowls? They're fun for the fans/teams that go, and they don't affect anyone else. Should we pare March Madness back to 16 teams and only one team per conference?

 

Love good football, hate seeing two mediocre teams play each other. You're right, it doesn't affect me either way, just my opinion.

 

I would like to see March Madness with 32 teams.

I don't remember there being a seven win requirement, not for a long time.

 

The rule I remember, was requiring a winning record. Of course at that time, 6 wins was a winning record. When they went to a 12 game schedule, they kept 6 wins as the qualifier. I don't think it had anything to do with the Big Ten or the Big 12. I think they realized as whole they had more bowl games then they would have 7 win teams.

 

To be eligible, a team must not have a losing record in the FBS. If a school plays 12 games, they must have at least six wins to qualify. If a school plays 13 games, they must then have at least seven wins to qualify. A rule change for 2010 allows bowls to tender a bid to any team with a 6-6 record before teams with more than six wins. Previously, a bowl with an at-large bid to fill was required to select the remaining team with the best record over a 6-6 team that would have been more financially attractive in terms of bringing more fans to the respective bowl.

 

This comes from Wikipedia, but I read the exact thing in an article last week by one of the guys from Sports Illustrated. I haven't been able to come across it but I'll keep searching. In that article, the writer said that two conferences (I believe Big 10 and Big 12) were behind the change and the bowls were happy to oblige because they would rather have a 6-6 Illinois than a 7-5 WKU because they'll sell more seats and draw more eyes.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_bids_to_non-BCS_bowls

I may be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure that only applies to an unfilled bowl commitment or at large bowls.

 

For example I think the SEC has 9 bowl affiliations. The only way another team can play in one of those games is if the SEC can't fill their bowl commitment. Which means every SEC team with 6 wins gets a bowl game before any team from any conference can get one of those games. The only way anyone else can get one of those bowl games is if the SEC doesn't have enough teams to cover their affiliations. Even if another team has 8 wins. It's the same for every conference.

Love good football, hate seeing two mediocre teams play each other. You're right, it doesn't affect me either way, just my opinion.

 

I would like to see March Madness with 32 teams.

 

So don't watch bad bowls, and don't watch in March until the 2nd ("3rd") round.

I may be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure that only applies to an unfilled bowl commitment or at large bowls.

 

For example I think the SEC has 9 bowl affiliations. The only way another team can play in one of those games is if the SEC can't fill their bowl commitment. Which means every SEC team with 6 wins gets a bowl game before any team from any conference can get one of those games. The only way anyone else can get one of those bowl games is if the SEC doesn't have enough teams to cover their affiliations. Even if another team has 8 wins. It's the same for every conference.

 

You are correct. Under the old plan, if a conference couldn't fulfill their obligation, the bowl had to choose a team not connected to a bowl and had to pick a 7-5 team over a 6-6 team. That is no longer a rule.