📡 NCAA rules that all 6-6 teams must get bowl bids before any 5-7 teams

[FOX Sports Digital]

The NCAA's Division I Council has mandated that all bowl-eligible teams with 6-6 records must be selected for a bowl game before any teams with a 5-7 record can be considered.

The key to this rule, decided at the Council's Wednesday meeting in Indianapolis, is that now bowls won't be able to select teams with losing records from Power 5 conferences over 6-6 teams from mid-major or Group of Five conferences, who end up in lesser bowl games.

The move is already a hit with some FBS head coaches:



Brian Polian's Nevada team ended up facing another Mountain West team, Colorado State, in the Arizona Bowl last year.

After all bowl-eligible teams are selected, the 5-7 teams -- which will be considered alternates -- will be deemed eligible in descending order from the highest multiyear Academic Progress Rate in the Football Bowl Subdivision for the most recent reporting year. Those teams will then select the bowl in which they will participate.

If two or more teams have a tie in the multiyear APR, then the highest APR for the most recent single year will break the tie. This process will continue until all the bowl slots are filled.

"It's impossible to project how many eligible bowl teams we will have," said Bob Bowlsby, chair of the football oversight committee and commissioner of the Big 12 Conference. "We think we have a selection process in the postseason that makes sense and is fair to the schools and the bowls."

Last season, only 77 teams were eligible for the 80 bowl slots by the established criteria. The remaining three slots were filled by 5-7 teams. Those alternate teams (Nebraska, Minnesota and San Jose State) were selected by the bowls in which they appeared.

Continue reading...

 

[TerryP]

On one hand a team that doesn't have a winning record has no place in a bowl game as I see this. But ...

IF the goal of these bowls are to make money, and the bowl committee has a choice between a 5-7 team that has a fan following versus a smaller school at 6-6 that doesn't, shouldn't that be left up to the bowl committee as far as who they chose to invite?

 

[UAgrad93]

I agree with your comment @TerryP. We have seen non Power 5 teams that have virtually no following and the stadium look empty as hell. Better to invite a big name/ big following than invite a school with no following.

 

[Bama Guy]

If you want the lesser bowls to remain viable, let them choose who they want. If they don't break even on the $$, they may not be back next year. Actually, that might not be a bad thing

 

[JoshB]

On one hand a team that doesn't have a winning record has no place in a bowl game as I see this. But ...

IF the goal of these bowls are to make money, and the bowl committee has a choice between a 5-7 team that has a fan following versus a smaller school at 6-6 that doesn't, shouldn't that be left up to the bowl committee as far as who they chose to invite?

Then they shouldnt suck. If you have a losing record you have no business in a bowl game, period.

 

[TerryP]

Then they shouldnt suck. If you have a losing record you have no business in a bowl game, period.

No one is disagreeing with that thought save those who have allowed too many bowl games in the first place.

Let me put it another way. From a purely business standpoint, let's assume you're in charge of the Birmingham Bowl. You've got a choice between a 5-7 Ole Miss team or an 8-4 La Tech team. Who are you taking if given the choice?

Me? I'm taking Ole Miss simply due to the way that fan base travels to bowl games.

 

[252BAMA]

No one is disagreeing with that thought save those who have allowed too many bowl games in the first place.

Let me put it another way. From a purely business standpoint, let's assume you're in charge of the Birmingham Bowl. You've got a choice between a 5-7 Ole Miss team or an 8-4 La Tech team. Who are you taking if given the choice?

Me? I'm taking Ole Miss simply due to the way that fan base travels to bowl games.

Yep. But that's a crazy choice because the 7 teams Ole Miss lost to would be better that 7 of the 8 La Tech beat. Likewise the 4 teams La Tech lost to would be better than 4 of the 5 Ole Miss beat.

 

[BamaFan334]

I like the idea from strictly a do what's best for the player prospective. You earned your record, so you deserve to be in over a team with a worse record. Sure, schedules aren't created equal, but that's the other side of the coin, because if you win with that tough schedule you reap the benefits of that and get the nod.

 

[TerryP]

Yep. But that's a crazy choice because the 7 teams Ole Miss lost to would be better that 7 of the 8 La Tech beat. Likewise the 4 teams La Tech lost to would be better than 4 of the 5 Ole Miss beat.

I chose Ole Miss because it's a fan base people are familiar with. Exchange Ole Miss and La Tech with Nebraska and say Colorado State. The situation remains the same; which fan base travels the best?

If we were to rank the bowl games in order of "importance," is there really any difference in what bowl would be ranked #36 and #42? I don't see one. At the most, maybe a little difference in the payout but that's been pretty negligible in the last few years. So, if it's the goal for these games to sell tickets and make money for the bowl game and the community, it just seems to be common sense to allow them to choose a team that best would fit those needs.

As much as we love the notion a team should have a winning record to get a bowl invite it's just not happening. 41 bowl games, 82 teams, in a division of play that has 128 teams in total ... impossible to do under the current set up.

 

[UAgrad93]

Lord forbid if BAMA was to ever drop to 5-7, but ANY bowl would be drooling to get that fan base to their bowl game over a 6-6 Conference USA team. The bowl committee should be the one to decide not the NCAA.

 

[TUSKtimes]

Lord forbid if BAMA was to ever drop to 5-7, but ANY bowl would be drooling to get that fan base to their bowl game over a 6-6 Conference USA team. The bowl committee should be the one to decide not the NCAA.

Reminds me of that sojourn we took to Shreveport the year Shula got axed. I hope we just say thanks, but no thanks.

 

[#80]

They are far too many bowl games I think a team should way at least a winning record to make in into a bowl game.

 

[Max]

I think a team should way at least a winning record to make in into a bowl game.

against fbs teams

 

[JoshB]

No one is disagreeing with that thought save those who have allowed too many bowl games in the first place.

Let me put it another way. From a purely business standpoint, let's assume you're in charge of the Birmingham Bowl. You've got a choice between a 5-7 Ole Miss team or an 8-4 La Tech team. Who are you taking if given the choice?

Me? I'm taking Ole Miss simply due to the way that fan base travels to bowl games.

That's why they need to take the choice out of the Bowl's hands. Eventually some of these useless bowls will die off too, but hopefully it will give smaller, talented teams that WILL travel well a chance to shine. At the Camellia Bowl last year they had nearly 22,000 if I remember correctly and that was Appalachian State and Ohio with both sides being represented. Plus it was a hell of a game. Much better than watching a shitty Ole Miss team face a shitty Colorado team or something like that just because they are "bigger names."

 

[TerryP]

Eventually some of these useless bowls will die off too,

I believe that will happen but not due to ticket sales. I see that happening when the P5 pull away on their own.

Until college football is no longer at the 128 number, we're stuck with what it is today. If one bowl closes, another will open.

Much better than watching a shitty Ole Miss team face a shitty Colorado team or something like that just because they are "bigger names."

We're not talking about "watch-ability" here. We're talking about ticket sales. We've talked about those of us who watch as many of the bowl games as we can. I'm one of those full well knowing there's going to be good football games like the Camellia Bowl last year.

I'm of the opinion if we're going to be "stuck" with this lower, non-consequential type of bowl games let's at least make it as easy—financially—on the bowl games and the teams involved.

Again. IF YOU were part of the bowl committee of a game, how do you want this handled? Pretty simple question and answer in my eyes.