Comments on: College football: Raising bowl eligibility would come at a cost

By: Smith

Smith — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 18:11:27 +0000

Berry, no major college teams plan their schedules around a possible fifth-tier bowl as a fallback position. Eliminating bottom-feeder bowls would have no effect on schedules for the FBS Big Boys.

By: Billy Parks

Billy Parks — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 17:40:01 +0000

Let’s go to a “conference-winner only” BCS format, and seed the teams according to rankings AND strength of schedule. That will reward teams for playing tough non-conference foes, and not disqualify them for a BCS bowl if they lose those games.

By: Reg

Reg — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 13:16:59 +0000

Have a playoff system. Let 16 teams in. That would enhance the regular season because strength of schedule would help you. You could have 3 losses and still make the playoffs if you play a good enough schedule. Would make the regular season much more exciting and less 72-20 games.

By: Thor

Thor — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 07:38:43 +0000

The 2006 Independence Bowl OSU won 34-31 featured 6-6 OSU and 6-6 Alabama. The official attendance was over 45,000. The place was relatively full with large contigents from both schools, somewhat more from OSU. The event was a success financially, attendance-wise and entertainment-wise. And prestige-wise it was just simply important to both schools, especially Oklahoma State, in terms of trying to build their football programs.
There’s a certain quid pro quo in FBS football. Schools want to be FBS, because being FBS is a notable way of saying to prospective students and the rest of the world them that hey, our school is a big time school. If a school can average 15,000 or better for home games over two years – for which you have to have genuine support – they can be FBS. And, there are enough non-BCS but still FBS schools out there that need the money and the attendance boost from playing BCS-FBS schools that needs on both sides can be fulfilled by playing such games.
And some of those BCS-FBS non-BCS-FBS games are interesting, hard fought games.
Any school that can consistently average 15,000 paid attendance per game has to be somewhat significant as competition. Thus, any BCS league team that played 8 or 9 BCS-league games out of 12 total and the rest against FBS-level competition and still got to 6 wins could be considered some kind of good. It’s true, many wouldn’t want to consider it that way, but it’s also true many others still would – and not unreasonably. And if the fan bases of applicable schools wanted those bowl games – and proved it by supporting them – who is it that wouldn’t want them then? Fair-weather fans of traditional elite schools who resented any other schools getting to share the extra training, experience and improved motivation from participating in some kind of bowl ? Not hardly a reason for schools that thought they benefitted from reasonable third tier bowls to say ok, just take those bowls away from us even if they are financially feasible. Especially when, like the 2006 Independence Bowl was for OSU, these minor bowls were important stepping stones to later greater success.
Here’s a thought: like the capitalists say, let the market decide. If there are too many bowls, let the ones that have to be subsidized too much too often go broke and go away. And, if some schools’ fan bases won’t sufficiently support their teams in bowls, then maybe let it affect as it already does what bowls feel like they can invite those schools or choose some other team even with not as good a record. Then, besides having to get to 6 wins – which is no gimme for most BCS-league teams – we’re left with what a market determines is significantly worthwhile. When you consider it, a very American way to determine things …

By: mogelijk

mogelijk — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 23:11:17 +0000

Rather than have a winning season/7 wins, add the caveat that you have to have a winning record in your conference. In this way, Ole Miss going 3-1 doesn’t hurt them, or even going 2-1 or 2-2, as either way they must finish 5-3 (or 5-4 if the SEC goes to a 9 game schedule) in conference to go to a bowl.

By: College football: Raising bowl eligibility would come at a cost | Team USA American Football Stars and Stripes

Wed, 25 Jan 2012 23:06:53 +0000

[...] more from Berry [...]

By: Jonathan Cast

Jonathan Cast — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 23:05:05 +0000

We should both eliminate the rule that victory against FCS opponent’s don’t count, and introduce a new rule that — for BCS AQ members only — only one victory against a non-BCS AQ team counts per season. (Non-AQ teams will play their conference schedule against other non-AQ teams, and that shouldn’t count against them for bowl eligibility). That would remove the incentive for premiere teams to schedule more than one soft non-conference games a season entirely.

By: chad

chad — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 23:00:52 +0000

Not sure if you read these Berry but the same would happen if you reduced the number of bowl games. If you drop it from 35 to 25 then a 6-6 record likely won’t get you in so it doesn’t really solve the problem. I would be all for not counting 1AA wins. Also, how about making it so that whoever you schedule it must be a least a 2-1. 2 home games to 1 away game. Bluebloods like OU and alabama do not want to play at Ball State or Tenn-Chatt. If you did this most schools might seek out a higher opponent so when they play on the road at least it’s on TV.