Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Bowl Regulation
Author Message
Kittonhead Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,000
Joined: Jun 2013
Reputation: 122
I Root For: Beat Matisse
Location:
Post: #41
RE: Bowl Regulation
If the assumption that the number of 6 game winners will be rounded down then it would only permit 73 slots for the 10 FBS conferences.

However there are also the 5 independents (NMSU, BYU, Army, Liberty, UMass) that could have a place contractually to play every year. The MWC could set up a bowl on its own territory that splits NMSU/BYU and the MAC could set one up that splits Army/UMass.

There are also 6 extra slots in CFP access bowls that aren't assigned until the season concludes so you can't factor them into conference maximums.
12-27-2017 07:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,335
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 1211
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #42
RE: Bowl Regulation
(12-27-2017 07:38 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  If the assumption that the number of 6 game winners will be rounded down then it would only permit 73 slots for the 10 FBS conferences.

However there are also the 5 independents (NMSU, BYU, Army, Liberty, UMass) that could have a place contractually to play every year. The MWC could set up a bowl on its own territory that splits NMSU/BYU and the MAC could set one up that splits Army/UMass.

There are also 6 extra slots in CFP access bowls that aren't assigned until the season concludes so you can't factor them into conference maximums.

Why would you assume the number would be rounded down, unless your agenda is to reduce the number of bowl games? If you follow normal rounding rules, there would be slots for 82 teams.

Here's a crazy thought. Why not let the free market determine how many games there are? Or does that not achieve the desired end result?
12-27-2017 07:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chargeradio Offline
Vamos Morados
*

Posts: 7,466
Joined: Mar 2007
Reputation: 121
I Root For: ALA, KY, USA
Location: Louisville, KY
Post: #43
RE: Bowl Regulation
Technically you can count five of the six New Year’s Six slots, because all of the P5 champions will be represented either by making the playoff, or by contract with one of the non-playoff bowls.
12-27-2017 07:47 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MWC Tex Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,850
Joined: Aug 2012
Reputation: 179
I Root For: MW
Location: TX
Post: #44
RE: Bowl Regulation
(12-27-2017 06:46 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  
(12-27-2017 05:55 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  
(12-27-2017 12:54 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  There was talk of the conferences getting together and once again establishing limits to the amount of games a conference can certify equal to its average of 6 win teams.

That would place some limits on the P5 compared to where they've been this cycle and reduce the overall number of bowls by 2 or 3.

There is also going to be another push by the P5 to adding bowls at NFL stadiums. This will push games further down that aren't played in an NFL stadium.

Then the lowest tier games like the Potato and New Mexico are going to have to contend with new bowls the G5 want to get online like the bowl in Charleston.

Its puts the MAC in a position where they can do some deal making, perhaps being able to trade up their champion to the Holiday or Independence if those games drop down to the G5 level.

So this whole contraction plan to 30 from the G5 perspective is relatively moot.

This is actually going to happen. The deputy commissioner of the MW (who is on the bowl oversight committee) state they will go with a 4 year average of the number of eligible bowl teams and only allow that amount to be tied in. It may be the case where a G5 and P5 bowls get dropped or possible reassigned to another conference.

I do like the setup the OP wrote. Also, I would replace the Potato with the Arizona Bowl....

Current four year average

ACC 11 10 12 10 10.75
American 5 8 7 7 6.75
Big 12 7 7 6 8 7
Big Ten 11 10 10 8 9.75
Conference USA 5 5 7 9 6.5
Independents 3 2 2 2 2.25
MAC 5 7 6 5 5.75
Mountain West 7 8 7 6 7
Pac-12 9 10 6 9 8.5
SEC 12 11 13 9 11.25
Sun Belt 3 4 6 5 4.5

Not really sure there is much differential than the current tie-ins once you remove the CFP championship game, 5-7 teams and include ND as part of the ACC tie-ins rather than independents. So I think the 4 year average hurts the G5 worse than the P5. In theory the ACC, SEC and P12 should increase and the B10 and B12 stay the same.

The only thing the NCAA can do is not allow for any new bowls in 2020-2025. If 3 or more stay home, I think at least one new bowl will be added. Probably a lottery will occur for the city that gets to host unless South Carolina will get it since they have been on the waiting list longer than anyone else.

I have a different average over the past 4 years.
MW: 6.8 put it as 6
MAC: 6.5 put it as 6
CUSA: 7.3 put it as 7
AAC: 7.0
SB: 5.0

PAC: 8.3 put it as 8
ACC: 10.0
SEC: 11.3 put it as 11
Big 10: 9.0
Big 12: 7.0

This give 76 teams tied to conferences. Then add Notre Dame, BYU, Army, NMSU and Liberty as bowl potentials.
With ND and BYU usually bowl eligible, that give 78 teams and 39 bowls.
So yeah...basically no change in the number of bowls, but a couple of the P5 ties could be move to some G5 conferences.
Next year is going to be the last year for the 4 years average I believe since the next bowl cycle gets renewed during 2019 for the 2020 new bowl cycle.

Going to be interesting to see next year how the bowl tie-ins shake out. Especially for the MW as they need 1 more bowl tie and the Big 10 and ACC needs less. The MW could score a Foster Farms, Sun or Holiday Bowl tie-in if they have to give up a tie-in due to the 4 year average.
(This post was last modified: 12-27-2017 07:56 PM by MWC Tex.)
12-27-2017 07:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
msm96wolf Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,558
Joined: Apr 2006
Reputation: 180
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #45
RE: Bowl Regulation
(12-27-2017 07:51 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  
(12-27-2017 06:46 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  
(12-27-2017 05:55 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  
(12-27-2017 12:54 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  There was talk of the conferences getting together and once again establishing limits to the amount of games a conference can certify equal to its average of 6 win teams.

That would place some limits on the P5 compared to where they've been this cycle and reduce the overall number of bowls by 2 or 3.

There is also going to be another push by the P5 to adding bowls at NFL stadiums. This will push games further down that aren't played in an NFL stadium.

Then the lowest tier games like the Potato and New Mexico are going to have to contend with new bowls the G5 want to get online like the bowl in Charleston.

Its puts the MAC in a position where they can do some deal making, perhaps being able to trade up their champion to the Holiday or Independence if those games drop down to the G5 level.

So this whole contraction plan to 30 from the G5 perspective is relatively moot.

This is actually going to happen. The deputy commissioner of the MW (who is on the bowl oversight committee) state they will go with a 4 year average of the number of eligible bowl teams and only allow that amount to be tied in. It may be the case where a G5 and P5 bowls get dropped or possible reassigned to another conference.

I do like the setup the OP wrote. Also, I would replace the Potato with the Arizona Bowl....

Current four year average

ACC 11 10 12 10 10.75
American 5 8 7 7 6.75
Big 12 7 7 6 8 7
Big Ten 11 10 10 8 9.75
Conference USA 5 5 7 9 6.5
Independents 3 2 2 2 2.25
MAC 5 7 6 5 5.75
Mountain West 7 8 7 6 7
Pac-12 9 10 6 9 8.5
SEC 12 11 13 9 11.25
Sun Belt 3 4 6 5 4.5

Not really sure there is much differential than the current tie-ins once you remove the CFP championship game, 5-7 teams and include ND as part of the ACC tie-ins rather than independents. So I think the 4 year average hurts the G5 worse than the P5. In theory the ACC, SEC and P12 should increase and the B10 and B12 stay the same.

The only thing the NCAA can do is not allow for any new bowls in 2020-2025. If 3 or more stay home, I think at least one new bowl will be added. Probably a lottery will occur for the city that gets to host unless South Carolina will get it since they have been on the waiting list longer than anyone else.

I have a different average over the past 4 years.
MW: 6.8 put it as 6
MAC: 6.5 put it as 6
CUSA: 7.3 put it as 7
AAC: 7.0
SB: 5.0

PAC: 8.3 put it as 8
ACC: 10.0
SEC: 11.3 put it as 11
Big 10: 9.0
Big 12: 7.0

This give 76 teams tied to conferences. Then add Notre Dame, BYU, Army, NMSU and Liberty as bowl potentials.
With ND and BYU usually bowl eligible, that give 78 teams and 39 bowls.
So yeah...basically no change in the number of bowls, but a couple of the P5 ties could be move to some G5 conferences.
Next year is going to be the last year for the 4 years average I believe since the next bowl cycle gets renewed during 2019 for the 2020 new bowl cycle.

Going to be interesting to see next year how the bowl tie-ins shake out. Especially for the MW as they need 1 more bowl tie and the Big 10 and ACC needs less. The MW could score a Foster Farms, Sun or Holiday Bowl tie-in if they have to give up a tie-in due to the 4 year average.

Once again, you have to include Notre Dame in the ACC slots since they take part in the slots. In addition, the ACC traditionally has nine tie-ins. The St. Pete Bowl was every three years. So the ACC likely increases to 10 tie-ins with an 11th with Citrus bowl when the B10 goes to the Orange. That is part of the current B10 agreement with the Orange.

If it stays at 78 teams in the next cycle the four year formula supports the following breakdown:

ACC 11 (Includes Notre Dame)
American 6
Big 12 7
Big Ten 10
Conference USA 6
Independents 2 (BYU and Army)
MAC 6
Mountain West 6
Pac-12 8
SEC 11
Sun Belt 5

Will this happen, I don't think the ACC and SEC go to 11 but they have the math and money on their side to justify. Power 5 will not agree to give up bowls to the G5, that is what backup contracts are for.
12-27-2017 08:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DavidSt Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,011
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 732
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #46
RE: Bowl Regulation
(12-27-2017 07:51 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  
(12-27-2017 06:46 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  
(12-27-2017 05:55 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  
(12-27-2017 12:54 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  There was talk of the conferences getting together and once again establishing limits to the amount of games a conference can certify equal to its average of 6 win teams.

That would place some limits on the P5 compared to where they've been this cycle and reduce the overall number of bowls by 2 or 3.

There is also going to be another push by the P5 to adding bowls at NFL stadiums. This will push games further down that aren't played in an NFL stadium.

Then the lowest tier games like the Potato and New Mexico are going to have to contend with new bowls the G5 want to get online like the bowl in Charleston.

Its puts the MAC in a position where they can do some deal making, perhaps being able to trade up their champion to the Holiday or Independence if those games drop down to the G5 level.

So this whole contraction plan to 30 from the G5 perspective is relatively moot.

This is actually going to happen. The deputy commissioner of the MW (who is on the bowl oversight committee) state they will go with a 4 year average of the number of eligible bowl teams and only allow that amount to be tied in. It may be the case where a G5 and P5 bowls get dropped or possible reassigned to another conference.

I do like the setup the OP wrote. Also, I would replace the Potato with the Arizona Bowl....

Current four year average

ACC 11 10 12 10 10.75
American 5 8 7 7 6.75
Big 12 7 7 6 8 7
Big Ten 11 10 10 8 9.75
Conference USA 5 5 7 9 6.5
Independents 3 2 2 2 2.25
MAC 5 7 6 5 5.75
Mountain West 7 8 7 6 7
Pac-12 9 10 6 9 8.5
SEC 12 11 13 9 11.25
Sun Belt 3 4 6 5 4.5

Not really sure there is much differential than the current tie-ins once you remove the CFP championship game, 5-7 teams and include ND as part of the ACC tie-ins rather than independents. So I think the 4 year average hurts the G5 worse than the P5. In theory the ACC, SEC and P12 should increase and the B10 and B12 stay the same.

The only thing the NCAA can do is not allow for any new bowls in 2020-2025. If 3 or more stay home, I think at least one new bowl will be added. Probably a lottery will occur for the city that gets to host unless South Carolina will get it since they have been on the waiting list longer than anyone else.

I have a different average over the past 4 years.
MW: 6.8 put it as 6
MAC: 6.5 put it as 6
CUSA: 7.3 put it as 7
AAC: 7.0
SB: 5.0

PAC: 8.3 put it as 8
ACC: 10.0
SEC: 11.3 put it as 11
Big 10: 9.0
Big 12: 7.0

This give 76 teams tied to conferences. Then add Notre Dame, BYU, Army, NMSU and Liberty as bowl potentials.
With ND and BYU usually bowl eligible, that give 78 teams and 39 bowls.
So yeah...basically no change in the number of bowls, but a couple of the P5 ties could be move to some G5 conferences.
Next year is going to be the last year for the 4 years average I believe since the next bowl cycle gets renewed during 2019 for the 2020 new bowl cycle.

Going to be interesting to see next year how the bowl tie-ins shake out. Especially for the MW as they need 1 more bowl tie and the Big 10 and ACC needs less. The MW could score a Foster Farms, Sun or Holiday Bowl tie-in if they have to give up a tie-in due to the 4 year average.



If you round out the numbers? MWC would be 7, not 6. The math is round out to the nearest number. 6.8 is close to 7 than it is to 6.
12-27-2017 11:32 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.