Five teams have played in bowl games with 5-7 regular season records since 2015 thanks to high Academic Progress Ratings (APR) scores, but none have been from the Pac-12. The conference won't be sending any in the future, either.

According to the Associated Press, the presidents of the conference passed a rule that prevents teams with 5-7 records from going to bowl games even if their APR score would qualify them under the new legislation.


https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...apr-score/

Perfect. Rather see the highest eliminated FCS team one day.

(06-04-2018 03:43 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Five teams have played in bowl games with 5-7 regular season records since 2015 thanks to high Academic Progress Ratings (APR) scores, but none have been from the Pac-12. The conference won't be sending any in the future, either.

According to the Associated Press, the presidents of the conference passed a rule that prevents teams with 5-7 records from going to bowl games even if their APR score would qualify them under the new legislation.


https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...apr-score/

Is there a benefit other than good optics in the news cycle that it was announced? They could be walking away from at least a little money in a year where a 5-7 eligible team has to stay home.

Applause for the PAC.

(06-04-2018 06:56 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(06-04-2018 03:43 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Five teams have played in bowl games with 5-7 regular season records since 2015 thanks to high Academic Progress Ratings (APR) scores, but none have been from the Pac-12. The conference won't be sending any in the future, either.

According to the Associated Press, the presidents of the conference passed a rule that prevents teams with 5-7 records from going to bowl games even if their APR score would qualify them under the new legislation.


https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...apr-score/

Is there a benefit other than good optics in the news cycle that it was announced? They could be walking away from at least a little money in a year where a 5-7 eligible team has to stay home.

Other than potentially losing to a G5---Im not sure what the real down side is to letting a 5-7 team qualify for a bowl once in while. Its not going to be an every year thing. Frankly, giving a 5-7 team 16 extra practices would seem to have a lot of upside for any conference.

That's one small step in the right direction. Now when we quit sending 6-6 schools it will be just right!

I understand more bowl games means more money but whatever happened to rewards based on merit and not just for existing? Principles mean something. Perhaps “meant” something is more accurate these days.

(06-04-2018 08:13 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  I understand more bowl games means more money but whatever happened to rewards based on merit and not just for existing? Principles mean something. Perhaps “meant” something is more accurate these days.

It's an extra football game. It's not really a principles thing, other than "it's worth whatever someone is willing to pay for it"

(06-04-2018 06:56 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  Is there a benefit other than good optics in the news cycle that it was announced? They could be walking away from at least a little money in a year where a 5-7 eligible team has to stay home.

A 5-7 team isn't going to a high profile bowl. Lackluster turnout is likely, forcing the school to buy out its ticket allotment. So they're probably saving money. This is a smart move.

(06-04-2018 09:29 PM)ManleyPointer Wrote:  

(06-04-2018 06:56 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  Is there a benefit other than good optics in the news cycle that it was announced? They could be walking away from at least a little money in a year where a 5-7 eligible team has to stay home.

A 5-7 team isn't going to a high profile bowl. Lackluster turnout is likely, forcing the school to buy out its ticket allotment. So they're probably saving money. This is a smart move.

If it’s a low end bowl, no P5 should have a problem selling out one of those tiny allotments.

I have one bowl rule I really want to see adopted.

If a school has terminated their coach for poor performance (wins and losses, rather than a for cause for off field reasons) they should be ineligible.

In 2011 UCLA fired Rick Neuheisel after the final regular season game. That made UCLA 6-6 and division champions.They then lose the Pac-12 title game under an interim head coach and carried a 6-7 record to the bowls and then lost the bowl to become the first 8 game loser to play in a bowl.

UCLA didn't think Neuheisel's performance warranted completing the season and they then went 0-1 without him and accepted a bowl. If the team hasn't played well enough to retain the coach, why bowl?

Western Kentucky in Willie Taggart's second season started the year 0-4 but went 7-1 down the stretch and stayed home.

(06-04-2018 10:15 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I have one bowl rule I really want to see adopted.

If a school has terminated their coach for poor performance (wins and losses, rather than a for cause for off field reasons) they should be ineligible.

In 2011 UCLA fired Rick Neuheisel after the final regular season game. That made UCLA 6-6 and division champions.They then lose the Pac-12 title game under an interim head coach and carried a 6-7 record to the bowls and then lost the bowl to become the first 8 game loser to play in a bowl.

UCLA didn't think Neuheisel's performance warranted completing the season and they then went 0-1 without him and accepted a bowl. If the team hasn't played well enough to retain the coach, why bowl?

Western Kentucky in Willie Taggart's second season started the year 0-4 but went 7-1 down the stretch and stayed home.

Neuheisel lost his last game 50-0 to USC. He went 0-4 against USC and 21-28 as the Head Coach at UCLA. UCLA won the South Division because USC was on probation. Neuheisel did not deserve to coach in the conference championship game against Oregon.

(06-04-2018 11:25 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(06-04-2018 10:15 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I have one bowl rule I really want to see adopted.

If a school has terminated their coach for poor performance (wins and losses, rather than a for cause for off field reasons) they should be ineligible.

In 2011 UCLA fired Rick Neuheisel after the final regular season game. That made UCLA 6-6 and division champions.They then lose the Pac-12 title game under an interim head coach and carried a 6-7 record to the bowls and then lost the bowl to become the first 8 game loser to play in a bowl.

UCLA didn't think Neuheisel's performance warranted completing the season and they then went 0-1 without him and accepted a bowl. If the team hasn't played well enough to retain the coach, why bowl?

Western Kentucky in Willie Taggart's second season started the year 0-4 but went 7-1 down the stretch and stayed home.

Neuheisel lost his last game 50-0 to USC. He went 0-4 against USC and 21-28 as the Head Coach at UCLA. UCLA won the South Division because USC was on probation. Neuheisel did not deserve to coach in the conference championship game against Oregon.

And UCLA did not deserve to play Illinois in a bowl game.

Speaking of Illinois, that was the year they fired Ron Zook and screwed up their program.


1-11
3-8
—ZOOK—
2-9
2-10
9-4 (Rose Bowl, W @#1 Ohio St)
5-7
3-9
7-6
7-6
—FIRED—
2-10
4-8
6-7
5-7
3-9
2-10

Zook inherits a 4-wins-in-2-years dumpster fire.
Zook goes to 3 bowls in 7 years, a Rose Bowl, and a win at #1 Ohio State.
Zook gets fired.
Illinois proceeds to 6 losing seasons and 1 bowl post-Zook.

Zook the Crook was so underrated. He recruited Florida’s national title team too. I miss him because he was a hilarious CFB character (like the one time he mixed up the 14-13 score and went for 2 up 20-13 ).

(06-04-2018 07:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-04-2018 06:56 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(06-04-2018 03:43 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Five teams have played in bowl games with 5-7 regular season records since 2015 thanks to high Academic Progress Ratings (APR) scores, but none have been from the Pac-12. The conference won't be sending any in the future, either.

According to the Associated Press, the presidents of the conference passed a rule that prevents teams with 5-7 records from going to bowl games even if their APR score would qualify them under the new legislation.


https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...apr-score/

Is there a benefit other than good optics in the news cycle that it was announced? They could be walking away from at least a little money in a year where a 5-7 eligible team has to stay home.

Other than potentially losing to a G5---Im not sure what the real down side is to letting a 5-7 team qualify for a bowl once in while. Its not going to be an every year thing. Frankly, giving a 5-7 team 16 extra practices would seem to have a lot of upside for any conference.

That was my thought.

If a 5-7 team goes to a bowl game, that's extra practice, time with players etc. It also gives the coaches a chance to evaluate their team against new/different competition, probably with a better record.

I really don't see any down side. Leave the decision up to the school whether they wish to accept an invitation.

But I'm in the "the more college football the better" camp.

(06-04-2018 10:15 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I have one bowl rule I really want to see adopted.

If a school has terminated their coach for poor performance (wins and losses, rather than a for cause for off field reasons) they should be ineligible.

Disagree, because this could lead to perverse outcomes. E.g., at a school like Ohio State or Alabama, a coach could go 8-4 or even 9-3 and be fired for 'poor performance', because at those schools if you aren't 11-1 and competing for a national title then it is a disappointment.

For example, IIRC, a few years ago Bo Pellini was fired at Nebraska after they went 9-3, because the school was tired of going 9-3 every year under him.

But surely, a 9-3 team deserves to be bowl eligible.

(06-05-2018 07:59 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-04-2018 10:15 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I have one bowl rule I really want to see adopted.

If a school has terminated their coach for poor performance (wins and losses, rather than a for cause for off field reasons) they should be ineligible.

Disagree, because this could lead to perverse outcomes. E.g., at a school like Ohio State or Alabama, a coach could go 8-4 or even 9-3 and be fired for 'poor performance', because at those schools if you aren't 11-1 and competing for a national title then it is a disappointment.

For example, IIRC, a few years ago Bo Pellini was fired at Nebraska after they went 9-3, because the school was tired of going 9-3 every year under him.

But surely, a 9-3 team deserves to be bowl eligible.

I disagree (not that either of our opinions "matter"). If Nebraska considers it a terrible year, then they aren't likely to sell many tickets and be less likely to make a date to watch it on TV. Let the school move on to seeking a new coach.

While 6-6 at Indiana might mean an extension and happy fans.

(06-05-2018 09:54 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-05-2018 07:59 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-04-2018 10:15 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I have one bowl rule I really want to see adopted.

If a school has terminated their coach for poor performance (wins and losses, rather than a for cause for off field reasons) they should be ineligible.

Disagree, because this could lead to perverse outcomes. E.g., at a school like Ohio State or Alabama, a coach could go 8-4 or even 9-3 and be fired for 'poor performance', because at those schools if you aren't 11-1 and competing for a national title then it is a disappointment.

For example, IIRC, a few years ago Bo Pellini was fired at Nebraska after they went 9-3, because the school was tired of going 9-3 every year under him.

But surely, a 9-3 team deserves to be bowl eligible.

I disagree (not that either of our opinions "matter"). If Nebraska considers it a terrible year, then they aren't likely to sell many tickets and be less likely to make a date to watch it on TV. Let the school move on to seeking a new coach.

While 6-6 at Indiana might mean an extension and happy fans.

IMO the players should matter here, and if you are a player it would seem unjust for you to sit at home during bowl season while another school that you had a better year than goes to a bowl, just because your school dumped its coach. I just don't see the logic in that.

(06-05-2018 10:00 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-05-2018 09:54 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-05-2018 07:59 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-04-2018 10:15 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I have one bowl rule I really want to see adopted.

If a school has terminated their coach for poor performance (wins and losses, rather than a for cause for off field reasons) they should be ineligible.

Disagree, because this could lead to perverse outcomes. E.g., at a school like Ohio State or Alabama, a coach could go 8-4 or even 9-3 and be fired for 'poor performance', because at those schools if you aren't 11-1 and competing for a national title then it is a disappointment.

For example, IIRC, a few years ago Bo Pellini was fired at Nebraska after they went 9-3, because the school was tired of going 9-3 every year under him.

But surely, a 9-3 team deserves to be bowl eligible.

I disagree (not that either of our opinions "matter"). If Nebraska considers it a terrible year, then they aren't likely to sell many tickets and be less likely to make a date to watch it on TV. Let the school move on to seeking a new coach.

While 6-6 at Indiana might mean an extension and happy fans.

IMO the players should matter here, and if you are a player it would seem unjust for you to sit at home during bowl season while another school that you had a better year than goes to a bowl, just because your school dumped its coach. I just don't see the logic in that.

It's about standards. You as a team did not achieve to the standard that school holds for itself.

Going to Shreveport isn't the standard Alabama holds for itself. If the powers at Alabama think the underachievement is such that a new start is required, don't go play.

Congratulations fellas. Y'all sucked this year so bad we fired the coach but we want to reward you.

(06-05-2018 12:45 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-05-2018 10:00 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-05-2018 09:54 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-05-2018 07:59 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-04-2018 10:15 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I have one bowl rule I really want to see adopted.

If a school has terminated their coach for poor performance (wins and losses, rather than a for cause for off field reasons) they should be ineligible.

Disagree, because this could lead to perverse outcomes. E.g., at a school like Ohio State or Alabama, a coach could go 8-4 or even 9-3 and be fired for 'poor performance', because at those schools if you aren't 11-1 and competing for a national title then it is a disappointment.

For example, IIRC, a few years ago Bo Pellini was fired at Nebraska after they went 9-3, because the school was tired of going 9-3 every year under him.

But surely, a 9-3 team deserves to be bowl eligible.

I disagree (not that either of our opinions "matter"). If Nebraska considers it a terrible year, then they aren't likely to sell many tickets and be less likely to make a date to watch it on TV. Let the school move on to seeking a new coach.

While 6-6 at Indiana might mean an extension and happy fans.

IMO the players should matter here, and if you are a player it would seem unjust for you to sit at home during bowl season while another school that you had a better year than goes to a bowl, just because your school dumped its coach. I just don't see the logic in that.

It's about standards. You as a team did not achieve to the standard that school holds for itself.

But .... as you say that's an internal standard, one the school has. Has nothing to do with bowl eligibility standards that are set nationally by the NCAA.

So if a school has failed to meet its own standards, then the proper body to enforce that is the school, not some outside entity declaring that they are ineligible. It should be up to the school itself to decide if a failure to meet its own standard means the team shouldn't go to a bowl.

And in fact, there have been cases where schools declined bowl bids because they were disappointed in their results. Happens a lot less now because of the rigid conference tie-ins but it used to happen.

IIRC just a couple years ago, Missouri declined a bowl bid because they were unhappy with their season.