a fifth bowl game. It does not guarantee a non BCS school get's in that bowl. It does make it easier. If these rules had been in place the last six years, a non BCS school would have been in the bowl 4 of the last 6 years. They haven't released what the new rules will be, but it sounds like, if a non BCS school is in the top 15 BCS rankings, they get in. That's the only way I can see 4 non BCS schools would have gotten in the last 6 years???? They also want to eliminate the BCS and non BCS labels, I'll bet they do!!! They still have to find out if there is enough interest in a fifth Bowl. If they went into it with the idea that the top ranked non BCS school got in it, I don't think they would have any trouble selling it, but if it's just another game added for the BCS schools, like Purdue playing Mississippi St, They could have some trouble. That maybe what the out is for the BCS. They float the idea of the fifth game, which MIGHT have a non BCS team or like I said, No. 14 Purdue playing No. 15 Mississippi St and people don't get too excited and they say, we tried but there wasn't enough interest out there!!!

I was pretty stoked to read about this in the paper this morning. :D

Based on your speculation, which seems pretty spot-on to me, I hope they make the Cotton Bowl the 5th game. Tons of tradition and very centrally located, with a major airline hub to boot. Very easy for C-USA, MWC, WAC or MAC to travel to Big D...

Ok I read this and got excited for about a minute. Then I thought what chance does a non-BCS school really have. I would like to see the "new formula" now before they have a season to tweak it so that it favors BCS schools.

If they actually do a 5th bowl. I hope it is in the Cotton Bowl too. I can't wait to see the formula myself. I can't think of anyway but where a team ranked in the BCS standings that could get them in but they may have something new. For a non BCS team to get in the BCS top 15 they have to just about be undefeated because of their conference schedule that favors the BCS conferences. Also if the BCS schools reduce the number of non BCS schools they play, they could just about eliminate the non BCS schools from consideration. The non BCS schools just about have to play, and winning helps, three pretty good BCS teams to have any kind of BCS ranking.

I think you just hit upon the major loophole, fish.

Personally, I think the highest ranked of the non-BCS conferences should get an automatic bid, AS WELL AS any non-BCS school in the top 15. I think Miami, Ohio and Boise State may have made it in this past season.

Fish that was excellent.

I agree a 100% Cane Gang!!!!!!!!! If 56-58 BCS teams are guaranteed 9 spots, then the other 60 non BCS schools should be guaranteed ONE spot. If that was the plan, I wouldn't scream at all--- At least not real loud!!! :D The BCS schools would probably never go for that kind of guarantee to the lowly non BCS schools!! :bang:

Another thing -- they should (but won't) quit letting break-even (6-6) teams go to bowls. That would open up a couple more at-large bids for teams with WINNING records.

3forTU Wrote:Ok I read this and got excited for about a minute. Then I thought what chance does a non-BCS school really have. I would like to see the "new formula" now before they have a season to tweak it so that it favors BCS schools.

In the teleconference, BCS officials said that 4 of the last 6 seasons would have had a mid-major school in a BCS bowl game under the new plan with a 5th bowl.

rocketfootball Wrote:

3forTU Wrote:Ok I read this and got excited for about a minute.  Then I thought what chance does a non-BCS school really have.  I would like to see the "new formula" now before they have a season to tweak it so that it favors BCS schools.

In the teleconference, BCS officials said that 4 of the last 6 seasons would have had a mid-major school in a BCS bowl game under the new plan with a 5th bowl.

That's the part that gives me hope, rocket. But I sure would like to see the formula behind that before I get too excited. I trust that since Cowan is highly involved, this will be an equitable a situation as we non-BCS schools can hope for at the moment. As with all things in life, I'm sure there will be room for improvement too.

lauramac Wrote:Another thing -- they should (but won't) quit letting break-even (6-6) teams go to bowls. That would open up a couple more at-large bids for teams with WINNING records.

yes, yes, YES! There is no way a 6-6 team (or 6-5) should go to a bowl. They really need to change the requirement to 7 wins. If your team goes 7-4 or 7-5, then you deserve a bowl trip.

Here's my logic:

You get either 3 or 4 OOC games a year. If you're a BCS school, you can schedule a bunch of stiffs at home and sweep them (claiming your conference slate is plenty tough enough). With the $$$ guarantee, you'll have plenty of small schools lining up for the payday.

So with the 6 win requirement, you just have to go 3-5 (or even 2-6) in conference to be bowl eligible. I'd like to think that out of 12 teams in the conference, you wouldn't finish 8th and grab an automatic bowl slot, but you never know.

With a 7 win requirement, you all but force a team to finish .500 in their conference. If you can go 4-4 in the SEC or Big XII and get 3 wins OOC, then happy bowling. If not, clean out your locker and let a Toledo or Rice or Northern Illinois get that slot.

I would love to see 7 wins required but there are a couple of conferences that send their 7th and 8th place teams to bowls and 7 wins would almost eliminate that most years for sure!!!! There might be a slight chance of getting a resolution that the team has to have a winning record even if it plays 12 games, but I wouldn't even bet on that??? That's almost as bad as right now Michigan St is in the polls with nine losses(17-9), in a Big Ten Conference, that everyone agrees is having a down year. That's what a name does for you, conference isn't that good this year, nine losses and you jump right into the polls!!!! :mad:

That reminds me... I was looking through the paper on either Saturday or Sunday and scanned the conference standings. I commented to my wife that the SEC was wacky this year... only 2 good teams (Kentucky and Miss State), one in each division, and nobody else in the SEC had better than a 7-6 record in conference.

Monday morning, I pop over to ESPN.com for a little bracketology... and they're forecasting that EIGHT teams from the SEC are going to the NCAA. I just about fell out of my chair. :eek2:

Cane Gang Wrote:Monday morning, I pop over to ESPN.com for a little bracketology... and they're forecasting that EIGHT teams from the SEC are going to the NCAA. I just about fell out of my chair. :eek2:

What the flying CR@P is that about, when the WAC is having to scratch and claw for whatever we can get??! :mad:

Yes, I'm extra-special steamed because Rice is having a very decent year but will still be shut out. Sorry to drop my owl pellets of gloomy doomy p!ssed-offedness on your Cane board... thanks for listening.

lauramac Wrote:

Cane Gang Wrote:Monday morning, I pop over to ESPN.com for a little bracketology... and they're forecasting that EIGHT teams from the SEC are going to the NCAA. I just about fell out of my chair. :eek2:

What the flying CR@P is that about, when the WAC is having to scratch and claw for whatever we can get??! :mad:

Yes, I'm extra-special steamed because Rice is having a very decent year but will still be shut out. Sorry to drop my owl pellets of gloomy doomy p!ssed-offedness on your Cane board... thanks for listening.

You know what's worse? The same ESPN projections have the WAC getting exactly one bid. That's right - four worthy teams in the WAC this year, and only the team that gets the automatic bid from the conference tourney is going dancing (according to the "experts"). We should at least get one at-large invite.

You should be pissed. I'm pissed for you. Stupid NCAA. :cuss:

Actually, I'm so steamed, I posted a thread over on the main C-USA board. Feel free to vent over there as well. (You're always welcome to vent here)