Definition of Bowl Eligibility

FalkinCruiser · Post by **FalkinCruiser** » Sun Nov 18, 2007 5:19 pm

nice quick reference to "Bowl Eligibility" for a team.

Pretty much says that a team must be .500 or better - so, if Miami and/or Central enter the MAC Championship game @ 6-6, and that 6-6 team loses, NO SOUP - I mean BOWL FOR YOU!

http://www.redandwhitefromstate.com/?p=1215

BGSUFootballFan · Post by **BGSUFootballFan** » Sun Nov 18, 2007 5:51 pm

This is not entirely true either. If you are a champion or co-champion of your conference you can still get a bowl bid EVEN WITH A LOSING RECORD.

BGDrew · Post by **BGDrew** » Sun Nov 18, 2007 5:56 pm

BGSUFootballFan wrote:This is not entirely true either. If you are a champion or co-champion of your conference you can still get a bowl bid EVEN WITH A LOSING RECORD.

Which means the loser of the MACC would not be conference champion.

VDub26Falcon · Post by **VDub26Falcon** » Sun Nov 18, 2007 5:59 pm

Seriously though, what are the chances of a team in a conference championship game having a losing record, other than in the MAC where games against the other division don't count in your conference record (Which is ridiculous btw)? I mean, say you lose all your OOC games, that puts you at 0-3...in most conferences, if you lose 3 games in conference, you're not going to win the conference. Basically what I'm saying, BGSUFootballFan, is show me a bowl team that went into the bowl with a losing record...has it ever happened?

TG1996 · Post by **TG1996** » Sun Nov 18, 2007 6:10 pm

VDub26Falcon wrote:Basically what I'm saying, BGSUFootballFan, is show me a bowl team that went into the bowl with a losing record...has it ever happened?

North Texas did it a year or two ago.

BGSUFootballFan · Post by **BGSUFootballFan** » Sun Nov 18, 2007 7:28 pm

VDub26Falcon wrote:Seriously though, what are the chances of a team in a conference championship game having a losing record, other than in the MAC where games against the other division don't count in your conference record (Which is ridiculous btw)? I mean, say you lose all your OOC games, that puts you at 0-3...in most conferences, if you lose 3 games in conference, you're not going to win the conference. Basically what I'm saying, BGSUFootballFan, is show me a bowl team that went into the bowl with a losing record...has it ever happened?

In 2001 North Texas was the "co-champs" (aka they didn't win it out right) of the Sun Belt conference with a record of 5-6 and went to a bowl game. They got beat and finished the year at 5-7.

It is possible that Miami goes 6-7 by losing to CMU in MACCG and a bowl committee choses them over us. Why would they do that? #1 because they beat us and #2 because they won the East and reached the MACC game. It also has a lot to do with how many fans they think will attend the game.

I guess my point is there is no science to all of this. We could lose to UT and make a bowl. But it is also possible that we beat UT and are left out. We need to "appear" marketable to a bowl if we want get an invitation.

BGDrew · Post by **BGDrew** » Sun Nov 18, 2007 7:41 pm

BGSUFootballFan wrote:It is possible that Miami goes 6-7 by losing to CMU in MACCG and a bowl committee choses them over us. Why would they do that? #1 because they beat us and #2 because they won the East and reached the MACC game. It also has a lot to do with how many fans they think will attend the game.

I guess my point is there is no science to all of this. We could lose to UT and make a bowl. But it is also possible that we beat UT and are left out. We need to "appear" marketable to a bowl if we want get an invitation.

No, they can't take a 6-7 Miami over a (worst case scenario) 7-5 BG. It is in the bylaws that the only teams who get an exception for not being bowl eligible are teams that are conference champions. Since we have a MACC there will never be a co-champion. There is no exception for division champions.

VDub26Falcon · Post by **VDub26Falcon** » Sun Nov 18, 2007 7:42 pm

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the rule changed in 2002 because of that 2001 North Texas team, or whoever it was.

Schadenfreude · Post by **Schadenfreude** » Mon Nov 19, 2007 6:45 am

VDub26Falcon wrote:Yeah, I'm pretty sure the rule changed in 2002 because of that 2001 North Texas team, or whoever it was.

The rule wasn't changed because of North Texas. The fact that North Texas went bowling, after getting an NCAA waiver, was an application of the principle that a league champion ought to be able to go to a bowl game.

They may have been "co-champion," but they had won the head to heads, &c. That 5-6 record was possible, in part, because the Sun Belt was a small league that played a load of nonconference games.

Lord_Byron · Post by **Lord_Byron** » Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:17 am

As far as attendance at the games and who travels well, isn't it irrelevant for the "made-for-tv-bowls'?

Part of the issue around the bowls not being a moneymaker is that the participating schools need to guarantee a specific number of tickets. It's no skin of the bowl if the schools sell them or not, since the amount is credited against the school's guarantee.

So, what it comes down to is how attractive the match-up looks to TV. I would think that none of the bowls would take a team with a losing record if they had a choice.

I think we need to win this week or we're staying home.