Ay-Ziggy-Zoomba.com

Says we have a bowl for sure, just don't know which one. Started practice today. Gave UT credit, but says our guys didn't show up in the second half.

Wamer tried to goad him into saying that the bowl games were good for the MAC, but Coach said we shouldn't kid ourselves, if there was a 12-game schedule, we'd be on the outside looking in. He also said there is a movement to get a 12-game schedule.

EDIT: He also said that he watched football from 11 AM to 3 AM with his sons to monitor teams getting eliminated! (I saw him at the basketball game, so he didn't watch football the WHOLE time.

Word from some of the players is the GMAC. Of course this isn't a 100% pure fact yet, but I got some good sources for the momment.

orangeandbrown wrote:Coach said we shouldn't kid ourselves, if there was a 12-game schedule, we'd be on the outside looking in. He also said there is a movement to get a 12-game schedule.

I get a pit in my stomach just thinking about this.

It's not just bad for our bowl picture. It increases the gap between the haves and have-nots. It's one more chance for Ohio State to make whatever it makes at a home game while we try to make it up with whatever we make at a home game.

orangeandbrown wrote: EDIT: He also said that he watched football from 11 AM to 3 AM with his sons to monitor teams getting eliminated! (I saw him at the basketball game, so he didn't watch football the WHOLE time.

Geez what a liar

Schadenfreude wrote:

orangeandbrown wrote:Coach said we shouldn't kid ourselves, if there was a 12-game schedule, we'd be on the outside looking in. He also said there is a movement to get a 12-game schedule.

I get a pit in my stomach just thinking about this.

It's not just bad for our bowl picture. It increases the gap between the haves and have-nots. It's one more chance for Ohio State to make whatever it makes at a home game while we try to make it up with whatever we make at a home game.

Good point SF...in the long run, it won't be beneficial to us Mid Majors.

who cares.. we're going bowling

orangeandbrown wrote:EDIT: He also said that he watched football from 11 AM to 3 AM with his sons to monitor teams getting eliminated! (I saw him at the basketball game, so he didn't watch football the WHOLE time.

I saw him and said hi at the ice arena this weekend too. Hes a regular superfan!

At least people are seeing him on campus and not at other school's press conferences!

Schadenfreude:

Great insight. That point will be lost on a lot of people. So it's a double-edge sword - fewer bowls for the mid-majors and more $$$ for the big boys.

Of course, if the NCAA moves to a 12-game sked, it SHOULD make 7 wins a requirement for a bowl. I mean, I think it's kind of ridiculous for a 6-6 team to go to a bowl, lose and wind up 6-7. Meanwhile, they'll trumpet the fact that they went to the Rutabega Bowl.

Yes, I know, I know, I know. The NCAA will never do it. Just my wishful thinking.

1987alum wrote:Yes, I know, I know, I know. The NCAA will never do it.

They can't.

7-5 is tougher to do than 6-5. The scarcity problem would grow worse.

The only compromise I can imagine the MAC pushing for in the discussions ahead about a 12-game schedule is this: A rule where 6-6 teams may only go bowling after a certain percentage of teams (or eligible teams or teams that have reached a certain level, such as 8 wins) are taken from all I-A conferences.

This would put bowls in a real strange spot. In 2003, someone would have had to take Toledo and Marshall before Northwestern could have played in the Motor City Bowl.

But I don't know how else we could protect our interests in the discussion.

I also don't know what it would take to go to 12 games, and its an important question. If it is decided at the I-A level, it will pass, for the BCS conferences hold almost all of the clout there. If it is decided at the Division I level, perhaps there is a chance to block it by working with I-AA conferences.

Schade:

Like I said, I know it will never happen. But you may be on to a great compromise. The real question is, will the mid-majors be able to muster that sort of leverage? I don't believe they will, but it would be interesting to see it play out.

I also don't know what it would take to go to 12 games, and its an important question. If it is decided at the I-A level, it will pass, for the BCS conferences hold almost all of the clout there. If it is decided at the Division I level, perhaps there is a chance to block it by working with I-AA conferences.

Can you explain what you're thinking here?

We don't have any leverage on this deal. The NCAA members with all the power and money are seeing schools they keep in I-A so they have someone to play take away bowl bids and $$. They aren't going to put up with it, and we don't have any choice. This year is an anomaly. The long-term solution is exactly what Rick Chryst is doing--negotiating tie-ins.

orangeandbrown wrote:We don't have any leverage on this deal. The NCAA members with all the power and money are seeing schools they keep in I-A so they have someone to play take away bowl bids and $$. They aren't going to put up with it, and we don't have any choice. This year is an anomaly. The long-term solution is exactly what Rick Chryst is doing--negotiating tie-ins.

All I'm doing is raising a question about the mechanics, which does make a difference on the dynamic.

The attendance requirement was a Division I decision. It passed because I-AA conferences forged an alliance among some I-A conferences, including much of the BCS (but not the Big Ten) and Conference USA to get it done.

I don't doubt the enormity of the power that the BCS wields within Division I-A. There is an eight-member council or something. Each BCS conference has a seat at the table. The remaining two seats are split between the five mid-majors.

But the BCS doesn't wield that level of clout within Division I as a whole. It may be disproportionate, but it isn't that disproportionate.

I'll do some checking on this when I have time.