Ay-Ziggy-Zoomba.com

With a number of conferences unable to provide enough bowl eligible teams to meet their Bowl Contracts, will this affect future scheduling? Look, for example, at Northwestern and Michigan State this year. They just missed being bowl eligible.

If you were in their place, would you want to schedule Bowling Green, Toledo, Northern Illinois, or Miami for a future game?

Surely the bowl eligible problems this year will make it even more difficult for BG and other MAC teams to upgrade their out of conference schedules.

By the way, has anyone heard anything about future scheduling for BG? I haven't heard anything after the news about a home and home agreement with Boise State. Sure wish we could make some headway here. It would be an important step in moving our program forward.

I believe both of those teams ended up being not eligibile due to the Hawaii rule. I think that this will effect Hawaii's scheduline moreso than ours.

The emphaisis placed on strength of schedule by the BCS will probably have a bigger effect on our scheduling. We may have a problem scheduling BCS teams with aspirations of greatness if SOS isn't a factor.

transfer2BGSU wrote:Hammb,

What is the Hawaii rule? I've seen it metioned before but never explained.

If you play a game in Hawaii during an 11 game season you are allowed to schedule a 12th game to recoup some of the costs.

The next twist is something I'm not sure of the exact wording. It's either A)A win over Hawaii does not count to wards bowl eligibility, meaning you must go 6-5 over your other 11 games; or B)If you play the 12th game you must finish 7-5 to be bowl eligible.

Either way the result is that you must finish 6-5 in games other than at Hawaii, unless of course you lost at Hawaii. Then the exact wording of this phrase would matter because a loss would mean you must go 7-4 outside of Hawaii. As I said I'm not sure which way its worded, but I believe both of the aforementioned teams won at Hawaii, meaning they needed 7 total wins to become bowl eligible. Both ended 6-6.

........but most of the SEC, Big Ten, Pac 10 etc are SO arrogant, they will WANT to schedule all of us little mid-majors so they can build up their won-lost record!!
What they don't know WILL hurt them!!!

hammb wrote:

transfer2BGSU wrote:Hammb,

What is the Hawaii rule? I've seen it metioned before but never explained.

If you play a game in Hawaii during an 11 game season you are allowed to schedule a 12th game to recoup some of the costs.

The next twist is something I'm not sure of the exact wording. It's either A)A win over Hawaii does not count to wards bowl eligibility, meaning you must go 6-5 over your other 11 games; or B)If you play the 12th game you must finish 7-5 to be bowl eligible.

Either way the result is that you must finish 6-5 in games other than at Hawaii, unless of course you lost at Hawaii. Then the exact wording of this phrase would matter because a loss would mean you must go 7-4 outside of Hawaii. As I said I'm not sure which way its worded, but I believe both of the aforementioned teams won at Hawaii, meaning they needed 7 total wins to become bowl eligible. Both ended 6-6.

Hambb,
I know Nwestern lost to Hawaii last week, but when did Mich. St. ALSO lose to them? Thought that game was this weekend... If Mich.St. had WON, then Akron had a shot at the Hawaii Bowl if I recall correctly. If not, then Hawaii would've been "IN" again... Thank God we didn't draw a game on Christmas Eve, Hawaii or not.

Class of 61 wrote:Hambb,
I know Nwestern lost to Hawaii last week, but when did Mich. St. ALSO lose to them? Thought that game was this weekend... If Mich.St. had WON, then Akron had a shot at the Hawaii Bowl if I recall correctly. If not, then Hawaii would've been "IN" again... Thank God we didn't draw a game on Christmas Eve, Hawaii or not.

The game is this weekend. If Michigan State wins, Akron should be in a bowl somewhere (as long as Louisville also beats Tulane).

Class of 61 wrote:

hammb wrote:

transfer2BGSU wrote:Hammb,

What is the Hawaii rule? I've seen it metioned before but never explained.

If you play a game in Hawaii during an 11 game season you are allowed to schedule a 12th game to recoup some of the costs.

The next twist is something I'm not sure of the exact wording. It's either A)A win over Hawaii does not count to wards bowl eligibility, meaning you must go 6-5 over your other 11 games; or B)If you play the 12th game you must finish 7-5 to be bowl eligible.

Either way the result is that you must finish 6-5 in games other than at Hawaii, unless of course you lost at Hawaii. Then the exact wording of this phrase would matter because a loss would mean you must go 7-4 outside of Hawaii. As I said I'm not sure which way its worded, but I believe both of the aforementioned teams won at Hawaii, meaning they needed 7 total wins to become bowl eligible. Both ended 6-6.

Hambb,
I know Nwestern lost to Hawaii last week, but when did Mich. St. ALSO lose to them? Thought that game was this weekend... If Mich.St. had WON, then Akron had a shot at the Hawaii Bowl if I recall correctly. If not, then Hawaii would've been "IN" again... Thank God we didn't draw a game on Christmas Eve, Hawaii or not.

You're right man, I'm sorry, obviously failed to look up my info. Like I said, I THOUGHT. So I looked it up. Right now Northwestern is 6-6 and did, in fact, lose to Hawaii. That makes them 6-5 outside of Hawaii, but they are not bowl eligible. So the rule must read that to be bowl eligible in an 11 game year they must be OVER .500. So, regardless of what happens in Hawaii a team playing the 12 games (due to the Hawaii rule) must finish 7-5 or better. Currently MSU is at 5-6 and even a W at Hawaii will put them at 6-6 and not bowl eligible. Hawaii is currently 6-5 and needs a win over MSU to become 7-5 and be bowl eligible.

Sorry for the confusion, I didn't look up the info on the teams, when trying to explain the Hawaii rule. After looking at this I believe it shakes down to just this:

In an 11 game season a team that plays at Hawaii is allowed to play a 12 game schedule.

If that team chooses to play the 12 game schedule they must be still be > .500 (at least 7-5) to be bowl eligible.

Back to Salsa's point ...

Will it have an impact? Yep, I think that's almost a leadpipe cinch.

The real question is what that impact will be.

Here are the two likely scenarios ...

1) The impact is that the NCAA sees the near-boondoggle it had on its hands (i.e. almost not having enough bowl eligiblel teams) and allows schools to regularly schedule 12 games per season. Corollary, bowl eligibility reverts to a .500 record (i.e. 6-6). Would that have an impact on BG's scheduling? Possibly. But more games means more teams needed on the schedule, so I think we'd do OK there.

2) The NCAA stands pat on the 11-game schedule. This would definitely hit us, IMO. BCS schools looking for OOC games will not want to tangle with BG and risk a lost (and, thus, their bowl eligibility). Undoubtedly, the winners in this scenario would be the mediocre (or worse) mid-majors, who the BCS schools can bring in and be assured a relatively easy W.

If strenghth-of-schedule stays as part of the BCS equation though, schools that think they have a legitimate shot at a BCS bowl will WANT to get us on their schedule. I say this because of the Auburn-OK race for #2, and how we were a big difference in SOS, as opposed to having the Citadel on your schedule. To me, this is good for us, because I'd much rather play the Oklahoma's, and Tennessees of the world as opposed to Indiana and Vandy. Jeff

bgmaggot00 wrote:If strenghth-of-schedule stays as part of the BCS equation though, schools that think they have a legitimate shot at a BCS bowl will WANT to get us on their schedule. I say this because of the Auburn-OK race for #2, and how we were a big difference in SOS, as opposed to having the Citadel on your schedule. To me, this is good for us, because I'd much rather play the Oklahoma's, and Tennessees of the world as opposed to Indiana and Vandy. Jeff

Currently, SOS is not a component of the BCS. Sure, it's inherently a part throught the computer rankings and in people's minds, but it's not a component as it's been in the past years.

bgmaggot00 wrote:To me, this is good for us, because I'd much rather play the Oklahoma's, and Tennessees of the world as opposed to Indiana and Vandy. Jeff

The flip side: Indiana and Vanderbilt are two schools that would consider coming to our place.

Not so for Oklahoma or Tennessee.

Schadenfreude wrote:

bgmaggot00 wrote:To me, this is good for us, because I'd much rather play the Oklahoma's, and Tennessees of the world as opposed to Indiana and Vandy. Jeff

The flip side: Indiana and Vanderbilt are two schools that would consider coming to our place.

Not so for Oklahoma or Tennessee.

Can someone say "Sure wins?"