It seemed to be a jumbled mess with the NCAA and there not being enough six-win bowl eligible teams to fill the needed slots. That is no longer the case.
On Monday, the NCAA announced that the remaining bowl slots would go to the seven-loss teams that have the highest Academic Progress Rate (APR). This may seem like another one of the NCAA’s antics, but it could be a good balance to push academic initiative rather than strictly on-field performance.
Shortly after the NCAA release, the University of Missouri (5-7) announced they would not accept a bowl bid. This could be due to the off-field conflict with the unfair rights of African-American players as well as the health issues and retiring of head coach Gary Pinkel. However, it seems quite strange due to the fact that they had the APR necessary, and you don’t see schools deny a revenue opportunity such as that very often.
Brett McMurphy of ESPN reported that there is a tie between Minnesota and San Jose State and Illinois and Rice for APR, then the bowls would select those teams for that slot.
As many as five teams with seven-losses will be selected to a bowl game. In early projections, Kentucky and other power conference schools have been selected to fill these slots. This may seem a confusing process, but the NCAA is doing the right thing initiating academic success for athletic reward.
View Comments (32)
Too many bowls!!! I don't think a team that is 5-7 deserves a bowl bid! But it's all about the almighty dollar, the sponsors don't want these games going unplayed!
Don't watch.
To not let some 5-7 teams in would tend to punish an 8-3 mid level conference team, AND punish a bowl sponsor who puts millions of dollars into college athletic budgets to provide scholarships for Title 9 student athletes. The law of unintended consequences comes into play quickly when you say there are too many bowl games.
At this point, I would rather see a 8-3 mid level conference team play instead of a 5-7 team getting into a bowl, I understand where you are coming from but it just does not seem right. I luv bowls but now it seems to be getting out of hand a little, I have nothing against a 6-6 team getting to one, 5-7 is another story.
Day, all teams with a 6-6 or better record will go to a bowl. This process is only for after those teams are placed, how the remaining slots will be filled amongst those teams that are 5-7.
Yes, I am confused! Totally miss read it, never thought it would come to this, more bowls then teams to fill them.
I agree with Jeff. The post season is all about the money, and not about the game. I don't feel 6-6 teams deserve a post season game. There needs to be 25% less bowl games. Make them meaningful again. It used to be a big deal to get to a bowl game, now more than half the teams accomplish this.
Should be no more than 20 bowl games. No 6-6 or 7-5 teams should still be playing....
" you don’t see schools deny a revenue opportunity such as that very often."
With conference revenue sharing, it sometimes pays more to NOT play in a bowl, especially if it's a mediocre bowl that won't sell many tickets.
84 spots in post season out of 128 schools with at least 2 more schools being added next year alabama birmingham coming back and coastal carolina moving up from fcs next year plus rumors of more bowls next year they should have one for the two worst schools lol this year would be ucf vs kansas both 0-12 lol
I'm good with the number of bowl games, just wish there was an 8-team playoff, which would solve this problem by moving quarterfinal games into some of the current bowl slots. I like the solution that the NCAA is implementing in this case, but would take the expanded playoff any day...
I think Day and some others are confused about the situation. There are not enough teams, mid level or anything else, with .500 records to fill out all the bowls. As Mike was saying, by not allowing 5-7 teams into the bowls, other teams with winning records would have no one to play, so there would not be a game.
Every team with at least a .500 record will be in a bowl if they want to be.
What does this even mean:
"This could be due to the off-field conflict with the unfair rights of African-American players as well as the health issues and retiring of head coach Gary Pinkel."
I thought the same thing.
I'm a Mizzou guy and I think it was a smart move. MOST bowl games are money losers to the individual schools (but made up with that conference revenue). Like many, Mizzou fans are now a bit spoiled with recent success. At most, a few hundred fans might be interested in making a trip to Shreveport (!) the day after Christmas. And if we have a new coach in place in the next week or so-- let him get started on next season and put this one behind us . . .
What revenue opportunity? Reports have shown that most schools lose money when they play in these smaller bowl games. It costs a lot to pay for transport, hotel, and food for your football players, coaching staff, marching band, and top faculty members.