(11-30-2015 08:44 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  S20, you would hope. But reading the article, it state Bowls and Conference have contracts. I think the comment from the MWC commissioner shows it could happen differently. You think Cactus would take the qualified MWC backup over 5-7 team B12 but apparently not. CUSA would have a valid claim because you know the B10 won't be left out. NCAA probably hoping for K-State and a Sun Belt team both win Saturday to eliminate this nightmare scenario. Just like they hope to get to 80. :)

The 6-6 teams have to go to a bowl *somewhere*. They're not getting left out. However, I'm fairly certain that the bowls will honor their primary P5 conference tie-ins with a 5-7 team over a backup G5 tie-in (such as your Cactus Bowl example or a 5-7 Big Ten team over a MAC team in Detroit).

(11-30-2015 10:10 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-30-2015 10:00 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-30-2015 09:46 PM)stever20 Wrote:  from yahoo story:
The selection process will be market driven and allow the bowls with spots to fill to invite the 5-7 team that makes the most sense for its game - as long as the selection is made in order of best available APR. So Illinois can't be invited until San Jose State is invited.

sounds like a tv opportunity... The 2015 Bowl draft, presented by Mr. Clean.

Just a second there. The Yahoo writer has a quote, or at least a Tweet, that can back up that "the APR five" have to be selected *in order*?

I don't buy that, until I see a quote or something more official than a Yahoo writer reading between the lines.

well for one- lets say Georgia St pulls the big upset on Ga Southern.

your 5 bowl teams extra would be
Georgia St(now 6-6)
Nebraska
Kansas St
Minnesota
San Jose St

Illinois would be out along with Rice.

I get now.

I thought you were saying that, if say Neb, KSU, Minn, SJ and Illinois were all eligible, that a bowl could not send an invitation to Illinois if San Jose had yet to receive an invite.

(11-30-2015 10:34 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(11-30-2015 08:44 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  S20, you would hope. But reading the article, it state Bowls and Conference have contracts. I think the comment from the MWC commissioner shows it could happen differently. You think Cactus would take the qualified MWC backup over 5-7 team B12 but apparently not. CUSA would have a valid claim because you know the B10 won't be left out. NCAA probably hoping for K-State and a Sun Belt team both win Saturday to eliminate this nightmare scenario. Just like they hope to get to 80. :)

The 6-6 teams have to go to a bowl *somewhere*. They're not getting left out. However, I'm fairly certain that the bowls will honor their primary P5 conference tie-ins with a 5-7 team over a backup G5 tie-in (such as your Cactus Bowl example or a 5-7 Big Ten team over a MAC team in Detroit).

Which is what should happen.

The bowl should honor the contract as a first priority.

(11-30-2015 10:40 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-30-2015 10:10 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-30-2015 10:00 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-30-2015 09:46 PM)stever20 Wrote:  from yahoo story:
The selection process will be market driven and allow the bowls with spots to fill to invite the 5-7 team that makes the most sense for its game - as long as the selection is made in order of best available APR. So Illinois can't be invited until San Jose State is invited.

sounds like a tv opportunity... The 2015 Bowl draft, presented by Mr. Clean.

Just a second there. The Yahoo writer has a quote, or at least a Tweet, that can back up that "the APR five" have to be selected *in order*?

I don't buy that, until I see a quote or something more official than a Yahoo writer reading between the lines.

well for one- lets say Georgia St pulls the big upset on Ga Southern.

your 5 bowl teams extra would be
Georgia St(now 6-6)
Nebraska
Kansas St
Minnesota
San Jose St

Illinois would be out along with Rice.

I get now.

I thought you were saying that, if say Neb, KSU, Minn, SJ and Illinois were all eligible, that a bowl could not send an invitation to Illinois if San Jose had yet to receive an invite.

If no SBC team wins this weekend- Nebraska, Kansas St, Minnesota, and San Jose MUST be selected. If some how CUSA pulled muscle and got Rice a slot- Illinois would be out. Illinois couldn't then strong arm San Jose to get a bowl slot. (chances of that like 1%).

(11-30-2015 10:34 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(11-30-2015 08:44 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  S20, you would hope. But reading the article, it state Bowls and Conference have contracts. I think the comment from the MWC commissioner shows it could happen differently. You think Cactus would take the qualified MWC backup over 5-7 team B12 but apparently not. CUSA would have a valid claim because you know the B10 won't be left out. NCAA probably hoping for K-State and a Sun Belt team both win Saturday to eliminate this nightmare scenario. Just like they hope to get to 80. :)

The 6-6 teams have to go to a bowl *somewhere*. They're not getting left out. However, I'm fairly certain that the bowls will honor their primary P5 conference tie-ins with a 5-7 team over a backup G5 tie-in (such as your Cactus Bowl example or a 5-7 Big Ten team over a MAC team in Detroit).

Yeah, what Hair said in the USA Today article is correct; Cactus Bowl apparently wants K-State whether they win or lose on Saturday.

(11-30-2015 08:12 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nca.../76581408/

Ok, am I reading this correctly? It sounds like if a conference has a bowl tie-in, it can send a 5-7 team over a 6-6 team. 5-7 K-State goes in over 6-6 MWC for the Cactus Bowl.

Looking at the short fall,
K-State goes to Cactus No Matter what. Leaving the following APR teams.

1. Nebraska to big 10 Tier 2 bowl.
2. Minnesota to B10 Tier 3 bowl
3. San Jose in theory should be the next team chosen, New Mexico is out because a MWC team is there. Lets say they go to the Cure Bowl.
4. Illinois (973 APR) claims last B10 bowl Tie-In & Rice (973 APR) claims New Mexico Bowl Tie-In. It sure sounds like a 6-6 at-large team sits home.

Since it is the NCAA, this would not surprise me.

NCAA standards dictate that all 6-6 teams must be placed before a 5-7 can be placed. What USAToday is talking about is that there is a possibility that the 5-7 teams will be sent to conference bowls to fill in once all the 6-6 have been placed

Lets say 78 get eligible. Than the NCAA will allow the top 2 APR schools to be eligible...and they could fill a conference tied bowl, however the number of eligible schools will not go above 80.

(11-30-2015 11:32 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  NCAA standards dictate that all 6-6 teams must be placed before a 5-7 can be placed. What USAToday is talking about is that there is a possibility that the 5-7 teams will be sent to conference bowls to fill in once all the 6-6 have been placed

Every 6 win team gets a bowl game, but a particular bowl could still choose a 5 win team over a 6 win team. The only thing the NCAA cares about here is that every 6 win team has a chair when the music stops. They don't decide who gets which chair.

(11-30-2015 11:12 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-30-2015 10:34 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(11-30-2015 08:44 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  S20, you would hope. But reading the article, it state Bowls and Conference have contracts. I think the comment from the MWC commissioner shows it could happen differently. You think Cactus would take the qualified MWC backup over 5-7 team B12 but apparently not. CUSA would have a valid claim because you know the B10 won't be left out. NCAA probably hoping for K-State and a Sun Belt team both win Saturday to eliminate this nightmare scenario. Just like they hope to get to 80. :)

The 6-6 teams have to go to a bowl *somewhere*. They're not getting left out. However, I'm fairly certain that the bowls will honor their primary P5 conference tie-ins with a 5-7 team over a backup G5 tie-in (such as your Cactus Bowl example or a 5-7 Big Ten team over a MAC team in Detroit).

Yeah, what Hair said in the USA Today article is correct; Cactus Bowl apparently wants K-State whether they win or lose on Saturday.

Probably, would want a MW team but would be forced to take a 5 win KSU. They have stated they would like to have SDSU.

(11-30-2015 11:53 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-30-2015 11:32 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  NCAA standards dictate that all 6-6 teams must be placed before a 5-7 can be placed. What USAToday is talking about is that there is a possibility that the 5-7 teams will be sent to conference bowls to fill in once all the 6-6 have been placed

Every 6 win team gets a bowl game, but a particular bowl could still choose a 5 win team over a 6 win team. The only thing the NCAA cares about here is that every 6 win team has a chair when the music stops. They don't decide who gets which chair.

Not correct. The Bowl cannot choose a 5 win team over a 6 win team. No bowl can officially issue a invite to a 5 win team until all 6 win teams have received an invite an excepted. No 5 win team can except a bowl invite until all 6 win teams have received and excepted a bowl invite.

(12-01-2015 12:45 AM)ValleyBoy Wrote:  

(11-30-2015 11:53 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-30-2015 11:32 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  NCAA standards dictate that all 6-6 teams must be placed before a 5-7 can be placed. What USAToday is talking about is that there is a possibility that the 5-7 teams will be sent to conference bowls to fill in once all the 6-6 have been placed

Every 6 win team gets a bowl game, but a particular bowl could still choose a 5 win team over a 6 win team. The only thing the NCAA cares about here is that every 6 win team has a chair when the music stops. They don't decide who gets which chair.

Not correct. The Bowl cannot choose a 5 win team over a 6 win team. No bowl can officially issue a invite to a 5 win team until all 6 win teams have received an invite an excepted. No 5 win team can except a bowl invite until all 6 win teams have received and excepted a bowl invite.

That's semantics. Every 6-win team gets an invitation from some bowl, and the bowls who are going to take 5-win teams just wait until every 6-win team has an invitation, however long that takes, to officially invite the teams they unofficially agreed to invite several days earlier.

What if all the 5-7 teams decide not to accept bowl game invites? Could the APR reach FCS schools? Too bad Cal-Davis did not win many games, or they could be up there.

(11-30-2015 08:44 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  S20, you would hope. But reading the article, it state Bowls and Conference have contracts. I think the comment from the MWC commissioner shows it could happen differently. You think Cactus would take the qualified MWC backup over 5-7 team B12 but apparently not.

The key phrase there is "deemed to be bowl eligible." The NCAA rule that they are using explicitly specifies that the 5-7 APR rule only comes into effect if all bowl eligible schools have a space. So the Wildcats could not be deemed to be bowl eligible unless all of the bowl eligible MWC schools have a spot.

Now, that may not mean that the MWC is guaranteed the Cactus Bowl secondary tie-in ... that is based on how the contract is written. Similarly for the MAC and the Detroit Bowl back-up to the Big Ten or ACC. But Kansas State needs all of the bowl eligible schools to get a spot in order to able to rely on its APR ranking and 5-7 record.

So from what I can gather, some around here are upset that even though every 6-win team will be in a bowl, that because of contracts, some bowls will be able to pick a 5-7 team over a 6-6 team?

Sorry, but that just doesn't get my dander up. So what if a 6-6 team plays in bottom-feeder bowl B instead of bottom-feeder bowl A?

Much ado about nothing.

(11-30-2015 10:29 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Illinois needs both of the 5 win Sun Belt teams to lose. The Illini should get the nod over Rice because of the Big Ten bowl tie-in if that happens.

I think there is greater complexity in the decision between Illinois and Rice. C-USA will have two unfilled contractual tie-ins without Rice. I think we will see a very interesting set of bowl switches that leaves Rice out, but it would be interesting. Particularly to see if the New Mexico bowl thinks a 5-7 Rice or a 5-7 Illinois is better for tickets since UNM is already bowl eligible.

(12-01-2015 01:35 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-01-2015 12:45 AM)ValleyBoy Wrote:  

(11-30-2015 11:53 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-30-2015 11:32 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  NCAA standards dictate that all 6-6 teams must be placed before a 5-7 can be placed. What USAToday is talking about is that there is a possibility that the 5-7 teams will be sent to conference bowls to fill in once all the 6-6 have been placed

Every 6 win team gets a bowl game, but a particular bowl could still choose a 5 win team over a 6 win team. The only thing the NCAA cares about here is that every 6 win team has a chair when the music stops. They don't decide who gets which chair.

Not correct. The Bowl cannot choose a 5 win team over a 6 win team. No bowl can officially issue a invite to a 5 win team until all 6 win teams have received an invite an excepted. No 5 win team can except a bowl invite until all 6 win teams have received and excepted a bowl invite.

That's semantics. Every 6-win team gets an invitation from some bowl, and the bowls who are going to take 5-win teams just wait until every 6-win team has an invitation, however long that takes, to officially invite the teams they unofficially agreed to invite several days earlier.

Exactly. The notion that a Big Ten bowl has to invite a 6-6 non-Big Ten team before one of the eligible 5-7 Big Ten teams is completely incorrect.

I guess a question I have- can the 6-6 teams balk at being sent out to the Netherlands and force better invites for them?

(12-01-2015 09:32 AM)WTXOwl Wrote:  

(11-30-2015 10:29 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Illinois needs both of the 5 win Sun Belt teams to lose. The Illini should get the nod over Rice because of the Big Ten bowl tie-in if that happens.

I think there is greater complexity in the decision between Illinois and Rice. C-USA will have two unfilled contractual tie-ins without Rice. I think we will see a very interesting set of bowl switches that leaves Rice out, but it would be interesting. Particularly to see if the New Mexico bowl thinks a 5-7 Rice or a 5-7 Illinois is better for tickets since UNM is already bowl eligible.

To be honest, neither Rice nor Illinois are good for ticket sales. The main things we (Illinois) have in our favor are (a) Jim Delany is better than anyone at getting bowls to bow down to him and (b) the Chicago TV market (with the combo of Illinois fans and Big Ten partisans overall). I certainly wouldn't guarantee a single thing for Illinois, though. The worst case scenario has been a good bet in Champaign-Urbana lately.

(12-01-2015 10:25 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I guess a question I have- can the 6-6 teams balk at being sent out to the Netherlands and force better invites for them?

That would be interesting. In theory, maybe. In practice, it's doubtful with the way things are playing out this year since (a) 3 of the games in question have Big Ten bowl tie-ins and there are 3 5-7 Big Ten teams that are sitting there that can be eligible and (b) the Cactus Bowl is basically guaranteed to get Kansas State whether they win or lose. (I know Kansas State's bid is technically up for a player vote, but I don't see players turning down a free trip to the Arizona State campus for the New Years holiday. Those APR scores show that those kids aren't dumb.) The "better" bowl options may not really exist.

(12-01-2015 10:33 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-01-2015 10:25 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I guess a question I have- can the 6-6 teams balk at being sent out to the Netherlands and force better invites for them?

That would be interesting. In theory, maybe. In practice, it's doubtful with the way things are playing out this year since (a) 3 of the games in question have Big Ten bowl tie-ins and there are 3 5-7 Big Ten teams that are sitting there that can be eligible and (b) the Cactus Bowl is basically guaranteed to get Kansas State whether they win or lose. (I know Kansas State's bid is technically up for a player vote, but I don't see players turning down a free trip to the Arizona State campus for the New Years holiday. Those APR scores show that those kids aren't dumb.) The "better" bowl options may not really exist.

What leverage does a 6-6 team from a G5 have? Zero.

IIRC, a few years ago a 9-3 team, maybe it was Louisiana-Monroe or LA-Tech? Tried to "hold out" for a slightly better bowl, and they ended up sitting on the sidelines, missed a bowl entirely. So i don't expect any 6-6 team to try and pull that. They could "balk" at going to bowl A if they want, but they will find that there is no bowl B option for them. Take A or leave it, LOL.

PS - Phoenix is absolutely gorgeous around Christmas time. K-State would be a fool to turn down a trip there, and K-State isn't a fool, LOL.

You have to wonder if the having several 5-7 teams will damage the bowls more in the public eye and could lead to more expansion of the playoff.
We'll see what they do for next year as this is supposed to be a 1 time thing. Having bowls go dark would be the better option they are talking about for next year. One thing should be done though is that all bowls with back-ups should have those filled with the backups they are associated first before grabbing a 5 win team. That is the purpose of signing a contract as a backup to a bowl....otherwise what is the point of having a different conference sign a backup agreement?