Barta wants to raise eligibility bar

[ICHawk24]

if these small bowls are not making money, then why do they continue to have them?

ESPN wants the inventory so they prop them up. They actually own about 6 of the worst bowls.

 

[ibahawkeye]

I wonder just how passionate Gary is about this...

Would we turn down a bowl invite on a 6-6 year?

 

[storminspank]

7 or more wins is the way to go.
Get rid of these bottom feeder bowls.

 

[hogeye]

I wonder just how passionate Gary is about this...

Would we turn down a bowl invite on a 6-6 year?

No.

 

[pmchawk]

He should also suggest a minimum team GPA to participate in the playoff system.

 

[Ronco]

I appreciate and applaud raising the criteria from 6 to 7 and I hope it happens. For those wondering- If Iowa only wins 6 this year and does accept a bowl berth it does NOT make Barta hypocritical. It makes him a budget concious AD.

 

[Travisam]

It probably would mean moar if OSU or Michigan said it. Who really cares what Barry has to say? When is le last time Francis or Kert gave any mind to what Barry said?

Ghost did you happen to attend the Robin Williams school of trying too hard? Wait I mean... teh skewl of trying sho hardy...or something unfunny like that.

 

[9YRPLAN]

That's the problem with college football right there. Someone can't tell the difference between 7-5 and 9-3.

please explain the difference. and dont say "2 more wins and 2 less losses".

 

[pmchawk]

please explain the difference. and dont say "2 more wins and 2 less losses".

you can reach 9-3 without having bad loses or quality wins. 7-5 you are likely to have a bad loss or 2.

 

[hogeye]

please explain the difference. and dont say "2 more wins and 2 less losses".

Who said you were wrong? I said it was a problem with CFB, not a problem with 9YRPLAN.

On the surface I'd like to be able to call you an idiot for that statement, but the main problem is that you have too many teams that can cake walk into 7 - 9 wins.

Boise State is probably the best example. You go back and look at their record against BCS teams in the past 10-12 years and it's a couple games above .500, but yet they feel they're being cheated out of BCS Championship opportunities playing a weakened schedule.

That statement should be wrong, but too many times it's not.

 

[hawkfan340]

Great in theory, but Dannen (UNI AD) correctly points out that schools will just respond by scheduling even worse non-conf. opponents during the regular season.

Every school would start scheduling like Wisconsin. That's not something I want. Easier to ignore 10 terrible bowl match-ups than 4 weeks of Iowa v. LA Tech type games.

 

[9YRPLAN]

you can reach 9-3 without having bad loses or quality wins. 7-5 you are likely to have a bad loss or 2.

so what? either way you are just rewarding a team who wasnt good enough to make the rose/sugar/orange/fiesta/whatever-their-traditional-conference-champ-tie-in bowl. so who really cares if a 7-5 or 6-6 teams goes if the players and fans want it to happen?

 

[pmchawk]

Great in theory, but Dannen (UNI AD) correctly points out that schools will just respond by scheduling even worse non-conf. opponents during the regular season.

Every school would start scheduling like Wisconsin. That's not something I want. Easier to ignore 10 terrible bowl match-ups than 4 weeks of Iowa v. LA Tech type games.

Then OOC SOS should be weighted more heavily then in conference.

 

[hogeye]

Great in theory, but Dannen (UNI AD) correctly points out that schools will just respond by scheduling even worse non-conf. opponents during the regular season.

Every school would start scheduling like Wisconsin. That's not something I want. Easier to ignore 10 terrible bowl match-ups than 4 weeks of Iowa v. LA Tech type games.

This won't work long term for two reasons: 1. the BIG/PAC annual matchup's that will be scheduled force everyone to one inter-conference game. 2. The BIG going to an additional conference game for every team.

At that point, who cares what teams do with the remaining two games.

 

[1hawkeye1]

I would absolutely be in favor of a minimum 7 wins to get into a bowl game. It is ridiculous how many bowl games there are and ridiculous how many teams -- as a result -- get to go to a bowl game. Now, I get the side of it that the
experience for the players has to be pretty cool ... I think it just waters down the field a bit ... Sort of a 'let's give everyone a ribbon' philosophy. ... I think 7 is the absolute minimum ... I had to laugh ... because of course that other AD in Iowa wants to see the minimum remain as is ...

 

[1977Hawkeye]

so what? either way you are just rewarding a team who wasnt good enough to make the rose/sugar/orange/fiesta/whatever-their-traditional-conference-champ-tie-in bowl. so who really cares if a 7-5 or 6-6 teams goes if the players and fans want it to happen?

Teams that go 9-3 are still pretty good teams and deserve a bowl game, and can still create some pretty intriguing matchups IMO.

Teams that are 7-5 or 6-6, and can barely win more than they lose.. I doubt I'm nearly the only one who doesn't care at all about the games those teams play in. And I agree with someone who said it's getting to be like "a ribbon for everyone" type of situation.

 

[pmchawk]

so what? either way you are just rewarding a team who wasnt good enough to make the rose/sugar/orange/fiesta/whatever-their-traditional-conference-champ-tie-in bowl. so who really cares if a 7-5 or 6-6 teams goes if the players and fans want it to happen?

58 teams were over .500 before the bowl games. That would be 29 bowl games. It could probably dropped a few more games if you have to be over .500 not including FCS opponents.

You could make it interesting with a rule stating you can't play more then 1 FCS opponent in a given year. And you aren't elgible for the playoffs if your FCS opponent has not been in the post season with-in the last 3 years.

Then weighting the OOC SOS to the point where scheduling cupcakes will truly hurt your play-off chances.

 

[hogeye]

You could make it interesting with a rule stating you can't play more then 1 FCS opponent in a given year. And you aren't elgible for the playoffs if your FCS opponent has not been in the post season with-in the last 3 years.

There are already rules in place for wins against FCS teams. What would this add?

 

[hogeye]

Teams that go 9-3 are still pretty good teams and deserve a bowl game, and can still create some pretty intriguing matchups IMO.

Teams that are 7-5 or 6-6, and can barely win more than they lose.. I doubt I'm nearly the only one who doesn't care at all about the games those teams play in. And I agree with someone who said it's getting to be like "a ribbon for everyone" type of situation.

The problem is you can't just take all FBS teams across the board and line them up in bowls based on W-L. There is too much disparity in conferences.

 

[pmchawk]

There are already rules in place for wins against FCS teams. What would this add?

more strict.