Essentially, this would mean that, in seasons like this year, Virginia Tech would not be a bowl eligible team, and would need a scenario where the bowls needed an extra team to fill a slot to get invited.
Report: ACC AD's vote to make seven wins the new bowl eligibility standard
Now, mind you, this would still have to pass a national vote to take effect, but its interesting to see the winds of change start. Yes, this would mean that bowls would have to get dropped, but that probably isn't a bad thing.
What do you think of this? How would you feel if this was the case this year, and even with the win over UVa, we likely wouldn't have been making a bowl this year?
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
It would have sucked for us this year, but this would be a good thing.
and last year...and in 2012.
I don't agree that fewer bowls would be such a good thing:
1 - You get to put off the offseason dregs a little bit longer (speaking of which, I wonder if we could get some bowls added after the spring games...), and coaches get another showcase opportunity for recruiting prospects.
2 - You get to see matchups you'd never see under any other venue. This is ironic as in another post there was some pretty good discussion about how long the hiatus' were for ACC foes based upon the league schedule restraints. Bowls won't fix that, but it addresses the issue with seeing more varied matchups. One of the things I love the most about college football is how diverse the offensive and hence, defensive approaches are.
Not really. Any reduction in bowls would be for the games prior to New Year's, and even before Christmas.
That's where the not-so-serious (sort of) comment about bowls after Spring Game came from
I think this will be great for college football. We don't need to reward "average" seasons. I have no problems with reducing the bowl games by about 20.
Because more football is a bad thing?
Not that more football is a bad thing. Just that it used to mean a lot more than it does now. Why are settling for crapy bowls with crapy teams just to extend the season.
Does it really mean any more -- to anyone -- whether it's two 8-4 teams playing or two 6-6 teams?
Yes, and ESPECIALLY if it's two 5-7 teams playing
Seriously, the only bowls that view as a reward for being good are the new years 6.
The bowls give schools more practice time. That practice time lets younger guys get some more reps before spring practice begins. ANY practice is GOOD practice!
I hope that this never matters to us.
I like how you think!!!
Tech would still have made a bowl this year.
Based upon?? How do you suppose that would work out? There are 63 teams with a 7-5 record or better. If they cut out 6-6 teams, they'd likely drop to maybe 30 bowls, so 6-6 teams wouldn't have much of a chance. They won't stay at 42 bowls and have the requirement be 7-5 because they won't fill the spots. Filling with those who don't qualify is a last resort as a contingency plan, not the goal.
At most we might see 2-3 bowls get dropped but you aren't going to drop 10 plus bowl games, who would agree to that? The NCAA who makes money from the bowls? The bowls themselves? TV networks?
I could see them dropping some of the lowest bowls if it means the rest get to be more valuable.
Half the problem with bowl season is that fanbases are so numb to seeing their teams in bowls that they don't travel when they're in the lower tier. If the NCAA has the figures to show that returning the bowl season to a reward for having a good season, where making a bowl is more of an accomplishment than a formality, I could easily see there being more money to be made.
Basically, you control the supply, and there's a whole ton of money to be made.
But the NCAA doesn't care how or if a bowl makes money. They get a fee paid to them to make the bowl legit, that fee doesn't go up or down if a bowl makes or loses money. So why would they cut their revenue stream?
Also, what is the incentive for a bowl game to shut down? If the number of bowls has been consistently rising, it must be profitable in some manner. So, the bowls would never voluntarily shut down. This whole discussion seems like a non-starter.
No more settling for terrible Bowls to keep the streak alive
I don't understand this train of thought from fans. People would rather see our season be over than have a continued streak, extra practice, and another game to watch. I'm assuming your not going to watch the Hokies bowl game because it's a "terrible" bowl.
I completely understand this line of thinking and agree with it.
Given that it's CFB's swansong, I'm glad we're in a bowl. Yes, I'll watch. Otherwise, yes I'd rather see our season be over. For the past few seasons the extra practice hasn't helped, the streak means less now than it once did. The streak used to mean you had a tradition of winning. Now it just means you weren't a loser, (unless there aren't enough non-losers to qualify for all the bowl slots). There's something to be said for sitting at home during the post season.
This would be less stringent than the old system of 8W's, but it at lest demands you to be above avg.
So why don't more teams have longer bowl streaks?
Just shooting from the hip, I'd say it's because they weren't winning enough games when the requirement was higher and there were fewer bowls.
Definitely shooting from hip. The rules changed in 2006 to allow 6-6 teams to be bowl eligible. Yet only 10 schools have active bowl streaks that started before 2006.
Because the recent explosion of bowl games has only started not even a decade ago. Over the next decade or so that number will be almost meaningless since the number of bowls keeps growing. Hell, there are 3 new ones coming in 2016.
We got good in the 90s on the tail end of when it was an accomplishment to get to bowls and it transitioned into the period where you basically have to have a pulse to get to one. I'm sure that in the 2020s there will be few teams that don't have a double digit bowl streak.
Off the top of my head I can name two teams that should easily have gotten to a bowl game using that logic, GT and Texas yet they are sitting at home.
If you were responding to me, I noticed a typo. I had "we're" where it should have been "weren't".
Incorrect.
Only 10 teams have managed to maintain bowl streaks that started before the rules changed in 2006.
It's not easy to avoid a bad season. Bowl streaks aren't what they once were (although one could argue there are far more competitive teams now than in, say, the 70s), but a double digit bowl streak will still be an accomplishment.
I'd like to see your comments when we don't make a bowl. Our streak will end eventually. I just don't get "I'd rather see no Hokie football than Hokie football after we haven't had a good year." I'll take Hokie football all day. Some will go complain about it and others will just enjoy the last few moments of the season as we wait for spring ball to start.....which is longer if you don't go to a bowl so......
Fewer bowls will make the regular season more meaningful. When bowls mean something, so to does winning regular season games. Allowing 6-6 and 5-7 teams to have the rewards of a bowl just fosters a culture of mediocrity.
Really do you want to see more New Mexico, Charlottes and Idaho's on the schedule?
You don't think that last years game against Virginia was meaningful (besides the Commonwealth Cup)? That the drama of getting to 6 wins and making a bowl saturated that game? It sure did feel like one of the most important games ever. And this year had the extra threads of Beamer's last game
It would have been just as meaningful if it had been over the 7th win instead of the 6th.
In fact, moreso, because there would be fewer bowl-eligible teams.
A bowl for this season is like a participation trophy for finishing in last place.
No one is forcing you to watch.
if it means getting rid of some of the ridiculous bowls I'm for it.
What you dont like the
Kuerig K-Cup Bowl
Beef 'O' Brady Bowl
Pepperidge farm remembers when there were less bowls bowl
Famous Idaho Potatoes bowl
Who knows what kind of companies will sponsor shitty bowls in the future?
With all this ad revenue, can there be a TheKeyPlay bowl next year!?
Where does the money come from, ultimately? Selling tickets. TV revenue. Those would probably be the top 2. I think continually adding bowls results in watering down the product. There has to be a threshold. Yes, bowls keep being added because there is money to be made there but at some point you're going to get diminishing returns. There are only so many CFB fans and they can only attend/watch so many games. Eventually, you're going to start adding bowls that can't get enough ticket sales or draw a large enough TV market to make money. I love college football. I love watching college football. I love that my Hokies get an opportunity for more practice and one more game that I get to watch this year. Those are all positives. BUT, I'm not going to be able to watch 40 different games over a 2 week span (or however long bowls last). It's just not possible. And, since we've been to 23 straight bowls and we're going to a pretty unspectacular bowl this year because we've had a pretty unspectacular season I'm not motivated to attend the game. I'll be watching from home. I'll watch our game, the playoff games, and the other games for teams that just missed the playoff. That's probably just about it. As a CFB fan, there are a whole bunch of games that I'm just not going to watch....The shear volume of games to watch really devalues each one. If I'm completely bored and there is a game on I might turn it on to watch in the background but frankly I'm more likely to find something better to do with my time.
Personally, I think we've already zoomed past the point of diminishing returns
I agree that we've overshot the point of diminishing returns by quite a bit. What I'm not so sure on, however, is whether we've reached the point where bowls are losing money. I think we're quickly approaching that point, if we haven't already hit it.
TV revenue is #1. Selling tickets is a distant #2.
The order doesn't matter. My point still stands. If the TV market is flooded with more football games than people can't watch they will lose value. At some point the bowl sponsors will lose money because there aren't enough people watching the games on TV. Of the 40 bowl games that will be available I will only be able to watch 6, maybe 7 of them. I can't be the only CFB fan in that department.
Yet somehow the average bowl is viewed by about 6 million people. That's including the bowls on during the week, multiple games on at the same time, games on ESPNU, etc.
Yeah, I think it's ridiculous teams with losing records are making bowls now but you know what? I guarantee you I'll watch at least some of Nebraska/UCLA. Why? Because I love college football.
I say football is football and if you are a college football fan than what else would you rather watch. I get to sit in front of a TV with my 12 year old and break down defenses and offenses as they play!
This would be great but I have a hard time seeing it happen. Reducing bowls would mean turning down money, and organizations as large as this don't turn down money, even if it improves the product.
I agree. Money drives everything. Money drove us to the 6-6 and 5-7 bowl games. Money will not push for fewer bowl games, so I don't see it happening either. Would like it though.
I don't understand the logic. My best guess is to get stronger teams to represent the ACC in bowl season but if not then we just won't have teams in bowls. 5-7 teams going bowling doesn't happen on the scale that it is this year (of course I haven't looked at how many 5-7 teams are actually in bowls). We would have been out of bowls 2 out of the last three years if that were the case.
I think this comes from the fact that the bowls themselves make money, but unless it's a top-tier bowl the school usually ends up losing money, since they are on the hook for unsold tickets, travel expense, etc.
ADs are tired of fronting the bill for bowls. This may be a chess move to get the bowl system overhauled and expenses/revenue more evenly shared.
there may be a point there
There already was an overhaul to the bowls and ticket allotments etc. it's been an ongoing effort since UCONN lost millions going to a BCS game.
I thoroughly enjoy bowl season. I don't get all the hate for all the bowl games. Sure not all of them classics but a lot of them do end up being pretty good games. Plus it gives me another month of college football to watch. I don't understand it. Plus all the "we are rewarding mediocrity....grab your pitchforks!!!!" It's not the end of society because college level athletes get to play "another" game and get some extra practice. Who cares?? What's it to you that a 6-6 team goes to a bowl? Granted we don't strive to be 6-6 and always strive to be the best as we can (as does everyone else) but it doesn't always shake out that way. The players know they are going to a low tier bowl. Are you not going to support them because of that?? C'mon man!
This would be the least of my worries. I don't see why people get bent out of shape that lower schools get to play in far off places in an exhibition game that you aren't watching anyway.
I'm more worried about not having enough conference games. Too many years between divisions playing. Increase conference games by at least one, preferably two.
Playing FCS teams. It's a scrimmage, let's stop acting like its a real game. Just invite an FCS team in for an August scrimmage and let the public watch. Take up a collection for a charity and pay the FCS team $100K for their trouble. The p5 schools can afford that easily.
If you do those things and make 7-5 the minimum bowl record, I would be fine with it. To just raise the bowl record minimum is really making a move I don't care that much about.
Edit: I'm not exactly sure what to propose, but I guess I would prefer all the P5 schools end up in 7 team divisions and split those divisions into their own mini-conferences. Have the ACC-Coastal play 6 games against each other, 3 games against two other rotating divisions. Then you play the championship games of each major conference. It's more like the NFL model. You lose some cross conference rivalry games but you gain 12 interesting games and more diversity than we have now.
You, sir. Today, I agree....with you.
6 wins was the standard in 11 game seasons, they simply didn't update it when they added the 12th game. just make the new standard 7 wins. i love "more football", but i also would like to get back to bowl qualification really meaning something. if i counted correctly, 65 out of 128 teams had at least 7 wins this year. ~30-33 bowls seems reasonable.
also, on the money argument, if the schools took control of the post season and put on the playoffs and bowls themselves, they would be able to keep a whole lot of money for themselves that otherwise goes to the bowl committees.
i would also open up December practices to all 128 teams regardless of bowl status. allow coaches to recap the season and set the tone for Spring practices.
100% agree with this, our society really does kids no favor by awarding mediocrity because that is not what happens in the real world.
We should just shut down lots of the programs too as they are perpetually mediocre and it is awful to have kids learning life lessons about being mediocre. If you don't play for Alabama, you are just learning how to lose.
So long UVA Football
s/
Lol, I love when people make sweeping comments on society being too coddled. Its just football bro, give the kids more practice and a vacation for some fun.
You know what, you're right. If we reward these kids with a bowl game, they'll have to practice for that much longer, play hard for another whole game, and just generally contribute to them growing up to be lazy, useless bums.
Instead, we shouldn't give them these free rewards, they should just go home and spend the holidays on the couch! That'll teach them the value of hard work and effort!
Wait...
I do not know what the other Power5 is doing but I think this is a class move by the ACC.
I doubt anything will come from this. Bowls exist to make money. Those sponsoring the bowls will invite whatever teams they like that they think will make them money. The schools want revenue from those bowl games. All the ACC is doing is (symbolically) indicating that they think fewer of their teams should be showcased, fewer should be given extra practice time, and there should be a smaller bowl revenue incoming. This makes no financial or logistical sense to me.
From a football purist standpoint, I can see where this is coming from. I don't care to have losing teams go to bowls, but whatever. Indeed, the best games are usually between top teams, but you know what, battles between 6-6 teams can be pretty damn entertaining. If given the choice between sitting around aimlessly during time off around Christmas or watching two teams that I've never seen play duke it out on a Tuesday afternoon, I take the latter every single time.
This sounds good as a headline, but if you think about it, to me all that this means is that teams will be much less likely to schedule difficult out of conference games.
For example this year, we already got penalized for playing a tough out of conference schedule (if we just scheduled and ODU instead of Ohio State or ECU, we would be in the Belk Bowl instead of NC State). NC State was rewarded with a much better bowl game than us even though we beat them and they played Troy, Eastern Kentucky, ODU and South Alabama. We played 2 big ten teams and ECU, and because we lost 2 of those we get relegated to a tier 3 bowl game.
I agree with the people above that say we should address conference scheduling first, and if we are really going to the 7 win , we should address strength of OOC scheduling as well.
great points.
ACC should vote to go to 9 game and none of this current madness
How is there any benefit to this rule?
It promotes ACC ADs to schedule more cupcakes in the regular season, creates a disincentive to schedule premier OOC match-ups.
It reduces the number of ACC teams in bowl games, thus less money and exposure for the ACC. It reduces the number of ACC teams with December practice to prepare for the next season.
Can anyone explain a benefit of this scenario? Besides, I don't like the Shreveport Independence Bowl or any bowl with less-than-premier match-ups. And what's the harm of less-than-premier match-ups? Is the sanctity of the game ruined?
I think that any chance for these kids to get to travel to a bowl game and play teams they would otherwise never play is a good thing. We're going to a crappy bowl this year that will mostly only be watched by VT and Tulsa fans, it will have horrible ratings, and yet it is definitely not a bad thing. As long as people are willing to have a bowl and a network is willing to show it, keep playing bowl games.
Don't even need a national TV network anymore to make a bowl game happen. There is a bowl game this year between two teams from the same conference that will only be on regional networks.
And that makes sense because...
It doesn't, the schools are not happy, the conference isn't happy.
Ironically, the Mountain West (along with Conference USA) partnered in creating the bowl
My random thoughts on this proposition for and against.
1. Does eliminating the 6-6 teams from bowls also eliminate the bowl practices for those schools? That would hurt a lot of programs.
2. Currently, tier 2 bowls give limited money to the schools. As a result Tech is really cutting down on the amount of time at the Bowl this year, I think they are traveling on the 23rd, walking through on the 24th, off Christmas, and playing on the 26th. A lot of the little bowls actually costs the Schools money as they their expenses exceed their revenue.
3. As more and more conferences schedule more and more P5 teams rather than FCS schools or G5 teams it is going to be harder and harder to get to 7 wins. This move could backfire on them.
Yup, I question if this will ultimately cost the conference money. Say we have two 6-6 teams and they don't go bowling. That means no bowl money for the conference to divide up and less time practicing.
If the big concern is that bowl teams get to practice, then cut the number of bowl games and simply allow a 2 week period during December for all other teams to practice. 40 bowls is way too many. 20 might be a better number. Let all teams work out during December, but lets get back to Bowls actually being a reward for a good season. Playing in Idaho in December, standing on the same sideline as your opponent, playing in a baseball stadium, being away from family to play a 6-6 team during the Holidays is not a reward for these kids.
First thing that came to mind was "Poor LOLUVA".
I like that we're going to a bowl this year, but I would also like to say our bowl streak means something. If upping the win threshold reduces the number of bowls, that's great. if there's another way to do it to make it more competitive to get to a bowl, I'd probably be for that as well.
Even with 6 wins no other school has a bowl streak within what 5 games of VT. Clearly it's not as easy as many people would have us believe it is to get to bowl games year after year.
I like college football so anything that results in fewer games is something I oppose.
I agree that sending .500 or sub .500 teams to bowls is silly and there may be too many bowls, but bowls =
1) More money
2)More practice
3)More football
If anyone can make a valid argument against any of those, I wanna hear it.
I kinda sorta addressed points 1 and 3 here.
Nothing wrong with point 2, IMO
So, to summarize your above argument, 6-6 teams should not go to bowl games because it is a "devalued" bowl game that you, or a similar situated fan, cannot make the time to watch.
Cool. I also don't have the time watch "Chloe and Lamar." I'm not asking it to go away.
So, speaking philosophically, if two 6-6 teams play in a bowl game, and nobody watches, will someone still complain that the bowl shouldn't exist?
I mean I don't really have a staunch POV on the topic. I don't really care if they add games or remove games. I wouldn't be upset either way. It is my opinion that there are too many. If they add 4 new games a year we'll have enough games for every team in fbs (yes, that includes uva) in 6 years. What's the point if all the teams get to go bowling? Why not just make the season longer?
1. sub title sponsors...more money for fewer bowls means same payout at end of the day for everything
2. allow everyone to practice
3. see #2. If not happy, win more games.
Just nit-picking here. But, all three of those arguments are not counter arguments arguing why not. They are simply side arguments arguing an alternative exists.
IMO, if you're going to change the status quo, offer up a compelling reason why. I don't see any compelling reason of why 6-6 teams should not go to a bowl.
Just throwing things out there. Maybe it is simply a side discussion, showing alternatives. Which there always are. There are complaints of schools losing money because they made a bowl game. There are complaints that the kids won't be home during the Holidays. There are complaints that a bowl game in Idaho, or the Bronx, or playing a 6-6 team aren't a reward. Which it used to be, for a GOOD season.
A compelling reason why, to change the status quo...this is THE question isn't it. Well, the current system is changing all the time. The BCS is dead; we now have the 4 team playoff as selected by a committee. There are new bowl games added every year; with 3 new ones next season bringing the total to 43. 86 teams will make bowl games next year. The conferences have changed and now many have a conference championship game now. What is the status quo, exactly? I say it's a moving target, and fluid. This change, and are currently doing so every year. There is no status quo. Thus, I offer up an alternative...that adds to the always changing atmosphere of college football.
This season there are 11 teams that are 6-6 and 3 that are 5-7. There are 40 bowls, for 80 teams. 77 were conditionally eligible this season (thus the 3 sub .500 teams.) And next year that grows. Why? More teams that aren't conditionally eligible will make a bowl game. For more football?
In FCS this season, there are 125 teams. Just about the same amount that is in the FBS. 24 of those teams get to play in the post season. Because they earned it. They all get a shot at playing for a national championship. What are the majority of teams in FBS playing for? Money for the conference? Extra practice? TV exposure? There are remedies to those reasons.
A. Allow all teams to practice. I heard it said that the coaches like their team making a bowl because they get the extra practice time and reps with the kids. Well, allow everyone to practice, so there isn't a difference across the board. With 86 of 128 teams making a bowl game next season, this only affects 42 teams. Reduce the number of bowls and let everyone practice. No advantage, no loss to any team. Those that do make a bowl will get some more practice, but that will be getting ready for the team they are going to face in the bowl.
B. Make the sponsorship bigger and broader. Instead of $5million for one sponsor, take a sponsor from one of the bowls that isn't happening and make it $9million between the 2. Or $12-$15million between 3 sponsors. The total haul for the conference will remain the same. And fewer teams will be traveling, so the revenue to each team may actually go up. What about the bowls that are shut down? Make a tier system (similar to now) and flip flop years for bowl. One year, it's in Nashville, next year it's in Birmingham. Spread it around. Sound familiar, kinda like the playoff and championship game model between the bowls and championship city.
C. Bowls used to actually be a reward, for the players and the fans. You had to win to be invited. You had to earn it. And it was a destination. How is playing in Idaho in December a "reward" for a good season? Will fans travel halfway across the county during the holidays on 3 weeks notice to Idaho? Maybe. Maybe not. Reduce the number of bowl games, make it an 8 win minimum to qualify. (With 12 games, you can be .667 and make it!) Make it a reward once again. As for the teams that don't make it; win more games. Make it a goal to make a bowl game, not an afterthought. As a fan, I'm more likely to follow a 9-3 team to Florida for New Years than a 6-6 team to the Bronx.
Those will say that the past few seasons the loluva game meant more because it was to make us bowl eligible. Well, it should mean a lot EVERY year. As should the other 11. I'm not sure the game was ramped up wit the bowl streak on the line or not, but you should be amped for your rival every year. And for the other games in order to get eligible. If there was an 8 win requirement for a bowl berth, do you think we would have approach the loluva game either year any different? I'm going to guess no. And hope that it's no. We should want to win every game that we suit up for. Period.
We've been spoiled with our 23 straight. Almost expecting it as fact every year. There are posters on this forum that weren't even born when the streak started. It's not an easy thing, even with all of the teams that get bowl invitations. (As stated above, there are what 5 teams? with a streak over 10 years.) In 1985 there were 18 bowl games. Only a few didn't have a ranked team (the rankings only went to #20 then also.) There are ways to reduce the number, keep the money flow up, make intriguing match-ups, make it a reward to be there, and allow those that don't make it to be home for the Holidays.
1) I may have incorrectly assumed this.
2) I don't see this happening.
3) I, like many others, enjoy football games no matter who is playing. I doubt anyone can catch all of the bowls, but that's not an argument against more football.
I hate that average seasons get rewarded, but what's wrong with more football? Even crappy bowls pay each school a lot of money. I don't see a problem with letting some company pay two 6-6 teams to come play. It's not downplaying the teams who had good records. Want to go to a better bowl? Get a better record. Having a team go to a bowl is good for everyone involved. It doesn't hurt anything.
Screw the ACC. No one can leave so now we'll have power hungry bureaucrats telling schools and athletes what they can and can't do. The ADs should stop their collective ball licking while back stroking, and leave this up to the individual schools.
If kids start to view bowls as a way to get a way and have a vacation, how will the ACC pitch this to a potential recruit? Oh, yeah, the ACC won't be there for that.
If a school could make a bunch of money and make their alumni base happy by playing in the Inaugural Machu Picchu Bowl, how will the ACC pitch this to their alumni base? Oh, yeah, the ACC won't be there for that.
Decision making rights should absolutely be left to the schools and stripped from the ACC, except where absolutely necessary. Anything Swofford wants to delegate to his son excepted.
Aren't the ADs the representatives for the individual schools? Like, Whit Babcock is VT's AD. Right?
This thread is very "get off my lawn" and almost selfish. Everyone of these kids works their ass off for four months and then we get all pissy when they get rewarded. Sure, the bowls are about generating revenue but the players get some perks and a bit of a vacation. And, we get more football. FYI the Bahamas bowl and the Miami Beach Bowl were two really really good bowl games last season. What's wrong with rewarding a 6-6 season? You guys act like each bowl is the national championship.
Shouldn't be confusion on why this was done. Payout for the Independence is $1.2 mil. I believe the ACC splits the bowl revenues evenly. Split 14 ways (I don't think ND gets a split, but not sure) is ~$85k / school. Tech is on the hook for 6,000 tickets. The fan base probably isn't excited to travel for a 6-6 team. VT sells half the allotment. Has to buy out the other 3k seats @ $50/ticket = $150,000. Tech pays $150k and receives $85k. This doesn't even include travel costs, coaches bowl bonus, etc.
Add it all up, you're looking at $250k-500k in the hole for the 6-6 teams. This also assumes cutting out bowls makes them more difficult to go to, higher payouts, greater interest, etc. 7-5 teams probably lose money as well.
Not sure why the players should be rewarded with 6-6. What defines a good bowl game? Two mediocre teams playing a close game in front of 10k people? This is the participation trophy mentality you know. When you get a mediocre review at work, you probably don't get a raise and might get fired.
I'm obviously excited to watch us play one more game, but completely understand why the AD's are cutting out 6-6 eligibility.
Where did you see the number of tickets VT/ACC is on the hook for?
Tech will be receiving a lot more than the $85k for this bowl. They aren't the only ACC school in a bowl.
Here's an excerpt from last year:
ACC
$50 million base to the conference
$6 million to the conference for FSU (Rose Bowl – CFP semifinal)
$27.5 million to the conference for Georgia Tech (Orange Bowl)
Total: $83.5 million to the conference
Conference distribution model: all bowl revenue is divided equally after expense allotments for the participating teams and is included in annual distribution along with other conference revenue. The only exception is Notre Dame (as it relates to football revenue), which is handled separately under a conference agreement that has not been made public.
Saucy
And VT's share from the ACC last year was $19.3 million.
Yes, VT get's a portion of the ACC bucket. But, they would receive more revenue to stay home then if they had to eat the loss from a 6-6 bowl. So, in generalities, every 6-6 team will net less than teams who don't even qualify for the bowls.
There are some other factors at play. And what you said above isn't exactly true.
We went to a bowl last year at 6-6, but still pulled a million more from the ACC than loluva did, who was 5-7 and didn't go to a bowl.
Yeah, it's split after they net out expenses. not sure if that includes unsold tickets.
http://www.shreveporttimes.com/story/sports/2015/12/06/virginia-tech-bea...
Tulsa has a minimum ticket allotment of 10,000 for the game. Virginia Tech has 6,000.
Careful what you wish for. Would teams to be tempted to play an NCSU schedule? Who wants to watch games with Eastern Kentucky, Troy, Old Do, South Alabama?
Looking at this practically, I think this is less to do with taking a principled stand about only "rewarding" teams with winning records, and more to do with ADs being sick and tired of being on the hook for guaranteed ticket allotment for the lowest tier bowls. I think it's safe to say VT athletics will lose money by making the Independence Bowl, because we won't be able to sell all our ticket allotment. This has been a growing discontent among ADs for a while now, and this is the first backlash against it.
A lot of good points here. Not sure how I feel.
If there is anyone that knows about mediocrity and rewarding it it's Div-1 athletes....lousy bums.....
ESPN basically owns the bowl season and that's a lot of content for them. Would be surprised if they're on board with this.
One of my favorite bowl games of all time was a lower tier bowl game. The New Mexico Bowl between Washington State and Colorado State was incredible to watch. http://espn.go.com/college-football/recap?gameId=333550036 *Spoiler Alert*
Washington State had a 15 point lead with 3 minutes left in the game and Colorado State won by 3.
I'm gonna be honest I saw "ACC ADs vote..."" and I got all excited for the possibilities that awaited.
ACC ADs vote:
To never play ECU again
To move to 9 league game schedules
To enter Frank Beamer into the Presidential race as a Hokie
To tell Notre Dame "nut up or shut up" and enter the conference fully
The list could go on but I digress
seems they got my memo:
http://www.thekeyplay.com/comment/371593#comment-371593
Reward winning teams with National bowls, arrange 6-6 and 5-7 teams into the lower value bowls in unexpected matchups. Make bowls matter again, and make them interesting.
I'm all for reducing the number of bowls. The fact that they will need to reach out to 5-7 teams this year mean that's there is too many bowls. Make them more meaningful
Say it gets reduced to 32 bowls (it won't but let's play this game) what happens in a year when only 63 teams have 6 wins?
There were 77 teams with 6 qualifying wins this year.
And if/when there are fewer bowls, change the requirement to 7 or 8 wins. There were 66 teams with 7 wins this year.
And 50 teams with 8 wins. They could fill 20-24 bowls easily with 8-win teams.
We will never see the days of less than 30 bowls again.
And we were never going to see a playoff either.
Never say never.
it wouldn't have been necessary this year (and this was a bad year for records, thus the 5-7 teams getting to bowls), but even if it does become necessary, you can always make exceptions. My problem is the increase in bowls has resulted in the exceptions becoming the rule because of a saturated market. If you have to allow more than one team that doesn't meet the standard in every couple years, there is something wrong with either the standard or the number of spots. With bowls supposedly showcasing the better teams, one would expect them to maintain the standard and reduce the number of spots. The trend is currently the opposite of that: more spots so the standard has to keep getting lowered.
Unless a lot of bowl games are going to disappear, I don't think this would be a wise move. There are already not enough 6-6 or better teams to fill all the bowl slots this year, let alone 7-5. Why wouldn't you want your conference's teams to fill the available slots? I see several comments about teams losing money on trips to crappy games in undesirable locations. If the ACC has a problem with that, it's within their control to decide not to be affiliated with that bowl. Now, if bowl games start to disappear, I'd be in favor of increasing the eligibility threshold, though. It seems silly to allow a 6-6 team from a power conference with a traveling fanbase to get a bowl slot over an 8-4 team from a lesser conference, as used to happen when there were fewer bowls. (Assuming, of course, that the purpose of a bowl game is to reward a team for a good season, not just to make as much money as possible. Crazy thought, right?)
Or better yet, make 6 wins against FBS competition the minimum. Especially with many leagues prohibiting FCS scheduling, why not make it more equitable by saying that you have to have 6 FBS wins to be eligible?
First, I think they should make ACC bowl selection based on conference records only. If teams want to qualify for a crappy bowl by scheduling crappy OOC teams, they can, but they should not punish a team for playing a tougher schedule by letting others who did not jump them in the bowl selection order.
Second, I would like to see them say you need to be at least .500 in conference play to qualify for a bowl.
Let the punishment/reward for playing OOC teams be in good football for the fans, payouts for teams needing money, or whatever that school needs it to be, but it should never hurt a teams ability to go to a good bowl to play a tough OOC schedule. You win, its improves your chance at NY6, or tie breakers for tiers, or whatever. Beating SMU, the Directional School of Dentistry, or anyone with only 2 wins, should not be more rewarding than losing to Bama, anOSU, etc.
I like that idea. Your overall record can qualify you for a bowl, but your conference record decides your order in the selection. Do away with the pools, the behind-the-scenes deals, etc. and let the conference results decide your fate.