ADVERTISEMENT

New Pac12 rule...

Seems like something the Pac-12 would do. Schedule 9 conference games and demand your schools win 6 games while the SEC can schedule 4 body bag games, win a conference game, and get extra weeks of practice for bowl prep.

I'd take a 5-7 Cougar team in a bowl for the extra practices alone. Wouldn't brag about it, but its good for the program in the grand scheme of things.
 
The thing that bugs the holy crap out me, with this... it's such a passive aggressive thing to do. "If we do this, then we'll be putting pressure on the other conferences", kinda thing. As if there's a positive for any other conference to do this, other than the Pac12 TRYING to make other conferences look bad. What a bullish!t thing to do.

I also doubt that it's putting pressure on the other conferences. What it really means is, other conference programs will get another game, more practices, etc. While 1 or 2 of the Pac schools will potentially be on the outside, looking in. Dumb and fairly elitist, even. "Lets force them to think our way."
 
  • Like
Reactions: ATACFD
Coug95man2 said:
The thing that bugs the holy crap out me, with this... it's such a passive aggressive thing to do. "If we do this, then we'll be putting pressure on the other conferences", kinda thing. As if there's a positive for any other conference to do this, other than the Pac12 TRYING to make other conferences look bad. What a bullish!t thing to do.

I also doubt that it's putting pressure on the other conferences. What it really means is, other conference programs will get another game, more practices, etc. While 1 or 2 of the Pac schools will potentially be on the outside, looking in. Dumb and fairly elitist, even. "Lets force them to think our way."
Click to expand...

Have we actually ever sent a 5-7 team to a bowl game? Not in the last 3 seasons anyway. So much ado about not much IMHO.

That said, it does encourage Pac-12 schools to soften their non-com schedule even more, when all FBS teams should be encouraged to go in the other direction.

Here's my answer - no we have not
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2018/jun/04/pac-12-passes-rule-requiring-6-wins-for-bowl-eligi/
 
I may be the lone voice in the wilderness on this, but only five wins out of twelve games is a real bad look for a bowl and the opponent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CougEd
Cougzz said:
I may be the lone voice in the wilderness on this, but only five wins out of twelve games is a real bad look for a bowl and the opponent.
Click to expand...
Yeah, see I lean towards your stance.

Where the rubber meets the road is, if other conferences are doing it... and getting an extra game, and all the extra practices allowed, and getting the confidence boost, and getting the swag, and getting the TV revenue from the game... then why shouldn't we.

Chicken and the egg argument but I agree. I think rewarding LESS than mediocrity is bad in every form.
 
76 FBS teams go to a bowl every year. If the PAC-12 has the 75th most worthy team, and it has a record of 5-7, it should go.

If you want bowl games to be more of a treat, have fewer bowls.
 
There was mention on the other site of maybe being a way to not force member schools to pay out bowl bonuses to coaching staffs that were only able to cobble together 5 wins, which, to a certain degree, I agree with. However, I don’t see why you’d make it conference-wide decision though.
Let the schools make the decision if/when the situation ever arises.
 
I don't see the need for a rule. If schools want to decide that they shouldn't go to a bowl with a 5-7 record, fine, but I don't see what's gained by a conference-wide rule on this.
 
425cougfan said:
I don't see the need for a rule. If schools want to decide that they shouldn't go to a bowl with a 5-7 record, fine, but I don't see what's gained by a conference-wide rule on this.
Click to expand...

When the Pac-12 dies and goes to football heaven, St. Peter will let them in. The SEC is going to be sent to football hell.......I guess?
 
etowncoug said:
76 FBS teams go to a bowl every year. If the PAC-12 has the 75th most worthy team, and it has a record of 5-7, it should go.

If you want bowl games to be more of a treat, have fewer bowls.
Click to expand...

The quick and easy solution is to make the minimum bowl payout $750k. Right now, the following bowls are short of, or flirting with, that number:

Frisco Bowl (Frisco Texas): $200,000 - AAC vs Sun Belt or MAC
Bahamas Bowl (Nassau, Bahamas): $225,000 - MAC vs CUSA
Camellia Bowl (Montgomery, Alabama): $250,000 - MAC vs Sun Belt
Arizona Bowl (Tucson, Arizona): $278,420 - Sun Belt vs Mountain West
Cure Bowl (Orlando, Florida): $802,000 - three bowl games in the same stadium? That's stupid. - Sun Belt vs American
Boca Raton Bowl (Boca Raton, Florida): $850,000 - AAC vs CUSA
New Orleans Bowl (New Orleans, LA): $925,000 - CUSA vs Sun Belt

Looking at that list, maybe that isn't the best criteria, since all it does is punish smaller conferences more than they already suffer.
 
etowncoug said:
76 FBS teams go to a bowl every year. If the PAC-12 has the 75th most worthy team, and it has a record of 5-7, it should go.

If you want bowl games to be more of a treat, have fewer bowls.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The proliferation of minor bowls with names I can never learn has led to this issue. It has also minimized the the accomplishment of getting to the post season. If I were NCAA King for the Day, I would axe at least a dozen bowl games, if not more. Of course, there is money to be made (although, some of these bowls don't make much, if any, money) and brands/sponsors to promote. That's why it's not quite as impactful for a program to boast about how many bowl games they've played in during the past decade or so. (I'm not taking a shot at WSU, glad Leach has been able to produce consistently winning teams).

So give me the power....and say goodbye to the Cheribundi Tart Cherry Boca Raton Bowl, the [URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Gasparilla_Bowl']Bad Boy Mowers Gasparilla Bowl, and the [URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Frisco_Bowl']DXL Frisco Bowl, among others.[/URL][/URL]

Glad Cougar
 
Glad Cougar said:
Exactly. The proliferation of minor bowls with names I can never learn has led to this issue. It has also minimized the the accomplishment of getting to the post season. If I were NCAA King for the Day, I would axe at least a dozen bowl games, if not more. Of course, there is money to be made (although, some of these bowls don't make much, if any, money) and brands/sponsors to promote. That's why it's not quite as impactful for a program to boast about how many bowl games they've played in during the past decade or so. (I'm not taking a shot at WSU, glad Leach has been able to produce consistently winning teams).

So give me the power....and say goodbye to the Cheribundi Tart Cherry Boca Raton Bowl, the Bad Boy Mowers Gasparilla Bowl, and the DXL Frisco Bowl, among others.

Glad Cougar
Click to expand...

I agree that there are too many bowls but I think that we have to be careful about punishing small conferences over the major ones. Here are the number of "guaranteed" bowl tie-ins that each league has with the number of teams in the league in parenthesis:

AAC: 7 (12)
ACC: 9 (14)
B1G: 9 (14)
B12: 7 (10)
CUSA: 7 (14)
MAC: 5 (12)
MWC: 5 (12)
Pac-12: 7 (12)
SEC: 10 (14)
Sun Belt: 5 (12)

The ACC, B1G, B12 and SEC are over-represented with their automatic spots into bowl games and that is reflected in the fact that they are the leagues that most often have issues with having teams that are not bowl eligible playing in bowl games or just leaving spots open.
 
Boy, if only there was a, I don't know, a playoff system for football. Kinda like the NCAA basketball thingy-mer-bobber. 64 some odd teams (maybe not that many teams but maybe?), single loss elimination... If only someone would be a spokesman for such a thing. Small programs, big programs, whatever. 'Bama gets the same opportunity in the playoffs as Idaho. I don't know... we shouldn't go that fast, maybe. These bowl games aren't that antiquated... :D
 
Flatlandcoug said:
I agree that there are too many bowls but I think that we have to be careful about punishing small conferences over the major ones. Here are the number of "guaranteed" bowl tie-ins that each league has with the number of teams in the league in parenthesis:

AAC: 7 (12)
ACC: 9 (14)
B1G: 9 (14)
B12: 7 (10)
CUSA: 7 (14)
MAC: 5 (12)
MWC: 5 (12)
Pac-12: 7 (12)
SEC: 10 (14)
Sun Belt: 5 (12)

The ACC, B1G, B12 and SEC are over-represented with their automatic spots into bowl games and that is reflected in the fact that they are the leagues that most often have issues with having teams that are not bowl eligible playing in bowl games or just leaving spots open.
Click to expand...

ESPN has an article on the new Pac-12 rule, and of course they turn to CML for commentary.

CML: "Sounds like a solution looking for a problem.". Perfect analysis.

http://www.espn.com/college-footbal...passes-rule-requiring-6-wins-bowl-eligibility
 
Cougzz said:
I may be the lone voice in the wilderness on this, but only five wins out of twelve games is a real bad look for a bowl and the opponent.
Click to expand...
6 or 7 wins isn't real great either.

there are now 40 bowls games. FOURTY. Thats 2/3 of all college football programs going to a bowl game. Getting a reward, a prize per se, for what exactly? Exemplary performance? Squeaking out a .500 record? With 3 non-con cupcakes?

And I know, I know... "but, but, but the extra practices!" Allow all teams to get 2-4 weeks of practice after the season if they want - fixed. The lower tier bowls are garbage productions and exploitative towards the school and athletes, while raking in piles of cash for the sponsors and most importantly - THE NCAA. The NCAA is basically pimping out these football teams to pay for their bloated bureaucracy and salaries.
 
Flatlandcoug said:
The quick and easy solution is to make the minimum bowl payout $750k. Right now, the following bowls are short of, or flirting with, that number:

Frisco Bowl (Frisco Texas): $200,000 - AAC vs Sun Belt or MAC
Bahamas Bowl (Nassau, Bahamas): $225,000 - MAC vs CUSA
Camellia Bowl (Montgomery, Alabama): $250,000 - MAC vs Sun Belt
Arizona Bowl (Tucson, Arizona): $278,420 - Sun Belt vs Mountain West
Cure Bowl (Orlando, Florida): $802,000 - three bowl games in the same stadium? That's stupid. - Sun Belt vs American
Boca Raton Bowl (Boca Raton, Florida): $850,000 - AAC vs CUSA
New Orleans Bowl (New Orleans, LA): $925,000 - CUSA vs Sun Belt

Looking at that list, maybe that isn't the best criteria, since all it does is punish smaller conferences more than they already suffer.
Click to expand...
make P5 bowl games payout >$1M.

Done and done.
 
BleedCrimsonandGray said:
make P5 bowl games payout >$1M.

Done and done.
Click to expand...

Seems to me that half the problem is/was the increasing number of P5 tie-ins was boxing out the Group of 5, so the little bowls arose as a place for them to go.

So yes, raise the minimum payout for any NCAA bowl to a million. That will weed out at least the 7 listed above. And maybe eliminate the little hidden minimum ticket purchase requirement that some bowls throw in. Next, limit the prescribed bowl tie-ins to 50% of the number of schools in a league. That will free up some bowls for the Group of 5 to compete for. P5 schools could send more than 50%, but would compete for at-large slots after the 50%. If the Podunk bowl wants and can get SEC #10 instead of MAC #4, then that is their choice.
 
Coug95man2 said:
Boy, if only there was a, I don't know, a playoff system for football. Kinda like the NCAA basketball thingy-mer-bobber. 64 some odd teams (maybe not that many teams but maybe?), single loss elimination... If only someone would be a spokesman for such a thing. Small programs, big programs, whatever. 'Bama gets the same opportunity in the playoffs as Idaho. I don't know... we shouldn't go that fast, maybe. These bowl games aren't that antiquated... :D
Click to expand...
If we expand the playoff much further than 8 the bowl games will go away.
 
Speaking of PAC 12 rules, here is a new Big Sky rule:

“ The Big Sky Conference has adopted a rule that would ban student-athletes with convictions for violent crimes from participating in sports or receiving athletic scholarships at league schools.”
 
Cougzz said:
Speaking of PAC 12 rules, here is a new Big Sky rule:

“ The Big Sky Conference has adopted a rule that would ban student-athletes with convictions for violent crimes from participating in sports or receiving athletic scholarships at league schools.”
Click to expand...

Is there any other language to that? Is assault 4 a violent crime? (basically threatening someone). How about simple battery? (shoving someone) All stuff that stupid kids do in the heat of the moment, if not worse. I'm not absolutely opposed to "violent crime" being a disqualifier, but that language leaves a lot open for interpretation.

I know, maybe they can let the student kangaroo cour...... errrrrrr, council decide!!


***edit - google is my friend. "For purposes of this provision, “serious misconduct” is defined as any act of sexual violence, domestic violence, dating violence, stalking, sexual exploitation, or any assault that employs the use of a deadly weapon or causes serious bodily injury."

So we're back again to defining "serious bodily injury." This board went rounds over that definition, I'm sure they'll have their hands full the first time this comes up.

To close, I'll say this: it sounds like a solution trying to find a problem. I suppose somone has to justify their salary...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: froropmkr72
“The rule would ban athletic participation for current or prospective student-athletes who have been convicted of, or have pleaded guilty or “no contest” to, violations including sexual violence, domestic violence, dating violence, stalking, sexual exploitation or any assault with a deadly weapon or that causes injury.”
 
BleedCrimsonandGray said:
Is there any other language to that? Is assault 4 a violent crime? (basically threatening someone). How about simple battery? (shoving someone) All stuff that stupid kids do in the heat of the moment, if not worse. I'm not absolutely opposed to "violent crime" being a disqualifier, but that language leaves a lot open for interpretation.

I know, maybe they can let the student kangaroo cour...... errrrrrr, council decide!!


***edit - google is my friend. "For purposes of this provision, “serious misconduct” is defined as any act of sexual violence, domestic violence, dating violence, stalking, sexual exploitation, or any assault that employs the use of a deadly weapon or causes serious bodily injury."

So we're back again to defining "serious bodily injury." This board went rounds over that definition, I'm sure they'll have their hands full the first time this comes up.

To close, I'll say this: it sounds like a solution trying to find a problem. I suppose somone has to justify their salary...
Click to expand...

Goes on too much during times of low unemployment when people worry less about an employee being productive.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M-I-Coug

We now have some clarity on CASH for COUGS and Beavs....

Replies
28
Views
2K
The Cougar Lair
dgibbons
dgibbons
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back