Should 6-6 Teams get a Bowl Bid?

[WilsonHog]

Check out these school's resumes.

Kentucky. Three of their six wins came over Norfolk State, Middle Tennessee, and Western Kentucky. The other three were against Mississippi State (4-8), Arkansas (5-7), and Louisville (5-6 with a game left vs. Rutgers). The 'Cats have lost six of their last eight games.

Vanderbilt certainly have a better case after going 4-4 in the SEC, but they've lost six of their last seven (the lone victory coming against Kentucky).

North Carolina State did close with four consecutive wins (two over Top 25 teams). 

Notre Dame has won two of their last seven. Their wins came over San Diego State, Michigan (3-9), Purdue (4-8), Stanford (5-7), Washington (0-11), and Navy (7-5). The Irish have bad losses to Syracuse (3-9) and USC (38-3, and a total yards disparity of 449 to 91).

Memphis won three of their last four to get bowl eligible, but those wins came against Southern Miss (6-6), SMU (1-11), and Tulane (2-10).

Colorado State beat New Mexico (4-8) and Wyoming (4-8) the last two weeks to get to the magic six win mark. 

San Jose State has lost four of their last five. Their wins came over UC-Davis, San Diego St. (2-10), Hawaii (7-5), Utah State (3-9), New Mexico State (3-9), and Idaho (2-10).

Southern Miss at least won their last four games to become bowl-eligible, but three of those wins came at the expense of UAB (4-8), UCF (4-8), and SMU (1-11). The Golden Eagles' only quality win of the season was over an 8-4 East Carolina team. 

Arizona feasted on Washington (0-11), Washington State (2-11), and UCLA (4-8 after USC skull-*** them next Saturday) for three of their five wins to date, plus wins over Idaho (2-10) and Toledo (3-9). Their only quality win of the season was over Cal (a robust 7-4).

Arizona State could become bowl-eligible by beating Arizona Saturday. The Sun Devils lost six in a row before also feasting on Washington, Washington State, and UCLA.

And before anyone says, "Yeah, but you wouldn't say that if Arkansas was eligible..." Wrong. I said after we beat LSU that we didn't need to go to a bowl even if we had beaten Kentucky, Mississippi State, or Ole Miss.   

Fellas, there are some bad football teams going bowling. Call it a payday (although teams do lose money going to bowl games), call it a vacation for fans, whatever. Just don't call it a reward for a good season.   

[netteltonhog]

No.  A team should have to have a winning record.  6 and 6 is not.  But these bowl games are all about money. 

[southeasthog]

No. There are too many bowls as there is. Remember the good ole days when it was the "Cotton Bowl". Or the "Sugar Bowl"? Now it is the "At&T Cotton Bowl". Even the stinkin yellow first down line has a sponser.

[The_Bionic_Pig]

If they were no such thing as Bowl Tie-Ins then the benchmark could be set at 7 which would allow a lot more parity with MAC/Conference USA/ etc... teams to get in. 

But those conferences would not bring squat concerning a fanbase to attend those bowls.  So their lies the conundrum.

[southeasthog]

Didn't the 6 win rule come into play when a BAD notre dame team went bowling with a losing record?

[JEM]

Didn't the 6 win rule come into play when a BAD notre dame team went bowling with a losing record?

Yes and I think their record was 6-5 and I was against them getting a bowl.

[12247]

Absolutely not.  I realize to change that rule would limit the # of Bowls but it really is sad to offer up 2 schools whose records are 6-6 with 3 or 4 of each schools wins against glorified high schools.  A team at 6-6 is not worthy of recognition in a bowl.

[rude1]

Those of us who say no I find it a bit hypocritical seeing how most of us were hoping to get to that 6 wins to get bowl eligible ourselves. I don't recall anyone at that point saying we shouldn't accept a bid, nor see it being discussed whether 6 win teams be allowed to play in a bowl game. Had we won 6, I would have been excited about a possible bowl bid, so that in itself must say I am for it.

[TNRazorbacker]

Noop 6-6 is mediocrity. Not deserving of a bowl bid. I think a team should be required to be at least 7-5, or have a .501 minimum winning percentage to go to a bowl.

Bowls aren't about who deserves to go though, they are about what team draws in the most money. Generally a 6-6 SEC team is going to draw more fans than a 10-2 Sunbelt school. If .500 teams from big conferences were no longer eligible there wouldn't be enough money to keep a lot of these bowls afloat. I'd personally like to see it happen so some of these garbage bowls go away. I think that would also put us a bit closer to a playoff system as well.

[Tim Harris]

My personal opinion is you should be .500 or better......but would this be a thread of the Hogs had beat MSU like we should have and been 6 - 6 and waiting on our bowl bid?

[longtimeHogfan]

I want to see Vandy get a bid....after that I don't care.

[rzrbackrob]

No 6-6 teams should not get bowl bids
yes I will probably watch anyways

How many hours, minutes, and seconds till start of spring practice, signing day, and start of the 2009 Arkansas season? I need something to dream of while falling asleep watching two 6-6 win the Mediocrity Bowl.

[COCHISE]

Possibly, however I think SOS should be taken in consideration.  If you go 6-6 and your SOS is in the top 25, then yes.  If you go 6-6 and your SOS is in the 100's like Notre Dame, then definitely not.

[IZAHOG]

If the team travels well then of course they should go...don't forget this is about money. 

[Oklahawg]

When a dozen bowls lose their shirts this year because of the economy I bet we see the list trimmed, and 6-6 is suddenly back to being "bowl eligible" not "bowl bound".

[hogsndawgs]

No. There are too many bowls as there is. Remember the good ole days when it was the "Cotton Bowl". Or the "Sugar Bowl"? Now it is the "At&T Cotton Bowl". Even the stinkin yellow first down line has a sponser.

I may be missing the point, but aren't all of the sponsorships and all of the profits that these bowl games make a testament to the popularity of college football? Isn't that a good thing? We live in a capitalist society for goodness sakes. If a team goes 6-6, let them play in some crappy bowl and get some more practices in. In many cases it means a fun trip over Christmas break for kids that otherwise could not have afforded the to go on a vacation.

The lesser bowls are meaningless anyway, I think it's a good thing to have as many bowls as possible, it means more football. Not to mention we get to watch teams that we would never get to see otherwise.

Maybe I'm just a capitalist pig, but I don't think that making money is evil.

Let the market dictate how many bowls there are. If the money dries up as we are likely heading into a recession...trim the bowls that aren't making money.

[12247]

The sad thing about these very minor bowls is that each team must buy a set amount of tickets and the payout sometimes doesn't cover the expenses of the trip.  6-6 should not be rewarded but if a team gets an invite, they should take it until the rules are changed.  This is off subject but I would love to see all of us be graded down from zero when we schedule 4 panzies, all at home into our 12 game schedule.  This should be a 2 panzie league.  If you don't include a couple of respectable teams on your annual schedule, you should start the ratings bash at a lower level.  Take our 07 record of 8-4 which should really be 4-4 when you discount the panzies.  This year we did have 2 decent teams within the 4 so I wouldn't degrade us for that.  I am so tired of the big teams beating up on the runts and thinking they've accomplished something.

[hogsanity]

No, but without it, they might not be able to fill all the bowl spots.  Kind of like counting wins against 1aa teams.  They have to count them to help get enough teams eligible to fill all the bowl spots.

I think they should let the bowls, outside of the bcs games, pick whoever they want.  If the Liberty or Independence ant a 5-7 Arkansas team, then they should be able to invite them.

[ark30inf]

The more bowls the better I think until we get some sort of playoff system.  The current bowl system does provide a lot of young kids with something exciting, and a sense of accomplishment.  Its a good thing for them to go to a bowl, get some press, get a few gifts, when they are restricted from so much else.

[Kicking Wing]

Those of us who say no I find it a bit hypocritical seeing how most of us were hoping to get to that 6 wins to get bowl eligible ourselves. I don't recall anyone at that point saying we shouldn't accept a bid, nor see it being discussed whether 6 win teams be allowed to play in a bowl game. Had we won 6, I would have been excited about a possible bowl bid, so that in itself must say I am for it.

At least you get it.  I was beginning to wonder.  Of course it sucks to see 6-6 teams going when your team finishes 5-7 but everyone on this board would have been thrilled to get in a bowl.

[WilsonHog]

At least you get it.  I was beginning to wonder.  Of course it sucks to see 6-6 teams going when your team finishes 5-7 but everyone on this board would have been thrilled to get in a bowl.

Actually, Kicking Wing, I said after we had beaten LSU that I didn't think we would have deserved a bid even with one more win. I said that in my original post.

I think bowl games should be a reward for a team that has a great season. I don't think 6-6 constitutes a "great season" in most instances, with Vanderbilt being the textbook exception this year. 

Now, if a team wants a couple of extra weeks of practice that's fine. There is a benefit there. If they want to get some cheesy watch to go play in the Bugtussle Bowl, that's cool.

Just don't paint it as some kind of program altering accomplishment when you lose as many games as you win. I can't think of a single athletic endeavor in which that is anything other than average. Unfortunately, in this country "average" is the new "excellent."     

[Throwback1]

I don't care if a 6-6 teams gets to go to a bowl game.  Not costing me anything.  If some fat cats want to pay a school to come play another game, works for me.  It is about money, but so are all the other bowl games. Besides, we don't have a real championship earned on the field in D1 college football and we keep settling for that as fans, so I don't know why anything else would bother me much.

[WilsonHog]

One other point.

I have no problem at all with schools from small or non-BCS conferences getting a bowl bid at 6-6 because two things likely happened: (1) they had a winning record in their conference, and (2) they lost some "money games" to schools from BCS conferences.

My issue is with BCS conference schools that get to six wins by beating three directional schools and the worst three teams in their own conference. That's an achievement worthy of serious recognition?

[Throwback1]

I just think that there are so many bowl games now that many aren't really a reward for achievement, anyway.  Just another game, a little money, gives the fans another chance to root for their team, etc.  Just doesn't bother me, any, although, there is something about 6-5 that just sounds so much better than 6-6.

[hogsanity]

I just think that there are so many bowl games now that many aren't really a reward for achievement, anyway.  Just another game, a little money, gives the fans another chance to root for their team, etc.  Just doesn't bother me, any, although, there is something about 6-5 that just sounds so much better than 6-6.

ALot of teams actually LOSE $ going to the lesser bowl games.  When you figure in travel, extended stays, etc.  Now, in a league with revenue sharing like the sec, all the teams come out ahead due to the bowl payouts.  of course, it helps when you get 2 bcs teams, like the sec and big 12 will likely have this year.  If the seccg winner goes to the bcscg, then the Sugar would likely pick the loser of the seccg.  Thats like $34 million for just 2 teams, not counting the other 6 bowl teams. 

[Throwback1]

This BCS system reminds me of 2nd grade soccer...it doesn't matter if you win or lose, you still might get a trophy.

[Kicking Wing]

One other point.

I have no problem at all with schools from small or non-BCS conferences getting a bowl bid at 6-6 because two things likely happened: (1) they had a winning record in their conference, and (2) they lost some "money games" to schools from BCS conferences.

My issue is with BCS conference schools that get to six wins by beating three directional schools and the worst three teams in their own conference. That's an achievement worthy of serious recognition?

That's a great point.  I still believe most on this board would have welcomed a bowl game.

You may know that I am a big ASU fan and there are a few idiot ASU fans that don't think ASU should be happy to possibly be in a bowl this year.  Your point is one that illustrates to me why the non-BCS schools should take it and run.  Aside from the extra practice, exposure and recruiting perks, when you play  or 4 games a year against teams that have tons more resources and history than you do and everyone else on the schedule is at least equal in those terms then 6-6 means something in my book.

Hopefully, ASU will end up 7-5 and it will all be moot.

[FS Hog]

"Re: Should 6-6 Teams get a Bowl Bid?"

How else are they going to get 64 teams?

[rude1]

What many are not taking into account is, if you raise the number of games to be bowl eligible to 7 games, it will only cause teams to schedule down in order to reach that plateau. Reduce the number of bowls to play in and watch how coaches will begin to shy away from the those early season competitive matchups in favor of more winnable games. Less bowl games means more pressure on coaches to get to one, meaning less competitive matchups outside of conference play.

[ErieHog]

The answer is:  Yes

College football is a profitable entertainment vehicle, and there is absolutely no reason to not let as many teams play in as many bowl games as can be economically rationalized.

The only time to revisit the question is when bowls start failing financially.

[GWFan]

NO.  Bowl games are becoming meaningless.

[ErieHog]

NO.  Bowl games are becoming meaningless.

NO.  Bowl games are becoming meaningless.

What meaning have they ever had, outside that to participants?

You can't diminish something that's essentially an exhibition in most cases.

[Oklahawg]

One of my latent disagreements with the 6-win minimum is it allowed a certain ex-coach to use that bare minimum as PR fodder. Blech.

[housecat]

If you consider the strength of the teams you beat to get to a bowl game,then none of the smaller schools would ever go bowling.Heck,,did the all mighty Tulsa beat 6 quality teams ?Boise state played one ranked team.for me if you were going to do it like this you would have to split the bowls some for upper tier teams and some for lower , to be fair.

[WilsonHog]

One of my latent disagreements with the 6-win minimum is it allowed a certain ex-coach to use that bare minimum as PR fodder. Blech.

Nowadays, beating your chest because your team made a bowl game is equivalent to bragging about being able to get a woman at the local whorehouse.

[Oklahawg]

Nowadays, beating your chest because your team made a bowl game is equivalent to bragging about being able to get a woman at the local whorehouse.

Given the economy the payout for both would appear to be dropping.

[GWFan]

What meaning have they ever had, outside that to participants?

You can't diminish something that's essentially an exhibition in most cases.

Well really it was kinda like a team making it to the playoffs, or their own little "championship" game.  I don't know how old you are, but back in the late 60's, and early to mid 70's it really meant that the teams achieved something.  Today not so much.

[Tripod1]

As long as there are this many bowl games then yes.  Besides, makes for good holiday viewing even though most all the games are meaningless.  Some really good matchups ususally occur.

[Mo_Better_Hogs]

There are too many bowl games. Period.

[Hoggish1]

Check out these school's resumes.

Kentucky. Three of their six wins came over Norfolk State, Middle Tennessee, and Western Kentucky. The other three were against Mississippi State (4-8), Arkansas (5-7), and Louisville (5-6 with a game left vs. Rutgers). The 'Cats have lost six of their last eight games.

Vanderbilt certainly have a better case after going 4-4 in the SEC, but they've lost six of their last seven (the lone victory coming against Kentucky).

North Carolina State did close with four consecutive wins (two over Top 25 teams). 

Notre Dame has won two of their last seven. Their wins came over San Diego State, Michigan (3-9), Purdue (4-8), Stanford (5-7), Washington (0-11), and Navy (7-5). The Irish have bad losses to Syracuse (3-9) and USC (38-3, and a total yards disparity of 449 to 91).

Memphis won three of their last four to get bowl eligible, but those wins came against Southern Miss (6-6), SMU (1-11), and Tulane (2-10).

Colorado State beat New Mexico (4-8) and Wyoming (4-8) the last two weeks to get to the magic six win mark. 

San Jose State has lost four of their last five. Their wins came over UC-Davis, San Diego St. (2-10), Hawaii (7-5), Utah State (3-9), New Mexico State (3-9), and Idaho (2-10).

Southern Miss at least won their last four games to become bowl-eligible, but three of those wins came at the expense of UAB (4-8), UCF (4-8), and SMU (1-11). The Golden Eagles' only quality win of the season was over an 8-4 East Carolina team. 

Arizona feasted on Washington (0-11), Washington State (2-11), and UCLA (4-8 after USC skull-*** them next Saturday) for three of their five wins to date, plus wins over Idaho (2-10) and Toledo (3-9). Their only quality win of the season was over Cal (a robust 7-4).

Arizona State could become bowl-eligible by beating Arizona Saturday. The Sun Devils lost six in a row before also feasting on Washington, Washington State, and UCLA.

And before anyone says, "Yeah, but you wouldn't say that if Arkansas was eligible..." Wrong. I said after we beat LSU that we didn't need to go to a bowl even if we had beaten Kentucky, Mississippi State, or Ole Miss.   

Fellas, there are some bad football teams going bowling. Call it a payday (although teams do lose money going to bowl games), call it a vacation for fans, whatever. Just don't call it a reward for a good season.   

I hated to see the bowl games escalate the way they did.  Most of them don't mean anything and are worthless to travel to.

I think in the present economy some will die a natural death.  Let's have 15 bowls max and make a team have a winning record 7-5 minimum before they can go bowling.

[Richard_white]

No

In a few years they will create a few more bowl games that will get 5-7 teams in.

[ErieHog]

Well really it was kinda like a team making it to the playoffs, or their own little "championship" game.  I don't know how old you are, but back in the late 60's, and early to mid 70's it really meant that the teams achieved something.  Today not so much.

I remember those days; the Gator Bowl has always been the Gator Bowl, though-- don't go romanticizing something simply because it is of venerable age;  an exhibition of also-rans in 1979 is still an exhibition of also-rans in 2008.

[silverhawg]

no..these lower tier games could be used in the playoff system

[GWFan]

I remember those days; the Gator Bowl has always been the Gator Bowl, though-- don't go romanticizing something simply because it is of venerable age;  an exhibition of also-rans in 1979 is still an exhibition of also-rans in 2008.

I see your point but disagree.  It's out of hand.  But as another poster above stated, this thing is gonna die it's own death soon enough.

[ChicoHog]

Go back to 11 games and there is no discussion. Winning record and you are eligible.  We don't need 12 games.

[Boardon Hamsay]

While I enjoy getting to watch more games with the current plethora of bowls, I think the bowl market has been saturated for a few years now.  Perhaps by name alone the Emerald, St. Petersburg, New Mexico, Eagle Bank, PapaJohns.com, and International Bowls prove there are too many.

 

[shearman1]

no

[pathos]

I don't mind a 6-6 team being in a bowl game. What I don't like is wins over D1-AA teams counting toward bowl eligibility. If I'm not mistaken, Division 2 regional rankings (which determine who gets into the playoffs) don't count wins (or losses) against non-D2 teams. The same principle should be applied to D1 teams.

[DeltaBoy]

YES I love watching bowl games !

[Hog in MO]

No, but if they required a winning record they would never field enough teams for all of the bowls.  The real answer is get rid of some of these ridiculous bowl games - but then what reason would anyone have to go to Boise, ID in December if they did? 

For a lot of these players from mid-major schools I guess it means something to go to Shreveport for the (insert this year's sponsor here) Independence Bowl, or the Freeze your ass off in Memphis and hope you don't get shot walking back to your car Liberty Bowl.  But for most football fans the real bowl season doesn't start until Jan. 1.