Why We Need To Reformulate How Both Bowl Eligibility And Playoff Eligibility Are Formulated.

[i'vegotwinners]

as currently is the case, how we formulate both bowl and playoff eligibility, totally screws up and perverts non conference scheduling options.

and in my opinion, also how starters are chosen, especially QB, and locked in to a point, in non real game conditions.

and the ability to take a look at more players, and give more players a chance for some game experience.

i would love to see a conference season only formula for both bowl game eligibility and playoff eligibility.

that would allow B10 and other conferences' schools far more flexibility in scheduling non con opponents, where fan enjoyment, attendance, and matchups, take precedent in scheduling, without having to make scheduling wins against schools fans don't want to see or pay to see, a top priority.

with just one added loss per season, or even one bad play leading to one added loss, usually killing off playoff eligibility, and often bowl eligibility, scheduling wins and avoiding scheduling possible losses, has totally perverted non con scheduling options for schools, making for a big downside for both schools and fans.

this would also allow schools to let QB battles, (and other positions to a lesser extent), to be fought out in real game situations in the non conf season, being that real game situations no longer exist much, if any, in practice to my knowledge.

and until the lights go on, and a real game environment exists against other big schools, imo you can't really judge how competing QBs will fair in a real game against a competitive school.

currently, the starting QB is picked in different conditions than games are played in.

in no tackling the QB in practice, i can theorize how that could possibly advantage the better passer over the better athlete, and take performance under high duress, out of the equation to an extent.

and under the current situation, once that starter is picked, absent total calamity, only an injury removes him, as coaches are terrified of one bad play leading to one extra loss knocking them out of bowl eligibility, or playoff eligibility.

would be great for fans and coaches and administrators alike, to be able to schedule the non conference season without having to worry about how said scheduling will impact bowl or playoff eligibility.

i'd think it would also benefit players and coaches, by allowing coaches to experiment more freely and look at more players during non conf season, without fearing one bad play leading to one extra loss, could sabotage a whole season.

 

[IUCX9]

as currently is the case, how we formulate both bowl and playoff eligibility, totally screws up and perverts non conference scheduling options.

and in my opinion, also how starters are chosen, especially QB, and locked in to a point, in non real game conditions.

and the ability to take a look at more players, and give more players a chance for some game experience.

i would love to see a conference season only formula for both bowl game eligibility and playoff eligibility.

that would allow B10 and other conferences' schools far more flexibility in scheduling non con opponents, where fan enjoyment, attendance, and matchups, take precedent in scheduling, without having to make scheduling wins against schools fans don't want to see or pay to see, a top priority.

with just one added loss per season, or even one bad play leading to one added loss, usually killing off playoff eligibility, and often bowl eligibility, scheduling wins and avoiding scheduling possible losses, has totally perverted non con scheduling options for schools, making for a big downside for both schools and fans.

this would also allow schools to let QB battles, (and other positions to a lesser extent), to be fought out in real game situations in the non conf season, being that real game situations no longer exist much, if any, in practice to my knowledge.

and until the lights go on, and a real game environment exists against other big schools, imo you can't really judge how competing QBs will fair in a real game against a competitive school.

currently, the starting QB is picked in different conditions than games are played in.

in no tackling the QB in practice, i can theorize how that could possibly advantage the better passer over the better athlete, and take performance under high duress, out of the equation to an extent.

and under the current situation, once that starter is picked, absent total calamity, only an injury removes him, as coaches are terrified of one bad play leading to one extra loss knocking them out of bowl eligibility, or playoff eligibility.

would be great for fans and coaches and administrators alike, to be able to schedule the non conference season without having to worry about how said scheduling will impact bowl or playoff eligibility.

i'd think it would also benefit players and coaches, by allowing coaches to experiment more freely and look at more players during non conf season, without fearing one bad play leading to one extra loss, could sabotage a whole season.

Um..... I am not sure we could be 0.500 in the B1G East without a healthy dose of Idaho, WKU, etc. factoring into the eligibility calculation.

I would prefer, actually, a "pre season" of exhibition games like IUBB. Play an FCS team or two at the end of camp, no cameras, no stats, no records.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

Um..... I am not sure we could be 0.500 in the B1G East without a healthy dose of Idaho, WKU, etc. factoring into the eligibility calculation.

I would prefer, actually, a "pre season" of exhibition games like IUBB. Play an FCS team or two at the end of camp, no cameras, no stats, no records.

if coaches won't even do spring games anymore, or full contact practice, they aren't going to play exhibition games.

or games that produce no revenue.

that said, if bowl eligibility were based in conference performance only, a .500 record would no longer be a qualifier.

finishing in or tied for the top x position in the conference would be, based in the number of conf bowl spots.

that would allow for that "pre season" you speak of to be a Ball St, Kentucky, Kansas State, and UCLA, with fans in the stands and national tv coverage, and without the outcome factoring in to bowl or playoff consideration at all, which would both allow for such non con type scheduling in the first place, and allow for coaches to look at more players in those games, without obsessing over 1 bad play, or even multiple losses, blowing up their bowl or playoff prospects in the slightest.

and obviously 4 non con games means 8 conf games again.

i prefer, and i think most other fans as well would, that extra non con game vs another major conf opponent like a UCLA or Stanford or Tenn or Ole Miss, more than that 9th conf game.

i keep the 1 non conf game vs a smaller school, to allow for a 7th home game most yrs, and for that payday for the smaller school.

 

[IUCX9]

if coaches won't even do spring games anymore, or full contact practice, they aren't going to play exhibition games.

or games that produce no revenue.

that said, if bowl eligibility were based in conference performance only, a .500 record would no longer be a qualifier.

finishing in or tied for the top x position in the conference would be, based in the number of conf bowl spots.

that would allow for that "pre season" you speak of to be a Ball St, Kentucky, Kansas State, and UCLA, with fans in the stands and national tv coverage, and without the outcome factoring in to bowl or playoff consideration at all, which would both allow for such non con type scheduling in the first place, and allow for coaches to look at more players in those games, without obsessing over 1 bad play, or even multiple losses, blowing up their bowl or playoff prospects in the slightest.

and obviously 4 non con games means 8 conf games again.

i prefer, and i think most other fans as well would, that extra non con game vs another major conf opponent like a UCLA or Stanford or Tenn or Ole Miss, more than that 9th conf game.

i keep the 1 non conf game vs a smaller school, to allow for a 7th home game most yrs, and for that payday for the smaller school.

Our non conference games don't generate revenue anyway. We PAY Idaho, et al, for the games. So we don't make money on those games. We pay to win them. So if we had a preseason without records that don't matter, we can play the QBs like you said without having to pay the likes of Idaho millions for the opportunity.

Also, if only conference games are used in calculations, how do you differentiate between 3 teams that are 3-5 in conference? What if those teams don't play each other and no tie breaker exists (14 teams, 8 games)?

Finally, I don't think we can schedule games for fan enjoyment AND give QBs experience like you suggest very easily. Getting Alabama here would be enjoyable, but why would you throw your QB out there like that?

 

[i'vegotwinners]

Our non conference games don't generate revenue anyway. We PAY Idaho, et al, for the games. So we don't make money on those games. We pay to win them. So if we had a preseason without records that don't matter, we can play the QBs like you said without having to pay the likes of Idaho millions for the opportunity.

Also, if only conference games are used in calculations, how do you differentiate between 3 teams that are 3-5 in conference? What if those teams don't play each other and no tie breaker exists (14 teams, 8 games)?

Finally, I don't think we can schedule games for fan enjoyment AND give QBs experience like you suggest very easily. Getting Alabama here would be enjoyable, but why would you throw your QB out there like that?

the same way one can differentiate between three 6 win teams.

of course you can.

and you're the one who brought Bama into this, not me.

 

[IUCX9]

the same way one can differentiate between three 6 win teams.

of course you can.

and you're the one who brought Bama into this, not me.

Haha yes it was me. Apologies.

Differentiation becomes much more difficult when only 8 games matter. Let's say you have three 3-5 teams in B1G, with noncon they could range between 3-9 and 7-5. A 7 win team is typicall better than a 3 win team. However, in your scenario, they are equal and require tie breakers. It is crazy to think a 7-5 team will miss a bowl while the 3-9 team makes one, all because you only count the conference record at 3-5.