Updated I-A Bowl Analysis (Long)

[GarySJ]

It's not clear what the pecking order is, but Houston seems to be SEC #8 vs Big XII #8. If so they'll only get an SEC team if Arkansas upsets LSU and also beats Miss State. They'll only get a Big XII team if two more schools get eligible, and Texas doesn't get a BCS bid (which would only require a loss by Cal or Utah).

The Texas schools, and the Oklahoma schools as well, will accept much better bowls than the Houston. Even if they get a Big XII team it's going to be someone from the North. They've got to be praying that Arkansas gets eligible.

The problem with the Tangerine game is that it would be against the 4th ACC team - which has to be FSU, Miami, Virginia, or Virginia Tech. These are all legit Top 20s that, frankly, deserve a better postseason destination, and a better opponent. Hopefully some deals will be made to allow for better and more appropriate matchups for everyone.

If the ACC has any brains, they'll get on the phone with the Liberty Bowl and make a conditional contract to take an ACC team in the event that game loses Utah to the BCS. This would help all parties concerned, including C-USA champ Louisville, which would draw a better opponent. This would leave the Orlando game to a more appropriate ACC team, like Georgia Tech or North Carolina.

[Markeymark]

If the ACC has any brains, they'll get on the phone with the Liberty Bowl and make a conditional contract to take an ACC team in the event that game loses Utah to the BCS. This would help all parties concerned, including C-USA champ Louisville, which would draw a better opponent. This would leave the Orlando game to a more appropriate ACC team, like Georgia Tech or North Carolina.

That would make sense, because otherwise Louisville is most likely looking at a bo-ring matchup with Boise State.

[Jim Johnson]

It's not clear what the pecking order is, but Houston seems to be SEC #8 vs Big XII #8. If so they'll only get an SEC team if Arkansas upsets LSU and also beats Miss State. They'll only get a Big XII team if two more schools get eligible, and Texas doesn't get a BCS bid (which would only require a loss by Cal or Utah).

The Texas schools, and the Oklahoma schools as well, will accept much better bowls than the Houston. Even if they get a Big XII team it's going to be someone from the North. They've got to be praying that Arkansas gets eligible.

The problem with the Tangerine game is that it would be against the 4th ACC team - which has to be FSU, Miami, Virginia, or Virginia Tech. These are all legit Top 20s that, frankly, deserve a better postseason destination, and a better opponent. Hopefully some deals will be made to allow for better and more appropriate matchups for everyone.

If the ACC has any brains, they'll get on the phone with the Liberty Bowl and make a conditional contract to take an ACC team in the event that game loses Utah to the BCS. This would help all parties concerned, including C-USA champ Louisville, which would draw a better opponent. This would leave the Orlando game to a more appropriate ACC team, like Georgia Tech or North Carolina.

Gary --

Didn't they NCAA implement the "Seattle Bowl" rule in 2002?  

If I remember correctly the Seattle Bowl signed a last-minute contract with the ACC to take a 6-6 Wake Forest over 9-2 South Florida.

Shortly after that, the NCAA committee met and announced that bowl alignments must be implemented before the season starts.

Or am I remembering it all wrong?

[GarySJ]

You could be right about that. Who knows what the rules are anymore. Maybe the ACC could convince its contracted bowls to all pass on one of its members, leaving, say, Virginia for the Liberty to take "at large" without a contract.

But man, this bowl season is a friggin mess. And the stupid pre-arranged contracts are to blame. Part of me is glad to see all the Johnny Comelately Bowls get the crap matchups they deserve, but the college football fan in me is disappointed at all the poor games that will result. All the little bowls though we wouldn't travel, and now they're getting Akron vs Louisiana Tech.

The bowls have got to get themselves some flexibility for matchups. As to the Boise/Utah question, you'd think something like the Sun Bowl or Holiday Bowl would be very interested, but they're contractually obligated to mediocre Pac-10 teams. And they have to be, to survive in this idiotic marketplace.

[Jim Johnson]

You could be right about that. Who knows what the rules are anymore. Maybe the ACC could convince its contracted bowls to all pass on one of its members, leaving, say, Virginia for the Liberty to take "at large" without a contract.

But man, this bowl season is a friggin mess. And the stupid pre-arranged contracts are to blame. Part of me is glad to see all the Johnny Comelately Bowls get the crap matchups they deserve, but the college football fan in me is disappointed at all the poor games that will result. All the little bowls though we wouldn't travel, and now they're getting Akron vs Louisiana Tech.

The bowls have got to get themselves some flexibility for matchups. As to the Boise/Utah question, you'd think something like the Sun Bowl or Holiday Bowl would be very interested, but they're contractually obligated to mediocre Pac-10 teams. And they have to be, to survive in this idiotic marketplace.

Amen.

And to think there are at least TWO MORE bowl games for next year: Atlanta & Toronto.

[GarySJ]

Yeah, but after this year some existing bowls will probably fail. You'll probably continue to have the same number of bowls as now, with the weaker ones taking turns being born and dying off.

By the way, it's interesting to note that the NCAA has rules that dictate the sizes of postseason fields in various sports (based on what percent of the membership ought to be going). Awhile back, when baseball coaches wanted the CWS field expanded from 48 to 64, the NCAA initially said no, because too high a percentage of baseball teams would be going to the postseason. Suffice to say that it wasn't anywhere near the 48% it currently is in football.

Either enough new programs were started to allow the expansion (not likely in the age of Title IX), or the rule got waived. Either way, the NCAA really doesn't want half its membership going to the post season. Which is what we have in football.

[USFFan]

Gary -- The Big 12 already has 6 bowl-eligible teams (Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, & Colorado) so I can't see Houston having two open slots - especially with 3 teams from Texas available.

The Champs Sports (formerly Tangerine) bowl may be open, if Iowa State can't win two more games, and I agree with you that it would be a GREAT bowl game for USF.

Don't forget that Texas has an outstanding chance of still gaining a BCS bid.  They're currently #5 in the standings.  That could open up a slot right there.  

A Colorado win would eliminate Nebraska, and it's not a stretch to imagine both Missouri and Iowa State failing to qualify - especially if it's true that Iowa State won't be able to qualify at 6-5 because of using a I-AA win within the last four years.  

There's still also the prospects that the North Division winner finishes the regular season at 6-5, loses to Oklahoma and then falls to 6-6, which I've also read (but not seen confirmed) would make them ineligible for a postseason bowl bid.  

It just gets curiouser and curiouser...

USFFan

[Jim Johnson]

You may be right ... but a few of the games are owned by ESPN, so they may keep them.  I would think that ESPN makes enoguh money off the broadcast and ticket sales to keep them going.

Still, since the bowl games are technically not a post-season (since there is no playoffs for I-A), the NCAA may not take any action... not to mention the $$ the bowls pay out.  Even $1 million per team (the new minimum starting in (I think) 2005 ) provides quite a bit to the conferences and institutions that they will keep it going.  With 48% of I-A getting bowl bids, and all but Navy (and maybe Notre Dame) getting at least a small share of the money this year, it's hard for them to say no.

[GarySJ]

For Texas to make the BCS, Cal or Utah probably has to lose. We don't want Utah to lose because if they do it would be to BYU, and that would make BYU eligible. Best scenario is a Cal loss to Stanford or USM. If the Rose Bowl loses USC to the Orange, they'd get first choice of at-large teams, and Texas is probably their best option.

Cal, Utah, and Texas would all free up lower-tier bowls, but only Texas frees up a bowl that would actually be interested in the Bulls. So we should probably hope for the Utes and Horns to be the BCS at-large teams.

Another less likely possibility would be Wisconsin going to the BCS at-large. That would require a loss by Texas as well as Cal or Utah. That could free up the Motor City game, which if you'll recall was interested in USF in 2002. It could be free anyway, if Michigan State and Northwestern both take a loss.

[USFFan]

I still think there's plenty of time for Utah to drop back to #7 in the BCS rankings.  Their last game is to BYU, which will further hurt their computer rankings, while Michigan will pick up votes and improve in the BCS standings with a win over Ohio State.  I wouldn't put it past voters to drop Utah below Michigan.  I think it's going to end up USC/Oklahoma in the Orange, Auburn/Miami in the Sugar, Cal/Michigan in the Rose and Texas/Boston College in the Fiesta.  

USFFan