7 wins to be bowl eligible?

BCS has been talking about requiring 7 wins starting in 2014. What do you think? Twice Bronco had 6 wins to get to a bowl game in 7 years. It would raise the level of play in the bowls and some would go away. What if they said 6 wins but you cant' count FCS (or what ever you call them) wins. That would reduce the cupcake games for the BCS and might help us get some games. The NCAA should make the decision not the BCS.

If the BCS is thinking of going to 7 wins, are they also thinking of going to 13 regular season games?

scott715 wrote:
BCS has been talking about requiring 7 wins starting in 2014. What do you think? Twice Bronco had 6 wins to get to a bowl game in 7 years. It would raise the level of play in the bowls and some would go away. What if they said 6 wins but you cant' count FCS (or what ever you call them) wins. That would reduce the cupcake games for the BCS and might help us get some games. The NCAA should make the decision not the BCS.

For a BCS Bowl they could do this with no impact. For other Bowls - why do they care?



I do not think FCS wins should count for bowl eligibility or for anything else. As far as I am concerned, they should be exhibition games if played at all.



13 games would be nice - but require everyone to play 13. No FCS games. Require 7 wins. Count me in.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

7 Ws would be a good start, 8 would be better. Bowl games are so overrated right now because you don't have to be a good team to play in one. The whole problem is that to raise the bar will lower the number of teams that clear that bar and will necessarily mean fewer bowl games will be played, which IMO is a good thing, except that the people that run and profit from the bowl games that will be scratched will make more noise than anyone else and will make sure the bar doesn't get raised.

80% of bowls would be for it, the bottom 20% against. The remaining bowls might get better ratings and attendance due to less competition.

Why would other bowls get better ratings? Most of the bowls are staggered so they don't compete with one another for viewership. Fans watch the games they watch. Not having bowls 31-35 won't make them watch bowls 27-30 any more than they currently do.

Who cares how many bowl games there are? I don't care if every single team makes a bowl game. The games that don't interest me I don't and won't watch.



I don't get the whole "there are too many bowl games" crowd. They act like they are personally insulted that there are "too many bowl games". The way I see it, the more bowl games there are, the more kids playing at "smaller" non-BCS schools get to play in bowls. Let's face it - if they started eliminating bowls, it won't be bowls with ties to BCS conferences.



Just do yourself a favor and don't watch the bowl games that don't interest you.

In our case in stead of going to 7 bowls in a row, it would be 5 out of 7 years. A trip would be more special and could pick up some more attendees. Instead of 2 or 3 games in one day there would be 1. Games would pick up more casual viewers. Fans would be more excited seeing there team did not make it last year.

Y 4 Ever wrote:
Who cares how many bowl games there are? I don't care if every single team makes a bowl game. The games that don't interest me I don't and won't watch.



I don't get the whole "there are too many bowl games" crowd. They act like they are personally insulted that there are "too many bowl games". The way I see it, the more bowl games there are, the more kids playing at "smaller" non-BCS schools get to play in bowls. Let's face it - if they started eliminating bowls, it won't be bowls with ties to BCS conferences.



Just do yourself a favor and don't watch the bowl games that don't interest you.

This is why (well at least one reason why).

scott715 wrote:
http://www.seattleweekly.com/2011-12-14/news/bowling-for-chumps/



Very interestiong read on the bowl scam.