5-7

okaive

okaive

New member
During the Miami/Wash St half time show, they are talking about next year that a 5-7 team will no longer be allowed in a bowl game.

Obviously Nebraska and a few others are lucky this year that the NCAA rules states that we can participate. Personally I believe that the rule should be changed. Not good enough to have a winning record, then sit at home and watch winners play. Enough of the participation trophies.

Your thoughts.

 
Winning teams? 6-6 teams and bad teams from poor conferences are allowed to play.

What's the difference between a 6-6 team and a 5-7 team? I would argue not much.

Realize that you have to draw a line somewhere, but identifying 6-6 teams as "winners" seems very silly.

 
5-7 teams should NEVER play in a bowl game. Ever. Even if they win, they will still have a losing record. As far as I am concerned, that is a crappy season. 6-6 is the line due to games and revenue. I can live with that, but don't like it. I don't care who you are, 5-7 is bad and not deserving of a bowl. Missouri had enough class (in an otherwise really odd year) to turn down a bowl invitation. Everyone else is just a whore in my opinion.

How does it look to the recruits? What if we lose? Do they really think at 5-7 heading to the chicken bowl is cool? If so, maybe those aren't the players we need.

 
Honestly who cares? Bowl games haven't been a reward for decades. They are played because somebody makes, or thinks they'll make money from hosting them.

There are 40 bowl games now, this was inevitable.

I'd actually watch UCF vs Kansas if someone wanted to host the game.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Frustrated said:
Missouri had enough class
Click to expand...
you lost me at this point

I have no issue with us taking this game. Gives us extra practice and more time for the coaching staff to work with the younger players. After the playoffs the rest of the bowl games are meaningless exhibitions anyway. If you don't want to watch then don't. I'm just happy for the seniors to get an extra game and the coaches get more prep time which will help next year.

I have no problem with any team being in a bowl game regardless of their record. Nothing really matter in the big picture except the playoffs. Every other game is just for fun.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't get the participation trophy argument that I keep hearing. There are what, 36 bowl games this year? How is a game involving any team but but one of the 4 remaining playoff contenders anything but a participation trophy? UCLA finished 3rd in the PAC-12 South - even with a "winning" record, how is this not a participation trophy for them either? Granted, I'd rather the Huskers have their record than the stinker season they had, but if TO was wrong and winning is all that really matters, then who cares if the team has 5,6,7,8, or even 9 wins? None of it is good enough to merit anything more than a participation trophy.

Let's be honest about what the entire bowl system is at this point: a giant, money-making participation trophy for 90% of the teams involved. If we really want to take a principled, hard-nosed stand against participation trophies in college football then let's all agree that almost every team playing in a bowl game honestly doesn't have a record deserving of anything more than a Diet Shasta and a pat on the back. Of course that will make spending the holidays with the in-laws a lot less tolerable for the rest of us....

 
If you have a complaint with 5-7 teams getting into bowl games, take it up with the NCAA for approving 40 bowl games. "Deserving" the bowl game lost all meaning years ago, and it means even less now that 2/3 of bowl subdivision teams go bowling. Besides, the NCAA would get their asses sued if they allowed a bowl game to go dark due to lack of teams. Sponsors, networks, etc. have too much money in the game for that to ever happen. I think the way they've handled it this year is about as good of a solution to the issue as you'll find. Like Quesadilla says, everything at this point other than the playoffs is a participation award anyway, so live and let live.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
louisianared said:
Frustrated said:
Missouri had enough class
Click to expand...
you lost me at this point

I have no issue with us taking this game. Gives us extra practice and more time for the coaching staff to work with the younger players. After the playoffs the rest of the bowl games are meaningless exhibitions anyway. If you don't want to watch then don't. I'm just happy for the seniors to get an extra game and the coaches get more prep time which will help next year.

I have no problem with any team being in a bowl game regardless of their record. Nothing really matter in the big picture except the playoffs. Every other game is just for fun.
Click to expand...
This. Mizzou turned down the game because they didn't know who their coach was...
 
If we were invited to go to the bowl game, then we deserved it, pure and simple. It might not meet some people's criteria, but those people don't set the bowl game schedules and participants. If that changes, so be it. Until then, if some one calls with an invite, that invite is deserved. IMO

 
Back
Top