Play Fantasy The Most Award Winning Fantasy game with real time scoring, top expert analysis, custom settings, and more. Play Now
Blog Entry

DI Bowl Task Force proposes changes

Posted on: October 21, 2011 10:12 am
Edited on: October 21, 2011 4:20 pm
 

The Division I Bowl Task Force that the NCAA put together last April in response to the scandal at the Fiesta Bowl that took down former executive director John Junker has made it recommendations.  If they are accepted, they will definitely change the bowl landscape.

The biggest change, although less obvious to the casual fan, is how bowl games will be certified.  The task force recommended doing away with the NCAA Bowl Licensing Committee, which has been certifying games since 2004 based on things like minimum attendance and financial guarantees.  The task force is instead recommending that things like that be left to the conference and the bowls to negotiate among themselves. 

Instead, the NCAA will set criteria based on governance, community support and marketing.  Each bowl would be responsible for filing reports with the NCAA certifying that they are in compliance with those standards, and the NCAA staff will make periodic audits of the bowls to ensure compliance as well.  The governance standards are to ensure things like the campaign contribution scandal at the Fiesta Bowl don’t happen again.

Other changes that will be much more obvious include a recommendation that the bowl schedule match better with the academic calendar.  The task force recommended that all bowl games be played in a three-week window, the exact dates of which would vary from year to year, but the idea is that games would not start until after final exams and would end before the start of classes (at most schools).

That tight of a window would most impact the BCS title game, and the bowl that hosts it.  Right now, those games are scheduled about a week apart to give the host bowl time to properly accommodate both games.  The new calendar could push the title game back much closer to Jan. 1st, which would force the host bowl to move its original game earlier as well, or try to squeeze two games in on a much tighter schedule.

This year’s bowls start on Saturday, Dec. 17th and end on Monday, Jan. 9th, a period of 23 days.

The other change that could have a major impact on the bowls is one that was actually adopted in August by the D-I Board of Directors, which says that teams must have an APR of 930 or better to participate in the postseason.  That could increase the odds of there not being enough eligible teams to fill the games.  There is no procedure in place for what to do if something like that happens, and the task force did not recommend one.


Category: NCAAF
Tags: BCS, NCAA
 
Comments

Since: Nov 19, 2006
Posted on: October 21, 2011 6:05 pm
 

DI Bowl Task Force proposes changes

I like the idea of raising the APR to 930.  that is a done deal, so schools who have a shot at becoming eligable for a bowl game had better make sure that they have kids that can at least spell their name.  I do not think that a three week window for all bowl games to be played is that necessary, though I would like to see the BCS Championship game played on 1/8 (1/9 if the 8th falls on a Sunday).  This year, it happens to work out that way.  Ther is not a huge difference between 21 and 23 days, especially when you consider that only two schools are involved.  I would like to see more of the 2nd tier bowl games played before New Years.  Is it really necessary to have the Go Daddy and BBVA Bowls after all of the other BCS Bowls have been played?  Is it necessary to have the Cotton Bowl on 1/6 this season?



Since: Jun 5, 2011
Posted on: October 21, 2011 4:43 pm
 

Here is how to fix the bowls

1.  Tell them to take a flying "leap" through a rolling doughnut.
 
2.  Have a real playoff to determine a real champion and let the bowls have the leftovers.
 
3.  Return to step 1. 



Since: Nov 15, 2008
Posted on: October 21, 2011 12:22 pm
 

DI Bowl Task Force proposes changes

The Task Force seems to have a pulse on some major issues surrounding college football and other sports.  I don't think that they will all get voted in since the bottom line is money.  If the goal was actually academic then yes.  Look some schools draw more fans and when a host has a choice they go with the bigger draw even if a team with less wins gets in.  In a perfect world yes - but this is the world of college sports and the money is what makes it all happen.



Since: Apr 14, 2008
Posted on: October 21, 2011 11:13 am
 

DI Bowl Task Force proposes changes

I like the idea of adding the APR as a factor for determining bowl eligibility.  If they are going to raise academic eligibility requirements in the recruiting arena, making a minimum APR requirement for the bowl games makes sense.  Had this been approved and in place last season, the following FBS AQ-conference programs wouldn't have been eligible to play in a bowl based on their APR score:

* Florida State (Played in Chik-fil-a Bowl)
* Maryland (Played in the Military Bowl)
Iowa State
* Louisville (Played in the Beef-O-Bradys Bowl)
Mississippi
Colorado
Washington State

A total of 21 FBS programs fell below an APR of 930.


The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com