Blog Entry

Why UCLA is going bowling

Posted on: November 30, 2011 9:07 pm
Edited on: November 30, 2011 9:09 pm

UCLA’s waiver to go bowling at 6-7 hinged on three key issues according to an NCAA source.

The NCAA’s bowl licensing subcommittee made a bit of history when it granted the Bruins bowl eligibility even if it loses the Pac-12 championship game on Friday. They are currently 6-6.

UCLA will go bowling regardless according to an NCAA …

… because the Pac-12 championship was not a scheduled game. UCLA, then, is being viewed as a 6-6 team for bowl purposes. (Certainly not for bowl promoters’ purposes.)

…because the Pac-12 cannot fill all seven of its bowl slots.

More to the point, there are only 71 bowl-eligible teams at the moment. Denying UCLA would have put the college football right at the cut line – just enough teams to fill 35 bowls. That means that a non-regional team probably would have been shipped out West to fill the Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl.

North Texas was allowed to play in a bowl after winning the Sun Belt at 5-6 in 2001. The Mean Green lost the New Orleans Bowl to Colorado State to finish 5-7. 

Category: NCAAF

Since: Mar 26, 2011
Posted on: December 2, 2011 11:06 am

Why UCLA is going bowling

EarthX: Agree and disagree. I actually show 73 teams eligible including SYR or PITT. EMU is not eligible b/c they have two DI-AA wins. In any case, the NCAA excuse on only so many teams eligible is lame. There is also the fact that UCLA did not go the Idaho bowl game a few years ago b/c the payout was too cheap for them make any $$$. They should get the bottom rung bowl- whatever that is.

However, if ASU or Utah had "won" the South, UCLA would be 6-6 and we would not be having the discussion to begin with. Plus, UCLA did beat 6 DI-A programs (unlike ASU). They should not be punished for making to the championship game.

Personally, I would have preferred to see the NCAA deny the waiver, but they didn't b/c they feel UCLA will draw better than some Big XII school in New Mexico- which is where UCLA really should be.    

Since: Mar 13, 2007
Posted on: December 1, 2011 5:15 pm


The "only" 71 teams argument is dumb, dumb, dumb.  There are GUARANTEED to be 70 eligble teams at this point.

UCLA and HI could drop to 6-7, but either SYR or PITT will be going to 6-6.

And SO FL and CT both have a shot.

Heaven forbid that

Why not just give a waiver to Hawaii if they finish at 6-7 this weekend instead?

They are punished for playing 13 games, but wealthy UCLA is not?

Just opening the door to all teams eligible for bowls as long as there is a tie-in with their conference.

0-12 Indiana... Welcome to the Pizza Bowl!!!

Since: Mar 1, 2009
Posted on: December 1, 2011 2:29 pm

Why UCLA is going bowling

according to an NCAA …

… because the Pac-12 championship was not a scheduled game. UCLA, then, is being viewed as a 6-6 team for bowl purposes

Well then, can we count Mich St as 10-2 even if they lose to Wisc. in the rematch and send them to a Bowl game ahead of Plam's pretty boy Michigan?

Since: Aug 23, 2006
Posted on: December 1, 2011 12:57 pm

Why UCLA is going bowling

Nothing against Western Michigan, but if there best win is against an under 500 Big East team, they don't have much of a case for being shafted.  UCLA beat several bowl teams and there OOC losses were to Texas and to undefeated Houston on the road in a close game.  I think they should get rid of some bowls and neither team should be playing in one.

Since: Sep 5, 2009
Posted on: December 1, 2011 8:35 am

Why UCLA is going bowling

August589 is spot-on.....there are far too many bowls and the quality of teams has really gotten watered down in some of them.  A team that cannot go .500 or better in a season should not get rewarded with a bowl.  If you cut the number by a third or so like august suggests, a lot of these 6-6, 7-6, or 7-5 teams would not get rewarded for mediocrity.

Since: Nov 26, 2008
Posted on: December 1, 2011 7:50 am

Why UCLA is going bowling

These 3 "reasons" are pathetic.

What business is it of the NCAA how many bowl contracts the Pac-12 has?

There will be more than enough teams to fill all bowls without UCLA, after Saturday. There are games in which 2 teams are playing each other with 5-6 records and since there are no ties, one of them will become bowl-eligible. What the NCAA is doing, especially with the Pac-12 "reason" is favoring the Pac-12 over the rest of the country.

The NCAA has no business in trying to get a "regional" team for the Kraft Bowl. Traditionally, this bowl has invited such "regional" teams as Boston College. Last year, we were treated to the spectacle of the NCAA allowing clearly ineligible players to play in a BCS bowl on the grounds that it would hurt the bowl. So, the NCAA sold its integrity and the integrity of college athletics for the sake of a bowl's money. How much did the NCAA get off of its "impartial decision"? How much is the NCAA getting off of this "impartial decision"?

Mr. Emmert should stop lecturing university presidents about making decisions for the money, until after he cleans up his own house which is plainly making decisions based solely on how much money the NCAA will make.

Since: Jul 17, 2007
Posted on: December 1, 2011 7:14 am

Why UCLA is going bowling

Once again, the NCAA has proven that money is the only motivation.  This screws the little guy no matter how you look at it.  If UCLA doesn't go, it opens up a spot for a MAC team to go to a bowl.  MAC teams always get shafted at bowl time.  It's like the MAC isn't even acknowledged by the NCAA.  Right now, the team that probably gets to spend the holidays home is Western Michigan.  They went on the road and beat Connecticut and came within a minute of upsetting the Illini in Illinois.  They finished 7-5 and put up 68 points this past weekend.  Now, they may have to sit home because a team with a losing record has been granted a chance to keep playing.  Why?  They're the BIG guys of the FBS that brings in more money and the little MAC gets nothing.  Now, I agree with a previous poster that we're rewarding mediocrity with so many bowls, but it does give small schools like the MAC a chance to get national exposure and to show that they can play good football.  If the FBS isn't going to acknowledge the MAC or Conference USA or the Sun Belt, why not just move them to FCS and give them something to play for.  The NCAA continues to show that they are only interested in the the PAC-12, Big 10, Big 12, ACC, and SEC(and what's left of the Big East).  As far as the NCAA is concerned, the other conferences are just there to bolster the big money conferences records and if they DARE to try to hone in on the money party(BCS), they get shunned over and over again. 


Since: Nov 26, 2006
Posted on: December 1, 2011 1:56 am

Why UCLA is going bowling

Can you imagine if they pull off the biggest upset, win the PAC-12 and play in the Rose Bowl with a 7-6 record... and the coach would still be gone... ha ha ha... 

Since: Mar 22, 2007
Posted on: December 1, 2011 12:50 am

Why UCLA is going bowling

Just another reason to contract the number of bowl games.  Bowls used to be a reward for an excellent season.  Now, they are a reward for mediocrity.  UCLA in a bowl?  Imagine--a bowl team that finishes the season with a 6-8 record.  How embarrasing!  Please--let's slash the number of bowl games by 1/3 to 1/2.  Then they can be a true reward for an excellent season--which would be more than they are right now.

Since: Oct 17, 2009
Posted on: December 1, 2011 12:33 am

Why UCLA is going bowling

Watch out for the fake punt Rick.....we never forget.  Go Ducks 60-0 over the Bruins. 

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