Unfortunately for us,we're not one of the 8.He didn't specify those eight teams which were on his list,except to say that all 8 were from P5 conferences.
Jerry Palm projects eight 5-7 teams to make bowls
- Thread starter RUhasarrived
- Start date
8 5-7 teams in bowls would be a joke.
This nonsense has to end (can't wait for the guys who think this is "okay" to chime in lol...). AWFUL.
It's ok if we are 5-7 and are one of these teams . We are a young team and need the practice . Flood needs the practice too
Palm is a clown and is just pulling names out of a hat at that point. There is a clear delineated pecking order for the 5-7 bowl teams and our 980 score in the most recent release is still high enough to still be in the top 10% of football teams.
So the only explanations are Palm is a fool or Palm doesn't think we are winning 5 games.
One year after ranking 10th nationally with an identical four-year APR rate of 980, Rutgers joined Big Ten members Wisconsin (998), Northwestern (992), Michigan (990) and Nebraska (985) as well as Duke (992), Stanford (987), Clemson (984), Vanderbilt (983) and Boston College (980) as the only Power 5 conference schools to score 980 or better.
I have zero desire to see my team play in a bowl game they in now way deserve, or have earned, at 5-7. I'll watch, I'll root, I'll be happy if we win, but no thanks.
If we're going to have 5-7 teams in bowls just make the regular season 13 games. I love college football too but there has to be some standards to play in the post season.
Do you have any desire to see a young team get a couple of extra weeks of practice?
Like was already stated above, if they're this adamant about having so many post season games, then just extend the regular season by one game, to 13. I do not have any desire to watch a 5-7 (even young RU) team get anything extra (even practice time, let alone bowl play/accolades) that it would not have deservedly earned.
I've stated before that even 6-6 teams should not earn bowl berths, since they still potentially can have a losing season. It makes no sense.
The NCAA should just allow ALL teams to practice the extra 2 weeks instead of "rewarding" lousy teams.
You obviously missed my point lol! Yes, it would be nice, but I am NOT for rewarding some teams under .500, but not all, it's freakin' pathetic, IMHO, that's all.
Last edited:
No doubt if we make a bowl at 5-7 some of our fans will trot this out as an accomplishment that proves flood is a great coach.
Jerry who?
Bracketology Expert is not a real thing, you know that, right?
Bracketology Expert is not a real thing, you know that, right?
And the team could go 12-0 in the regular season and lose in the national championship game and some of our would trot out the loss as a reason why Flood must go.
Bowl eligibility should be limited to teams that have at lest a 7-5 record.A winning record must be the minimum standard for bowl invitations or bowls become a joke rewarding mediocrity.
He didn't add us because we're going to have at least six wins.
I say if a 5-7 team can be eligible for a Bowl game a 0-12 school should.
That way every school can play in the Participation Bowl and not have to sit because they wern't good enough to make a bowl line-up.
That way every school can play in the Participation Bowl and not have to sit because they wern't good enough to make a bowl line-up.
This. Only having 5 Wins and three of those over FCS deweller Norfolk St., Kansas ( losers of 39 straight Road games), and Army and then qualifying for a Bowl game would be a travesty .
He looks like he is related to Rosie Palm and her 5 sisters because he is a J____off?Jerry who?
Bracketology Expert is not a real thing, you know that, right?
It is quite ok for those who enjoy watching football. Some of those early bowls are very entertaining. So from an entertainment standpoint it is great.
From a "Did you deserve it" standpoint, its a travesty. And no longer is it a "reward" for a good season. It is making a mockery of "competing" for a bowl spot.
In my mind the balance would be about 30 bowls. 42 is way to many.
That's nonsensical. Not only because anyone who would actually use that as a reason would be an idiot who is not busy being elated at RU making it to the national championship game, but also because that's clearly not the case this season. We are 3-3, with chances to go anywhere from 3-9 (unacceptable, and the coaching staff should rightfully be terminated) to 11-3 (highly unlikely, but since this would involve beating the #1 team in the country at the time, a B1G conference championship, and likely big-time bowl win, the coaching staff would be rightfully retained and lauded)
30 bowls kinda means the top 60 teams go to a bowl. To me that's ridiculous. 20 bowls rewards the top 40; isn't that enough? I also like the idea of letting ALL teams have another 2 weeks to practice for the next season even if they're not going to a bowl game.
5-7 schools in bowls are a joke....too much tryng to give participation trophies...and 5-7 schools vs 6-6 schools make for a medicore game. Don't reward Power 5 schools for winning one conference game and then beating 4 patsies.
This a huge benefit for making it to a bowl game. Especially since a lot of the younger players get more reps during the early bowl practices.
If losing teams are going to be allowed to quality for bowl games I think the worst teams need to have their own playoff.
Take the worst 8 schools and have them play each other.
The 4 winning teams go home, while the losers get to play another.
Then the two left play for the Participation trophy, bragging rights and the trophy go to the loser.
Take the worst 8 schools and have them play each other.
The 4 winning teams go home, while the losers get to play another.
Then the two left play for the Participation trophy, bragging rights and the trophy go to the loser.
We should get a bowl game of our own, have a played outdoor in Alaska, I call it "The Participation Trophy Bowl."
No one will force these 5-7 teams to participate. Schools/programs will willingly elect to play, extending their season, giving players additional game experience, giving fans an extra game, and hopefully earning enough to cover travel expenses. What's the concern? Not likely anyone will mistake these games for national championship-level contests. Look at what an exciting game may result i.e. IU vs RU, as an example.
I've got no problem with there being lots of bowls and with 5-7 teams going to them. Some 5-7 teams have all their losses to quality opponents, whereas some 10-2 teams haven't really beaten any good teams. If you don't like the lower rated bowls, here's a novel idea: Don't watch. To me, it would be great if we go 5-7 and get a bowl against a solid ACC or PAC 12 team.
Jerry who?
Bracketology Expert is not a real thing, you know that, right?
I've been filling out brackets for longer than that. Am I an expert too?
Even if the seven losses are all to top-ten teams, that's seven moral victories that team would be claiming, or more than half the games that they have played that season. That's a losing season, period. All that winning teams can do is beat the teams that they have agreed to face that season. Strength-of-schedule is taken into account for rankings and playoff selection, which is where teams storming through a perceived weak slate suffer.
I agree that people (including myself here) are free to not watch 5-7 teams in bowl games, but I disagree with the very idea of bowl games if they are accepting losing teams.
The NCAA can send every school to a bowl for all I care...but LOL @ RU (or any school for that matter) if they think I'm paying an extra dime my money to reward a 5-7 team going to the "postseason".
Sure 20 is enough if you change the rules about the pecking order. Right now all the good location bowl games are paired with the power 5 conferences, and you aren't putting that genie back in the bottle, so you have to give spots for the group of 5 teams.
