Bowl math

[PAGS]

Correct me if I’m wrong…but the only guarantee of a bowl for UConn is if they’re the highest rated of all the G5’s. Which would put them into one of the major bowls that every G5 is entitled to. Example…Tulane this year. Otherwise they could go 10-2 and stay home…nothing is guaranteed. A 6-6 team from the sun belt is contractually entitled to a slot….but not a 10-2 INDY. My personal opinion is UConn should work some sort of bowl game out with CBS and have a tie in. Hopefully next contract! “The Subway Bowl at the Yale Bowl” lol

 

[Patman]

The guarantee for all teams not put into a contracted bowl is to have a better record than anybody that remains if there are non-contracted spots left.

Even that I'm not sure about and who sets those rules.

I know there's been talk about if there's a 1 game wiggle room. Say taking a 7-5 team over an 8-4. I know conference tie in bowls have had rules like that.

Honestly it's a bit of a free for all and until I see an overall NCAA rule on bowls and consequences I'll just assume it's a free for all except needing to be over 500 but there are waivers for that as well.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

Care to inform on the history about uconns canceled football program? 1943 I assume?

Tongue and cheek about our cancelled COVID season.

 

[Patman]

Tongue and cheek about our cancelled COVID season.

Sorry. That's my frustration breaking through and the internet doesn't give tone.

 

[SubbaBub]

It is theoretically possible. As a matter of statistical probabilities it is so unlikely that I’d worry about other things if I were you.

Note that this is a statement as of today. Changing rules, changes in bowl contracts or adding and subtracting bowls all change the math.

This. There are several ESPN owned bowls that do not have tie-ins. An 8-4 UConn would find a bowl, even if that means horse trading a single open slot amongst all the ESPN owned properties.

 

[huskymedic]

No impact on UConn per se but…

 

[Husky25]

The question was clearly answered.

"Theoretically possible," means that it is possible, which is the answer I gave, along with an attribution to someone who reports on this sort of thing for a living.

Probability is a separate issue.

 

[businesslawyer]

"Theoretically possible," means that it is possible, which is the answer I gave, along with an attribution to someone who does it for a living. Probability is a separate issue.

You can't be serious. You think probability is not a relevant component of a "theoretically possible" answer? That is a hill you want to die on?

 

[BlueMAB]

You can't be serious. You think probability is not a relevant component of a "theoretically possible" answer? That is a hill you want to die on?

There isn't a hill he wouldn't die on.

 

[Husky25]

You can't be serious. You think probability is not a relevant component of a "theoretically possible" answer? That is a hill you want to die on?

That was not the question asked and the more you harp on it, make it sound as if you are worried.

Yes, with the current number of bowl games, an 8-4 Independent program would most likely receive a bowl bid. However, if the number of Bowls were reduced for whatever reason, As an independent without a direct tie-in like Army, BYU, or Notre Dame, UConn would not be guaranteed an invite. Recall 2003, when a 9-3 Independent UConn stayed home.

 

[businesslawyer]

That was not the question asked and the more you harp on it, make it sound as if you are worried.

Yes, with the current number of bowl games, an 8-4 Independent program would most likely receive a bowl bid. However, if the number of Bowls were reduced for whatever reason, As an independent without a direct tie-in like Army, BYU, or Notre Dame, UConn would not be guaranteed an invite. Recall 2003, when a 9-3 Independent UConn stayed home.

All of which was stated in my response that you criticized. The comparison to 2003 is more misleading than helpful because the number of bowls is substantially higher today.

First rule of holes -- when in one stop digging. But it's a free country, so keep going if you want.

 

[Husky25]

There isn't a hill he wouldn't die on.

If you are referring to Calcaterra's defense, that was a discussion of opinion (Last night's game did nothing to sway mine). This is a matter of fact.

 

[BlueMAB]

If you are referring to Calcaterra's defense, that was a discussion of opinion (Last night's game did nothing to sway mine). This is a matter of fact.

Nah, it was a matter of semantics. You didn't like the word "liability".

Joey was burnt early a couple times and ultimately played solid defense in the second half. He's still the weakest defender on the team (who gets minutes), it isn't close, and that's okay, because his overall game is very good.

But there isn't a hill you won't die on.

 

[Husky25]

All of which was stated in my response that you criticized. The comparison to 2003 is more misleading than helpful because the number of bowls is substantially higher today.

First rule of holes -- when in one stop digging. But it's a free country, so keep going if you want.

Which is what I said in my post! We can go 'round & 'round but it is so not worth it to me. You're welcome to the last word on the above. I'll just have to live with being technically correct.

Although, I am curious which post you believe I criticized. Over the course of 10 years and nearly 18,000 posts, I thought it was clear that I hold you in pretty high regard. I thoroughly enjoy your views from 241. Be that as it may, I basically restated what Brett McMurphy said on the CT Scoreboard podcast.

 

[Husky25]

Nah, it was a matter of semantics. You didn't like the word "liability".

Joey was burnt early a couple times and ultimately played solid defense in the second half. He's still the weakest defender on the team (who gets minutes), it isn't close, and that's okay, because his overall game is very good.

But there isn't a hill you won't die on.

You're right, I don't like the word, "liability," in terms of Calcaterra's defense. In my world, "liability" is a negative. I don't think that of his defense. I can agree that he may be the weakest defender of the rotational players and still be average. Especially on an overall very good defensive team. There is room to think he is not as good defensively as Newton, Alleyne or Diarra and still not believe he is, "a piss poor defender," "plays zero defense, "is a lability against mid majors," or that he, "is probably more like 5-10 [minute guy]."

I noticed Lipsey penetrated a couple times vs. Calcaterra as well. On one, he was picked and couldn't recover (I recall no one switching either, but still. He didn't avoid the screen). The other was a similar pick play, where Sanogo helped, but peeled off Lipsey to play a pass that never happened, leaving an open lane. Lipsey played well yesterday. On the other hand, Calcaterra took a charge and contributed to holding Grill to 1 point.

Incidentally, Karaban got burnt twice as well (the break out dunk after the free throw and the putback where he didn't box out.). I'm not saying they are equal, but defensive breakdowns happen. It is what it is.

 

[BlueMAB]

There is room to think he is not as good defensively as Newton, Alleyne or Diarra and still not believe he is, "a piss poor defender," "plays zero defense, "is a lability against mid majors," or that he, "is probably more like 5-10 [minute guy]."

On that we agree. Perhaps you should stop responding to anyone critical of his defense as if they made those comments and instead just respond to what they actually wrote.