Talk:2023–24 NCAA football bowl games

Hawai'i bowl ineligibility

As of this writing, Hawai'i, currently 2–6, is listed as one loss away from bowl ineligibility with a note indicating that they must win seven games to reach bowl eligibility, since they are playing a 13-game schedule. However, if Hawai'i were to finish the regular season 6–7 and win the Mountain West Conference championship game, they would have seven wins and meet the NCAA's definition of a deserving team. Therefore, Hawai'i only become bowl ineligible when they have seven losses and are eliminated from Mountain West Conference championship contention.

Hawai'i is presently 0–3 in the Mountain West. So, to determine whether they are one loss away from bowl ineligibility, we need to ascertain whether a loss in their next game (which would give them seven losses) vs. San José State would result in their elimination from the Mountain West championship race.

The top two teams in the Mountain West standings qualify for the conference championship game. Mountain West teams play an eight-game conference schedule. Therefore, a loss vs. San José State means Hawai'i can finish with no better than a 4–4 conference record. The clearest path to determine whether Hawai'i could, even in the most remotely possible circumstances, be one of the two teams participating in the conference championship game is to find outcomes of yet-to-be-played games that produce a multiple-team tie for second place in the conference with a record of 4–4.

The Mountain West tiebreakers for ties between three or more teams break such ties first using the CFP Selection Committee ranking prior to the regular season's final weekend, unless one of the tied teams has defeated all other tied teams. The tied team with the highest CFP ranking wins the tiebreaker, if it wins its final regular-season game. If none of the tied teams are ranked, or if no ranked team wins its final game, the team with the best composite average of selected computer rankings at the conclusion of the regular season wins the tiebreaker. Since the CFP committee's ranking and the composite average of selected computer rankings that would determine the tiebreaker cannot be known at this time, there can be no certainty that Hawai'i would lose either of these.

Assuming a Hawai'i loss to San José State, the Mountain West standings would be as follows:

Team	W	L
Air Force	4	0
UNLV	3	0
Wyoming	2	1
Boise State	2	1
Fresno State	2	1
San José State	3	2
Colorado State	1	2
Nevada	1	2
New Mexico	1	2
San Diego State	1	3
Utah State	1	3
Hawai'i	0	4

Next, we can assume the following outcomes of the remaining conference games:

Hawai'i: wins versus Nevada, Air Force, Wyoming and Colorado State (4–0)

Air Force: wins versus Colorado State, UNLV and Boise State, loss versus Hawai'i (3–1)

UNLV: win versus Fresno State, losses versus New Mexico, Wyoming, Air Force and San José State (1–4)

Wyoming: wins versus UNLV and Nevada, losses versus Boise State, Colorado State and Hawai'i (2–3)

Boise State: win versus Wyoming, losses versus Fresno State, New Mexico, Utah State and Air Force (1–4)

Fresno State: wins versus Boise State and San José State, losses versus UNLV, New Mexico and San Diego State (2–3)

San José State: win versus UNLV, losses versus Fresno State and San Diego State (1–2)

Colorado State: win versus Wyoming, losses versus Air Force, San Diego State, Nevada and Hawai'i (1–4)

Nevada: wins versus New Mexico, Utah State and Colorado State, losses versus Hawai'i and Wyoming (3–2)

New Mexico: wins versus UNLV, Boise State and Fresno State, losses versus Nevada and Utah State (3–2)

San Diego State: wins versus Colorado State, San José State and Fresno State, loss versus Utah State (3–1)

Utah State: wins versus San Diego State, Boise State and New Mexico, loss versus Nevada (3–1)

Those outcomes would produce final regular season standings as follows:

Team	W	L
Air Force	7	1
UNLV	4	4
Wyoming	4	4
Fresno State	4	4
San José State	4	4
Nevada	4	4
New Mexico	4	4
San Diego State	4	4
Utah State	4	4
Hawai'i	4	4
Boise State	3	5
Colorado State	2	6

In the resulting nine-way tie for second place, none of the tied teams would have defeated all the other tied teams. Therefore, the tie would be broken by either the CFP rankings or the composite average of selected computer rankings, and Hawai'i could prevail under either of those. As a result, a loss by Hawai'i to San José State will not make them bowl ineligible, since they could still win the Mountain West championship game and finish 7–7.

Two more losses by Hawai'i would eliminate them from bowl eligibility, because they would have eight losses. Further, it is impossible for a team with five conference losses to finish tied for second place in the Mountain West.

References

Taxman1913 (talk) 15:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Everything you just said (and you said a mouthful) is categorized as extraordinary circumstances, similar to the extraordinary circumstances that would enable James Madison or Jacksonville State to be bowl-eligible (namely, there not being enough regularly eligible 6-win teams).

However, until these circumstances take effect, JMU and Jax State are in the bowl-ineligible section because we assume normal circumstances. Therefore, it is reasonable that we do the same for Hawaii until such extraordinary circumstances are actually activated (until they qualify for the Mountain West title game, let's keep them where they're at). Tom Danson (talk) 17:20, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

The circumstances are beyond extraordinary. There might be a better chance of tossing a coin into the air and having it land on its edge than Hawai'i going 6–7, winning the Mountain West title game and going to a bowl. That being said, there's a list of teams that are one loss away from being ineligible and another of teams that are two losses away. It's demonstrably true that they are not one loss away and that they are clearly two losses away. The footnote explains the nature of the circumstances and that one loss along with other Mountain West results could make them ineligible. If we were talking about a 6–6 team playing a 13-game schedule, having already clinched first place in the Big Ten West and playing a non-conference opponent on the final weekend, we would clearly not consider such a team to be one loss away, even though a loss in the next game might mean they need to beat a 12–0 Michigan or Ohio State team to get to a bowl. There are 27 games left on the Mountain West schedule, and the combination of wins and losses I showed above is not the only one that could result in Hawai'i getting to the Mountain West title game. For instance, if Fresno State beats UNLV this weekend (instead of losing as in my scenario), then Boise State would have to win its game against Fresno State, and that could result in a 10-way tie for second place, which tightens the noose around the neck of Hawai'i. If New Mexico wins its game against Nevada (instead of losing as I had), then that would work out fine for Hawai'i, if Fresno State also beat UNLV, and Boise State wins against Fresno State. If we add a Wyoming win over Boise State (instead of a loss), then Wyoming could later lose against Nevada and preserve the 10-way tie. Colorado State beating Air Force this weekend would not affect a 9- or 10-way tie, but it would reduce the number of wins Colorado State could absorb from its opponents that win other games. So, even if I flip the result of three games this coming weekend, the mathematical possibility of Hawai'i remaining in the Mountain West race remains.

I don't see these extraordinary circumstances as equivalent to those faced by James Madison and Jacksonville State. Even if they end up going to bowl games, they can never meet the NCAA's definition of a deserving team, which is really what the article should be saying, when it identifies teams that are one or two wins or losses away from "bowl eligibility". All deserving teams are bowl eligible, but not all bowl eligible teams are deserving teams. If JMU and Jax State go to bowl games, they will go as alternates, just as Rice did last year based on their APR. In contrast to JMU and Jax State, even with a loss in its next game, Hawai'i could still be a deserving team, and if the extraordinary set of circumstances plays out, they could keep JMU and/or Jax State from going to a bowl. Taxman1913 (talk) 23:39, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Hawai'i after Week 9

After a 35–0 loss in Week 9 to San José State, Hawai'i sits at 2–7. Therefore, they now must qualify for and win the Mountain West championship game to finish 7–7 and meet the NCAA's definition of a deserving team. Through Week 9, the Mountain West standings are as follows:

Team	W	L
Air Force	5	0
Fresno State	3	1
Boise State	3	1
UNLV	3	1
San José State	3	2
Nevada	2	2
Wyoming	2	2
Utah State	1	3
New Mexico	1	3
San Diego State	1	3
Colorado State	1	3
Hawai'i	0	4

We need to assume Hawai'i wins all its remaining games, since one more loss gives them eight losses, and, even if they were to win the Mountain West championship, their record would be 6–8, which excludes them from being a deserving team.

The following outcomes of remaining conference games can be assumed:

Hawai'i: wins versus Nevada, Air Force, Wyoming and Colorado State (4–0)

Air Force: wins versus UNLV and Boise State, loss versus Hawai'i (2–1)

Fresno State: win versus Boise State, losses versus San José State, New Mexico and San Diego State (1–3)

Boise State: losses versus Fresno State, New Mexico, Utah State and Air Force (0–4)

UNLV: win versus San José State, losses versus New Mexico, Wyoming and Air Force (1–3)

San José State: win versus Fresno State, losses versus San Diego State and UNLV (1–2)

Nevada: wins versus Utah State and Colorado State, losses versus Hawai'i and Wyoming (2–2)

Wyoming: wins versus UNLV and Nevada, losses versus Colorado State and Hawai'i (2–2)

Utah State: wins versus San Diego State, Boise State and New Mexico, loss versus Nevada (3–1)

New Mexico: wins versus UNLV, Boise State and Fresno State, loss versus Utah State (3–1)

San Diego State: wins versus San José State and Fresno State, losses versus Utah State and Colorado State (2–2)

Colorado State: wins versus Wyoming and San Diego State, losses versus San Diego State, Nevada and Hawai'i (2–2)

Those outcomes would produce final regular season standings as follows:

Team	W	L
Air Force	7	1
Hawai'i	4	4
Fresno State	4	4
UNLV	4	4
San José State	4	4
Nevada	4	4
Wyoming	4	4
Utah State	4	4
New Mexico	4	4
Boise State	3	5
San Diego State	3	5
Colorado State	3	5

In the resulting eight-way tie for second place, none of the tied teams would have defeated all the other tied teams, since a team that did so would have at least seven conference wins, and all the teams have four. Therefore, the tie would be broken by either the CFP rankings or the composite average of selected computer rankings, and Hawai'i could prevail under either of those. As a result, Hawai'i still has a mathematical possibility of reaching and winning the Mountain West championship game and finishing 7–7, which would make them bowl eligible as a deserving team.

The first Mountain West game in Week 10 is a Friday night game between Wyoming and Colorado State. If Wyoming wins that game (instead of losing as in the model above), Wyoming could lose its game against Nevada (instead of winning as above), and Nevada could lose its game against Colorado State (instead of winning as above). These different results would give Wyoming and Nevada 4–4 conference records, while Colorado State would still be 3–5. Thus, an eight-way tie for second place that includes Hawai'i would remain possible.

Of course, Hawai'i must win its game on Saturday at Nevada to avoid reaching eight losses and becoming bowl ineligible. If Hawai'i wins, and UNLV defeats New Mexico (instead of losing as above), UNLV could lose its game against San José State (instead of winning as above), San José State could lose its game against Fresno State (instead of winning as above), and Fresno State could lose its game against Boise State (instead of winning as above).

Fresno State and Boise State play on Saturday evening. In the case of a Hawai'i victory on Saturday (the only circumstance in which the other games remain relevant), if UNLV and Fresno State both win, they will both have four wins, and each has a game remaining against San José State, which has three wins and a bye in Week 10. Therefore, those two results will mean that at least one of UNLV, Fresno State and San José State must have at least five conference wins, a total Hawai'i cannot reach. Consequently, wins by both UNLV and Fresno State would make Hawai'i bowl ineligible, regardless of the outcome of Hawai'i's game. Taxman1913 (talk) 23:38, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Alternates qualifying based on APR

I think there's a decent chance that some teams that are not deserving teams may become bowl eligible based on their APRs, so I added a section discussing this to the article.

There are currently 23 five-win teams with 24 games remaining. Navy is the only one with two games left. If they collectively go 0–24 in those games, the Syracuse loss would force Wake Forest to 5–7, the UCF loss would force Houston to 5–7, the Rice loss would force Florida Atlantic to 5–7, the Utah State loss would force New Mexico to 5–7, and the second Navy loss would force Army to 5–6. Two 4–7 teams, FIU and UAB, are playing each other. Assuming the team with the lower APR wins the game maximizes the opportunity for other teams to qualify based on APR. All four-win teams not playing five-win teams or other four-win teams as assumed to lose. All those assumptions would produce the following:

Selection Order	APR Rank	Team	Countable Games Record	Projected Record	Multiyear APR	2021–22 APR
1	8 (tie)	Wake Forest	4–7	5–7	992	1,000
2	8 (tie)	Minnesota	5–6	5–7	992	994
3	15 (tie)	Rice	5–6	5–7	987
4	19 (tie)	Mississippi State	5–6	5–7	985
5	22	UCF	5–6	5–7	984
6	23 (tie)	South Carolina	5–6	5–7	983
7	28 (tie)	Michigan State	4–7	4–8	982
8	34 (tie)	Ball State	4–7	4–8	980
9	36 (tie)	California	5–6	5–7	978	975
10	36 (tie)	Army	4–6	5–6	978	971
11	43 (tie)	Florida	5–6	5–7	977
12	59 (tie)	Middle Tennessee	4–7	4–8	972
13	65 (tie)	Navy	5–5	5–7	969	971
14	65 (tie)	Nebraska	5–6	5–7	969	965
15	69 (tie)	Northern Illinois	5–6	5–7	967	988
16	69 (tie)	Virginia Tech	5–6	5–7	967	962
17	69 (tie)	South Florida	5–6	5–7	967	955
18	79 (tie)	Utah State	5–6	5–7	965
19	84	Old Dominion	5–6	5–7	963
20	85	Illinois	5–6	5–7	962
21	88 (tie)	Marshall	5–6	5–7	961	951
22	88 (tie)	Washington State	5–6	5–7	961	949
23	92 (tie)	Colorado	4–7	4–8	959
24	97 (tie)	Colorado State	5–6	5–7	957
25	102 (tie)	Houston	4–7	5–7	955	965
26	102 (tie)	Syracuse	5–6	5–7	955	963
27	105 (tie)	BYU	5–6	5–7	954
28	108	North Texas	4–7	4–8	953
29	109 (tie)	Central Michigan	5–6	5–7	952	958
30	109 (tie)	TCU	5–6	5–7	952	950
31	109 (tie)	Louisiana	5–6	5–7	952	929
32	117 (tie)	FIU	4–7	4–8	948
33	119 (tie)	New Mexico	4–7	5–7	947
34	123 (tie)	UAB	4–7	5–7	944
35	128 (tie)	Florida Atlantic	4–7	5–7	933

There are presently 14 unfilled bowl berths. If the five-win teams go 0–24, the first two alternate berths would go to Jacksonville State and James Madison, leaving 12 berths to be filled by APR rankings. If the five-win teams go 11–13, including 0–2 by Navy, there would be one APR alternate. If Syracuse had one of those wins, it would have become a deserving team and left Wake Forest at 4–8, falling off the APR list. So, if you believe that the five-win teams will do no better than 11–13, the Syracuse–Wake Forest game is effectively for a bowl berth.

If Michigan State, Ball State and Middle Tennessee all lose this weekend, it would require going down to the 15th team on the APR list to fill the maximum number of 12 bowl slots. It doesn't matter what happens in the Syracuse–Wake Forest game, because either Syracuse will win and become a deserving team, reducing the maximum number of alternate APR teams by one, or Wake Forest will take the first alternate APR spot.

There is an interesting possibility that would add an unprecedented twist to America's Game. If the five-win teams below Army in the APR rankings, excluding Syracuse, go 4–12, including a loss by Navy, and Michigan State and Ball State both lose, those four winners would all have become bowl eligible, leaving eight unfilled bowl slots. One of those would go to the Syracuse–Wake Forest winner. Army would move up to the eighth selection in the APR rankings and need a win in the Army–Navy game to secure the final bowl berth. Navy would be 5–6 and need a win to become bowl eligible. The Army–Navy game could be an elimination game for bowl eligibility, and the circumstances to get there are not so far fetched. Other combinations would work as well in setting up that scenario. Taxman1913 (talk) 05:14, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

As the final day of regular-season play, with the exception of the Army–Navy game, is about to get underway, 18 teams have an opportunity to become deserving teams and claim the 13 remaining bowl bids with wins today, and Navy will get two bites at the apple. Several of these teams face opponents that may present significant challenges, and there's a reasonable chance that we'll see Jacksonville State and James Madison become bowl-eligible as alternates along with one or more teams near the top of the APR list. Taxman1913 (talk) 16:41, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Note that any team with 5-7 records and two wins against FCS teams would be ineligible no matter what, although I'm not sure if any teams are in such a position. CrazyC83 (talk) 22:22, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

@CrazyC83: That is correct. A 5–7 team with two wins over FCS opponents can never play in a bowl game. Their record in countable games would be only 4–7, so they would not be considered if bowl team selection came down to academic progress rate. Taxman1913 (talk) 16:31, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

A careful study of the D-I manual does not lead to a conclusion that Navy could not have become bowl eligible by beating Army or that Army could not have been considered as nan alternate based on its academic progress rate by beating Navy (although they would not have gotten that far down the list; Minnesota would have taken the only spot).

The first relevant rule is Bylaw 17.15.5 (pp. 262–263):

17.11.5 End of Playing Season. [FBS/FCS] A member institution's last contest (game or scrimmage) with outside competition in football shall not be played after the second Saturday or the following Sunday in December, except for the following: (Revised: 1/11/89, 1/10/90, 1/10/91, 1/10/92, 1/16/93, 1/14/97 effective 8/1/97, 8/5/99, 4/27/06, 12/15/06, 11/1/07 effective 8/1/08, 10/28/10, 10/27/11 effective 4/1/12, 6/8/15)

(a) Spring Practice Scrimmage. One scrimmage or contest at the conclusion of spring practice, provided the game is with a team composed of bona fide alumni or students or both; and

(b) Postseason Games, NCAA and NAIA Championships, International Competition and Celebration Bowl. Permissible postseason games that meet the requirements of Bylaw 18.7 and the NCAA postseason football handbook or those games played in the Division I Football Championship; football contests played on a foreign tour certified by the member institution; or the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics football championships. In championship subdivision football only, a member institution's last contest also may include participation in the Celebration Bowl.

So, this means that any game played from the start of the season until the Sunday following the second Saturday in December is not a postseason game. The 2023 Army–Navy game was played on the second Saturday of December, and, therefore, was within the time during which games other than postseason games could be played in accordance with NCAA rules.

The second relevant rule is Bylaw 18.7 (pp. 333–334):

18.7 Postseason Football. [FBS/FCS]

18.7.1 Permissible Football Games. [FBS/FCS] The only football games in which a member institution may compete are: (Revised: 2/1/05, 12/15/06, 10/28/11 effective 4/1/12, Adopted: 8/2/12 effective 8/1/14)

(a) Games scheduled as to the identity of a participating college before the beginning of the regular football season of the institution for any academic year, including not only games for which the identity of one participating college is known, but also one for which the institution's opponent is not known at the time of scheduling;

(b) Any football game scheduled between two colleges [which is to be played on a common and regular open date (as defined in Bylaw 18.02.3) of their regular football seasons, on the campus or in the regular playing stadium of either team], even if it is scheduled after the beginning of either participant's football season;

(c) Games that are part of the NCAA championship;

(d) Games that are part of the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics football championships;

(e) A conference championship game on an open date during the traditional fall season, provided the game is played (as opposed to scheduled) the week prior to the first round of an NCAA football championship date and provided the game is listed on the schedules of all conference members; and

(f) Postseason bowl games that meet all requirements and conditions set forth in Bylaw 18.7.2 and the NCAA postseason football handbook; and

(g) One postseason game between the winners of two exempted postseason bowl games per Bylaw 17.11.6.2.1-(d). The participants in the two postseason bowl games shall be selected by Football Bowl Subdivision conferences and independent institutions.

18.7.2 Postseason Bowl Games. [FBS/FCS] The conditions and requirements that must be met in order for an institution to participate in a postseason bowl game are set forth in the NCAA postseason football handbook. (Revised: 1/10/92, 2/1/05, 12/15/06, 7/30/10, 4/28/11, 10/27/11 effective 4/1/12)

18.7.2.1 Contest Status. [FBS] A contest shall serve the purpose of providing a national contest between deserving teams. A "deserving team" shall be defined as one that has won a number of games against Football Bowl Subdivision opponents that is equal to or greater than the number of its overall losses. Tie games do not count in determining a team's won-lost record. Further, if forfeiture of a regular-season football victory is required by the Committee on Infractions or a conference, or is self-imposed by an institution as a result of a violation of NCAA rules, neither of the competing institutions may count that contest in satisfying the definition of a "deserving team." (Revised: 10/18/89, 10/12/93, 4/20/99, 12/15/06, 4/29/10 effective 8/1/10, 7/30/10, 10/27/11 effective 4/1/12, 8/8/18 effective 8/1/19, 12/20/18, 8/31/22 effective 1/1/23)

18.7.2.1.1 Exception -- Football Championship Subdivision Opponent. [FBS] Each year, a Football Bowl Subdivision institution may count one victory against a Football Championship Subdivision opponent toward meeting the definition of a "deserving team," provided the opponent has averaged 90 percent of the permissible maximum number of grants-in-aid per year in football during a rolling two-year period. (Adopted: 10/28/97 effective 8/1/98, Revised: 4/28/05, 12/15/06, 4/29/10 effective 8/1/10, 7/30/10, 5/18/22, 9/21/22 effective 8/1/23)

18.7.2.1.2 Exception -- Deserving Team That Loses Conference Championship Game. [FBS] An institution that finishes its regular season having met the definition of a "deserving team" but loses its conference championship game shall continue to be considered a deserving team. (Adopted: 5/2/13)

18.7.2.1.3 Exception -- Insufficient Number of Eligible Institutions. [FBS] If an insufficient number of institutions meet the definition of a deserving team pursuant to Bylaw 18.7.2.1 to participate in postseason bowl games in a particular year, an institution that meets a condition set forth below shall be eligible to participate as an alternate in such a bowl game. All deserving teams must be selected before an alternate may be selected. The terms of participation in the bowl game shall be the same for the alternate as the terms that were applicable to the originally contracted conference participant. All institutions that meet the first condition below must be selected before an institution that meets the second condition may be selected and so forth in descending order: (Adopted: 5/18/22)

(a) An institution that would have met the requirements set forth in Bylaw 18.7.2.1.1 but for the fact that one victory was against a Football Championship Subdivision opponent that had not met the required average of the permissible maximum number of grants-in-aid per year in football during a rolling two-year period and the institution's waiver request was denied.

(b) An institution that participated in 13 regular-season contests and finished the season with a record of six wins that count toward meeting the definition of a deserving team and seven losses.

(c) An institution that is in its final year of reclassification from the Football Championship Subdivision to the Football Bowl Subdivision and meets the definition of a deserving team pursuant to Bylaw 18.7.2.1 or the exception in Bylaw 18.7.2.1.1.

(d) An institution that finished its season with a minimum of five wins that count toward meeting the definition of a deserving team and a maximum of seven losses but achieved a multiyear Academic Progress Rate (APR) that permits postseason participation. Alternates identified pursuant to this condition shall be identified as eligible in descending order based on the institutions' multiyear Academic Progress Rates.

(1) If multiple institutions achieved the same multiyear rate, the institution with the highest single-year Academic Progress Rate, beginning with the most recent reporting year and continuing until a higher rate is found, shall be identified as eligible first. An institution that is identified as an alternate must declare whether it will participate in a bowl game. An alternate institution that declares an intention to participate shall select an available bowl game in which to participate.

(2) If an institution is unable to participate in a bowl game after accepting a bid, the bowl entity shall select an alternate from among the remaining Football Bowl Subdivision institutions with a multiyear Academic Progress Rate that permits postseason participation to replace the team that accepted the bid and is no longer able to participate in the bowl game.

18.7.2.2 Participation Restrictions. [FBS] The competing institutions shall be active members of this Association, and a member institution shall not participate in more than one such game during any academic year, except as permitted in Bylaw 18.7.1-(g). (Revised: 7/30/10, 8/2/12 effective 8/1/14)

18.7.2.3 Waivers. [FBS] The Division I Football Oversight Committee, or its designated committee, shall have the authority to waive all postseason bowl game requirements based on objective evidence that demonstrates circumstances that warrant the waiver of the normal application of those regulations. The Football Oversight Committee shall establish the process for granting such waivers. (Adopted: 10/4/17 effective 8/1/18)

The rules do not place an end date by which a team must meet the definition of a deserving team which is earlier than the last day of non-postseason games. Therefore, in accordance with the D-I manual, a Navy victory in the Army–Navy game should have made Navy bowl eligible as an alternate with priority over 5–7 teams qualifying based on APR as well as over those that are in the second year of reclassification. Navy would have been 6–6 with a victory in the Army–Navy game, and one of their victories came against Wagner, which does not offer football scholarships, if the source cited is correct. If the source is incorrect, Navy would be a deserving team at 6–6. Either way, the rules would require Navy be extended a bow bid before James Madison, Jacksonville State and Minnesota.

Nevertheless, several reliable media sources consistently reported that Navy needed a win against SMU to become bowl eligible and that its game against Army essentially would not count. Therefore, no matter what the rules say, bowl eligibility is being administered without taking into account the Army–Navy game, which seems inequitable to both of the academies. That game draws attention to college football like no other; for many, it is the only college football game they watch all season. Playing the game the week after the conference championship games certainly benefits the two institutions financially, but it also benefits the game of college football as a whole. It isn't a secret that there are logistics and ticket sales to consider, but it seems it would have been a hurdle that could be overcome to say that Navy goes to the Quick Lane Bowl, if it wins the Army–Navy game, and Minnesota goes, if Navy loses. The story would have been even bigger, if Army's goal-line stand had denied Navy a bowl bid.

If the NCAA is okay with the bowls being administered like this, it should change the rules to make it clear that deserving team status (or status allowing a team to qualify as an alternate) must be achieved no later than the first Saturday of December. Had Navy won the Army–Navy game, Minnesota would have been playing an impermissible game (according to the rules) by participating in the Quick Lane Bowl, since no alternates qualifying based on APR would have been needed to fill all the bowl slots. Taxman1913 (talk) 18:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

References

Seeds for CFP semi-finals

Hey folks. This edit changed the article to say that the Rose Bowl will have the number 2 and 3 seeds and the Sugar Bowl will have the number 1 and 4 seeds. I believe that's not been determined, and if I'm wrong I would request a link to a reliable reference. If you look at this page on the CFP official website and expand point 9, Pairing for Semi-Finals, you'll see this: "When assigning teams to sites, the selection committee will place the top two seeds at the most advantageous sites, weighing criteria such as convenience of travel for its fans, home‐crowd advantage or disadvantage and general familiarity with the host city and its stadium. Preference will go to the No. 1 seed." So it'll be 2 vs. 3 and 1 vs. 4, but we don't know which game will get which. So, I'm going to take that out of the article. As always other editors are encouraged to post their views. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I see it has already been changed in the article, but my understanding of how teams are assigned to semifinal games is identical to yours. If UCLA and USC were nos. 1 and 2, the no. 1 team would go to the Rose Bowl, while the no. 2 team would go to the Sugar Bowl. Taxman1913 (talk) 23:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@Taxman1913: Yeah, I forgot to say, I removed the seed numbers. Anyway, thanks for the feedback. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

So, the Rose Bowl gets the 1 and 4 seeds, and the Sugar Bowl gets the 2 and 3 seeds. Presumably the CFP committee sent #1 Michigan to the Rose Bowl because the Big Ten has a historic affinity to that venue. But it could have gone the other way, seed-wise. We just don't know until the committee picks the top four teams and then assigns them to the two semifinal games. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

@Mudwater:: It is my understanding that Michigan was sent to the Rose Bowl, because having them play in the Sugar Bowl would have resembled a home game for Alabama, a privilege the committee is not supposed to grant to the #4 seed. Taxman1913 (talk) 16:13, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

@Taxman1913: Oh, that makes sense. Thanks. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 16:17, 12 December 2023 (UTC)