The Big 12 has had a couple of items hit the presses this week.  The most prominent is the addition of two new bowl contracts.  The deals would give the Big 12 a guaranteed spot in either the Dallas Football Classic or the Eagle Bank Bowl in 2010, 2012 and 2013 and first dibs on the waiting list for each in 2011 if their primary conferences fail to fill their slots.

The lower tier bowls are trending towards making contingency contracts to handle the growing tendency of conferences to fail to qualify enough teams their bowl slots.

This will give the Big 12 a total of eight bowls in every year through 2013.  Apparently this does not make it easy enough for the Big 12 to qualify teams for bowl games.  The Big 12 has also submitted an NCAA rule change that would allow 6-6 teams to be on the same footing as a team with a winning record in terms of bowl eligibility.

According to Big 12 Commissioner Dan Beebe:

Our feeling is that a 6-6 team from the Big 12 that has played five teams in the top 25 should not be in a different position from a 7-5 team from another conference that may have only played one or no teams in the top 25.  The six-win team is probably more marketable in some cases than the others, so it should be treated the same.

More after the jump:

Is the Big 12 really complaining that they only get 8 bowls because the Sunbelt and MAC occasionally get an extra 7-5 team into a bowl?  My sympathy is just not triggered by this plea.  Apparently the issue is urgent enough that he has petitioned to have the discussion advanced to this years when procedurally it should have to wait until next year for consideration.

The NCAA Board of Directors accepted this request for immediate consideration. 

Some Board members expressed a desire to examine the bowl structure in general, particularly in regard to the proliferation of bowls and the financial sacrifice some schools and conferences must make to participate. Others said bowl games were an excellent experience for student-athletes and that the market will determine whether the number of games was viable.

Did I miss the time a Big 12 team was 6-6 and did not go to a bowl game?

2008-2009: Arkansas State, Bowling Green, Louisiana-Lafayette, and San José State NOPE
2007-2008: Northwestern, Iowa, Louisville, South Carolina, Ohio, Louisiana Monroe and 8-4 Troy  NOPE
2006-2007: Pittsburgh, Kansas, Arizona, Washington State, SMU, Kent State, Louisiana Lafayette, Arkansas State, Wyoming YES!
2005-2006: Eight teams left out with winning records, non from automatic qualifying conferences

In fact in 2007-2008 TCU had to fill in for a Big 12 team in the Texas Bowl because the Big 12 did not have enough eligible teams.

Are we really talking about sour grapes from 2006-2007?  The NCAA has since added two more bowls to fix this issue and plans to add a new bowl next year.  Would Kansas really be one of the three teams listed that would now be left out?

If we really want to increase the bowls in a way that would be meaningful why not allow teams with a record of 10-2 or better to participate in two bowls?  That way we can get more bowls involving teams that are actually good.

Maybe I should write this idea up and send it in to the primary football contacts of the eleven conferences and three independents.  Oh wait, I already had a draft of this idea ready to include in my planned mid-January resubmission of my business plan and sent this off yesterday.