Letting 5-7 Teams into Bowl Games Would Dilute College Football

The NCAA’s latest proposal to allow 5-7 teams into bowl games feels less like a solution and more like another example of college football stretching itself too thin in pursuit of television inventory and postseason revenue.

For decades, bowl eligibility carried a simple standard: win at least six games. It was not an impossible benchmark, but it represented competence. Teams that reached six wins earned an extra month of practice, a national television showcase, and a reward for surviving the grind of a college football season. Lowering that standard even further would continue the steady erosion of what bowl games are supposed to represent.

Supporters of the proposal argue that the sport has changed. Conference realignment has created tougher schedules. More teams play power-conference opponents. Expanded playoff structures have shifted attention away from traditional bowls. In some seasons, there simply are not enough six-win teams available to fill every bowl slot.

But that raises the obvious question: if there are not enough bowl-eligible teams, why are there so many bowls?

College football does not have a participation problem. It has an oversaturation problem.

The bowl season once felt special because appearances mattered. Fans celebrated reaching the postseason. Coaches could point to bowl berths as evidence of progress. Players treated them as accomplishments.

Now, the sport has reached a point where 5-7 teams may be rewarded despite finishing two games below .500.

That is difficult to justify competitively.

Imagine explaining to fans that a team that lost seven times somehow deserves a postseason opportunity over programs that narrowly missed eligibility years ago despite far better résumés. The message becomes clear: results matter less than filling television windows in December.

Former coaches and athletic administrators have quietly voiced concerns for years about the growing number of bowls. One Power Four athletic department official recently said the sport risks turning postseason football into “background programming instead of earned competition.” That criticism is hard to ignore.

The reality is many lower-tier bowls already struggle to maintain relevance. Attendance can be sparse. Opt-outs have become common. Fan travel interest often depends entirely on location and matchup quality. Expanding eligibility standards does not solve those issues.

If anything, it may worsen them.

A 5-7 team entering a bowl game is unlikely to energize its fan base. Players on losing teams may view the appearance as hollow rather than rewarding. Coaches may privately appreciate the additional practices, but that benefit alone should not define postseason participation.

There is also a larger cultural issue within college athletics. Across multiple sports, standards continue to soften in the name of expansion and inclusion. The College Football Playoff expanded. Conference tournaments expanded. The NCAA Tournament may eventually expand again.

At some point, college sports must decide whether championships and postseason appearances are achievements or simply inventory.

Defenders of the proposal often point out that 5-7 teams have occasionally entered bowl games already due to APR exceptions when not enough six-win teams existed. That is true. But those situations were treated as rare contingencies, not an accepted standard.

There is a major difference between an emergency exception and formally normalizing losing records in postseason play.

College football is at its best when accomplishments carry weight. Rivalries matter because games matter. Bowl eligibility matters because reaching six wins requires consistency, resilience, and execution over several months.

Lowering the bar to five wins chips away at that structure.

The sport already faces criticism over player movement, NIL instability, conference chaos, and a postseason system many fans barely recognize compared to a decade ago. The last thing college football needs is another move that makes the regular season feel less meaningful.

If the NCAA and bowl organizers truly want to protect the value of bowl season, the answer is not expanding eligibility. The answer is reducing the number of bowls, creating better matchups, and restoring the sense that postseason football is something earned.

A 5-7 record should signal a disappointing season, not a postseason invitation.

College football does not need more bowl teams.

It needs higher standards.

Michael J. Wilson-The Daily Waiver

Email: Dailywaiver@gmail.com Instagram: @Dailywaiver Tik-Tok: @Dailywaiver