Is there a table somewhere that lists the APRs for all the teams that could go 5-7? (Like my Bears?)
As an aside: Jeff Tedford, the winningest coach in Cal’s history, let our APR slide into the toilet, which was a big no-no for a school that takes pride in its academics and was one reason why we parted ways. His successor, Sonny Dykes, did an excellent job in restoring the APR. And an excellent job coaching the offense. And an absolutely terrible job at defense.
Looks like USA Today put such a list out today.
The most likely, on paper, team to advance as a 5-7 by APR is either Minnesota or Mississippi State (Wake Forest unlikely to beat Syracuse to even reach 5-7 and Rice likely 
to beat FAU to reach 6-6). Minnesota has a decent shot against Wisconsin but Mississippi State has a tough Egg Bowl against #12 Ole Miss so it’s highly unlikely they’ll get to 6-6.
And it’s not likely to be more than 1 or 2 teams. Probably no more than 1 since James Madison and Jacksonville State snag any spots before 5-7 teams are considered
Unfortunately, Cal is far enough down in APR not even to be listed. Basically, their best bet at a bowl berth is to hit 6 wins by beating UCLA this weekend
I have been maintaining a table all season long, but I just edited it so only the teams that can still get in on APR are there - but it does include a link to the NCAA’s APR database:
http://www.hey-arnold.com/thatdonsoftware/BowlEligibleList.html
As for Cal’s APR, remember that it’s not just academics. If a player transfers or leaves to go pro before graduating, that counts the same as somebody who is academically ineligible. I can only imagine what’s going to happen to Colorado’s next year after Deion cleaned house of the existing scholarship players.
USA Today’s list has an error: Wake Forest is ahead of Minnesota, because of the NCAA’s tiebreaker.
Also, even if Cal had the highest APR, there is a Pac-12 conference rule that says a team from the conference must decline a bowl invitation if it has fewer than 6 wins.
True enough but they’ve still got to get to 5 wins in the first place which will be an uphill climb
I did not know that. So, that’s good to know!
Not that it’s relevant this year in any event, but that’ll be an interesting rule to see maintained after the re-alignment. Also interesting that it’s 6 wins and not a winning record that matters. I guess making it to the conference championship is good enough in those cases.
I guess I appreciate the Pac-12 has its standards but that seems like a truly arbitrary line to draw
I’m not sure how arbitrary that is. In a 12 game season, if you have less than 6 wins you’re mathematically a losing team.
I suppose?
A 6-7 team is still a losing team but still allowed, though, to be fair, that does require a 13th game in the form of the conference championship and the team would have been bowl eligible without it.
Still, that seems like a weird one. If you’re a mediocre team who happens to win your mediocre division, that’s still considered good enough to get another game on top of the conference championship. Maybe that’s just me, but it seems pretty arbitrary
In that sense it is, I agree with you there.
Pac-12? Is that still a thing?
It is until August of next year.
Actually, the two remaining schools will probably operate as a two-team conference next year, and have a couple years to get their shit together. They may join the Mountain West, or set up a scheduling alliance with the MW the same way that Notre Dame has with the ACC.
Regardless, it’s not the Pac-12. That will end in August no matter what.
They can call themselves the Pac-2 or just Pac or something else, but it won’t be the Pac-12. That ceases to exist.
If the Big ten can have 14 teams now and growing soon and the Big 12 can have 14 teams, why can’t the Pac-12 have two? They could be the PAC1-2
Heh, I like that.
When the Pac-10 added 2 teams they became the Pac-12. That’s why they’re not going to stay the Pac-12.
Big 12 will be up to 16 next year, and will still be the Big 12. Likewise for the Big 10. In fact, the Big 12 played with 10 teams for a number of years, and was always the Big 12.
Until Oregon State and Washington State officially affiliate with another league, they own the naming rights to the Pac-12. And according to the Yahoo article linked above, there’s a court fight brewing as to how to divide the sizeable amounts of assets the Pac-12 owns.
It probably won’t happen, but those two schools could invite 10 other schools to join the conference, and once again it would officially be the Pac-12.
Wait a second- I remember the Big 8 years ago.
Michigan State hires Jonathon Smith away from Oregon State. I was hoping they’d give Harlon Barnett a shot but he didn’t exactly set the league on fire since taking over.
OK, to clarify: The Big 12 was formed in 1994 and began play in 1996. The Big 12 consisted of all 8 teams from the Big 8 and 4 teams from the Southwest Conference.
The conference had 12 members until 2010, when Colorado and Nebraska left. Then two years later, Missouri and Texas A&M left and were replaced by West Virginia and TCU. So since 2010 until this year, the conference has had 10 members, but has always been called the Big 12. This year there are 14 members and next year there will be 16. But it will still be called the Big 12.
Kinda like a “Case of Beer” can be 18, 24, 30 or 36 beers.
More like a “6-pack” containing 2, 4, or 12 beers.
As Pac-XX is the more prestigious conference name, I presume it will officially be those teams joining the Pac-2.