Last year, Northern Illinois of the MAC went 10-2, defeating Maryland and Alabama, yet sat home for the holidays.
This year, ironically, there could be a bidding war for Akron.
"Every bowl game in the country is going to have the WAC and the MAC," Kunzer-Murphy surmised.
Miami Basketball: 2005 MAC Regular Season Champs! 2007 MAC Tourney Champs! Most MAC regular season titles, Street & Smith #47 all-time basketball program!
Miami Football: 2003 Non-BCS/Coalition National Champs, 2003 MAC Champs, 2003 GMAC Bowl Champs, 2004 MAC East Champs, 2005 MAC East Co-Champs, 2007 MAC East Champs, Most wins alltime for Non-BCS program (#2 in winning %), Most MAC titles, Street & Smith #46 all-time football program (#5 among current FBS/DI-A non-BCS schools)!
For future seasons this is good and bad. This year it is good for us and other MAC schools of course. It is also good because maybe they will start to have less bowls for conferences like Cusa. The bad thing is that it hurts the chances of an additional bowl in Toronto. I have been saying for years they have way too many bowls. Teams that are 6-5 do not deserve to play in the postseason.
BGBoilermaker wrote:That isn't always the case. Some 6-5 teams are way more deserving than some 10-1 teams. But I do agree that there are too many bowls, as it is now.
Name a 6-5 team that really honestly has deserved post-season play????
Living in Virginia....so this is what elevation looks like =)
BGBoilermaker wrote:That isn't always the case. Some 6-5 teams are way more deserving than some 10-1 teams. But I do agree that there are too many bowls, as it is now.
So was Kansas(6-6) more deserving of a bowl game than NIU (10-2) last year? You should not be awarded for losing nearly half of your games and in some seasons half (6-6). You should be awarded for being 10-1 or close to it.
BGBoilermaker wrote:That isn't always the case. Some 6-5 teams are way more deserving than some 10-1 teams. But I do agree that there are too many bowls, as it is now.
Name a 6-5 team that really honestly has deserved post-season play????
Even better name me a 10-1 team that did not deserve a bowl.
BGBoilermaker wrote:That isn't always the case. Some 6-5 teams are way more deserving than some 10-1 teams. But I do agree that there are too many bowls, as it is now.
Bullcrap.
Quickly, go look up the Pac 10 teams and results. There are some teams that are fighting for bowl eligibility, and they probably won't make their 7 bids, but the ones fighting are horsecrap and I didn't count one good win among them.
BTW - I've heard that the MAC signed with the Silican Valley Bowl to send a rep if the Pac 10 doesn't have a 7th team. I'm very confident in it, but wouldn't bet my firstborn on it.
Oh man....I just found out here at work that all vacation spots for Dec 28-30 are filled. IF BG plays in a bowl on one of those days, I'm in deep dog doo doo about making the trip....BUT.....
I do feel some kind of virus coming on scheduled for those particular days.
If I have to get written up or possibly suspended to go to a bowl, no doubt in my mind, I'll do it. Some things in life are much more important than a job. Faith, Family and Falcon Football....everything else just doesn't matter.
Michael W.
BGSU-12 TIME MAC CHAMPION
FALCON FOOTBALL ROCKS!
BGBoilermaker wrote:That isn't always the case. Some 6-5 teams are way more deserving than some 10-1 teams. But I do agree that there are too many bowls, as it is now.
From the bowl committee's view, the 6-5 team that brings 20,000 fans is more deserving than the 10-1 team that brings 1,000.
Economics, people, pure and simple. The bowls aren't designed as rewards to the best, they are capitalist ventures.
But if you look back at last year, BG with 30K fans was just as good as a turn out as the 6-5 teams at Big Conferences. When a big conference school barely makes the cut at 6-6, their fans will not follow them half way around the country because they are so disappointed in their team by that point. Great example is the Northwestern fans or the Michigan State fans that followed their teams last year.
