Going Bowling???

[NWLB]

This is the point I am making on the other thread, and this one for that matter.

Strictly speaking, by the literal and traditional application of the rules, we should be considered MAC (co) champions for 1994. Unless there is some odd rule I'm unaware of, there was no MAC title game in 1994, only the CMU game which was hyped as such. The standard tie-breaker, which started with head-to-head play, is what sent CMU to Las Vegas in 1994, as it had sent them to the Cal Bowl in 1990 with an indentical record. In that year, UT claims a co-title with CMU for doing the same thing.

But thats a topic for the other thread.

[HuskieDan]

Technically, yes, you'd be co-champs. The tiebreaker is applied for the cool stuff like going on to the championship game or a bowl game.

No, I don't believe the team got rings for co-West Champs as we didn't represent the West in the title game. While we use the co-champ moniker, we don't float it out there as though it's a great accomplishment. We all know that we want to be in the MAC title game and a bowl game.

[NWLB]

I'll take what I can get as a fan.

I look down the road over the next few years, and it get exciting.

The Toronto Bowl should be in place by next year. I would hope by 2006 the group in Indiana will finally having things together. With the team BG will have for the near-term, we are looking at decent chances for titles and bowl games for several years at the least.

I think the extra bids, the ongoing national attention, and improving second tier teams is only going to boost fan excitment across the board.