New Rumor

TG1996 · Post by **TG1996** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 12:41 am

While we should be glad to go bowling for the second straight year (most likely regardless of the UT game, it appears now), if 4, 5 or 6 (?!?!) MAC teams get bids, I take it as almost a backhanded compliment for BG to be in a bowl, especially if they beat Toledo.

With a win over Toledo, they are proving themselves to be bowl contenders no matter WHO is eligible, but giving bowl bids to teams like Marshall and Akron just because they need the teams is a slap to the season BG has put together, especially in the stretch run. And 2004 won't be remembered outside BG as the year they played their asses off and got an at-large bid, it will be the year they got an at-large bid because too many "big schools" were mediocre (or too thuggish to deserve a bowl, in the case of the South Carolina-Clemson donnybrook.)

HoustonFalcon · Post by **HoustonFalcon** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 12:52 am

For personal reasons, I would love for BG to be in the Houston Bowl, that means I don't have to make any reservations. And really, there is so much to do down here I think that everyone would have a great time. I know that the Bowl committee takes good care of the players while they are here, and finds some good things for them to do. I really would like to see them come down here, but I know that is wishful thinking. I think that the SVC will pick BG after they beat the Rockettes tommorrow night.

GO FALCONS!!!

kdog27 · Post by **kdog27** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 8:04 am

redskins4ever wrote:MAC schools went 1-21 vs. BCS competition, so the MAC didnt do anything to pull its own weight this year. The fact of the matter is that you have lots of teams that just beat the crap out of each other and more then your fair share of 9-2, 10-1, and 11-0 teams. This causes for their to be pockets of teams that are qualified, a whole lot more who wont make it.

Not that it is much better, but the MAC won three BCS games this year.

FalconKing · Post by **FalconKing** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 8:15 am

kdog27 wrote:Not that it is much better, but the MAC won three BCS games this year.

I don't know if we should really count any to be honest! It was Temple twice and Kentucky! Hopefully next year will be better.

kdog27 · Post by **kdog27** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 8:31 am

FalconKing wrote:
kdog27 wrote:Not that it is much better, but the MAC won three BCS games this year.
I don't know if we should really count any to be honest! It was Temple twice and Kentucky! Hopefully next year will be better.

What I find interesting is Temple was competitive in most of its Big East games this year. There two huge losses came to MAC teams. I'm thinking BG would have rolled through the Big East this year. I mean come on BC is not that good, they barely beat Ball St. WVU isn't that good either. It's a shame that a BCS bowl automatically goes to this crappy conference

Schadenfreude · Post by **Schadenfreude** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 8:59 am

kdog27 wrote:
FalconKing wrote:
kdog27 wrote:Not that it is much better, but the MAC won three BCS games this year.
I don't know if we should really count any to be honest! It was Temple twice and Kentucky! Hopefully next year will be better.
What I find interesting is Temple was competitive in most of its Big East games this year. There two huge losses came to MAC teams. I'm thinking BG would have rolled through the Big East this year. I mean come on BC is not that good, they barely beat Ball St. WVU isn't that good either. It's a shame that a BCS bowl automatically goes to this crappy conference

There is talk that California could be screwed out of a BCS (Rose) Bowl because Boise State is sneaking into the mix for a BCS slot. (It looks like Utah is already a stone cold lock). Watch the Texas-Texas A&M and Cal-Southern Miss games this weekend. If A&M and Southern Miss win, Boise could jump the Longhorns and Bears.

If it happens, people will flip out. Cal hasn't been to a Rose Bowl in about 50 years. The backlash against the non BCS schools would be enormous -- especially if they fall flat on their faces in the bowl games.

But all that anger ought to be directed at the fools who guaranteed the Big East a slot, no questions asked. Boston College is the weak link here, not Cal, Texas, Boise State or Utah.

orangeandbrown · Post by **orangeandbrown** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 9:02 am

If two non BCS teams make the BCS games, you can expect two things...the rules to change, and the reform efforts to stop (see, we're not keeping you out).

Finally, I wouldn't be surprised to see bowl eligibility rules loosen up, too. There's too much money going by the wayside.

Schadenfreude · Post by **Schadenfreude** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 9:11 am

orangeandbrown wrote:If two non BCS teams make the BCS games, you can expect two things...the rules to change, and the reform efforts to stop (see, we're not keeping you out).

Finally, I wouldn't be surprised to see bowl eligibility rules loosen up, too. There's too much money going by the wayside.

I fear you're right.

The single biggest danger in all of this is that pressure would increase to go to 12-game seasons permanently.

(My question is whether this a decision for I-A universities to make alone or whether all of Division I would have to weigh in. If the former, the deck is seriously stacked against the non-BCS schools. If the latter -- and I suspect it is -- leagues like the MAC might be able to work with the I-AA programs in fighting against it).

I'm not quite as fearful of the BCS eligibility rules changing. I'm not saying they wouldn't change -- but I'm not sure change would hurt the MAC.

This year is a fluke on so many levels. With a fifth BCS game in the works, the kind of nightmare wouldn't be repeated. Also, I do think quite a few ADs will be able to keep their eye on the ball -- and the problem is that the BCS has been too generous to the Big East, which isn't a good football league.

1987alum · Post by **1987alum** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 9:30 am

We've been having a parallel discussion throughout the year, so maybe it's time we tie them together.

What kind of impact will this have on discussions for another bowl - Toronto and Indy seem to be the main topics.

If either city had a bowl on the schedule for this year, geesh, who would play in it?

So if the NCAA is keen on adding additional bowls, it seems that the 12-game schedule would be a viable alternative.

NWLB · Post by **NWLB** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 9:34 am

I think the BCS will have to deal with mid-major teams from now and into the distant future. I think ABC didn't like the idea of mid-majors more than anybody. They already don't control the Rose bowl, and the media tends to be slow to realize the marketable value of non-brand-name programs. They have come to terms with it on the regional level. They still have to be convinced of it nationally.

If anything, the BCS sticking to its guns, adding a 5th bowl game, and more access for the mid-majors went against the media grain. The BCS conferences know they can't avoid giving access, and are using the new bowl to placate the mid-majors, and shoe-horn them into something that makes it even harder to get more access.

Yet I can not think they expected so many charges on the polls by the Mid-majors. So things equal out and the BCS remains under the gun.

I think we are sure to see a 12 game slate. The upside for the MAC is that with the Toronto Bowl, possible Indy Bowl, and developing affiliations with other games, should keep us in three to five games.

Beyond just having the game, these new bids will be against teams the MAC can consistently beat, unlike CUSA's five bids, which make them the goat to better programs.

Class of 61 · Post by **Class of 61** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 10:11 am

Several new bowl games have formed since 2001, the last time the NCAA only permited schools to play eleven games.

Last year, with 12-game seasons, a 6-6 team was permitted to go to a bowl game as long as its conference had a pre-existing contract with the game.

This year, only 6-5 cuts it. The laws of chance meant there would be fewer bowl eligible teams.

Meanwhile, there are more bowls. A few of us suspected all season that the bowl games would be cutting it close. Right after the Northern Illinois loss, I raised the possibility of a third bowl opening up to the MAC (and was generally snickered at, but whatever. I don't feel the need to point out I WAS RIGHT and SOME OF YOU WERE WRONG. I'm a bigger man than that.).

If you were looking for a fluke, today's decision by Clemson and South Carolina to stay home for the holidays was it.

Even before today, there was a chance a fourth game would open up to us. Now it seems virtually certain.[/quote]
The sad thing about this season of flukes, if you want to call it that, would be to possibly, even probably, eliminate the chance of a Toronto and/or Indianapolis Bowl to be approved by the NCAA... If they can't fill with teams NOW, where would they find 4 more teams to play? It could wind up hurting the MAC, which stood to gain a slot or two, in the long run.

Class of 61 · Post by **Class of 61** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 10:18 am

1987alum wrote:We've been having a parallel discussion throughout the year, so maybe it's time we tie them together.

What kind of impact will this have on discussions for another bowl - Toronto and Indy seem to be the main topics.

If either city had a bowl on the schedule for this year, geesh, who would play in it?

So if the NCAA is keen on adding additional bowls, it seems that the 12-game schedule would be a viable alternative.

87,
You beat me to the punch on this... I'd posted a response to Schad's comments, but something in my magic box didn't click... If this is a "fluke season" OK, but would the NCAA like to add 2 more bowls ( which would seem to favor the MAC getting at least ONE slot), if they can't find 4 teams to play in them.

orangeandbrown · Post by **orangeandbrown** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 12:11 pm

This season certainly makes two new bowls less likely, doesn't it? Maybe two replacements, but two NEW bowls?

hammb · Post by **hammb** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 12:27 pm

If Utah plays BC, I'll take the Utes -16 1/2

Warthog · Post by **Warthog** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 12:42 pm

Personally, I am hoping Utah gets to play the third undefeated team that gets left out of the National Championship game. I think that would be a great game just to see how a so-called mid-major measures up against a national title contender. I would hope that a Utah victory in such a game could set the whole BCS on its ear.