Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Bowls
Author Message
DamascusTerp2
Unregistered

 
Post: #21
 
DrTorch Wrote:[Oregon is in the ACC?

Or rather the question is, why is it when the criticisms about the ACC come out, you immediately make reference to another (superior) conference?


Paul,
Thanks for the reference to the MAC's Tangerine Bowl success. However, I was trying to stay on topic, something Dumbasscus Terp doesn't seem to do very well...most likely because he's losing the argument and needs a quick straw man to hide behind.
no..oregon is not in the ACC..i was merely conceding that wake fans will not be buying a lot of tickets, but that oregon fans will more than make up for that...

and how did i change the subject...i answered your questions about both the bowls and dr yow and you didnt seem to say anything about that, now, did you....
12-10-2002 04:48 PM
Quote this message in a reply
Paul
Unregistered

 
Post: #22
 
DrTorch Wrote:
cant_think_of_a_witty_name Wrote:Where were you when 5-6 North Texas was in a bowl last year?
I was the one saying that somehow the SBC should have been required to send the 8-3 MTSU Blue Raiders to the bowl game. But they lost head-to-head against UNT. Seems like a no-win situation for everyone.
List...

The New Orleans Bowl...takes the Champion of the Sun Belt.

North Texas was the league Champ...Thus they go.

This year they are again in the bowl...although just a 500
team while New Mexico State at 7-5, doesn't go. The
solution would have been...New Mexico St should have beaten
the Mean Green.

Don't get suckered into these arguments about bowl teams
with x numbers of losses, especially regarding League
Champions. The eventual result, would be the elimination
of some great intersectional games, during the regular
season. If someone sets a limit on losses for league
Champions, in ALL games played, then you will be able
to say goodbye to Florida State-Colorado, Florida State-Notre
Dame and Florida State-Miami and be treated to...FSU-La-
Monroe, FSU-Furman and FSU-Utah State.
12-11-2002 01:52 AM
Quote this message in a reply
cant_think_of_a_witty_nam
Unregistered

 
Post: #23
 
Bowls break conference ties frequently. I was formerly under the impression that a team with a losing record didn't go bowling by NCAA rule. It's not the number of losses in my opinion--it's the number of wins that count. If teams cannot win at least half of the games on their schedules, they deserve to sit they asses at home come December.
12-11-2002 07:39 AM
Quote this message in a reply
DrTorch
Unregistered

 
Post: #24
 
Paul Wrote:List...

The New Orleans Bowl...takes the Champion of the Sun Belt.

North Texas was the league Champ...Thus they go.

This year they are again in the bowl...although just a 500
team while New Mexico State at 7-5, doesn't go. The
solution would have been...New Mexico St should have beaten
the Mean Green.

Don't get suckered into these arguments about bowl teams
with x numbers of losses, especially regarding League
Champions. The eventual result, would be the elimination
of some great intersectional games, during the regular
season.
I'm not saying there's an easy answer, but the SBC could have provided a winning team for the game. Of course that doesn't offset the possibility that UNT played a much tougher schedule than MTSU, and earned the spot.

I'm in no position to proclaim the NCAA deny any conference its only bowl slot, but this one (and the first Las Vegas Bowl) make for difficult circumstances.

But this is different than conferences getting 6-6 teams invited as their 7th or 8th invite.
12-11-2002 10:47 AM
Quote this message in a reply
JD Heel
Unregistered

 
Post: #25
 
Agree with Paul on this one -- I've never been a big fan of bashing a conference champion going bowling for having more losses than everyone else. He is indeed correct: if you set a limit on the number of losses (for the BCS or any other bowl tie-ins), then you're going to have everyone scheduling cupcakes left and right.

-JD
12-11-2002 11:59 AM
Quote this message in a reply
cant_think_of_a_witty_nam
Unregistered

 
Post: #26
 
All this just serves as more reason for the NCAA to eliminate an assload of these http://www.furnitureandcomputerchipsfrom...mpound.com bowls. Sure my team benefits from the presence of these lesser bowls in years like this one and in 1999 (Las Vegas Bowl) but in the long run it gets the sport back up to credibility. Even so, the schedule thing does come back up in that situation, too. But I think most would agree 2/3s of the NCAA do not deserve to go bowling regardless of conference affiliation. Something needs to change the consideration of 7-5 or so from warranting reward. After a 7 win season I am disappointed in my team regardless of their past history. I am happy they won that many but I don't think that should be an opiate.

Sorry for rambling. Most of this probably didn't make sense but I don't wanna read this anymore than you do. :laugh:
12-11-2002 12:35 PM
Quote this message in a reply
Paul
Unregistered

 
Post: #27
 
Money...Witty...Money!

Do you know that if the NCAA had a rule that a team
must win more than they lose...The 28 bowls this year
would have had a hard time to fill all the slots.

They did adjust the rule to any team this year or next
playing 13 games...they must win 7 rather than the
6 (which in the normal 11 game season, is more than
they lose.

This is also about parity. Almost half of the Div 1 schools
get an extra month of practice in. That's what coaches have
always loved about bowl games.

It's like Spring Football Practice in High School. Kentucky
started spring practice in the High Schools 6 years ago.

One reason, to give Kentucky kids the same chance as
Florida, Georgia, Alabama, etc...etc...youngsters who have
spring football.

Example: Florida High schoolers get 20 days of Spring
Practice. 20 between 9th and 10th grade. 20 between
10th and 11th grade. 20 betwen 11th and 12th.

Now in states playing 10 games a year...they practice 4
days a week (4x10=40) plus 4 weeks before the opening
game (4x5=20) 60 a year. In states without spring
practice...The youngsters lose the equal of ONE YEAR
of practices to youngstersin states that have spring practice.

Thus...the more bowls...the more practices for more teams...
and the more parity...and least we forget...THE MORE MONEY!
12-15-2002 01:06 AM
Quote this message in a reply
kevingrt
Unregistered

 
Post: #28
 
It's so sad, the Dookies and Tar Heels don't make it,but then again WHATS NEW???
12-15-2002 12:09 PM
Quote this message in a reply
DrTorch
Unregistered

 
Post: #29
 
Paul, I think you put out a very relevant stat. The extra practice time is coveted by coaches. But I don't think it leads to parity in the current set-up; as the MAC has plenty of bowl-eligible teams sitting, while 6-6 BCS teams get the extra practice. Honestly, I think it's an effort to eliminate the parity that the BCS conferences know exists.
12-16-2002 01:02 PM
Quote this message in a reply
Paul
Unregistered

 
Post: #30
 
I will agree with the "deserving" teams not getting bids.

Northern Illinois...beat Wake, who inturn, beat Purdue.
(Both of them are going, but NIU sits home)

Bowling Green was deserving

Although not in the MAC...USF certainly needed to be
invited over Purdue or Mississippi.

Disagree with the parity...56 yeams get a chance to increase
practice time. Which is more than ever before. Plus the
MAC does have two teams in bowls compared with the
usual...one.
12-17-2002 03:06 AM
Quote this message in a reply
JD Heel
Unregistered

 
Post: #31
 
kevingrt Wrote:It's so sad, the Dookies and Tar Heels don't make it,but then again WHATS NEW???
Um, that is kinda new. This will only be the third year we haven't gone to a bowl since like 1990....

-JD
12-17-2002 09:08 AM
Quote this message in a reply
JD Heel
Unregistered

 
Post: #32
 
Oh, that's referencing the 90's when we were the second-best team in the ACC (after a strong FSU). How many bowls did Maryland go to in that decade?

Not trying to start something here, but that comment before implies that we've been the perennial doormat of the ACC. That's nowhere near the case....

-JD
12-17-2002 09:15 AM
Quote this message in a reply
Big Pimpin Deac
Unregistered

 
Post: #33
 
I agree that Northern Illinois should be going to a bowl. They turned out to be pretty good, afterall. Not saying we should have lost to them, but that loss does not look embarassing. If not for our conference tie in, I would say that they should go to Seattle instead of us.
12-17-2002 09:23 AM
Quote this message in a reply
JD Heel
Unregistered

 
Post: #34
 
Speaking of bowls, the Continental Tire Bowl is already sold out. For those that thought a Charlotte bowl would flop -- there you go. It's a great matchup and should be an exciting game.

-JD
12-17-2002 10:09 AM
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.