CSNbbs

(02-21-2012 01:51 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote: [ -> ]http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2012/...ure_e.html

With so many teams going to the alliance and the potential for WAC Football to finally die if they get picked over by the Belt/Alliance it's rather likely that a decrease in the number of Bowls won't really hurt the MAC or the Belt, at all.

1) Seven Wins would hurt the AQ conference more than the MAC/Belt because typically unless there is a tie in a 6 win AQ team gets preference over a 6 win non AQ team

2) The move to place a six win at large from the AQ's over a seven win at large from the NonAQ's has hurt the nonAq's... This would end that.

3) The Bowls which are usually the ones who offer up six win teams are not typically MAC bowls (can't speak for the Belt Bowls).

The teams 'hurt by this'? CUSA/MWC who will lose at least one bowl between them. And the lower run AQ teams who have benefited from 6 win bowls.

According to the article toward the end, most of the bowls that could be effected were MWC/CUSA bowls. Either they lose the bowls? or a MAC / Belt team would have to tie-in to keep it with a 7 win opponent? Would be nice to secure a 4th tie-in for the MAC. 4 bowls with a 14-team MAC is just as good as 8 bowls in a 28-team MWC/CUSA. I like where the MAC is positioned in all of this realignment.

(02-21-2012 02:30 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote: [ -> ]According to the article toward the end, most of the bowls that could be effected were MWC/CUSA bowls. Either they lose the bowls? or a MAC / Belt team would have to tie-in to keep it with a 7 win opponent? Would be nice to secure a 4th tie-in for the MAC. 4 bowls with a 14-team MAC is just as good as 8 bowls in a 28-team MWC/CUSA. I like where the MAC is positioned in all of this realignment.

Toledo, Miami, and OU are the ones I worry about. So long as they see the wisdom in the MAC's footprint and stability well be fine. We can lose Temple and/or UMass (Im not even sure that happens) but if we lose two of those schools it's a big blow to the conference.

Don't think NIU, UB, the directionals, Kent/Akron, or BGU gets looked at by anybody.

Have any 6 win MAC teams ever made a bowl that wasn't a division or conf champ? If anything, requiring 7 wins helps the MAC.

(02-21-2012 03:20 PM)CMUprof Wrote: [ -> ]Have any 6 win MAC teams ever made a bowl that wasn't a division or conf champ? If anything, requiring 7 wins helps the MAC.

Miami *could* have asked for a waiver in 2007 when they went 6-7 winning the east but losing the MACC. Kind of like what Cal did..

Northern Illinois in 2008 was 6-6, lost their bowl game to finish 6-7

(02-21-2012 03:28 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-21-2012 03:20 PM)CMUprof Wrote: [ -> ]Have any 6 win MAC teams ever made a bowl that wasn't a division or conf champ? If anything, requiring 7 wins helps the MAC.

Miami *could* have asked for a waiver in 2007 when they went 6-7 winning the east but losing the MACC. Kind of like what Cal did..

Northern Illinois in 2008 was 6-6, lost their bowl game to finish 6-7

With today's tie ins Miami would have been an automatic as East champ, correct? If so, NIU would be the only one to lose out on a provision requiring 7 wins. With a requirement for 7 that would have put Temple in 2 years ago.

(02-21-2012 04:16 PM)CMUprof Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-21-2012 03:28 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-21-2012 03:20 PM)CMUprof Wrote: [ -> ]Have any 6 win MAC teams ever made a bowl that wasn't a division or conf champ? If anything, requiring 7 wins helps the MAC.

Miami *could* have asked for a waiver in 2007 when they went 6-7 winning the east but losing the MACC. Kind of like what Cal did..

Northern Illinois in 2008 was 6-6, lost their bowl game to finish 6-7

With today's tie ins Miami would have been an automatic as East champ, correct? If so, NIU would be the only one to lose out on a provision requiring 7 wins. With a requirement for 7 that would have put Temple in 2 years ago.

Good point. The 7 win requirement can only help the MAC with more bowl tie-ins and more bowl placements and make it tougher for the other conferences to support their current bowl ties. The expansion and several conferences going to 9-game conference schedules will also make it tougher for them as they will beating each other in conference more and have less room on their schedule for FCS wins to help them get to 7. In the past a team like Illinois could schedule 4 weaker level opponents and only have to win 2 games in-conference to win a bowl bid. Now they will have to win at least 4 games in-conference once the B1G / Pac-12 scheduling agreement goes into effect.

Alliance may grow too large, lose some bowl-ties become a 1 auto-bid basketball league and find their teams have less opportunities than the past for post-season play. They seem to be really counting on a big TV deal for it to all pay-off.

(02-21-2012 04:16 PM)CMUprof Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-21-2012 03:28 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-21-2012 03:20 PM)CMUprof Wrote: [ -> ]Have any 6 win MAC teams ever made a bowl that wasn't a division or conf champ? If anything, requiring 7 wins helps the MAC.

Miami *could* have asked for a waiver in 2007 when they went 6-7 winning the east but losing the MACC. Kind of like what Cal did..

Northern Illinois in 2008 was 6-6, lost their bowl game to finish 6-7

With today's tie ins Miami would have been an automatic as East champ, correct? If so, NIU would be the only one to lose out on a provision requiring 7 wins. With a requirement for 7 that would have put Temple in 2 years ago.

The 7 requirement would have also put NIU in a bowl game in 2003 when we were 10-2 and without one over NU, Kansas, UCLA & GT who were all 6-6.

So I am all for the 7 win minimum.

(02-21-2012 04:38 PM)HuskieJohn Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-21-2012 04:16 PM)CMUprof Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-21-2012 03:28 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-21-2012 03:20 PM)CMUprof Wrote: [ -> ]Have any 6 win MAC teams ever made a bowl that wasn't a division or conf champ? If anything, requiring 7 wins helps the MAC.

Miami *could* have asked for a waiver in 2007 when they went 6-7 winning the east but losing the MACC. Kind of like what Cal did..

Northern Illinois in 2008 was 6-6, lost their bowl game to finish 6-7

With today's tie ins Miami would have been an automatic as East champ, correct? If so, NIU would be the only one to lose out on a provision requiring 7 wins. With a requirement for 7 that would have put Temple in 2 years ago.

The 7 requirement would have also put NIU in a bowl game in 2003 when we were 10-2 and without one over NU, Kansas, UCLA & GT who were all 6-6.

So I am all for the 7 win minimum.

And like 1998 when Miami was 10-1 and was passed over for a 6-6 North Carolina team that Miami had beat that same year.

Not to quibble, but the 7 win rule is associated with a 12 game regular season schedule..back when Miami got hosed by the Las Vegas Bowl, everyone played 11 games and UNC upset NC State in their final regular season game to finish 6-5..I guess they must've lost the Vegas Bowl to finish 6-6. I think they took less than 500 fans to that bowl game.

Until four or five years ago, you had to have a winning record to be bowl eligible. Then they said 6-6 teams could go so bowl games could fill their BCS tie-ins instead of having to take the non-BCS teams.