CSNbbs

As of Oct. 29:

Eligible:
Florida St
Clemson
Duke
Kansas St
Texas
Texas Tech
Rutgers
Louisville
Nebraska
Northwestern
Wisconsin
Notre Dame
Central Florida (appeal is heard in late Jan, bowl ban would be next yr)
Tulsa
Kent St
Ohio
NIU
Toledo
Ball St
Bowling Green
Boise St
Fresno St
Nevada
San Diego St
Oregon
Oregon St
Stanford
USC
UCLA
Florida
Georgia
South Carolina
Alabama
LSU
Mississippi St
Texas AM
Louisiana Monroe
Western Kentucky
Utah St
Louisiana Tech
San Jose St

Total = 41 teams

5 win teams:
NC State - Virginia, Wake Forest, @Clemson, Boston College
Oklahoma - @Iowa St, Baylor, @W Virginia, Oklahoma St, @TCU
Oklahoma St - @Kansas St, West Virg, Texas Tech, @Oklahoma, @Baylor
West Virginia - TCU, @Oklahoma St, Oklahoma, @Iowa St, Kansas
Iowa St - Oklahoma, @Texas, @Kansas, West Virginia
TCU - @West Virginia, Kansas St, @Texas, Oklahoma
Cincy - Syracuse, @Temple, Rutgers, South Florida, @UCONN
Michigan - @Minnesota, Northwestern, Iowa, @Ohio St
Michigan St - Nebraska, Northwestern, @Minnesota
Minnesota - Michigan, @Illinois, @Nebraska, Michigan St
East Carolina - Houston, @Tulane, Marshall
Navy - Florida Atlantic, @Troy, Texas St, Army
BYU - Idaho, @San Jose St, @New Mexico St
Air Force - @Army, @San Diego St, Hawaii, @Fresno St
Arizona St - @Oregon St, @USC, Washington St, @Arizona
Arizona - @UCLA, Colorado, @Utah, Arizona St
Ole Miss - @Georgia, Vandy, @LSU, Mississippi St
Arkansas St - North Texas, Louisiana Monroe, @Troy, Middle Tennessee
Middle Tennessee - @Western Kentucky, @South Alabama, Troy @Ark St

*UTSA has 5 wins, but is not bowl eligible until 2013 due to their recent move to FBS

Total = 19

At best, there are maybe 3 or 4 of these teams that have a tough road ahead of them (bolded). I am going to assume that all of them will reach 6 wins and become bowl eligible.

That leaves 10 spots for teams with 3 or 4 wins.

15 teams have 4 wins.

16 teams have 3 wins.


Of those 31 teams, WMU likely has one of the easiest remaining schedules:

@ CMU (3-5)
@Buffalo (1-7)
EMU (1-7)

Nothing is given considering our recent blunders. However, this is setting up a lot like 2010 when we won out to reach 6-6 and were one of 72 teams that were bowl eligible...and stayed home. The big difference between the 2 years: 2010 had one team ineligible for the postseason with USC at 8-5. 2012 has at least 3 teams ineligible that will finish with a minimum of 6 wins.

Nice research.

My question is, lets say WMU does go 6-6. Would we really want to see them go to a bowl game again and get crushed by a team that actually deserves to go? Then again, with all the teams that now get bowl bids, it might be a battle of underachievers that neither one really deserves it.

I'm tired of hanging our hat on "we went to a bowl game" even though we were 6-6 or 7-5 and finished 3rd in our division.

Thats another major difference about 1999 and 2000. There werent all the bowl tie ins and the Broncos were in contention for a bowl until the end and it added excitement that they might actually get a shot if they kept winning.

That's premature as in "16 fogged up windows in the back seat of the car" premature.

(10-30-2012 03:01 PM)WheresWaldo42 Wrote: [ -> ]Thats another major difference about 1999 and 2000. There werent all the bowl tie ins and the Broncos were in contention for a bowl until the end and it added excitement that they might actually get a shot if they kept winning.

Or you could look at it optimistically and say, "Wow at 3-6 we still have a shot at a postseason."

Couldn't have said that in 1999/2000.

True

(10-30-2012 03:01 PM)WheresWaldo42 Wrote: [ -> ]Nice research.

My question is, lets say WMU does go 6-6. Would we really want to see them go to a bowl game again and get crushed by a team that actually deserves to go? Then again, with all the teams that now get bowl bids, it might be a battle of underachievers that neither one really deserves it.

I'm tired of hanging our hat on "we went to a bowl game" even though we were 6-6 or 7-5 and finished 3rd in our division.

Thats another major difference about 1999 and 2000. There werent all the bowl tie ins and the Broncos were in contention for a bowl until the end and it added excitement that they might actually get a shot if they kept winning.

U want to go back to the days when 5 Toledo teams with 8-10 wins stayed home do that 7 bus teams could goto bowls? Really? That was better?

I am usually pretty optimistic myself. But you all are crazy if you think our team is bowling this year, or if more than 6000 people will be at the EMU game.

:debbiedowner:

I don't think we r going bowling either but to say people would rather have back the days when NIU beat Alabama, Iowa state, Maryland and won 10 games but stayed home because they didn't get to play Miami who went 13-1 and bg won 11 games and took the 2nd spot. But six win Kansas, northwestern, UCLA, got to go bowling and there were 29 freaking bowls. Yes that sounds like more fun to me.

I'd love for them to go bowling. They would be a little healthier by then and you never know what could happen.

Get to 6 wins...and it's more likely that we are bowling than not.

U want to go back to the days when 5 Toledo teams with 8-10 wins stayed home do that 7 bus teams could goto bowls? Really? That was better?
[/quote]

Not neccesarily. But I also dont really want to see a dozen 6-6 teams get rewarded for mediocrity. Going to a bowl game should be a reward for having a great season.

Those 8-10 win Toledo teams deserved a bowl appearance.
The 1999 and 2000 WMU teams deserved bowl appearances.

I just dont think that 6-6 or even 7-5 is enough to warrant being rewarded with going to a bowl.

And then in our case that generally also means a bowl game that nobody but the fans of the 2 teams playing cares about. That ends ups with us losing a load of $$. And then losing the game.

I would rather than cut the bowls down by 1/3 and reward teams that trully DESERVE to go.

(10-31-2012 08:42 AM)WheresWaldo42 Wrote: [ -> ]U want to go back to the days when 5 Toledo teams with 8-10 wins stayed home do that 7 bus teams could goto bowls? Really? That was better?

Not neccesarily. But I also dont really want to see a dozen 6-6 teams get rewarded for mediocrity. Going to a bowl game should be a reward for having a great season.

Those 8-10 win Toledo teams deserved a bowl appearance.
The 1999 and 2000 WMU teams deserved bowl appearances.

I just dont think that 6-6 or even 7-5 is enough to warrant being rewarded with going to a bowl.

And then in our case that generally also means a bowl game that nobody but the fans of the 2 teams playing cares about. That ends ups with us losing a load of $$. And then losing the game.

I would rather than cut the bowls down by 1/3 and reward teams that trully DESERVE to go.
[/quote]

Lowering the # of bowls isn't going to happen as long as:

1. the bowl organizers still get their money.

and

2. Universities are still willing to foot the bill because they want the extra exposure for the program and extra practice time. I understand this is debatable to some...but Universities see it as a "must."

It's pretty much a ****** pendulum at this point. No one wants 10 win or more MAC teams sitting home again, but at the same time, we had a bowl game last year between 6-6 Illinois and 6-7 UCLA where both coaches had already been fired. You're stuck getting the bad with the good.

A min. of 6 games to get into a bowl game is a freaking joke.

Maybe but bgsu, Miami, and wmu have all had 8-10 win seasons in the last 12 years and at home. Lower the number of bowls by 5 and make it 7 wins to get in and then keep the rule that an 8 win mac team gets to go instead of the 7 win bcs team. I love the bowls as a football junkie.

(10-31-2012 11:15 AM)Kimbosucks Wrote: [ -> ]Maybe but bgsu, Miami, and wmu have all had 8-10 win seasons in the last 12 years and at home. Lower the number of bowls by 5 and make it 7 wins to get in and then keep the rule that an 8 win mac team gets to go instead of the 7 win bcs team. I love the bowls as a football junkie.

^see bolded

I get the whole mediocre teams playing in bowls argument. However, by and large the 35 bowls are entertaining and they are much more fun to watch than whatever garbage is on tv. Sure there are some dud matchups....but a dud matchup beats having to watch an NBA game on tv...or (gulp) letting my wife have control over the remote because there isn't anything else on that I find interesting.

Nobody HAS to watch a bowl game fellas. If it's profitable for the organizers AND teams are willing to go...then great.

I'm not too proud to watch two mediocre teams play....it's college football and once the bowl season rolls around...there are only 35 games left until Labor Day.

I watch the Tuesday night sun belt games... that his how much I like college football. I watch the fcs playoffs and the dII and dIII games they show. Better than any nfl games.

Ubish said, "I'd love for them to go bowling. They would be a little healthier by then and you never know what could happen. "

You know what will happen. Cubit has never won a bowl game nor even a nationally televised game. Why do you think that will change?

Here's a scary thought that we Bronco fans need to keep in mind when talking about WMU's bowl eligibility: CMU is in a lot better position to make a Bowl Game then WMU is. A win this Saturday will knock down CMU's chances of that as well.

Are there still people out there that think WMU has no chance of going bowling with 6 wins?

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...a_txt_0001