Don't know if this is good or bad. Good that it is a pac-10 team but bad that our 2nd to 4th place team face the 6th or 7th place team. Imagine if the MWC 2nd place team gets beat by a 7th place pac-10 team. And even if to be bowl eligible it had to win 6 games which would include at least two wins over pac-10 teams, they would still be labled the 7th place team.

Navy lost it's tie with the Poinsettia Bowl for 2008 and 2009, but has signed an agreement with bowl organizers to return in 2010, as long as it is eligible. For 2008, the bowl will feature a MWC team against the seventh place team from the Pac-10 and in 2009 the 6th place team from the Pac-10.

http://www.sltrib.com/sports/ci_8941865

No seventh place team has a right to be in a bowl. This is a joke. Just sounds to me like "bowl inflation".

Don't worry...the PAC 10 won't even have 7 teams elegable for bowl games this year.

I guess we shouldn't complain as a conference when we are talked about as a second tier league when we continue to make agreements like this. It would be better to play the second place team in the WAC than the 7th place team in the Pac10. Talk about a lose lose situation

splitbamboo wrote:

No seventh place team has a right to be in a bowl. This is a joke. Just sounds to me like "bowl inflation".

If this is such an issue, where were the complaints last season. AFA lost to CAL in their bowl game? CAL was the 7th place Pac-10 team. AZ the sixth place team was not bowl eligible but 7th place CAL was 6-6 at the end of the regular season.

I don't see any significant issue here that didn't already exist.

I don't understand how we could complain about this. As Conosticator pointed out last year Cal the Pac10 number 7 team beat AFA the MWC number 2 team. I really wish the MWC was casted as a better conference but it is what it is. If their #7 team beats our #2 team our conference sucks. We can't just hide that by trying to match our games up so that if we lose it doesn't look as bad.