cszjr wrote:

Will they be able to find teams with winning records. If memory serves me correctly, I didn't think there were that many eligible teams that didn't get invited. Who can help us here???

I wish I could remember where I read this, but I believe there were 5 (give or take 1) bowl-eligible teams that were not invited to bowl games last year.

Interesting that the DC bowl plans on having Navy. I thought the Poinsetteeeea Bowl had them penciled in every other year or so.

The Navy contract ended last year.

that's really weird to me that so many teams can make it into the post-season, perhaps the congress is too focused on denying bcs outsiders a way in (for the most part), and start getting rid of trashy bowls-not all are trash but there are some good trashy ones

I was hoping to use my 2000th post for some wonderful insightful piece of journalistic prose, but oh well, why change try to do the impossible...

There are a couple of factors involved in the plethora of bowl games.

1. The NCAA added the 12th game option.
2. The NCAA changed the eligibility rules to allow teams with a .500 record (ie 6-6) to receive bowl invites.
3. The NCAA changed the rules to allow at least one game against an FCS team to count towards the six wins so long as the FCS school has offered at least 90% of the permitted football scholarships the previous two years.
4. Any bowl with an "at-large" berth available must offer the position to any uncommitted team with seven or more wins before they can choose a 6-6 team.

Last year, Troy at 8-4 was the only team with a winning record not invited to a bowl game. All other bowl eligible teams were 6-6. Troy lost out in the Texas Bowl at-large berth to TCU (7-4). Notice how there is nothing saying that the team with the best record must be chosen, only that any team with seven or more wins must be chosen before a 6-6 team.

The "gotcha" factor in all of this is that any bowl with a conference tie-in doesn't have to play by the seven wins takes precedence over six rule. Hence the race to create the tie-ins.

BTW, probably the biggest factor against the proposed SLC bowl game was that the other bowl was the BCS tie-ins.

The Congressional Bowl (only a 22% approval rating ) has a tie-in with Navy and an ACC opponent - BCS and a local team with huge potential to fill the stadium with fans.

The St. Petersburg Bowl will have the Big East (BCS again) and C-USA (good chance for short travel distance, hence more likely to fill the stadium with fans).

Those backing the "Rocky Mountain Bowl" in SLC were absolutely stupid. The proposed to match a MWC team against a WAC team. Not BCS conf tie-in, hence no bowl approval.

There are 63 BCS schools and only 53 non-BCS schools in the FBS division. The non-BCS schools can never out vote the BCS.

The Rocky Mountain Bowl organizers failed to do their homework. What they should have done was sought an MWC & BCS tie-in for a couple of years, gotten the BCS schools "buy-in" then once the tie-in expired, switch over to the MCW - WAC game. It is much easier to get forgiveness that to get permission with the BCS cartel running things.

Where do I apply for the job of analyzing how to beat the BCS at their own game? Whoever is doing that for the MWC & WAC is living in a dream world.

BTW, the Congressional Bowl originally was to be Navy vs a MAC team and got changed at the last minute to an ACC team with the MAC as a backup in case the ACC was unable to come up with a 9th bowl eligible team. The most they have had so far has been eight.

This is an example of a non-BCS conference getting screwed by the BCS cartel. If the ACC tie-in had not been involved, the Rocky Mtn Bowl might have had a chance for approval.

Now the MAC gets the table scraps but at least they get something.

When is the Federal government going to do something about breaking up this cartel?