It is better, but it's ....blah. It's not bad. It's a very good chance for a win but it's nothing to get excited about. I don't get why some were so pumped for this game.Originally Posted by DAWG DUDE
|
|
|
|
|
It is better, but it's ....blah. It's not bad. It's a very good chance for a win but it's nothing to get excited about. I don't get why some were so pumped for this game.
I wasn't. Had it been Tulsa, Houston, Colorado State, Iowa State, Washington..someone like that, yes.
I don't think you understand how an alternate works: We go before ANY other team that isn't tied into these bowls. Power Six or otherwise. We will have no problem having 4 bowl eligible teams each year. Unlike in the past, we are winning a good amount of OOC games. Thoughts:
this 'analysis' was cut and pasted from the fau board on the north texas board...
a. There are now 34 bowls and 70 is the average number of teams that are bowl eligible.
b. SEC 9 vs. Big East 5 (Papa Johns) ? the SEC has never had 9 teams available in years in which they have had 2 in the BCS. The chances of us replacing the SEC and playing Big East 5 are excellent.
c. Big East 6 vs. CUSA 7 (St. Petersburg) both Big East 6 and CUSA 7 are suspect. The Big East averages 6 teams as bowl eligible and would not have a team should they have two in the BCS. CUSA was two teams short of fulfilling on the last week of the season last year.
d. Big XII 7 vs. SEC 8 (PetroSun Bowl) this bowl has had only one year (2005) when it was short a team ? but the Big XII and SEC have added bowls and we believe this is an opportunity to create a relationship for future negotiations. They have 2 years remaining on their current agreements.
This is a good deal. We most likely send two teams bowling each year and we have no financial obligation.
6-6 teams from conferences that do not have a contracted bowl tie-in available can't be selected for a bowl before all 7-5 teams in the country have been placed in a bowl. ULM and ULL may be called "bowl-eligible" at 6-6 by the ignorant media, but teams that cannot possibly be picked for a bowl should not be counted as bowl-eligible.
That's gotta be a joke. 4 bowl eligible?
And strength of schedule counts. Doesn't matter who you beat if you aren't playing anybody.
They are counting 6-6 teams when they say bowl eligible. But like RealityCheck said the NCAA has a rule where every 7-5 team must be placed before 6-6 teams would be considered.
What does SOS have to do with our getting placed in these bowl games? As far as who we've beaten recently, these are off the Top of my head: Oklahoma St., Vanderbilt, Alabama, Missourri (Ranked 17th), Minnesota, Marshall, Memphis, Houston, Akron, Hawaii,SMU, Uconn and a few others I'm forgetting.
Right. But still I can't see year in and year out The SunBelt easily having 4 teams with at least a .500 record.
Yes, that's correct, my mistake, but out of the teams that don't have tie ins, very few are 7-5 at the end of the year. We will have no problem placing two teams most years under these terms.
Last edited by BlueRaiderFn; 07-22-2008 at 08:49 PM.
With WKU added to the mix and the conference having 8 conference games for each team instead of 7, we will easily have 4 teams at 6-6 or better. Especially when you look at the OOC wins we've had the last two years.
http://www.jhowell.net/cf/cf2007.htm
Here are the Division I Power Ratings for 2007. Strength of Schedule is the 3rd column.
Check out Hawaii and Boise State and compare them to their neighbor's.......
Heck, you guys had a higher SOS than Hawaii.
I think that this is a great deal for the Sunbelt. There are no other bowls being created that want to have a primary tie-in with the Sunbelt. This gives them access in certain situation.
I congratulate the Sunbelt on this "out of the box" bowl arraingment and I hope that Benson is learning a lesson from this and getting the WAC the same tie-ins in other bowls, just in case the WAC has 4-5 bowl eligible teams.
Yeah, IMO, Boise and Hawaii are overrated. Boise does have a few nice wins, but they get too much credit. Having said that, I'm glad to see that it's a mid major being given more credit than it deserves, so good for Boise and Hawaii. Back to the subject: SOS has nothing to do with these tie ins for the Sunbelt and our SOS is comparable to other mid majors including the WAC. UNT, ULL, ULM, ASU and MT were all invited to the WAC guys. It's not like we are that far inferior n on the field play. I don't understand the arrogance or the hate from some posters. I hope the WAC, MAC, Sunbelt, Conf USA and MWC all do well. I do have a problem with some individual schools, but this trashing of an entire conference makes no sense.
Here you go:
ConferencePRPSSOSWinsLossesPctTeams
SEC.677.644.7099659.61912
Pac 10.635.626.7137057.55110
Big East.627.604.6046041.5948
Big 12.622.603.6309064.58412
BigTen.592.604.5288258.58611
ACC.587.602.6158470.54512
MWC.549.502.532 6053.5319
WAC.455.457.387 5459.4789
CUSA.439.449.405 6785.44112
Independent.430.456.421 2128.4294
Sun Belt.403.352.4203859.3928
MAC.385.391.320 6794.41613
The Sunbelt SOS was higher than: The WAC, the MAC, Conf USA and basically tied the independents.
If you felt I was being critical, I apologize. My point was that Hawaii went to the Sugar Bowl because of a much easier SOS than you all.
Why doesn't La Tech go with Sun Belt?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
