The Biggest Travesty of the Bowl Season

Mean Green 93-98 · December 6, 2011

This was on Yahoo's front page (I guess that's what you call it) . . .

http://www.thepostgame.com/blog/daily-take/201112/biggest-travesty-bowl-season

KRAM1 · December 6, 2011

Oh, you mean other than the fact we have an also ran in the national championship game that couldn't even win it's division much less it's conference, sat home on "decision Saturday" and has already lost to the team it is now scheduled to play for the national championship?

Yes, other than that travesty, Western Kentucky certainly has some room to feel slighted. Could it also have happened to UNT if UNT had those six wins? Could be...NOW THAT WOULD BE A TRAVESTY WORTH MENTIONING!

wardly · December 6, 2011

all it proves is that its ok to schedule a 1aa opponent like Indiana State, but you can't lose to them by 3 touchdowns and expect a bowl bid.W.K. is not Michigan, plus they had lowest home attendance average in the Belt,which means they might not travel well.

shaft · December 7, 2011

Yawn. There were 72 eligible teams for 70 slots.

The SBC's own bowls didn't want WKY so why complain about a California based bowl selecting a 6 win, PAC-12 South division champ, UCLA?

Also as a team that has received a bowl waiver, we really can't complain about UCLA getting one.

Dr. Seuss · December 7, 2011

Its a tough, but the Sun Belt needs to do its job to get more bowl games... Our coaches and AD's can only do so much. If there not going to do theres, why should we stay...

VideoEagle · December 7, 2011

Part of the Sun Belt doing its job to get more bowl games are teams winning more. There was a thread about this on the Belt Board. At the time the SBC got two primary bowl tie-ins, our record for the past number of years showed we only averaged having two bowl eligible teams. But NCAA rule, the Belt was not allowed to have more than two tie-ins. We are averaging three now.

Mean Green 93-98 · December 7, 2011

Also as a team that has received a bowl waiver, we really can't complain about UCLA getting one.

I don't think we got a waiver, because the rule didn't even exist then. But we deserve credit as being the team that brought about the rule . . .

shaft · December 7, 2011

Part of the Sun Belt doing its job to get more bowl games are teams winning more.

This is one time when "win more" isn't the answers.

As Boise & K-State found out bowls are more interested in your fan base than your record.

Collin Cowhead said it pretty clearly today; Bowl are about selling hotel rooms and bar tabs.

Dr. Seuss · December 7, 2011

This is one time when "win more" isn't the answers.
As Boise & K-State found out bowls are more interested in your fan base than your record.

Collin Cowhead said it pretty clearly today; Bowl are about selling hotel rooms and bar tabs.

Thats true, the bowl games have a major impact in the local economies. Would you risk bringing a team to your city that has the smallest fan base in a weak conference??? How would you feel if you owned a local hotel or bar when a fan base of 4k of a team came to your town, when you could have a over 15k fans from another team.... Who would you pick???

I dont know why its such a big deal, life isnt fair and its a "what have you done for me lately" kind of way... I dont disagree with it either

Edited December 7, 2011 by Dr. Seuss

KRAM1 · December 7, 2011

Good column in the Dallas Morning News this morning about the Coaches having a vote...pointed out that Mike Gundy of Oklahoma State didn't even have a vote while Nick Saben of Alabama voted his own "Bama team #2 and OSU # 4. Nice bit of sportsmanship there Nickey Boy! Perhaps the BCS really should think about taking the "self-serving" element out of the process. While Saben was just doing what he could within the rules, there is no way he should have ranked OSU #4...and that hurt OSU's chances, and he knew it. Should coaches vote? Like Cowlishaw said, I don't fault Saben for doing what he could to feather his own nest, but I do fault a system where "self-interest" can play such a big role in the outcome.

I get it, so don't give me the "it's within the rules so it is OK" thing. I agree...I get it...it's the way the system is and it works for some teams and against others...yes, I get it...the point here is to simply start a discussion (and can we please stay on track here folks....please) about whether you think the Coaches should vote in BCS calculations should count or not given the potential self-serving nature of the vote and in the fact that not all coaches get a vote...

You're up!

Quoner · December 7, 2011

I get it, so don't give me the "it's within the rules so it is OK" thing. I agree...I get it...it's the way the system is and it works for some teams and against others...yes, I get it...the point here is to simply start a discussion (and can we please stay on track here folks....please) about whether you think the Coaches should vote in BCS calculations should count or not given the potential self-serving nature of the vote and in the fact that not all coaches get a vote...

You're up!

Yes.

Green Mean · December 7, 2011

Oklahoma State isn't the first school and won't be the last school to 'get screwed'. Texas and Texas Tech felt they were screwed in 08, didn't Auburn get hosed when they went undefeated one year but USC won the NC? Frankly it doesn't help that you're OSU...I mean they don't have a pedigree...not saying its right or the system isn't jacked but I at least understand the game.

untbowler · December 7, 2011

Good column in the Dallas Morning News this morning about the Coaches having a vote...pointed out that Mike Gundy of Oklahoma State didn't even have a vote while Nick Saben of Alabama voted his own "Bama team #2 and OSU # 4. Nice bit of sportsmanship there Nickey Boy! Perhaps the BCS really should think about taking the "self-serving" element out of the process. While Saben was just doing what he could within the rules, there is no way he should have ranked OSU #4...and that hurt OSU's chances, and he knew it. Should coaches vote? Like Cowlishaw said, I don't fault Saben for doing what he could to feather his own nest, but I do fault a system where "self-interest" can play such a big role in the outcome.

I get it, so don't give me the "it's within the rules so it is OK" thing. I agree...I get it...it's the way the system is and it works for some teams and against others...yes, I get it...the point here is to simply start a discussion (and can we please stay on track here folks....please) about whether you think the Coaches should vote in BCS calculations should count or not given the potential self-serving nature of the vote and in the fact that not all coaches get a vote...

You're up!

Sounds like Saban and Miles should not have been allowed to vote in the final poll, but it is the SEC do not want to piss off that gravy train. :growl:

kalebschumann · December 7, 2011

Of all the teams in the belt, I hate WKU the most. I'm not too upset about them being slighted.

shaft · December 7, 2011

Is "your up" code for I'm changing the topic?

K-State has more to complain about than OSU. And the BCS rankings have nothing to do with wky getting left out.

shaft · December 7, 2011

Is "your up" code for I'm changing the topic?

K-State has more to complain about than OSU. And the BCS rankings have nothing to do with wky getting left out.

Coffee and TV · December 7, 2011

Oklahoma State isn't the first school and won't be the last school to 'get screwed'. Texas and Texas Tech felt they were screwed in 08, didn't Auburn get hosed when they went undefeated one year but USC won the NC? Frankly it doesn't help that you're OSU...I mean they don't have a pedigree...not saying its right or the system isn't jacked but I at least understand the game.

I think the year Auburn 'got hosed' was the same year there were 3 undefeateds. I remember Auburn winning the Sugar Bowl and getting national title rings, but I don't remember there being a whole lot of controversy about it. I think they had a weak schedule that year or something. This is all from memory, maybe you can find something more concrete about it.