Rule Change Victim: Temple

[Jason G]

Temple is 8-4. Temple did not get a bowl invitation. 13 teams, including some from non-BCS conferences, that have 6-6 records will be in the postseason. Until this year teams with winning records had to be taken for at-large spots ahead of .500 teams. I know a lot of people wanted that rule dropped and I did not but Temple is 8-4 and would generate quite a bit in TV ratings compared to many non-BCS schools due to being in the Philadelphia media market.

I say bring back the rule or a version of it. At least let teams that are 8-4 (winning 2/3 of their games) go bowling over non-BCS .500 teams.

[Eric]

What should have happened, in my humble opinion, is UTEP should have gone to the New Orleans Bowl where they are allotted to play, and then Temple could have gone to the New Mexico Bowl. Troy could have went to the GoDaddy to play MAC champ Miami OH, so that way you could have butted out Middle Tennessee. To be fair though, MTSU went without Dwight Dasher for quite some time, so that explains the loss to 1-11 Memphis

Troy vs. Miami OH
UTEP vs. Ohio
BYU vs. Temple

[Jason G]

Yeah, there should have been some kind of manuevering done.

Last I checked UConn is in a BCS game. Don't the Huskies and Owls have the same record? Connecticut and Temple played each other this year too I believe, what was the result of that game again?

[RazorHawk]

U Conn won the Big East, which gave them the spot in the BCS bowl. Temple is in the MAC and did not get selected. Probably no one felt they would be a decent draw in their bowl, or could not replace a team from a conference that had a bowl alliance. The MAC is not a very good conference if you are wanting to get into a top bowl. Again, the bowls owe nothing to fairness, it is about money.

[Cane from the Bend]

Temple is 8-4. Temple did not get a bowl invitation. 13 teams, including some from non-BCS conferences, that have 6-6 records will be in the postseason. Until this year teams with winning records had to be taken for at-large spots ahead of .500 teams.

I believe that rule was implemented for the 2004 season, because of teams such as Northern Illinois, who went 8-4 in 2002, then 10-2 in 2003; not getting a Bowl bid in either of those years.

Although, it may have been that the MAC garnered more Bowl tie-ins starting in 2004.

Northern Illinois did receive a Silicon Valley Bowl bid with an 8-3 record in 2004; though did not receive a Bowl bid in 2005 with a 7-5 record.

.

.

.

[billybud]

Last year FSU was 6-6. Beat the BE #2 in the bowl. Probably a better game than if an 8-4 Temple were to have played in it.

[billybud]

But...I concede that Temple may give a team a better game than UConn.

[Jason G]

Who was Temple passed over for in the at-large pool of teams? I am honestly not sure. I just know that teams like UTEP and Florida International are 6-6 and bowling. Are they more deserving than 8-4 Temple? Plus Temple would bring the Philly media market.

[Cane from the Bend]

Phili is basketball happy right now; their market is just a fraction.

Temple's final few home games had little turn out... my guess is, the Bowls took that into account.

Seeing as it would have been an at large, then no obligation is defiled.

.

.

.

[Jason G]

Phili is basketball happy right now; their market is just a fraction.

Temple's final few home games had little turn out... my guess is, the Bowls took that into account.

Seeing as it would have been an at large, then no obligation is defiled.

.

.

.

I agree with everything said here but still why punish the Temple players and coaches for their lack of noterirty when they did everything they could. The topic has kind of gotten away from my original point. I wanted to know why they took away the rule that when selecting at-large teams to fill slots teams with winning records would be chosen ahead of those who do not.

Bowls are supposed to be rewards for hard work and those who deserve them. If you go 6-6, no matter who you are, you shouldn't consider your season a great success yet you will be rewarded while an 8-4 team that met or exceeded expectations may not be rewarded. There is a flaw in that system, it doesn't matter what the names of the schools involved are.

I realize with 35 bowls that some 6-6 teams will have to go bowling but truthfully is a 6-6 CUSA or Sun Belt team more deserving than an 8-4 MAC team?

Just bring back the rule. Even if you have to modify it to giving teams that finish two games over .500 instead of one like the rule was previously.

Also get rid of that FCS wins counting toward eligibility thing. That plays heavily into this too. Think about it, how many of those 6-6 teams in bowls had one of their wins against an FCS team? Plus if bigger name schools took the FCS schools off their schedules it is quite possible that Temple would have been on somebody's OOC schedule in the FCS school's place. If that is the case and Temple fails to beat that team then they won't reach the 8 win plateau and wouldn't be such a "snub" anyway.

[BYUfan1]

Last year FSU was 6-6. Beat the BE #2 in the bowl. Probably a better game than if an 8-4 Temple were to have played in it.

If you remember, Temple played in a bowl game last season. I don't think it would have been fair to make a team play two bowls games in the same season. Did anybody really want to play Florida State in Bowden's last game?

I don't remember the game being that good. They didn't interview Mickey Andrews when the game was over, and I remember the microphone was going in and out when Bobby Bowden was interviewed.

Actually the best bowl game last year involved teams from conferences you despise: Bowling Green (MAC) and Idaho (WAC).

Although Temple lost to UCLA, the EagleBank Bowl was better than the BCS Championship Game. That game was over soon as Colt McCoy was injured.

[billybud]

Didn't watch the Humanitarian bowl...it might have been as wonderful as you described.

LOL...but I think that you just have a adolescent @#$% for FSU. You salivate like Pavlov's dog at the mere mention (to mix a metaphor).


Now...why do they want certain teams in the bowl? To put heads on beds and money in the community.

2009-10 Bowls

Gator Bowl...FSU (6-6) vs WVU (9-3).... 84,129 in attendance (only the BCS Championship and Rose drew more)

The Humanitarian Bowl put 26, 726 in the seats....and the New Mexico Bowl 24,898...and the Eagle Bank was the big loser with 23, 072.

I do agree that it can be interesting watching two mediocre teams duke it out in a close game but I always keep the game in context. The problem with the teams like Temple, Fresno, Idaho in being attractive to the higher pay out bowls is that they don't bring many fans. Fans with money to spend.

Would you, as a bowl committee heavily populated by the local chamber members, rather have Alabama or FSU at 6-6 or a 8-4 Temple?

[donovan]

I also thought the game between Idaho and Bowling Green was the best game I watched last year. And as for me having erectile function, prepubescent, pubescent or geriatric; I would be ecstatic.

Is your point well taken about "heads on the bed," absolutely. Does the mere admission of such mean manipulation, absolutely.

[billybud]

Donovan...please...please.

Do not put erectile dysfunction and manipulation in the same thread.

[billybud]

The bowls historically have been put together by local groups to bring monies to their community...going back throughout our respective lifetimes.

It is only lately (in my longer term perspective) that the Idaho's of the world get to play. The bowls used to be clustered around New Years Day...not a month long extravaganza winding up on January 10.