Not to shabby. How many get in 2? 3?

(11-28-2009 10:41 PM)MT FAN Wrote:  Not to shabby. How many get in 2? 3?

1

I think 2. I don't see either of the 6-6er's finding an at-large spot anywhere.

(11-28-2009 10:42 PM)statefanatic Wrote:  

(11-28-2009 10:41 PM)MT FAN Wrote:  Not to shabby. How many get in 2? 3?

1

Don't be hatin'

def. 2

2 will get in. The 6-6 teams...sorry, just ain't happening.

MTSU is definitely going somewhere. There are going to be a couple at-large bids, and I can't see a bowl deciding to take a 7-5 MAC team over 9-3 MTSU. At least one bowl looking at-large would appear to be the GMAC to face a MAC team, so that certainly helps. If USF beats UConn, then either the B'ham Bowl or the St. Pete Bowl will be looking as well, possibly both if ND declines a bowl bid. Hard to imagine a scenario this time around (know it happened to Troy in the past), where MTSU gets left out.

(11-29-2009 09:18 AM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  MTSU is definitely going somewhere. There are going to be a couple at-large bids, and I can't see a bowl deciding to take a 7-5 MAC team over 9-3 MTSU. At least one bowl looking at-large would appear to be the GMAC to face a MAC team, so that certainly helps. If USF beats UConn, then either the B'ham Bowl or the St. Pete Bowl will be looking as well, possibly both if ND declines a bowl bid. Hard to imagine a scenario this time around (know it happened to Troy in the past), where MTSU gets left out.

But UConn is already at 6-5, so aren't they guaranteed a spot in one of the Big East bowls anyway?

(11-29-2009 09:47 AM)CardinalBlackTrojan Wrote:  

(11-29-2009 09:18 AM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  MTSU is definitely going somewhere. There are going to be a couple at-large bids, and I can't see a bowl deciding to take a 7-5 MAC team over 9-3 MTSU. At least one bowl looking at-large would appear to be the GMAC to face a MAC team, so that certainly helps. If USF beats UConn, then either the B'ham Bowl or the St. Pete Bowl will be looking as well, possibly both if ND declines a bowl bid. Hard to imagine a scenario this time around (know it happened to Troy in the past), where MTSU gets left out.

But UConn is already at 6-5, so aren't they guaranteed a spot in one of the Big East bowls anyway?

My bad. I thought they were 5-6 needing a win over USF. Yeah, UConn is set.

CONGRATS to the 4 bowl eligible teams; glad stAte was able to help you on your way . . .

(11-29-2009 09:47 PM)ManzanoWolf Wrote:  CONGRATS to the 4 bowl eligible teams; glad stAte was able to help you on your way . . .

Thank you Steve Roberts. :ncaabbs:

We finished with 2 bowl eligible teams. 6-6 is an exception. A 6-6 is only eligible to be selected at-large if no 7 or betters are available.

(11-30-2009 08:33 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  We finished with 2 bowl eligible teams. 6-6 is an exception. A 6-6 is only eligible to be selected at-large if no 7 or betters are available.

My university disagrees and solemly touts three years bowl eligible in the last five seasons, but the correct answer is one, 2005 at 6-5.

(11-30-2009 08:34 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(11-30-2009 08:33 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  We finished with 2 bowl eligible teams. 6-6 is an exception. A 6-6 is only eligible to be selected at-large if no 7 or betters are available.

My university disagrees and solemly touts three years bowl eligible in the last five seasons, but the correct answer is one, 2005 at 6-5.

This school likes to boast about being bowl eligible 4 out of the last 5. Got ya beat on that one!

(11-30-2009 08:33 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  We finished with 2 bowl eligible teams. 6-6 is an exception. A 6-6 is only eligible to be selected at-large if no 7 or betters are available.

There's a difference between being eligible and being likely to be selected. At 6-6 you can be invited to a bowl, in the Sun Belt it's highly unlikely that you will be invited at 6-6, but you are still bowl eligible.

(11-30-2009 10:35 AM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(11-30-2009 08:33 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  We finished with 2 bowl eligible teams. 6-6 is an exception. A 6-6 is only eligible to be selected at-large if no 7 or betters are available.

There's a difference between being eligible and being likely to be selected. At 6-6 you can be invited to a bowl, in the Sun Belt it's highly unlikely that you will be invited at 6-6, but you are still bowl eligible.

At 6-6 you can only go to honor an existing contract if no 7 or better from your conference is available or if there are no 7 or betters available at-large.

6-6 is conditionally eligible. 7 or better is just plain bowl eligible.

As it stands today, GMAC, Eagle Bank, and Humanitarian will be open. Motor Pizza will be open if Penn State or Iowa selected BCS (bank on it).

MAC will have two spare 7 win teams and the Sun Belt will have one.

There will be only one 6-6 at-large spot and if either ULL or ULM had won one more game there would have been none.

(11-30-2009 11:52 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(11-30-2009 10:35 AM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(11-30-2009 08:33 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  We finished with 2 bowl eligible teams. 6-6 is an exception. A 6-6 is only eligible to be selected at-large if no 7 or betters are available.

There's a difference between being eligible and being likely to be selected. At 6-6 you can be invited to a bowl, in the Sun Belt it's highly unlikely that you will be invited at 6-6, but you are still bowl eligible.

At 6-6 you can only go to honor an existing contract if no 7 or better from your conference is available or if there are no 7 or betters available at-large.

6-6 is conditionally eligible. 7 or better is just plain bowl eligible.

As it stands today, GMAC, Eagle Bank, and Humanitarian will be open. Motor Pizza will be open if Penn State or Iowa selected BCS (bank on it).

MAC will have two spare 7 win teams and the Sun Belt will have one.

There will be only one 6-6 at-large spot and if either ULL or ULM had won one more game there would have been none.

And 7 wins doesn't guarantee anything as an at-large either, well aside from being picked over a 6-6 at large. Just ask that 8-4 Troy team from a few years back if they felt any more bowl eligible than they would have had they been 6-6.

I don't consider 6-6 as conditionally eligible when there are plenty of teams that bowl at 6-6 every year due to conference bowl ties and we wouldn't even be having this discussion if we had multiple bowl ties. Yeah so maybe this is just one more example of why life is hard when it comes to bowls in the Sun Belt, but do you think they bicker over whether or not 6-6 is bowl eligible in most other conferences? Nope, they get their 6th win and they start thinking about possible bowl destinations. So if an athletic department wants to brag on being bowl eligible a few times at 6-6, so what? It's hard to build excitement around any consistently .500 team, especially one in the Sun Belt. 6-6 is bowl eligible. Personally, I think an argument can certainly be made for 7-5 being required to go to a bowl, but that's a whole different issue.

If you tout 6-6 as bowl eligible people wonder what is wrong with you when you fire a coach for being bowl eligible.

(11-30-2009 12:20 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  If you tout 6-6 as bowl eligible people wonder what is wrong with you when you fire a coach for being bowl eligible.

It's kind of a double edged sword, isn't it? You want to spin your continual mediocrity to keep excitement around the program, but at some point, you have to expect more than .500 from your head coach.

You get what you tolerate.

Until high expectations are set and adhered to, you are stuck with mediocrity.