(12-02-2013 02:50 PM)Jacque Wrote: Not saying it is the SBC's fault as in they made the decision, it is the SBC's fault in that the administration has been unable to better market their programs and obtain more bowl tie-ins. And the joke of sitting at home two years ago while FIU went bowling was on the SBC.
You guys act like the SBC from the past two years has been the norm. The SBC was by far the worst conference top to bottom from its inception until a few years ago.
2001 - 1 Bowl eligible team out of 7 (North Texas received a waiver to play as the conference champion)
2002 - 2 BE teams our of 7
2003 - 1 BE team out of 8
2004 - 2 out of 9
2005 - 2 out of 8
2006 - 3 out of 8
2007 - 3 out of 8
2008 - 4 out of 8
2009 - 4 out of 9
2010 - 3 out of 9
2011 - 4 out of 9
2012 - 5 out of 10
Now most of those years, from 2001-2009, many of the bowl eligible teams had exactly six wins. That is not attractive to bowl officials. The first year WKU was excluded at 7-5, they were 7-1 in SBC play and winless against everyone else. Again, not attractive to a bowl. As SBC teams win games outside of conference, then they become attractive. WKU became such by beating Kentucky last year, an SEC team regardless of finish. The same applies this year.
Also consider that prior to this offseason, the most tie-ins the SBC could have was three. It took until 2006 before the SBC could have more than one. After last year, the SBC was eligible to find four tie-ins for the first time.
If the SBC gets six bowl eligible teams again next year, or USA wins Saturday and five next year, then they would be eligible for five tie-ins.
As it stands now, the SBC has one less bowl tie-in than they are eligible for per the NCAA rules.