Four new bowls

[SMU Football Blog]

Little surprised nobody has mentioned the new bowls that were added. Here is what I wrote on the blog.

*******

Four new bowls have been added for 2006-07. On top of that, a team need only have a .500 record to go to a bowl without a waiver. Thus, the 6-6 team is bowl eligible. The prior rule was that the team, without a waiver, needed to be above .500, which meant 6-5 in 11 game seasons and 7-5 in twelve game seasons. In addition to the new BCS bowl, there will be the International Bowl in Toronto, the Birmingham Bowl, and the New Mexico Bowl in Albuquerque.

That means, assuming the Houston Bowl doesn't fold, there will be 32 bowl games this season. I personally expect that the Houston Bowl will be saved. So that means 64 teams. That means more than half, or 53.8%, of the 119 Division I-A teams will go bowling next year.

This, of course, bodes well for SMU's quest for a bowl game in 2006. More bowls means more opportunities. That is obvious.

Keep in mind, however, that the last time there was a twelve game season was 2002 and 2003. At the time, there were 117 Division I-A teams. In 2002, 70(!) teams that year would have been bowl eligible under the new rules, or just under 60%. In 2003, 69 teams were .500 or better. Yes, in those years, there were a couple of waivers to allow 6-6 teams in bowls, but there were 6-6 teams left out in the cold as well. As an aside, last year, there were 64 teams that were bowl eligible; eight teams did not get bowl invitations.

On the radio today, I heard Rich Phillips say that he thought the NCAA would have to grant some teams waivers in order to fill all 64 spots. I disagree. If 70 teams were .500 or better in 2002, I expect at least that number, and maybe a couple more, to finish 6-6 or better in 2006.

So, yes, adding bowls, no matter what effect it has on the landscape of college football or the tourism of Albuquerque, is good for SMU and any other program that longs to go bowling for the first time in years. But it doesn't mean those teams can coast through the season and still expect to go to Toronto (Toronto? Really?). The teams have to be better; not just their records. In other words, SMU needs to be better than it was last year, not just as good and add a win over I-AA Sam Houston State. That isn't going to get it done.

[Flatlander]

Some small nitpicking...

I believe that the rule prior to this year was 6 wins in regular season games (thus the winning records in 11 game seasons, .500 in 12 game seasons- see Wake Forest in 2002- http://ncaafootball.com/index.php?s=&ur ... _well_id=2).

Waivers have been issued to regular season conference champs with auto tie-ins, like UNT's first year in the New Orleans Bowl, where they went with a losing record overall but the SunBelt title (see http://ncaafootball.com/index.php?s=&ur ... _well_id=2).

Other recent changes was the allowing of all wins over a D-IAA team to count towards the 6 wins, instead of a limited amount of those wins applying over a period of seasons. Which is one reason why a good number of schools have increased that tactic ( see Texas Tech's schedule last year).


SMU has a good chance for the post season for the first time in years, which means it will be a 'feel good story' and thus attractive to a regional bowl tie in because it should sell tickets to fans that have survived the drought. It's not a bad sell, let's just keep our fingers crossed to make sure it comes true....

[GoRedGoBlue]

U forget that 75%+ of those bowls are commited to the BCS leagues...so re-factor the remaining bowls and see what percentage of 'above .500' non-BCS teams actually get a bowl opportunity.

Recall that 9-2 Top25 Northern Illinois, after being a Top15 team for a good part of the season ended up without a bowl bid.

[MrMustang1965]

Unless the Mustangs' fan base increases dramatically this season, SMU won't get a decent bowl bid even if they go 8-3.

[abezontar]

um...even if SMU has tamu's fan base we aren't going to get a decent bowl bid, we are only going to be able to get into the bowls that are tied to CUSA which means an unattractive bowl

[SMU Football Blog]

First, Wake Forest play in a bowl at 6-6; I am just saying what the rule was a week ago, which is right. What I posted was correct. Second, the one I-AA game a year rule was a known change and applied last season.

Houston got a bowl without a C-USA tie-in; so can we. We haven't been to a bowl in 20 years, do you really think it is appropriate to [deleted] about not getting to go to a "good" bowl?


You take your freakin' New Orleans Bowl and you better freakin' like it.

[LawSchoolPony]

At this point, I just want a bowl game for the Mustangs...any bowl game will do (preferably one that is decently close enough for travel to).

[LonghornFan68]

At this point, I just want a bowl game for the Mustangs...any bowl game will do (preferably one that is decently close enough for travel to).

If SMU is in a bowl next year, I will be there.

[BrianTinBigD]

We should only go to a bowl if it is to determine the national championship. Otherwise we should stay home.

Oh wait, that used to be ND's argument but they have played in some pretty lame bowls in recent years just for the money.

How about, let's only go to bowls in places that are remotely interesting. Houston, anywhere in NM, Ft. Worst, and Idaho need to be excluded unless we have no other choices. Just don't expect me to go to Boise.

[PonyPride]

.... If SMU is in a bowl next year, I will be there.

Ditto.
And I disagree with the fact that SMU needs to a bowl tie-in to get a bowl invite. The day we're eligible, we'll get a bid somewhere, because a bowl will want the pub surrounding the DP-to-bowl story. Granted, the fan base will need to expand to get to bigger bowls, but in this town, winning inexplicably creates "lifelong" fans.

[jtstang]

We haven't been to a bowl in 20 years, do you really think it is appropriate to [deleted] about not getting to go to a "good" bowl?

And after this year it'll be 21, I'm afraid. We better consider our home game against that d-2 team to be our bowl game. It'd be embarrassing as hell to lay an egg in that one....

[EastStang]

I'd be willing to go to that nutty Emerald Bowl or even the smurf turf bowl in Idaho if it meant playing in December. If we go to a bowl, it means money to the program, it means an extra month of practices, and some exposure. It also creates some momentum. You can ski in Idaho in December right? But I am nervous about an invite if we go 7-5. With 6-6 records allowable that means that the BCS schools will be more likely to fill their quotas and Houston Bowl opennings might not be there (ask Rice who were 8-3 and 7-4 but stayed home). So, right now let's hope we have a great season and get to go to a bowl any bowl. I'd be willing to play a 6-6 BCS team beause we might have a chance of winning. I'd love to meet TCU in a bowl that would actually create some buzz.

[NickSMU17]

What bowls have ties to Conference USA? Where could we possibly go?

[smu diamond m]

CUSA championship winner goes to memphis, CUSA championship game loser goes to hawaii. are there others?

[MrMustang1965]

We haven't been to a bowl in 20 years, do you really think it is appropriate to [deleted] about not getting to go to a "good" bowl?

And after this year it'll be 21, I'm afraid. We better consider our home game against that d-2 team to be our bowl game. It'd be embarrassing as hell to lay an egg in that one....

For the umpteenth time, SMU is not playing a Div. II team this year.