BeaverPoke said:
Subcanis said:
BeaverPoke said:
Cuttslam said:
I love how the Beaver keeps brings up bowl eligibility. Well Dimel was eligible 3 times in 3 years I believe, and Tiller 3 times in 6 years. Its doesnt have the same significance as it did in the past, 6-6 ,7-6 teams in a bowl game is a joke but hey everybody gets a medal.
When I asked who the last coach to become bowl eligible 3 times in 5 years, I was actually asking, not just talking shit. Like you do,all the time.
But Tiller and Dimel did it, but that was what, 15 years ago?
My point is that we are 1 win away from hitting that milestone or benchmark.
Now if we lose, then fire DC.
It took more than a .500 record to make a bowl game back then.
Bowl eligible has always been 6 wins hasn't it? Glenn was bowl eligible twice, and DC twice so far.
I understand there are more bowls now, that's why I am wondering about eligibility aka 6 wins.
Bowl eligibility is 6 wins, unless you play 13 and end up at 6-7 due to getting an extra game because you played Hawaii away or you had a conference play-off. Or in UCLA's case, you apparently only need to ask. But 6 wins guarantees nothing, just ask Western Kentucky. With so many bowl games you have a very good chance of getting an invite, either with a conference tie-in or without. If we do not get a conference invite, Wyoming would have a tough time getting an at-large invite, unless it's to a geographically advantageous location, as we travel well. In other words, somewhere west. Our TV market would not excite any bowl game.
I don't look as a bowl game as a milestone/benchmark of a good team or program. To me, it's more about expectations and not blowing too bad. For instance, when we are picked to be low in the conference, then a 6-6 bowl game and a chance for a winning season is attractive. When we are expected to do better and we hang on and manage 6 wins against a pretty shit schedule, it borders on embarrassment. But I would never turn one away as it comes with 20 additional practices and may help with the reputation of the university and with recruiting (ie-2009-helped, 2011-not so much...). It's also a chance to see the boys play one more time and could help those with a chance to play on Sunday's if they show well (Unrein), and usually in a warmer climate. Not to mention it can be a hell of a good time!
Where I find myself this year is, like Beav, I can't cheer for these guys to lose. But if winning vs. Utah State and then getting our asses handed to us for the second time in a row, in front of the entire country, resulting in a losing record anyway at 6-7, keeps this clown around for another year, then I may have to wish for the greater good. Next season is going to crash and burn, DC is going to get another cool million and he is going to leave with the program in shambles. All while laughing at all of us hicks on his way out, just as he did on his way in! For the sake of the future, I'd rather we lose out on a fun time and a small reward to the players (who deserve medals having to put up with this dip-shit), and not make a bowl game. If he's going to be here another year whether we win or lose, then by all means, let's keep the season going. But if this is what keeps him around, let's end it and start building for the future. Let's give Brett and the other 2014 seniors one season with quality leadership.
