skyvoyager wrote:Not sure about the turning on bowerball.... the 99 and 2000 teams were good. Won the conference in 2003
it was the 04, 05, 06 ( 7-5 teams ) that started the turn. It did not help that by 2007 we had ~75 on scholly either.
Although we didn't know it at the time it happened the 2000 loss to Louisville, followed by the bad losses to Cinci and ECU officially turned the page on Bower. The 2000 team was a good team that failed to live up to their potential and was really one of the biggest wasted opportunities in our programs history.
Getting destroyed by not showing up against a bad two win Penn St team in 2001 was another moment in the fall of Bower. I was at the USF game in Tampa in 2002. To many of us there, that was a terrible loss since this was only their second season removed from 1AA ball. USF was 3-2 going into that game and would go on to have a great season but that game is when people really started to examine if Bower had past his best years.
could not agree more about 2000.... Cleveland wrote an article about that somewhere around 2006-2007.
before the loserville game in 2000, we were 25-2 in cusa with 3 conference championships.... after the loserville game
in 2000 we were 38-20 in cusa with 1 championship... that game seemed to be a turning point
speaking of cinci the 52-14 drubbing at home in 2004 was a big turning point for many.... i watched half the stadium leave during the 3rd qtr.
]]>Not sure about the turning on bowerball.... the 99 and 2000 teams were good. Won the conference in 2003
it was the 04, 05, 06 ( 7-5 teams ) that started the turn. It did not help that by 2007 we had ~75 on scholly either.
Although we didn't know it at the time it happened the 2000 loss to Louisville, followed by the bad losses to Cinci and ECU officially turned the page on Bower. The 2000 team was a good team that failed to live up to their potential and was really one of the biggest wasted opportunities in our programs history.
Getting destroyed by not showing up against a bad two win Penn St team in 2001 was another moment in the fall of Bower. I was at the USF game in Tampa in 2002. To many of us there, that was a terrible loss since this was only their second season removed from 1AA ball. USF was 3-2 going into that game and would go on to have a great season but that game is when people really started to examine if Bower had past his best years.
IMO, the 2002 Houston Bowl was poorly attended by USM because of the following:
We just played OSU for two consecutive seasons
We finished the last 7 games that season 3-4 including bad loses to Tulane, TCU and USF(I was at that one in Tampa...horrible)
The season before we finished 6-5 no bowl
Fanbase was starting to turn on BowerballOn the flip side, OSU was finally turning the page with Les Miles in his second season. This was their first winning season in years. They finished the season beating #3 Oklahoma right before our bowl game. OSU has a massive alumni base between San Antonio and Houston and they hadn't really played a game in the state of Texas since the first week in October. They did play in Lubbock but that is essentially New Mexico.
Not sure about the turning on bowerball.... the 99 and 2000 teams were good. Won the conference in 2003
it was the 04, 05, 06 ( 7-5 teams ) that started the turn. It did not help that by 2007 we had ~75 on scholly either.
]]>skyvoyager wrote:AndreWhere wrote:Now that I agree with. I always laugh at the "economic impact" figures for anything. Like most economics, they're just so speculative.
And who gets that impact? Oh, a bunch of people gassed up at a gas station owned by some dude from who knows where? And I'm supposed to benefit because just maybe some of it will go to the local government, whose services I hardly use anyway?
I will say that I've never gone to a USM bowl game and wondered how they were paying the bills. The 2000 GMAC Bowl, the 2002 Houston Bowl, the 2003 Liberty Bowl, last year's game, a couple of New Orleans Bowls... these were all well-attended events, often largely thanks to USM.
That's the overlooked strength of USM. It's ebbing away, but for a long time at least, people actually gave a shit.
I was at the 2002 houston bowl and I am not sure that it was well-attended largely thanks to usm.
Of the ~45,000 in attendance, it looked like we were outnumbered 2 to 1.The 97 Liberty bowl we might have had 20-25 thousand out of ~50,000 which is sad because we couldn't get 25,000 to come to a home game against loserville that year.
Yeah, I was there and it could have been 10-to-1. I was embarrassed and pissed off, but after the extra large helping of bullshit USM fans were served in 2001 - 2002, I wasn't surprised.
The rest of those games had good USM representation, often more people than you'd see at a typical home game.
IMO, the 2002 Houston Bowl was poorly attended by USM because of the following:
We just played OSU for two consecutive seasons
We finished the last 7 games that season 3-4 including bad loses to Tulane, TCU and USF(I was at that one in Tampa...horrible)
The season before we finished 6-5 no bowl
Fanbase was starting to turn on Bowerball
On the flip side, OSU was finally turning the page with Les Miles in his second season. This was their first winning season in years. They finished the season beating #3 Oklahoma right before our bowl game. OSU has a massive alumni base between San Antonio and Houston and they hadn't really played a game in the state of Texas since the first week in October. They did play in Lubbock but that is essentially New Mexico.
]]>skyvoyager wrote:AndreWhere wrote:Now that I agree with. I always laugh at the "economic impact" figures for anything. Like most economics, they're just so speculative.
And who gets that impact? Oh, a bunch of people gassed up at a gas station owned by some dude from who knows where? And I'm supposed to benefit because just maybe some of it will go to the local government, whose services I hardly use anyway?
I will say that I've never gone to a USM bowl game and wondered how they were paying the bills. The 2000 GMAC Bowl, the 2002 Houston Bowl, the 2003 Liberty Bowl, last year's game, a couple of New Orleans Bowls... these were all well-attended events, often largely thanks to USM.
That's the overlooked strength of USM. It's ebbing away, but for a long time at least, people actually gave a shit.
I was at the 2002 houston bowl and I am not sure that it was well-attended largely thanks to usm.
Of the ~45,000 in attendance, it looked like we were outnumbered 2 to 1.The 97 Liberty bowl we might have had 20-25 thousand out of ~50,000 which is sad because we couldn't get 25,000 to come to a home game against loserville that year.
Yeah, I was there and it could have been 10-to-1. I was embarrassed and pissed off, but after the extra large helping of bullshit USM fans were served in 2001 - 2002, I wasn't surprised.
The rest of those games had good USM representation, often more people than you'd see at a typical home game.
I always thought it was funny the year we went to Hawaii and everyone was upset because we didn't go to dallas and play in the pedophile bowl.
People would seriously say that we would have brought 30-35 thousand to dallas when we could not get 30 thousand to come to a home game against memphis.
]]>AndreWhere wrote:Nugget's Ghostbuster wrote:I don’t understand how the lower bowls make money in reality. They try to convince the host city that it will generate millions for the local economy but that isn’t the case.
Now that I agree with. I always laugh at the "economic impact" figures for anything. Like most economics, they're just so speculative.
And who gets that impact? Oh, a bunch of people gassed up at a gas station owned by some dude from who knows where? And I'm supposed to benefit because just maybe some of it will go to the local government, whose services I hardly use anyway?
I will say that I've never gone to a USM bowl game and wondered how they were paying the bills. The 2000 GMAC Bowl, the 2002 Houston Bowl, the 2003 Liberty Bowl, last year's game, a couple of New Orleans Bowls... these were all well-attended events, often largely thanks to USM.
That's the overlooked strength of USM. It's ebbing away, but for a long time at least, people actually gave a shit.
I was at the 2002 houston bowl and I am not sure that it was well-attended largely thanks to usm.
Of the ~45,000 in attendance, it looked like we were outnumbered 2 to 1.The 97 Liberty bowl we might have had 20-25 thousand out of ~50,000 which is sad because we couldn't get 25,000 to come to a home game against loserville that year.
Yeah, I was there and it could have been 10-to-1. I was embarrassed and pissed off, but after the extra large helping of bullshit USM fans were served in 2001 - 2002, I wasn't surprised.
The rest of those games had good USM representation, often more people than you'd see at a typical home game.
]]>Nugget's Ghostbuster wrote:I don’t understand how the lower bowls make money in reality. They try to convince the host city that it will generate millions for the local economy but that isn’t the case.
Now that I agree with. I always laugh at the "economic impact" figures for anything. Like most economics, they're just so speculative.
And who gets that impact? Oh, a bunch of people gassed up at a gas station owned by some dude from who knows where? And I'm supposed to benefit because just maybe some of it will go to the local government, whose services I hardly use anyway?
I will say that I've never gone to a USM bowl game and wondered how they were paying the bills. The 2000 GMAC Bowl, the 2002 Houston Bowl, the 2003 Liberty Bowl, last year's game, a couple of New Orleans Bowls... these were all well-attended events, often largely thanks to USM.
That's the overlooked strength of USM. It's ebbing away, but for a long time at least, people actually gave a shit.
I was at the 2002 houston bowl and I am not sure that it was well-attended largely thanks to usm.
Of the ~45,000 in attendance, it looked like we were outnumbered 2 to 1.
The 97 Liberty bowl we might have had 20-25 thousand out of ~50,000 which is sad because we couldn't get 25,000 to come to a home game against loserville that year.
]]>I don’t understand how the lower bowls make money in reality. They try to convince the host city that it will generate millions for the local economy but that isn’t the case.
Now that I agree with. I always laugh at the "economic impact" figures for anything. Like most economics, they're just so speculative.
And who gets that impact? Oh, a bunch of people gassed up at a gas station owned by some dude from who knows where? And I'm supposed to benefit because just maybe some of it will go to the local government, whose services I hardly use anyway?
I will say that I've never gone to a USM bowl game and wondered how they were paying the bills. The 2000 GMAC Bowl, the 2002 Houston Bowl, the 2003 Liberty Bowl, last year's game, a couple of New Orleans Bowls... these were all well-attended events, often largely thanks to USM.
That's the overlooked strength of USM. It's ebbing away, but for a long time at least, people actually gave a shit.
]]>From the Dallas News......
"I did not feel like we should subsidize a crummy game," North Dallas council member Lee Kleinman said Wednesday. "I guess Mother Nature agreed."
Those who had pushed for the bowl argued that Dallas would get three hours' worth of publicity at a time when no other bowl games were being broadcast. With the cancellation, that did not happen after all, "and that, too, is very disappointing,"
He said Wednesday that the network would not refund the city's money.
A spokesman for the bowl said there was no official attendance figure — "because it wasn't an official game." About 16,400 tickets were sold — and given away — for Wednesday's game.
Tickets say no refund or exchange, but both schools announced they would offer refunds for tickets purchased through their athletic departments.
]]>But but .. What about those extra practices ?
Some of those guys need all the practice they can get.
]]>