Anyone catch the fine print in there?
Silicon Valley Classic is still in trouble, but we all know that. The Houston Bowl is the eye-opener... that can easily be dismissed as having a big house for teams barely making the cut, but does it also indicate organization problems that prevent them from being BCS #5? (More on BCS #5 in a moment)
Then there's the other "certified with concern games": Las Vegas, the Emerald (formerly known as the Diamond Walnut San Francisco), and the New Orleans. Um, the Sun Belt's one bowl isn't cutting it, and the Mountain West seems to have problems. What's up with that? It does amaze me how many people I see on the boards who'd rather go to Vegas than half a dozen other places (including a couple Pac-10 links designed for better teams), but Vegas NEVER packs the place, and rarely comes close.
28 bowls is too much. Sorry, but Seattle is still a poor idea. Denver could be highly intriguing, knowing that you'll never know until you get there to find either two feet of snow or a Chinook off the Front Range that heats up the town to 60.
Oh, BTW, http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/cfootball/169929_sbowl21.html
Leads to what I was alluding to earlier. The rumor I hear is that there are big bowls that do NOT want to be BCS #5 because they don't want to have to host the non-BCS-conference qualifying team, should that happen. Obviously, looking at the list of flagging bowls, you see the pattern, I hope.