I agree, I enjoy it when programs with losing records decline bowl invitations. There's already too many bowls as it is.
On a side note, can the committee really justify putting in a non-conference champion in case of a blow up? Most scenarios are pretty straightforward. The B1G champ and Oklahoma are pretty much locked in. I'd say if Stanford beats USC convincingly, they get the fourth spot in case of an upset in the SECCG or the ACCCG, based on the committee's perception of Florida and UNC. But what if Stanford doesn't and there is an upset? Or even, irregardless of the PACCG, what if both bama and clemson are upset?
Can the committee really say that UNC or Florida in those cases are less deserving than someone like Ohio State or the loser of the B1G conference champ? I have a bad feeling about what the committee is going to do with that scenario. Personally I think non-conference champions should be excluded from consideration (with exceptions to independents with good resumes).