Well, that's not really the point of a boycott like that. The ONLY way State fans could have voiced their displeasure would be to boycott the sponsor(s) of the bowl. The "boycott" was never going to amount to anything, but if there were some way to effect Outback's business through a boycott, then maybe they would put pressure on the bowl committee to make more fair decisions in the future. Instead, I suspect the game got the ratings that Outback anticipated, and they continued to sponsor the bowl.
By the way, the SEC office has a lot to do with setting up the bowl matchups. Mark Womack could have stepped in and told the Outback bowl to take State, and they would have. Instead, he decided it was in the SEC's best interest to reward one of their cash cows. I suppose we could have tried to boycott the SEC, but I'm not sure how that would work.
FTR, I always thought the boycott was just a sarcastic internet joke. I don't normally eat at Outback, but the boycott never stopped me.