Pick Your Poison: What Type of Reception?

So the standard in our family (which is by no means the standard I'm holding myself to, as weddings are not strictly about tradition and "keeping up with the joneses") is to have a sit-down dinner. Whether this meal is buffet, family-style, or plated, we've pretty much seen it all.

So what are your thoughts on having a cockail/hors d'ouerves reception?

Now, before you pass out or start praying to the patron saints of traditional weddings, let me clarify a few things.

• We would not be serving at 5, 6, 7, or 8 pm, when one would assume the host of a party would provide a full, seated meal. As the church allows either 11:30 am or 1:30 pm weddings, the latest our reception would begin is 3 pm.
• Food would be plentiful. Not only would there probably be a buffet including vegetable crudites, meat and cheese platters, and fruit trays, I would also want to have a carving station or two with fresh roast beef, turkey, or ham, along with a few other fun stations. One great idea I saw was to have a "Mashed Potato Bar" where fresh potatoes are served in martini glasses with a variety of toppings (chives, sour cream, cheese, broccoli, bacon bits, butter, etc.). No one, not even my dear fiance who could share his dinner with a small country, would walk away hungry from this. Hopefully.
• A shorter reception, say 3-7, would provide the framework for a fun after-party, say bowling...
• Libations would also be flowing liberally: beer, wine, cocktails, non-alcoholic beverages, plus a few other crazy things I have up my short sleeve...
• Fear not, there will still be plenty of seating. And while we may not end up doing all traditional tables, there still will be enough seats for everyone...

Even though I have quite the appetite as well, I often leave food on several of my plates throughout the typical 7-course wedding meals. The food is too much, too heavy, usually too cold, undercooked or rubbery, as well. And while this option could save us more money in the long run, I feel more that we're not cutting costs to cut costs, but rather cutting costs to cut waste and excessiveness.

I know I've listed mainly pros, so I'd like two things from my commenters: 1) Your honest opinion (love it, hate it, meh), and 2) Play devil's advocate --- give me the cons (and more pros if you feel like it...).

In the meantime, I'll be searching for pictures to help your imaginations!!!