Bowls are certified (or not) annually. If the conferences had supported enough new bowls, the Potato Bowl would not have had a conference tie-in any longer and would have lost certification. The actual circumstances of the LA Christmas Bowl demonstrate that the affected conferences valued the Potato over an alternative tie-in. Sorry.

(02-12-2017 02:05 PM)Go College Sports Wrote:  If the conferences had supported enough new bowls, the Potato Bowl would not have had a conference tie-in any longer and would have lost certification.

Here you made up two points:

- the conferences have zero power to dictate anything about getting an existing bowl cancelled in favor of a new bowl

- the Potato bowl could easily continue to exist without any conference ties. Bowl eligible teams would be forced to go simply because that would be one of the bowl slots with no other choice.

(02-12-2017 04:31 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(02-12-2017 02:05 PM)Go College Sports Wrote:  If the conferences had supported enough new bowls, the Potato Bowl would not have had a conference tie-in any longer and would have lost certification.

Here you made up two points:

- the conferences have zero power to dictate anything about getting an existing bowl cancelled in favor of a new bowl

- the Potato bowl could easily continue to exist without any conference ties. Bowl eligible teams would be forced to go simply because that would be one of the bowl slots with no other choice.

I'll thank you not to misunderstand my posts and then accuse me of making things up.

Conferences have the power to NOT contract with the Famous Idaho Potato Bowl, either in favor of existing bowls or (pre-moratorium) new bowls or bowls seeking certification. This is an irrefutable fact.

Given that conference tie-ins are at least one criterion for bowl certification, if the Famous Idaho Potato Bowl were left out in the cold AND the number conference tie-in bowl slots met the amount NCAA was comfortable certifying, that set of circumstances puts the Famous Idaho Potato Bowl at risk of losing certification. This is an irrefutable fact.

You've said "artificially constrained supply" several times and then followed it with a QED, but I've pointed out a specific example where the conferences valued the Famous Idaho Potato Bowl tie-in over other potential bowls.

If you want to refute either of these facts, go ahead, though I suspect you will continue to respond to points I have not made.

(02-12-2017 06:01 PM)Go College Sports Wrote:  if the Famous Idaho Potato Bowl were left out in the cold AND the number conference tie-in bowl slots met the amount NCAA was comfortable certifying, that set of circumstances puts the Famous Idaho Potato Bowl at risk of losing certification.

Unlikely.

It would simply argue to the NCAA committee that certifies bowl games that with 40 games/80 teams, it is almost impossible for the 10 FBS confs to fulfill their contracted slots and thus the Boise bowl can survive on at-larges alone.

Which would be true.

(02-12-2017 06:01 PM)Go College Sports Wrote:  but I've pointed out a specific example where the conferences valued the Famous Idaho Potato Bowl tie-in over other potential bowls.

Your examples weren't equivalent.

The true thought experiment is this: the NCAA allows the P5 to have max eight tie-ins, and the G5 to have max four tie-ins, such that 30 bowl games are completely filled with two tie-ins each year. Then creates a pool of 20 additional bowl games, allowing the at-large teams with 6 qualifying wins to choose the bowl games they want to attend. So of 40 possible at-large slots, we've seen usually only around like 16-18 teams beyond 60 make it using the normal criteria (they've had to bump that up to 80 teams the last two years using lower criteria).

- would the MAC and MWC pick the Boise bowl as one of their four???
- would any bowl eligible team ever voluntarily choose to go to Boise???


I'll go with the easy answer: no and no.

(02-13-2017 02:41 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(02-12-2017 06:01 PM)Go College Sports Wrote:  if the Famous Idaho Potato Bowl were left out in the cold AND the number conference tie-in bowl slots met the amount NCAA was comfortable certifying, that set of circumstances puts the Famous Idaho Potato Bowl at risk of losing certification.

Unlikely.

It would simply argue to the NCAA committee that certifies bowl games that with 40 games/80 teams, it is almost impossible for the 10 FBS confs to fulfill their contracted slots and thus the Boise bowl can survive on at-larges alone.

Which would be true.

And the NCAA would accept that argument at the same time that they've put a moratorium on new games because....? (You don't need to respond - I know the answer is that much like the state of Idaho, the NCAA is "propping up" that bowl")

You've offered nothing factual, only self-validated expert opinions and hypotheticals which are contradicted by things that have actually happened. The Mountain West sticking with Boise over LA (or other possible bowls) is a 100% fact and 100% disproves your point.

(02-13-2017 04:44 PM)Go College Sports Wrote:  And the NCAA would accept that argument at the same time that they've put a moratorium on new games because....?

The implication behind this hypothetical question is that the NCAA has an itchy trigger finger to blow away bowls, and will do so at the very first instance any bowl shows weakness of any kind.

Patently absurd.


And what's more, if the NCAA decided to kill bowls, then there are other artificial criteria that would get in the way of having the Potato bowl get the first axe (which is what should happen, but won't), like seniority and having a TV contract. Basically, a self-perpetuating sham.



And since you ducked the second part, I'll assume you couldn't think of a counter-point, since you know very well that no confs and no teams would choose Boise.


Looks like I have this one about wrapped up. Anything else?

(02-12-2017 01:05 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(02-12-2017 12:44 PM)Go College Sports Wrote:  If the game in Boise were so universally undesirable, conferences would have thrown their support behind another bowl

I already correctly explained why this is false.

The Boise bowl would've continued to survive -- and have bowl eligible teams accept its invitations -- regardless if it had no tie ins.

So how come the Little Caesars Pizza Bowl died?

It didn't, just changed names. There's still a Detroit bowl featuring the Big ten.

(02-13-2017 04:55 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(02-13-2017 04:44 PM)Go College Sports Wrote:  And the NCAA would accept that argument at the same time that they've put a moratorium on new games because....?

And since you ducked the second part, I'll assume you couldn't think of a counter-point, since you know very well that no confs and no teams would choose Boise.


Looks like I have this one about wrapped up. Anything else?

Already addressed more than once. Mountain West chose Boise over LA.

(02-13-2017 06:18 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  It didn't, just changed names. There's still a Detroit bowl featuring the Big ten.

More misinformation. Quick Lane Bowl is a different bowl game with a different group running it than the former Motor City Bowl.

(02-13-2017 06:21 PM)Go College Sports Wrote:  Mountain West chose Boise over LA.

First of all, doubt highly that it was as simple as you're trying to pretend it was.
But more importantly, the main point is that a lack of options is not equivalent to a choice.

(02-13-2017 06:23 PM)Go College Sports Wrote:  Quick Lane Bowl is a different bowl game with a different group running it than the former Motor City Bowl.

Like I said, Detroit still has a bowl game. If it wasn't a worthy site, it wouldn't have a bowl game right now.

Boise and the MW have never been in anything close to an equivalent position ... have to take what they can get.

(02-13-2017 06:18 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  It didn't, just changed names. There's still a Detroit bowl featuring the Big ten.

It's a different charter. Different organization. Only continuities are "Ford Field" and "Big Ten." The Motor City Bowl/Little Caesars Pizza Bowl is defunct.

Which, by your reckoning, is unpossible.

(02-13-2017 06:54 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-13-2017 06:18 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  It didn't, just changed names. There's still a Detroit bowl featuring the Big ten.

It's a different charter. Different organization. Only continuities are "Ford Field" and "Big Ten." The Motor City Bowl/Little Caesars Pizza Bowl is defunct.

Which, by your reckoning, is unpossible.

They even tried to keep the game alive at Comerica. But when you don't have conference tie-ins, you stop holding a bowl.

(02-13-2017 06:54 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  The Motor City Bowl/Little Caesars Pizza Bowl is defunct.

Detroit continues to host a bowl game at Ford Field. That venue is worthy, which the new bowl game proves.

Playing a bowl game outdoors in Boise in December is not analogous.

(02-13-2017 08:59 PM)Go College Sports Wrote:  But when you don't have conference tie-ins, you stop holding a bowl.

False, as you know.

Well Detroit had a venue but that bowl game doesn't exist anymore so....?

It could be because no team was willing to play in it.

(02-13-2017 06:33 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(02-13-2017 06:21 PM)Go College Sports Wrote:  Mountain West chose Boise over LA.

First of all, doubt highly that it was as simple as you're trying to pretend it was.
But more importantly, the main point is that a lack of options is not equivalent to a choice.

(02-13-2017 06:23 PM)Go College Sports Wrote:  Quick Lane Bowl is a different bowl game with a different group running it than the former Motor City Bowl.

Like I said, Detroit still has a bowl game. If it wasn't a worthy site, it wouldn't have a bowl game right now.

Boise and the MW have never been in anything close to an equivalent position ... have to take what they can get.

You are correct it wasn't that simple.
Basically, the LA Christmas bowl with the intention of having the MW as the anchor wasn't trying to get the PAC 12 to tie-in. The PAC wasn't interested and the MW wasn't interested without the PAC and definitely wasn't interested with BYU being tied-in as the regular opponent.
It all worked out for the MW as we didn't get another before Christmas bowl and now have the AZ Bowl that is played near NYD and treats us and the other teams like a major bowl.

http://www.thewizofpods.com/Media/Christmas%20Bowl.pdf

(02-14-2017 04:50 PM)Go College Sports Wrote:  Well Detroit had a venue but that bowl game doesn't exist anymore so....?

It could be because no team was willing to play in it.

Detroit still has a bowl game. Its setting and venue are worthy.

Boise's aren't, but its bowl game is perpetuated by the circumstances of the bowl system.

(02-15-2017 10:08 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  You are correct it wasn't that simple.
Basically, the LA Christmas bowl with the intention of having the MW as the anchor wasn't trying to get the PAC 12 to tie-in. The PAC wasn't interested and the MW wasn't interested without the PAC and definitely wasn't interested with BYU being tied-in as the regular opponent.
It all worked out for the MW as we didn't get another before Christmas bowl and now have the AZ Bowl that is played near NYD and treats us and the other teams like a major bowl.

http://www.thewizofpods.com/Media/Christmas%20Bowl.pdf

Thanks for the info!

MB,
Why are you so anti-Boise? As long as they are certified, I have no issue with the bowl being there. They got a niche with the blue field of Boise. If no one wants to re-up with them in 2020, they will go away. If the locals support it, good for them. Apparently Shreveport has a lot of local support for the Indy Bowl. I have yet to see a team turn down the Boise Bowl.

(02-15-2017 07:15 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  MB,
Why are you so anti-Boise? As long as they are certified, I have no issue with the bowl being there. They got a niche with the blue field of Boise. If no one wants to re-up with them in 2020, they will go away. If the locals support it, good for them. Apparently Shreveport has a lot of local support for the Indy Bowl. I have yet to see a team turn down the Boise Bowl.

Thanks for getting to the heart of what this is: He is anti-Boise sounding. MB? Why the Boise hate? I'm not judging you or even saying it's wrong, just curious to know.

Cheers!

(02-15-2017 07:15 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  Why are you so anti-Boise?

(02-15-2017 08:09 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  MB? Why the Boise hate? I'm not judging you or even saying it's wrong, just curious to know.

Apologize for the delay in answering this.


I thought I already addressed this in the thread. But for posterity, here again is why I think Boise's bowl game is invalid. I judge it by three simple criteria: 1) is the bowl site in or near a destination?, 2) failing 1, is the December weather nice?, 3) failing 1 & 2, is the gameday stadium at least comfortable for the fans?


Boise is the only bowl that blatantly fails all three.


But the system, and the MWC, prop it up artificially.