(06-13-2009 08:00 PM)Krocker Krapp Wrote:  I think I pointed out in the Army thread that the Poinsettia has already signed a deal with Navy for 2010 and will probably want to reserve a spot for Army in one season of 2011, 2012, or 2013 as well. That means that only two spots are available in that game for the Pac-10 during those four years. Having the Hawaii Bowl sign the Pac-10 for two years, Navy for one year, and Army for one year makes a lot of sense when all of that is considered.

REVISED POTENTIAL FOUR-BOWL ROTATION
2010 - Pac-10 in Hawaii / Navy in Poinsettia / Army in Armed Forces / CUSA in Eaglebank
2011 - Pac-10 in Poinsettia / Navy in Eaglebank / Army in Hawaii / CUSA in Armed Forces
2012 - Pac-10 in Poinsettia / Navy in Hawaii / Army in Eaglebank / CUSA in Armed Forces
2013 - Pac-10 in Hawaii / Navy in Armed Forces / Army in Poinsettia / CUSA in Eaglebank

Switching the 2012 and 2013 line-ups would be even better for all of the involved academies, bowls, and conferences but I do not know if it is possible since Navy has already signed a contract with the Armed Forces Bowl for the final year of the cycle. Cooperative negotiation all around would be needed to make sure everyone could see the big picture. At any rate, this might be the only hope for the Hawaii Bowl, and it makes more sense than CUSA.

(07-02-2009 07:27 PM)TopCoog Wrote:  Krocker is the king of speculation. The article above said the bowl was likely to renew its deal with cusa for the forseeable future and that is the most stable choice they can make. Some of the best games played in the bowl were WAC-CUSA games.

(07-05-2009 03:00 PM)Krocker Krapp Wrote:  

(07-02-2009 07:27 PM)TopCoog Wrote:  Krocker is the king of speculation. The article above said the bowl was likely to renew its deal with cusa for the forseeable future and that is the most stable choice they can make. Some of the best games played in the bowl were WAC-CUSA games.

You can say whatever you want but three very reliable sources have told me that all four bowls have discussed the plan I have been "speculating" about or similar versions of it. The Hawaii Bowl wants the Pac-10 above anything, but knows they have no leverage, so teaming up with the Poinsettia Bowl is the only way they have any hope of attaining them.

It would work out well if they implement this plan because the Poinsettia Bowl also wants to get Navy and Army into their game every couple of years. Having the flexibility afforded by this plan is "perfect" for what they want to do. As for CUSA, you can always get a team into the Hawaii Bowl if Army fails to become bowl eligible, which is more likely than not.

(07-06-2009 09:20 PM)jediwarrior Wrote:  Krocker - What are you hearing about the Emerald?

(07-09-2009 02:55 PM)TopCoog Wrote:  

(07-05-2009 03:00 PM)Krocker Krapp Wrote:  You can say whatever you want but three very reliable sources have told me that all four bowls have discussed the plan I have been "speculating" about or similar versions of it. The Hawaii Bowl wants the Pac-10 above anything, but knows they have no leverage, so teaming up with the Poinsettia Bowl is the only way they have any hope of attaining them.

It would work out well if they implement this plan because the Poinsettia Bowl also wants to get Navy and Army into their game every couple of years. Having the flexibility afforded by this plan is "perfect" for what they want to do. As for CUSA, you can always get a team into the Hawaii Bowl if Army fails to become bowl eligible, which is more likely than not.

There is no evidence that is even being considered.

(07-09-2009 05:00 PM)Krocker Krapp Wrote:  

(07-06-2009 09:20 PM)jediwarrior Wrote:  Krocker - What are you hearing about the Emerald?

I have not heard much of anything about the Emerald in the last couple of months. The ACC is said to still be looking for a replacement closer to the East Coast but apparently has not come up with anything viable yet. I also know that the WAC is interested but have no idea how hard they are pushing.

(07-09-2009 02:55 PM)TopCoog Wrote:  

(07-05-2009 03:00 PM)Krocker Krapp Wrote:  You can say whatever you want but three very reliable sources have told me that all four bowls have discussed the plan I have been "speculating" about or similar versions of it. The Hawaii Bowl wants the Pac-10 above anything, but knows they have no leverage, so teaming up with the Poinsettia Bowl is the only way they have any hope of attaining them.

It would work out well if they implement this plan because the Poinsettia Bowl also wants to get Navy and Army into their game every couple of years. Having the flexibility afforded by this plan is "perfect" for what they want to do. As for CUSA, you can always get a team into the Hawaii Bowl if Army fails to become bowl eligible, which is more likely than not.

There is no evidence that is even being considered.

All you ever do is run your mouth. My evidence is what I have been told by three very reliable people. If you want to get your own evidence, call the bowls or write to the bowls and ask them what plans they are considering, otherwise you need to just be quiet. The argument you are attempting is silly.

(07-20-2009 08:44 PM)TopCoog Wrote:  yap yap yap Krocker. Pardon me if your word is not real evidence.

(07-18-2009 06:04 PM)jediwarrior Wrote:  

(07-09-2009 05:00 PM)Krocker Krapp Wrote:  

(07-06-2009 09:20 PM)jediwarrior Wrote:  Krocker - What are you hearing about the Emerald?

(07-09-2009 02:55 PM)TopCoog Wrote:  

(07-05-2009 03:00 PM)Krocker Krapp Wrote:  

Yep. The WAC is definitely interested in the Emerald vs. the Pac-10. Some in San Jose think word will come out in August. Hope it's good for us.

(07-26-2009 01:45 PM)Krocker Krapp Wrote:  The ACC might move into the Texas Bowl, depending on what the organizers and the Big 12 want to do down there, so that would certainly free up the Emerald Bowl and the WAC would clearly be the most attractive option.

The Pac-10 might find this more palatable if the Poinsettia/Hawaii arrangement I mentioned happens because it would only mean 3 yearly bowls for them against the WAC/MWC as opposed to 4 which is a number they disfavor.

The line-up would mean the Pac-10 plays the WAC in San Francisco and the MWC in Las Vegas annually. One more regular bowl spot would be against either the WAC in Hawaii or MWC in San Diego, but never both at once.

(07-31-2009 09:50 PM)Krocker Krapp Wrote:  I think the fact that the Hawaii Bowl signed another deal with CUSA so quickly, rather than working on the hybrid deal with the Poinsettia, gives a lot of credence to rumblings that the Pac-10 is on the verge of landing the Insight Bowl and the Big Ten team that is currently there will move over to the Texas Bowl.

EFFECTS ON PAC-10 BOWL DEALS
1) BCS
2) Holiday
3) Insight
4) Sun
5) Las Vegas
6) Emerald

The Hawaii and Poinsettia would have had to settle for Pac-10 #7 if that happens, but there is no guarantee a team that low will even be eligible, so the Hawaii Bowl simply decided to go with a sure thing. It will be very interesting to see what the Poinsettia does since they definitely want the service academies.