+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: CUSAbbs (/forum-514.html)
+---- Forum: CUSA Conference Talk (/forum-439.html)
+---- Thread: Future C-USA Bowl Tie Ins (/thread-614708.html)
Pages: 1 2
Future C-USA Bowl Tie Ins - CurveItAround - 01-23-2013 12:07 AM
What will/should the future bowl Tie-ins for C-USA look like? Not sure exactly when the contracts come up for renegotiations, but here is the list.
Current bowls:
1. Liberty Bowl - Widely rumored to be gone.
2. Hawaii Bowl - Does the conference want to renew? Do they want to renew CUSA?
3. Armed Forces Bowl (Ft. Worth) - I see us having a decent shot at renewing this relationship, but gives us 2 bowls in DFW area.
4. Beef o Brady's (St. Petersburg) - Not sure. Currently a CUSA/nBE bowl. Any risk of losing? Good bowl for east teams.
5. Military Bowl (Washington DC) - Would be nice to keep and give northeast bowl that could be filled by CUSA East. What are odds of keeping?
6. New Orleans Bowl - I could see us keeping this bowl.
Future Bowls:
1. The conference owns the Heart of Dallas bowl so that should be a gimme.
Lower rated bowls where CUSA might have a chance to establish relationship if other bowls are lost:
1. GoDaddy Bowl - Mobile. Currently contracted with MAC/SunBelt.
2. Independence Bowl - Shreveport. Currently contracted with ACC/SEC. Any chance to make headway here?
3. Little Caesars Bowl - Detroit. Currently contracted with MAC/B1G. Not sure if there is much of a chance here.
With 14 teams, it would be nice to see the league keep at least 5 tie-ins.
RE: Future C-USA Bowl Tie Ins - RonBurgundy - 01-23-2013 12:20 AM
I think you'll see something with CUSA and the Independence Bowl. I could see the potential to pull Rice, UNT, UTSA, Tech, USM, and even UAB from a conference as having a big appeal since they usually hurt for attendance. 5 schools have a fairly easy drive to Shreveport and I'm sure the trip from BHam isn't too bad. I don't think any other conference other than the SEC or Big XII could really offer schools that close to them.
RE: Future C-USA Bowl Tie Ins - BeliefBlazer - 01-23-2013 12:21 AM
If CUSA loses Liberty to the Beast, then we might be able to get BBVA in Birmingham. NBE only has 10 teams right now, so they can't take all of our spots.
RE: Future C-USA Bowl Tie Ins - HerdZoned - 01-23-2013 12:35 AM
(01-23-2013 12:07 AM)CurveItAround Wrote: 3. Little Caesars Bowl - Detroit. Currently contracted with MAC/B1G. Not sure if there is much of a chance here.
No chance here. The primary conference to the Pizza Pizza Bowl is the MAC. And any MAC school would rather play a 6-6 Purdue, N'Western than a 11-1 USM, Tulsa, Marshall.
RE: Future C-USA Bowl Tie Ins - CurveItAround - 01-23-2013 12:40 AM
(01-23-2013 12:21 AM)BeliefBlazer Wrote: If CUSA loses Liberty to the Beast, then we might be able to get BBVA in Birmingham. NBE only has 10 teams right now, so they can't take all of our spots.
I have also heard rumors in various media outlets that the Liberty Bowl may be aligning with two power conferences. Not sure if that is reality, but either way there are strong indications that C-USA will not be involved in future plans.
RE: Future C-USA Bowl Tie Ins - CurveItAround - 01-23-2013 12:46 AM
I wonder if the addition of ULL or ASU would have any impact on gaining a new bowl tie-in versus an add like WKU or NMSU? Especially if a bowl like Independence was a possibility. BBVA Compass bowl would be a very good get that would fit within the geographical footprint and would provide another bowl that is a little more eastern. I am just not sure how likely it is to displace the nBE there. Obviously, teams like UAB, MTSU, or potential future add WKU could provide a regional option when eligible and not a bad trip for the more northern teams in the east.
Lots of military in San Antonio. It would be cool if the Armed Forces bowl was in the Alamo Dome, but I doubt they are looking to move.
Future C-USA Bowl Tie Ins - arkstfan - 01-23-2013 01:33 AM
Liberty wants Big XII vs SEC. Independence expects to boost payout and keep SEC and wants a contract league ACC has done a miserable job selling tickets.
GoDaddy has contracted MAC/Sun Belt through 2017. They've been very happy the last two years with over 90% hotel occupancy for the game.
New Orleans had their feelings mashed with CUSA shorting them but I'd be stunned if they dropped CUSA unless Tulane has a big presence on the Greater New Orleans Sports Foundation or USM ends up Big East. They want a Cajuns - Eagles match-up so bad they can taste it.
RE: Future C-USA Bowl Tie Ins - Tom in Lazybrook - 01-23-2013 02:31 AM
I don't see many of the lower tier conferences keeping all their bowls. We saw how we all ranked when the Liberty Bowl took Iowa State over Arkansas State. And when the Military Bowl bid out their slot to the highest payor. This is going to be a bigger problem going forward. For everyone.
So long as there is no penalty for a conference not fulfilling its slots, there appears to be no incentive for bowls to take the 3rd and lower pick from the MAC, the SBC, CUSA. I see them just contracting with the big boys and either taking backup committments from us or worse, getting teams to bid on slots.
What's the incentive for any bowl to take the 3rd place slot from CUSA? Or the Sun Belt? Or the WAC? Good luck to CUSA and everyone else in trying to place all their bowl eligible teams, because I see problems for everyone going forward. And the Big East might not be immune either to this problem.
RE: Future C-USA Bowl Tie Ins - WinOrLoseEAGLE - 01-23-2013 07:59 AM
(01-23-2013 02:31 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: I don't see many of the lower tier conferences keeping all their bowls. We saw how we all ranked when the Liberty Bowl took Iowa State over Arkansas State. And when the Military Bowl bid out their slot to the highest payor. This is going to be a bigger problem going forward. For everyone.
So long as there is no penalty for a conference not fulfilling its slots, there appears to be no incentive for bowls to take the 3rd and lower pick from the MAC, the SBC, CUSA. I see them just contracting with the big boys and either taking backup committments from us or worse, getting teams to bid on slots.
What's the incentive for any bowl to take the 3rd place slot from CUSA? Or the Sun Belt? Or the WAC? Good luck to CUSA and everyone else in trying to place all their bowl eligible teams, because I see problems for everyone going forward. And the Big East might not be immune either to this problem.
If not it would primarily be because some bowl games went completely away. Typically, with the number of bowls out there, only 1 or 2 teams who are eligible don't get a game. That "honor" will typically roll down to the lowest perceived conference without enough tie-ins for their bowl eligible teams. MORE eligible teams won't come about because of conference realignment. In fact, if the larger conferences go to 9 game conference schedules there will be fewer in those leagues who make it to bowl eligibility.
Now, if they change the bowl eligibility rules, always very possible, then that would change the dynamics that led to the comments in my previous paragraph.
RE: Future C-USA Bowl Tie Ins - shiftyeagle - 01-23-2013 08:15 AM
The Hawai'i Bowl....get rid of that crap.
RE: Future C-USA Bowl Tie Ins - Tom in Lazybrook - 01-23-2013 08:26 AM
(01-23-2013 07:59 AM)WinOrLoseEAGLE Wrote:(01-23-2013 02:31 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: I don't see many of the lower tier conferences keeping all their bowls. We saw how we all ranked when the Liberty Bowl took Iowa State over Arkansas State. And when the Military Bowl bid out their slot to the highest payor. This is going to be a bigger problem going forward. For everyone.
So long as there is no penalty for a conference not fulfilling its slots, there appears to be no incentive for bowls to take the 3rd and lower pick from the MAC, the SBC, CUSA. I see them just contracting with the big boys and either taking backup committments from us or worse, getting teams to bid on slots.
What's the incentive for any bowl to take the 3rd place slot from CUSA? Or the Sun Belt? Or the WAC? Good luck to CUSA and everyone else in trying to place all their bowl eligible teams, because I see problems for everyone going forward. And the Big East might not be immune either to this problem.
If not it would primarily be because some bowl games went completely away. Typically, with the number of bowls out there, only 1 or 2 teams who are eligible don't get a game. That "honor" will typically roll down to the lowest perceived conference without enough tie-ins for their bowl eligible teams. MORE eligible teams won't come about because of conference realignment. In fact, if the larger conferences go to 9 game conference schedules there will be fewer in those leagues who make it to bowl eligibility.
Now, if they change the bowl eligibility rules, always very possible, then that would change the dynamics that led to the comments in my previous paragraph.
I think the 'new rules' actually HURT the CUSA, the Belt, the MAC more than you think. You see now, the fear that a bowl will be without an eligible team is now zero. Moreover, for a lower bowl, the chance that, from their persepective, getting a 5-7 BCS team over a 'must take 6-6 Belt/CUSA/MAC team might be an incentive to NOT contract with a lower tier conference.
Here's an example of how the new bowl scenario could screw over the Belt/CUSA/MAC. Say you are the BBVA Bowl. Do you wish to take the 4th place team from CUSA or the Belt as a contract or simply take the 12th team from the SEC, knowing that in some years, you won't get that team? Even if you don't get your SEC team, you might get a 5-7 team from a major conference through the new rules. And even if you don't get that game, you might be able to bid out your open slot to multiple teams from multiple conferences (as the Military Bowl did with SJ State).
Furthermore, you could simply just take a backup committment from one of the conferences.
I wish I didn't see this one coming. But I'm afraid that's going to be the thought process from the bowls.
RE: Future C-USA Bowl Tie Ins - CurveItAround - 01-23-2013 10:20 AM
(01-23-2013 08:26 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:(01-23-2013 07:59 AM)WinOrLoseEAGLE Wrote:(01-23-2013 02:31 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: I don't see many of the lower tier conferences keeping all their bowls. We saw how we all ranked when the Liberty Bowl took Iowa State over Arkansas State. And when the Military Bowl bid out their slot to the highest payor. This is going to be a bigger problem going forward. For everyone.
So long as there is no penalty for a conference not fulfilling its slots, there appears to be no incentive for bowls to take the 3rd and lower pick from the MAC, the SBC, CUSA. I see them just contracting with the big boys and either taking backup committments from us or worse, getting teams to bid on slots.
What's the incentive for any bowl to take the 3rd place slot from CUSA? Or the Sun Belt? Or the WAC? Good luck to CUSA and everyone else in trying to place all their bowl eligible teams, because I see problems for everyone going forward. And the Big East might not be immune either to this problem.
If not it would primarily be because some bowl games went completely away. Typically, with the number of bowls out there, only 1 or 2 teams who are eligible don't get a game. That "honor" will typically roll down to the lowest perceived conference without enough tie-ins for their bowl eligible teams. MORE eligible teams won't come about because of conference realignment. In fact, if the larger conferences go to 9 game conference schedules there will be fewer in those leagues who make it to bowl eligibility.
Now, if they change the bowl eligibility rules, always very possible, then that would change the dynamics that led to the comments in my previous paragraph.
I think the 'new rules' actually HURT the CUSA, the Belt, the MAC more than you think. You see now, the fear that a bowl will be without an eligible team is now zero. Moreover, for a lower bowl, the chance that, from their persepective, getting a 5-7 BCS team over a 'must take 6-6 Belt/CUSA/MAC team might be an incentive to NOT contract with a lower tier conference.
Here's an example of how the new bowl scenario could screw over the Belt/CUSA/MAC. Say you are the BBVA Bowl. Do you wish to take the 4th place team from CUSA or the Belt as a contract or simply take the 12th team from the SEC, knowing that in some years, you won't get that team? Even if you don't get your SEC team, you might get a 5-7 team from a major conference through the new rules. And even if you don't get that game, you might be able to bid out your open slot to multiple teams from multiple conferences (as the Military Bowl did with SJ State).
Furthermore, you could simply just take a backup committment from one of the conferences.
I wish I didn't see this one coming. But I'm afraid that's going to be the thought process from the bowls.
If that's the case, then I doubt the MWC and nBE will be immune as you suggest.
RE: Future C-USA Bowl Tie Ins - gdunn - 01-23-2013 10:30 AM
If we're going to a playoff system, why do we still need the bowls, what have I missed?
RE: Future C-USA Bowl Tie Ins - eagleriffic - 01-23-2013 11:28 AM
The NCAA should make it 7 wins needed for a bowl. No more of this feel good everybody gets a trophy & cookies for partcipating. Go to a bowl for a reward for a good season not because you finished @ .500
Also d1aa wins should not count towards bowl eligibility. I believe when the ncaa changed to fcs & fcsbdfu or whatever it is it dropped that stipulation so the "big boys" could get 11 bowl teams.
One more thing......have the NCAA seed the bowls like the basketball or baseball tourny. They do a good job there so eliminate bowl conference tie ins.
Just my thoughts.
RE: Future C-USA Bowl Tie Ins - EagleX - 01-23-2013 03:48 PM
(01-23-2013 10:30 AM)gdunn Wrote: If we're going to a playoff system, why do we still need the bowls, what have I missed?
. . . the urge to ever play in a post season game again.
RE: Future C-USA Bowl Tie Ins - MTowho - 01-23-2013 04:20 PM
When do CUSA's bowl agreements expire? I thought it was after the 2014 season but I could be wrong.
RE: Future C-USA Bowl Tie Ins - arkstfan - 01-23-2013 04:36 PM
(01-23-2013 11:28 AM)eagleriffic Wrote: The NCAA should make it 7 wins needed for a bowl. No more of this feel good everybody gets a trophy & cookies for partcipating. Go to a bowl for a reward for a good season not because you finished @ .500
Also d1aa wins should not count towards bowl eligibility. I believe when the ncaa changed to fcs & fcsbdfu or whatever it is it dropped that stipulation so the "big boys" could get 11 bowl teams.
One more thing......have the NCAA seed the bowls like the basketball or baseball tourny. They do a good job there so eliminate bowl conference tie ins.
Just my thoughts.
Back around 1989ish the NCAA decreed, you must win 6 I-A games to go to a bowl.
A few years later they allowed you to count one I-AA every four years.
Around the time the I-AA schools were bellyaching that the I-AA name was a bad thing because people confused "two A" with Division II a reform package was put forward to help I-AA. The proposals put forward by I-AA were:
1. Eliminate the I-A/I-AA names and just call everyone Division I.
2. Set the minimum standard for attendance for Division I bowl (I-A) at 17,000 actual attendance every year and mandate the use of an outside auditor to certify attendance.
3. Eliminate the exception to remain I-A for schools playing in a conference where a majority of the members met I-A criteria.
4. Allow the bowl teams to count one playoff (I-AA) team every year for bowl eligibility so that playoff schools would have access to bigger paydays and reduce the economic pressure to go to I-A.
The I-AA schools believed that would send some schools back to their ranks and would eliminate the progression of teams moving up. At that time there had been 26 I-AA championships, of the 52 slots in the title game, 13 (25%) had gone to schools that had moved on to I-A. They wanted to stop the loss of top programs, but also the loss of mediocre programs.
The first two proposals were adopted in modified form, and the last two were adopted outright.
RE: Future C-USA Bowl Tie Ins - MinerInWisconsin - 01-23-2013 04:49 PM
(01-23-2013 04:20 PM)MTowho Wrote: When do CUSA's bowl agreements expire? I thought it was after the 2014 season but I could be wrong.
Looks like its after the 2013 season. Four year contracts were signed prior to the 2010 season. The seven bowls include 2 that alternate giving C-USA 6 bowls most seasons.
Excerpt:
"Conference USA has commitments with seven bowl partners during the period that includes games following the 2010-2013 regular seasons and the agreements with seven bowls feature postseason games against seven different conferences. Included are matchups against schools from the ACC, Big East, Big Ten and SEC, along with the Mountain West, Sun Belt and WAC."
http://www.conferenceusa.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/042910aac.html
RE: Future C-USA Bowl Tie Ins - BeliefBlazer - 01-23-2013 04:53 PM
The topic of bowl renewals came up during this week's meetings. We might hear something soon.
RE: Future C-USA Bowl Tie Ins - Niner National - 01-23-2013 05:05 PM
I thought CUSA would have a good shot at getting the Belk Bowl before ECU left. Now I'm not so sure. I imagine it is still a possibility though. Charlotte is obviously in Charlotte and Marshall has a good bit of fans and alums here.