Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

Econoknight · 07-22-2002 11:49 AM

You need a frikkin PhD to understand it.

In the end, I don't think this is great news at all.
Guarenteed for MCB
Guarenteed for EITHER the GMAC, Humanitarian, Silicon Valley bowl.

Gee, I can hardly wait to fly to Boise in December. Yippee!! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="confused.gif" />

DrTorch · 07-22-2002 12:52 PM

This leaves me with several questions.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Econoknight:
You need a frikkin PhD to understand it.

In the end, I don't think this is great news at all.
Guarenteed for MCB
Guarenteed for EITHER the GMAC, Humanitarian, Silicon Valley bowl.

Gee, I can hardly wait to fly to Boise in December. Yippee!! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="confused.gif" /> <hr /></blockquote>First is "either" appropriate here? I thought either was used when it was a choice between 2 things. Does someone have Strunk & White handy?

Second, can you provide a link for this news? We have very few details. Like, which bowl chooses first? If Marshall (or perhaps UCF) is bowl eligible, wouldn't the GMAC choose them? (Or would we get a chance to see how faithful the herd really is? Will they travel to Boise?)

Finally, I don't think it's all bad. Yes, the bowls have made plenty of mistakes in the past, but I'm optimistic that this sort of arrangement (lacking as I am of detials) is an effort to get good match-ups for all the bowls and provide the best access for fans.

DevilGrad · 07-22-2002 01:17 PM

From today's <a href="http://www.al.com/sports/mobileregister/index.ssf?/xml/story.ssf/html_standard.xsl?/base/sports/1027329366300960.xml" target="_blank">Mobile Register</a>:

<blockquote>quote:<hr />The GMAC Bowl would get the first pick from the MAC, or a first or second pick from the WAC, "or we could jump an SEC team over them if one is available," Silverstein said.

"We have an 'out' in our contract with the MAC and the WAC. If there is an eligible SEC team we want to look at, the MAC and the WAC would step aside."

Silverstein advanced a scenario under which an SEC team might appear in Mobile.

"Say Marshall is in the BCS (Bowl Championship Series) and they're a member of the MAC," he said. "So there's no other MAC team eligible, and say no WAC team is in the top 25. So at that point, we could approach an SEC team and try to work something out."<hr /></blockquote>I find the bolded statement to be a real head-scratcher. Any thoughts as to what the guy meant?

Econoknight · 07-22-2002 01:18 PM

Here's a link to the thread at UCF's site from someone who went to the press conference. I'm sure you'll hear a whole lot more tomorrow.
<a href="http://ucf.rivals.com/showmsg.asp?fid=71&mid=5928733&sid=&tid=5928733&style=1" target="_blank">MAC Bowl Thread</a>

Knightshift · 07-22-2002 01:24 PM

There appears to be two versions of this story. One as told by Rick Chryst and another told by the GMAC president to a Birmingham newspaper. Chryst's version at the media event today said nothing of the GMAC wanting an SEC team. The quotes from the GMAC president indicate they want an SEC team first, but will take a MAC or WAC team if no SEC team is available. All this despite the fact they have no contract with the SEC.

Something smells fishy here, and it isn't my tuna sandwhich! I think the MAC is getting totally screwed here. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Mad]" src="mad-flaming.gif" />

[ July 22, 2002, 02:27 PM: Message edited by: Knightshift ]

Road Warrior · 07-22-2002 02:00 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />First is "either" appropriate here? I thought either was used when it was a choice between 2 things. Does someone have Strunk & White handy?<hr /></blockquote>According to The American Heritage

Econoknight · 07-22-2002 02:56 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Road Warrior:
AWhen using either as a conjunction, you can apply it to more than two elements in a series: She left her glove either at the convenience store, the library, or the playground. Either the union will make a counteroffer or the owners will close the factory or the mayor will intervene."

Ergo, M. Knight was correct is his usage of either.<hr /></blockquote>Amazing, I actually used the English language correctly for once. I AM VINDICATED!! <img border="0" alt="[Drinky]" title="" src="graemlins/drinky.gif" />

exCincy Kid · 07-22-2002 03:13 PM

My "translation" is that the MAC better have an attractive candidate for the bowl......given the location of the bowl (Mobile) you just know that they'd be salivating over an eventual SEC tie-in, but of course there's no guarantee that a "leftover" SEC team will be bowl eligible.

I don't worry so much about them picking the WAC because the MAC gets an alternative slot in either the H-Bowl or the SVB. But an SEC team?? Sure seems like they have perhaps pulled a "fast" one on both the MAC and the WAC.

Vandelay · 07-22-2002 04:10 PM

There is nothing new in this article. The GMAC Bowl has always had an 'out' and this only goes into more detail about it. The point is the MAC has two guaranteed bowl births. I personally believe we will get a 3rd this year, and will have more to offer on this later in the week, as I will be in Detroit tomorrow for the MAC Football media day lunch-in.

Contrary to some people's opinions, Marshall is not the only MAC team wanted in Mobile, but the Herd, and UCF, are the most attractive candidates given their southern affiliations. The only WAC team of interest is La-Tech, with the possible exception of Fresno State, which has fans who travel very well.

Most certainly new commish Slive would like to get his hands on a SEC team to play his former C-USA bums in the near future, and that will probably happen within the next two years.

I still go on record right now that the bowl situation will look like this for the MAC in 2002.

Silicon Valley Bowl - Marshall vs. Fresno St
GMAC Bowl - Miami or UCF vs. So Miss
Motor City Bowl - BG, NIU or Toledo vs. Minn or Purdue

Copy-paste for future reference.

exCincy Kid · 07-22-2002 04:20 PM

Nick, I like your optimism and actually I think your MAC bowl scenario is plausible (but not necessarily probable).

But there is one thing that troubles me.......I know that if Mobile by-passes the MAC for the WAC we are guaranteed a bowl slot in either the H-Bowl or the SVB, but what if Mobile opts for some 6-5 available SEC team? I guess in that scenario I don't see how the MAC is guaranteed their 2nd bowl slot, since in that instance the WAC wouldn't "owe" the MAC or Mobile anything in their other bowl games. Help me out on this one.

RochesterFalcon · 07-22-2002 04:25 PM

Wouldn't Rice be attractive to Mobile?

(well, more attractive to Mobile than to Boise, I mean...)

What worries me is this:

1. La Tech or someone gets the Mobile bid.
2. Someone else gets the San Jose bid.

Result: Someone (and I'm picturing the west winner, here), gets stuck playing in Boise.

That doesn't help anyone. Who the heck is going to go to Boise from Mid-America for a bowl game?

Then people will make fun of the MAC not sending anyone to the bowl game and we'll lose it. :-(

MUther · 07-22-2002 08:20 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by RochesterFalcon:

Result: Someone (and I'm picturing the west winner, here), gets stuck playing in Boise.

That doesn't help anyone. Who the heck is going to go to Boise from Mid-America for a bowl game?

Then people will make fun of the MAC not sending anyone to the bowl game and we'll lose it. :-(<hr /></blockquote>That is a real possibility but that is up to the fans and not the bowls. If a MAC team gets a second bowl and the fans do not go to it then I don't feel sorry for them a bit when they don't get it the following year. BTW, we sent thousands of fans to Pocatello, Idaho for a 1-AA championship in 87 or 88 so I am confident we can get 5 or 6,000 minimum to a bowl anywhere with a nationally ranked team. I think that is a reasonable following to Idaho. Especially since we have no long distance games all season so travel budgets are intact.

***ChicagoRocket*** · 07-22-2002 08:33 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Econoknight:

Gee, I can hardly wait to fly to Boise in December. Yippee!! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="confused.gif" /> <hr /></blockquote>Actually I go to Boise in the winter often. I was forced to go to Florida once and have regretted it ever since. The idea of sitting in an oppressively hot and humid state is against my better judgement!

Bobby_Dee · 07-23-2002 06:50 AM

Oh come on guys, Read the Register story!
They say that if there is only one elegible MAC team and there are no top 25 WAC teams, then they can talk to the SEC. If we don't have two MAC bowl elegible teams, what do you care who goes to Mobile?

We have guarantees from two bowls and we are paying for those guarantees. If we have teams eligible, we will send two teams to bowl games. That hasn't changed. What did change is the possibility of where we will go.

Another thing nobody is talking about is how we can send a third team to a bowl. Unlikely scenario, but possible: GMAC chooses a MAC Team (Likely). No eligible teams in any BCS conference who will accept a bowl bid (Unlikely).

The other thing that is KEY! GMAC picks first. And they pick BEFORE the MACC game. So they are choosing a specific team, not necessarily the league champion. The MCB tie-in guarantees the

RochesterFalcon · 07-23-2002 06:57 AM

It's ridiculous to think that two MAC teams would not be bowl eligible.

In fact, it seems almost mathematically impossible.

As for the Sentinel article: I don't think any of us were aware of it when we got this thread going.

But I think most of us would still prefer Mobile to something out west. We had bowl games out west for 15 years, and it never seemed to work very well.

exCincy Kid · 07-23-2002 09:16 AM

A possible match-up with Fresno in the SVB would be ideal for the MAC, as the game would probably be a sell-out even if the MAC rep took the 4K kind of crowds we took out to Fresno during the CAL BOWL days. I attended the 1986 Cal Bowl when Miami played San Jose, and the game was a sell-out (albeit then Fresno stadium seated 30K). Fresno has a big fan following, and would be a great match-up for the MAC this year.

DevilGrad · 07-23-2002 09:33 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Bobby_Dee:
Oh come on guys, Read the Register story!
They say that if there is only one elegible MAC team and there are no top 25 WAC teams, then they can talk to the SEC. If we don't have two MAC bowl elegible teams, what do you care who goes to Mobile?<hr /></blockquote>I did read it -- probably before you did. That's not what the man said. Take both quotes in context, and I'd argue that you read it backwards.

First, Silverstein makes a general, category-defining statement as follows:

<blockquote>quote:<hr />"We have an 'out' in our contract with the MAC and the WAC. If there is an eligible SEC team we want to look at, the MAC and the WAC would step aside."<hr /></blockquote>Then, Silverstein give "a scenario" in which this might happen. I don't think that necessarily limits the category-defining statement shown above.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Silverstein advanced a scenario under which an SEC team might appear in Mobile.

"Say Marshall is in the BCS (Bowl Championship Series) and they're a member of the MAC," he said. "So there's no other MAC team eligible, and say no WAC team is in the top 25. So at that point, we could approach an SEC team and try to work something out."<hr /></blockquote>In this regard, you should note that, last season, some Herd fans asserted that Marshall was the only MAC team "eligible" for consideration to play in the GMAC Bowl. While I have no information with which to judge the validity of that claim, if true, it belies your reading of this stuff.

Then again, Silverstein might just be a smoke-blowing drunk. Who knows?

exCincy Kid · 07-23-2002 10:02 AM

This is all pretty weird, DG, 'cause as I posted below in a response to the Falcon the ESPN Director that is a Herd grad said (on the Vine)that there is no intent to (for Mobile to)go to the SEC this year, and in fact the MAC is still guaranteed two bowl slots this year. All very confusing because the comments do not add up......maybe these GMAC guys have gone to the UCF school of "double-talk". (e.g. "Gee, did I say that about the Midwest Conference? Sure didn't mean it like it sounded", etc., etc.)

[ July 23, 2002, 11:04 AM: Message edited by: exCincy Kid ]

DrTorch · 07-23-2002 10:24 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Road Warrior:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />First is "either" appropriate here? I thought either was used when it was a choice between 2 things. Does someone have Strunk & White handy?<hr /></blockquote>According to The American Heritage

DevilGrad · 07-23-2002 10:35 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by exCincy Kid:
This is all pretty weird, DG, 'cause as I posted below in a response to the Falcon the ESPN Director that is a Herd grad said (on the Vine)that there is no intent to (for Mobile to)go to the SEC this year, and in fact the MAC is still guaranteed two bowl slots this year. All very confusing because the comments do not add up......maybe these GMAC guys have gone to the UCF school of "double-talk". (e.g. "Gee, did I say that about the Midwest Conference? Sure didn't mean it like it sounded", etc., etc.)<hr /></blockquote>Without meaning any disrespect to DShoe, it's not his issue. He works for ESPN -- in West Virginia -- with, as I understand it, a primary responsibility of acting as a liason between the network and the evil green. If there were plans afoot to boot the MAC out of Mobile, those plans would be made somewhere else, like Bristol, where the potential ratings draw of, say, USM versus Ole Miss might look pretty good.

I don't doubt that DShoe hasn't heard about such plans. And that is one piece of evidence that no such plans exist. But the Mobile Register article suggests that there might be different thoughts on this subject, and DShoe doesn't have the final word.

Threaded Mode \| Linear Mode New MAC Bowl Situation
Author	Message