A lot of AAC fans are unhappy that the AAC doesn't have its bowl lineup together. But the only G5 conference that has most of its bowls set is the Mountain West, and they don't have their opponents set in most of their bowls.

So would it make sense for the AAC to make a deal with CUSA--AAC will send a team to the Boca Raton Bowl, while CUSA will send teams to bowls at Cougar Stadium and UCF's on-campus stadium?

Those 3 would all be minor bowls vs ho-hum opponents, but they're in good cities, and in 2019, the conference would control those bowls because they control the stadium.

Worth it, or not?

How is it useful to control your own bowels? Have you ever tried to control someone else's bowels? How would you like to have someone control yours?

What? Bowls? Well, that's different. Never mind.

Signed,

Emily

(08-03-2013 06:00 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  A lot of AAC fans are unhappy that the AAC doesn't have its bowl lineup together. But the only G5 conference that has most of its bowls set is the Mountain West, and they don't have their opponents set in most of their bowls.

So would it make sense for the AAC to make a deal with CUSA--AAC will send a team to the Boca Raton Bowl, while CUSA will send teams to bowls at Cougar Stadium and UCF's on-campus stadium?

Those 3 would all be minor bowls vs ho-hum opponents, but they're in good cities, and in 2019, the conference would control those bowls because they control the stadium.

Worth it, or not?

As an aside, to the best of my knowledge, the AAC is the only G5 conference that has signed a single bowl agreement (Military). Yes, ESPN has reported that "sources" indicated that the MW had reached agreements with all thier current bowl partners. Since that article was released in early July, it has been found to be wrong. The MW has definitely lost the Armed Forces Bowl and the Las Vegas Bowl has reported it signed the PAC-12 but has not yet reached an agreement with an opponent. I'm sure the MW will get most of its old bowls back, but it's clear that the ESPN article was premature and inaccurate.

To answer your question, I think it probably makes sense for the G5 to own thier own bowls. The bowl committees are expensive, wasteful, and really no longer serve a purpose. You don't need a $600k a year bowl director with a staff to plan one game a year. Athletic directiors make half that and plan hundreds of games and events a year.

A conference headquarters could easily handle the same function for 1-4 bowls much more efficiently. A former college AD would likely be a good addition to the staff to handle this function. That would eliminate about 1 million in expenses for each bowl and provide a better experience for the conference, athletes, and fans. Additionally, that extra 1-4 million a year would flow to the athletic departments of the conference rather than to bowl fat cats.

As for organizing bowls vs CUSA or other G5 conferences, I suspect some of that might happen, but its not a big priority. The first priority is to get as many P5 bowl games as possible. Once thats complete, then a decision needs to be made on option #2.

It's a basic question. Is it better to fill in the holes in the bowl line up with guaranteed slots in lower bowls vs non-descript mid-teir G5 opponents that might at least be in fun locations. Or--is it better to leave the top AAC teams uncommitted and sign a backup agreement to a pool of more prestigious P5 bowl games that will likely have openings once the selection committee fills the 6 available slots in the new CFP access bowls. Personally, I think the second option is best, but I think I'm in the minority on that.

(08-03-2013 09:44 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-03-2013 06:00 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  A lot of AAC fans are unhappy that the AAC doesn't have its bowl lineup together. But the only G5 conference that has most of its bowls set is the Mountain West, and they don't have their opponents set in most of their bowls.

So would it make sense for the AAC to make a deal with CUSA--AAC will send a team to the Boca Raton Bowl, while CUSA will send teams to bowls at Cougar Stadium and UCF's on-campus stadium?

Those 3 would all be minor bowls vs ho-hum opponents, but they're in good cities, and in 2019, the conference would control those bowls because they control the stadium.

Worth it, or not?

To answer your question, I think it probably makes sense for the G5 to own thier own bowls. The bowl committees are expensive, wasteful, and really no longer serve a purpose. You don't need a $600k a year bowl director with a staff to plan one game a year. Atheltic directiors make half that and plan hundreds of games and events a year.

A conference headquarters could easily handle the same function for 1-4 bowls much more efficiently. A former college AD would likely be a good addition to the staff to handle this function. That would eliminate about 1 million in expenses for each bowl and provide a better experience for the conference, athletes, and fans. Additionally, that extra 1-4 million a year would flow to the athletic departments of the conference rather than to bowl fat cats.

As for organizing bowls vs CUSA or other G5 conferences, I suspect some of that might happen, but its not a big priority. The first priority is to get as many P5 bowl games as possible. Once thats complete, then a decision needs to be made on option #2.

Obviously you'd rather have bowls vs P5 opponents. Trouble is, the P5 opponents would also rather have bowls vs P5 opponents.

I just sketched this out because there are rumors of CUSA working on Boca Raton at FIU; there was a project for a "Cure Bowl" at UCF, and UH has a new stadium soon. CUSA sends teams to 2 AAC-hosted bowls, AAC sends a team to 1 CUSA hosted bowl.

Quote:It's a basic question. Is it better to fill in the holes in the bowl line up with guaranteed slots in lower bowls vs non-descript mid-teir G5 opponents that might at least be in fun locations. Or--is it better to leave the top AAC teams uncommitted and sign a backup agreement to a pool of more prestigious P5 bowl games that will likely have openings once the selection committee fills the 6 available slots in the new CFP access bowls. Personally, I think the second option is best, but I think I'm in the minority on that.

If you can get the P5 backup option, do it.

I just see things playing out about like this:

AAC Things-Go-Well:
Birmingham vs SEC, Military vs ACC, St Pete vs ACC/CUSA, Armed Forces vs B10/B12
Marlins Bowl vs random G5, 1-2 more vs random G-5

AAC You're-Screwed (Birmingham ACC vs SEC)
Military vs ACC, Armed Forces vs B10/G5,
Marlins Bowl vs random G5, 3-4 random vs G5

I'm not saying Cougar Bowl vs CUSA instead of a P5 game. I'm saying Cougar Bowl vs CUSA instead of New Orleans Bowl vs Sun Belt, Cure Bowl vs CUSA instead of St Pete vs CUSA, Boca Raton Bowl vs CUSA instead of Little Caesars vs MAC.

(08-03-2013 09:44 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  It's a basic question. Is it better to fill in the holes in the bowl line up with guaranteed slots in lower bowls vs non-descript mid-teir G5 opponents that might at least be in fun locations. Or--is it better to leave the top AAC teams uncommitted and sign a backup agreement to a pool of more prestigious P5 bowl games that will likely have openings once the selection committee fills the 6 available slots in the new CFP access bowls. Personally, I think the second option is best, but I think I'm in the minority on that.

The downside to that approach: There's a helluva lot more negotiating leverage with bowl games when you're offering your best teams to the bowl games. If the American holds back its top two teams and is only offering #3 or 4 to bowls, they might have a more difficult time negotiating. Look at the MWC. The reason they don't have a signed deal in Las Vegas -- a bowl in one of their own stadiums -- might be that they want to reserve the right to put Boise State in a different bowl and send Vegas whomever the conference office wants to send them. The bowl committee might not want to take a chance with "Hair's Choice". The bowl wants a conference champ who will likely have a top 25 ranking.

(08-03-2013 08:53 AM)lew240z Wrote:  How is it useful to control your own bowels? Have you ever tried to control someone else's bowels? How would you like to have someone control yours?

What? Bowls? Well, that's different. Never mind.

Signed,

Emily

2nd post in LOL

(08-03-2013 10:13 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-03-2013 09:44 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-03-2013 06:00 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  A lot of AAC fans are unhappy that the AAC doesn't have its bowl lineup together. But the only G5 conference that has most of its bowls set is the Mountain West, and they don't have their opponents set in most of their bowls.

So would it make sense for the AAC to make a deal with CUSA--AAC will send a team to the Boca Raton Bowl, while CUSA will send teams to bowls at Cougar Stadium and UCF's on-campus stadium?

Those 3 would all be minor bowls vs ho-hum opponents, but they're in good cities, and in 2019, the conference would control those bowls because they control the stadium.

Worth it, or not?

To answer your question, I think it probably makes sense for the G5 to own thier own bowls. The bowl committees are expensive, wasteful, and really no longer serve a purpose. You don't need a $600k a year bowl director with a staff to plan one game a year. Atheltic directiors make half that and plan hundreds of games and events a year.

A conference headquarters could easily handle the same function for 1-4 bowls much more efficiently. A former college AD would likely be a good addition to the staff to handle this function. That would eliminate about 1 million in expenses for each bowl and provide a better experience for the conference, athletes, and fans. Additionally, that extra 1-4 million a year would flow to the athletic departments of the conference rather than to bowl fat cats.

As for organizing bowls vs CUSA or other G5 conferences, I suspect some of that might happen, but its not a big priority. The first priority is to get as many P5 bowl games as possible. Once thats complete, then a decision needs to be made on option #2.

Obviously you'd rather have bowls vs P5 opponents. Trouble is, the P5 opponents would also rather have bowls vs P5 opponents.

I just sketched this out because there are rumors of CUSA working on Boca Raton at FIU; there was a project for a "Cure Bowl" at UCF, and UH has a new stadium soon. CUSA sends teams to 2 AAC-hosted bowls, AAC sends a team to 1 CUSA hosted bowl.

Quote:It's a basic question. Is it better to fill in the holes in the bowl line up with guaranteed slots in lower bowls vs non-descript mid-teir G5 opponents that might at least be in fun locations. Or--is it better to leave the top AAC teams uncommitted and sign a backup agreement to a pool of more prestigious P5 bowl games that will likely have openings once the selection committee fills the 6 available slots in the new CFP access bowls. Personally, I think the second option is best, but I think I'm in the minority on that.

If you can get the P5 backup option, do it.

I just see things playing out about like this:

AAC Things-Go-Well:
Birmingham vs SEC, Military vs ACC, St Pete vs ACC/CUSA, Armed Forces vs B10/B12
Marlins Bowl vs random G5, 1-2 more vs random G-5

AAC You're-Screwed (Birmingham ACC vs SEC)
Military vs ACC, Armed Forces vs B10/G5,
Marlins Bowl vs random G5, 3-4 random vs G5

I'm not saying Cougar Bowl vs CUSA instead of a P5 game. I'm saying Cougar Bowl vs CUSA instead of New Orleans Bowl vs Sun Belt, Cure Bowl vs CUSA instead of St Pete vs CUSA, Boca Raton Bowl vs CUSA instead of Little Caesars vs MAC.

Not sure if the Cougar Bowl beats the New Orleans Bowl (as New Orleans is a fantastic destination). Perhaps the Tulane Bowl (also a new stadium) might be a better head to head comparison. However, if its the Cougar Bowl vs the Little Rock Bowl or the Montgomery Bowl, then yeah---give me the Cougar Bowl.

(08-03-2013 02:24 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-03-2013 10:13 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-03-2013 09:44 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-03-2013 06:00 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  A lot of AAC fans are unhappy that the AAC doesn't have its bowl lineup together. But the only G5 conference that has most of its bowls set is the Mountain West, and they don't have their opponents set in most of their bowls.

So would it make sense for the AAC to make a deal with CUSA--AAC will send a team to the Boca Raton Bowl, while CUSA will send teams to bowls at Cougar Stadium and UCF's on-campus stadium?

Those 3 would all be minor bowls vs ho-hum opponents, but they're in good cities, and in 2019, the conference would control those bowls because they control the stadium.

Worth it, or not?

To answer your question, I think it probably makes sense for the G5 to own thier own bowls. The bowl committees are expensive, wasteful, and really no longer serve a purpose. You don't need a $600k a year bowl director with a staff to plan one game a year. Atheltic directiors make half that and plan hundreds of games and events a year.

A conference headquarters could easily handle the same function for 1-4 bowls much more efficiently. A former college AD would likely be a good addition to the staff to handle this function. That would eliminate about 1 million in expenses for each bowl and provide a better experience for the conference, athletes, and fans. Additionally, that extra 1-4 million a year would flow to the athletic departments of the conference rather than to bowl fat cats.

As for organizing bowls vs CUSA or other G5 conferences, I suspect some of that might happen, but its not a big priority. The first priority is to get as many P5 bowl games as possible. Once thats complete, then a decision needs to be made on option #2.

Obviously you'd rather have bowls vs P5 opponents. Trouble is, the P5 opponents would also rather have bowls vs P5 opponents.

I just sketched this out because there are rumors of CUSA working on Boca Raton at FIU; there was a project for a "Cure Bowl" at UCF, and UH has a new stadium soon. CUSA sends teams to 2 AAC-hosted bowls, AAC sends a team to 1 CUSA hosted bowl.

Quote:It's a basic question. Is it better to fill in the holes in the bowl line up with guaranteed slots in lower bowls vs non-descript mid-teir G5 opponents that might at least be in fun locations. Or--is it better to leave the top AAC teams uncommitted and sign a backup agreement to a pool of more prestigious P5 bowl games that will likely have openings once the selection committee fills the 6 available slots in the new CFP access bowls. Personally, I think the second option is best, but I think I'm in the minority on that.

If you can get the P5 backup option, do it.

I just see things playing out about like this:

AAC Things-Go-Well:
Birmingham vs SEC, Military vs ACC, St Pete vs ACC/CUSA, Armed Forces vs B10/B12
Marlins Bowl vs random G5, 1-2 more vs random G-5

AAC You're-Screwed (Birmingham ACC vs SEC)
Military vs ACC, Armed Forces vs B10/G5,
Marlins Bowl vs random G5, 3-4 random vs G5

I'm not saying Cougar Bowl vs CUSA instead of a P5 game. I'm saying Cougar Bowl vs CUSA instead of New Orleans Bowl vs Sun Belt, Cure Bowl vs CUSA instead of St Pete vs CUSA, Boca Raton Bowl vs CUSA instead of Little Caesars vs MAC.

Not sure if the Cougar Bowl beats the New Orleans Bowl (as New Orleans is a fantastic destination). Perhaps the Tulane Bowl (also a new stadium) might be a better head to head comparison. However, if its the Cougar Bowl vs the Little Rock Bowl or the Montgomery Bowl, then yeah---give me the Cougar Bowl.

I was thinking of the local sponsor dollars--I don;t know that New Orleans is big enough to support 3 bowl games. Houston is definitely big enough for two.

If anything, the R&L Carriers Bowl might move to Tulane's new stadium, with the Sun Belt and AAC having seats on the bowls' board of directors or something. But that locks you into a Sun Belt-AAC matchup sort-of-forever.

(08-03-2013 03:31 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-03-2013 02:24 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-03-2013 10:13 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-03-2013 09:44 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-03-2013 06:00 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  A lot of AAC fans are unhappy that the AAC doesn't have its bowl lineup together. But the only G5 conference that has most of its bowls set is the Mountain West, and they don't have their opponents set in most of their bowls.

So would it make sense for the AAC to make a deal with CUSA--AAC will send a team to the Boca Raton Bowl, while CUSA will send teams to bowls at Cougar Stadium and UCF's on-campus stadium?

Those 3 would all be minor bowls vs ho-hum opponents, but they're in good cities, and in 2019, the conference would control those bowls because they control the stadium.

Worth it, or not?

To answer your question, I think it probably makes sense for the G5 to own thier own bowls. The bowl committees are expensive, wasteful, and really no longer serve a purpose. You don't need a $600k a year bowl director with a staff to plan one game a year. Atheltic directiors make half that and plan hundreds of games and events a year.

A conference headquarters could easily handle the same function for 1-4 bowls much more efficiently. A former college AD would likely be a good addition to the staff to handle this function. That would eliminate about 1 million in expenses for each bowl and provide a better experience for the conference, athletes, and fans. Additionally, that extra 1-4 million a year would flow to the athletic departments of the conference rather than to bowl fat cats.

As for organizing bowls vs CUSA or other G5 conferences, I suspect some of that might happen, but its not a big priority. The first priority is to get as many P5 bowl games as possible. Once thats complete, then a decision needs to be made on option #2.

Obviously you'd rather have bowls vs P5 opponents. Trouble is, the P5 opponents would also rather have bowls vs P5 opponents.

I just sketched this out because there are rumors of CUSA working on Boca Raton at FIU; there was a project for a "Cure Bowl" at UCF, and UH has a new stadium soon. CUSA sends teams to 2 AAC-hosted bowls, AAC sends a team to 1 CUSA hosted bowl.

Quote:It's a basic question. Is it better to fill in the holes in the bowl line up with guaranteed slots in lower bowls vs non-descript mid-teir G5 opponents that might at least be in fun locations. Or--is it better to leave the top AAC teams uncommitted and sign a backup agreement to a pool of more prestigious P5 bowl games that will likely have openings once the selection committee fills the 6 available slots in the new CFP access bowls. Personally, I think the second option is best, but I think I'm in the minority on that.

If you can get the P5 backup option, do it.

I just see things playing out about like this:

AAC Things-Go-Well:
Birmingham vs SEC, Military vs ACC, St Pete vs ACC/CUSA, Armed Forces vs B10/B12
Marlins Bowl vs random G5, 1-2 more vs random G-5

AAC You're-Screwed (Birmingham ACC vs SEC)
Military vs ACC, Armed Forces vs B10/G5,
Marlins Bowl vs random G5, 3-4 random vs G5

I'm not saying Cougar Bowl vs CUSA instead of a P5 game. I'm saying Cougar Bowl vs CUSA instead of New Orleans Bowl vs Sun Belt, Cure Bowl vs CUSA instead of St Pete vs CUSA, Boca Raton Bowl vs CUSA instead of Little Caesars vs MAC.

Not sure if the Cougar Bowl beats the New Orleans Bowl (as New Orleans is a fantastic destination). Perhaps the Tulane Bowl (also a new stadium) might be a better head to head comparison. However, if its the Cougar Bowl vs the Little Rock Bowl or the Montgomery Bowl, then yeah---give me the Cougar Bowl.

I was thinking of the local sponsor dollars--I don;t know that New Orleans is big enough to support 3 bowl games. Houston is definitely big enough for two.

If anything, the R&L Carriers Bowl might move to Tulane's new stadium, with the Sun Belt and AAC having seats on the bowls' board of directors or something. But that locks you into a Sun Belt-AAC matchup sort-of-forever.

Your probably talking about where your sending your bottom bowl qualifier---a 6-6 or 7-6 team. Is there that much difference between a 7-6 CUSA team and a 7-6 Sunbelt team? I doubt theres enough difference to matter much. I'd rather take the Sunbelt team in New Orleans than the CUSA team in lesser location. As the bottom bowl in the line-up---you could do worse.

(08-03-2013 03:55 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Your probably talking about where your sending your bottom bowl qualifier---a 6-6 or 7-6 team. Is there that much difference between a 7-6 CUSA team and a 7-6 Sunbelt team?

I don't think so, but the consensus of the AAC board was that if the Sun Belt champion wasn't in New Orleans, they'd rather have flaming groin rot than have that bowl.

Quote:I doubt theres enough difference to matter much. I'd rather take the Sunbelt team in New Orleans than the CUSA team in lesser location. As the bottom bowl in the line-up---you could do worse.

The advantage of the Cougar Bowl over the New Orleans Bowl in the Superdome is that, at the end of the bowl cycle, the power conferences can't come in and jack the Cougar Bowl away from you the way they did the Belk, Pinstripe etc.

And if the Marlins Bowl happens, and succeeds, chances are that when the contracts come up again, it becomes an ACC vs PAC bowl or something.

(08-03-2013 04:01 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-03-2013 03:55 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Your probably talking about where your sending your bottom bowl qualifier---a 6-6 or 7-6 team. Is there that much difference between a 7-6 CUSA team and a 7-6 Sunbelt team?

I don't think so, but the consensus of the AAC board was that if the Sun Belt champion wasn't in New Orleans, they'd rather have flaming groin rot than have that bowl.

Quote:I doubt theres enough difference to matter much. I'd rather take the Sunbelt team in New Orleans than the CUSA team in lesser location. As the bottom bowl in the line-up---you could do worse.

The advantage of the Cougar Bowl over the New Orleans Bowl in the Superdome is that, at the end of the bowl cycle, the power conferences can't come in and jack the Cougar Bowl away from you the way they did the Belk, Pinstripe etc.

And if the Marlins Bowl happens, and succeeds, chances are that when the contracts come up again, it becomes an ACC vs PAC bowl or something.

That's why I'd look to move the bowl to Tulanes stadium or just start a new one. The way I understand it, as long as there are enough teams to fill it, a bowl just needs to get 2 conferences to agree to it (assuming that both conferences are certified to have enough bowl qualified teams to fill the bowl). Beyond that, the new bowl need only meet the other NCAA financial criteria to be approved.

(08-03-2013 04:28 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-03-2013 04:01 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-03-2013 03:55 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Your probably talking about where your sending your bottom bowl qualifier---a 6-6 or 7-6 team. Is there that much difference between a 7-6 CUSA team and a 7-6 Sunbelt team?

I don't think so, but the consensus of the AAC board was that if the Sun Belt champion wasn't in New Orleans, they'd rather have flaming groin rot than have that bowl.

Quote:I doubt theres enough difference to matter much. I'd rather take the Sunbelt team in New Orleans than the CUSA team in lesser location. As the bottom bowl in the line-up---you could do worse.

The advantage of the Cougar Bowl over the New Orleans Bowl in the Superdome is that, at the end of the bowl cycle, the power conferences can't come in and jack the Cougar Bowl away from you the way they did the Belk, Pinstripe etc.

And if the Marlins Bowl happens, and succeeds, chances are that when the contracts come up again, it becomes an ACC vs PAC bowl or something.

That's why I'd look to move the bowl to Tulanes stadium or just start a new one. The way I understand it, as long as there are enough teams to fill it, a bowl just needs to get 2 conferences to agree to it (assuming that both conferences are certified to have enough bowl qualified teams to fill the bowl). Beyond that, the new bowl need only meet the other NCAA financial criteria to be approved.

There are other requirements (or at least there were), but every "possible bowl" I've seen has been most hazy on who was going to play in it. I figure if two conferences commit to send teams to a stadium who wants to host the game, everything else falls into place.

(08-03-2013 06:54 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-03-2013 04:28 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-03-2013 04:01 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-03-2013 03:55 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Your probably talking about where your sending your bottom bowl qualifier---a 6-6 or 7-6 team. Is there that much difference between a 7-6 CUSA team and a 7-6 Sunbelt team?

I don't think so, but the consensus of the AAC board was that if the Sun Belt champion wasn't in New Orleans, they'd rather have flaming groin rot than have that bowl.

Quote:I doubt theres enough difference to matter much. I'd rather take the Sunbelt team in New Orleans than the CUSA team in lesser location. As the bottom bowl in the line-up---you could do worse.

The advantage of the Cougar Bowl over the New Orleans Bowl in the Superdome is that, at the end of the bowl cycle, the power conferences can't come in and jack the Cougar Bowl away from you the way they did the Belk, Pinstripe etc.

And if the Marlins Bowl happens, and succeeds, chances are that when the contracts come up again, it becomes an ACC vs PAC bowl or something.

That's why I'd look to move the bowl to Tulanes stadium or just start a new one. The way I understand it, as long as there are enough teams to fill it, a bowl just needs to get 2 conferences to agree to it (assuming that both conferences are certified to have enough bowl qualified teams to fill the bowl). Beyond that, the new bowl need only meet the other NCAA financial criteria to be approved.

There are other requirements (or at least there were), but every "possible bowl" I've seen has been most hazy on who was going to play in it. I figure if two conferences commit to send teams to a stadium who wants to host the game, everything else falls into place.

Awhile back there was more to it--but the NCAA basically turned over the creation of bowls to the conferences. There's still things the NCAA certifies, but its mostly financial stuff. I think the bowl has to put up a million dollar bond and obtain a TV contract. There's some other things, but those are the major items.

Quote:

(08-03-2013 07:28 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  There are other requirements (or at least there were), but every "possible bowl" I've seen has been most hazy on who was going to play in it. I figure if two conferences commit to send teams to a stadium who wants to host the game, everything else falls into place.

Awhile back there was more to it--but the NCAA basically turned over the creation of bowls to the conferences. There's still things the NCAA certifies, but its mostly financial stuff. I think the bowl has to put up a million dollar bond and obtain a TV contract. There's some other things, but those are the major items.

IF the conferences want the bowl, they can post the bond. And if the game is scheduled, someone will put it on TV.