Just passing on info: I asked why the 2014 & 2016 tie-ins for the Beef O Brady Bowl for the ACC and the answer I was given is because those are the only years when the game is played after Christmas. With the ACC Championship game already the first or 2nd week of December, before Christmas is just too soon to know who goes to which bowls (and even though the ACCCG loser won't be in this bowl, it could be a trickle-down effect). So ultimately it was strictly an issue of timing.

(08-09-2013 10:33 PM)Bleeds_Purple Wrote:  Could the Miami bowl be where the ACC team is going the other four years they're not in St Pete? Beef bowl AAC vs ACC twice CUSA four times. Maimi Bowl AAC vs ACC four times and maybe BYU twice?

BYU 2 years - maybe - they are signed into the Poinsettia for 2 years and the LA Christmas Bowl for 2 years and also as the primary back up for that bowl too according to the slide show the Christmas Bowl is currently showing around.

(08-09-2013 11:36 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-09-2013 11:13 PM)PT_american Wrote:  

(08-09-2013 10:33 PM)Bleeds_Purple Wrote:  Could the Miami bowl be where the ACC team is going the other four years they're not in St Pete? Beef bowl AAC vs ACC twice CUSA four times. Maimi Bowl AAC vs ACC four times and maybe BYU twice?

I am pretty sure the ACC is done based on their news release. I am assuming there is a logical reason for having the 2 years guaranteed. Like maybe it has to do with the years they have a better shot of landing in the Capital One Bowl or soemthing. So they have 9 tie ins for 4 years and 10 tie ins for 2 of the years. The Miami bowl has to be against the Mountain West at this point. No one else seems to have anything left to offer. The ACC and Big 10 are done. Big 12 and SEC seem to be pretty much done and the PAC 12 only has their #8 left which in most years won't be filled.

Hard to say if that's right or wrong. The Pac-12 has only had 12 members since the 2011 season. They have played just two full football seasons as a 12 member league. They placed 7 teams in bowls in year #1 and 8 teams in year #2. That would tend to indicate they will be filling the slot 50% of the time, but realistically---who knows? The track record is way too short to generate any statistically relevant numbers.

They also had 2 BCS teams both years. With basically 6 at-larges instead of 3-4, the power conferences each figure to have 2 schools per year in the playoff bowls. So 6 after-CFP-bowls (Alamo, Holiday, Kraft, Sun, Arizona, Las Vegas) should be fine for the PAC, which plays a 9-game schedule. The PAC signing another bowl would be a lot like the SEC signing #11 or 12--they'll probably never fill it, but for the conference, why not?

(08-10-2013 07:32 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-09-2013 11:36 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-09-2013 11:13 PM)PT_american Wrote:  

(08-09-2013 10:33 PM)Bleeds_Purple Wrote:  Could the Miami bowl be where the ACC team is going the other four years they're not in St Pete? Beef bowl AAC vs ACC twice CUSA four times. Maimi Bowl AAC vs ACC four times and maybe BYU twice?

I am pretty sure the ACC is done based on their news release. I am assuming there is a logical reason for having the 2 years guaranteed. Like maybe it has to do with the years they have a better shot of landing in the Capital One Bowl or soemthing. So they have 9 tie ins for 4 years and 10 tie ins for 2 of the years. The Miami bowl has to be against the Mountain West at this point. No one else seems to have anything left to offer. The ACC and Big 10 are done. Big 12 and SEC seem to be pretty much done and the PAC 12 only has their #8 left which in most years won't be filled.

Hard to say if that's right or wrong. The Pac-12 has only had 12 members since the 2011 season. They have played just two full football seasons as a 12 member league. They placed 7 teams in bowls in year #1 and 8 teams in year #2. That would tend to indicate they will be filling the slot 50% of the time, but realistically---who knows? The track record is way too short to generate any statistically relevant numbers.

They also had 2 BCS teams both years. With basically 6 at-larges instead of 3-4, the power conferences each figure to have 2 schools per year in the playoff bowls. So 6 after-CFP-bowls (Alamo, Holiday, Kraft, Sun, Arizona, Las Vegas) should be fine for the PAC, which plays a 9-game schedule. The PAC signing another bowl would be a lot like the SEC signing #11 or 12--they'll probably never fill it, but for the conference, why not?

The PAC-12 has had 8 bowl eligible teams in 7 of the last 8 years without a guaranteed bowl for that team to go too. With the LA Christmas Bowl becoming a reality with the PAC-12 as an anchor don't look for them to be coming east for Florida Bowls unless they are in the Orange Bowl play off system. Thought they might commit their number 8 to the Aresco Bowl but it looks like the LA Christmas Bowl has nabbed them with the MWC and BYU (2 of 6 years). BYU is also listed as the primary backup but may be the Aresco bowl can get them for 2 years (their other rotations would be the Poinsettia 2 years and the LA Christmas Bowl 2 years), along with the ACC the four years they are not in the Beef O'Brady Bowl. The B-10 and B-12 are also looking to for a home the 3 years they are not rotating through the Armed Forces Bowl too. There are still lots of P-5 and BYU options for the Aresco Bowl with the PAC-12 going to the LA Christmas Bowl.

I never thought the PAC was a good opponent for the Miami Aresco Bowl. The PAC is not well known for traveling well and you are asking them to travel cross country to play the AAC in some small bowl.
More likely to see the ACC there the four years they aren't in ST Pete

(08-10-2013 08:36 AM)Cubanbull Wrote:  I never thought the PAC was a good opponent for the Miami Aresco Bowl. The PAC is not well known for traveling well and you are asking them to travel cross country to play the AAC in some small bowl.
More likely to see the ACC there the four years they aren't in ST Pete

Have only seen the PAC-12 on the east coast at the Military Bowl when UCLA played Temple. Believe most of the fans were from Temple plus what ever local ticket sales that might have drawn interest. Don't think there is a large PAC-12 alumni base on the east coast to sell tickets too.

(08-10-2013 08:19 AM)panite Wrote:  

(08-10-2013 07:32 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-09-2013 11:36 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-09-2013 11:13 PM)PT_american Wrote:  

(08-09-2013 10:33 PM)Bleeds_Purple Wrote:  Could the Miami bowl be where the ACC team is going the other four years they're not in St Pete? Beef bowl AAC vs ACC twice CUSA four times. Maimi Bowl AAC vs ACC four times and maybe BYU twice?

I am pretty sure the ACC is done based on their news release. I am assuming there is a logical reason for having the 2 years guaranteed. Like maybe it has to do with the years they have a better shot of landing in the Capital One Bowl or soemthing. So they have 9 tie ins for 4 years and 10 tie ins for 2 of the years. The Miami bowl has to be against the Mountain West at this point. No one else seems to have anything left to offer. The ACC and Big 10 are done. Big 12 and SEC seem to be pretty much done and the PAC 12 only has their #8 left which in most years won't be filled.

Hard to say if that's right or wrong. The Pac-12 has only had 12 members since the 2011 season. They have played just two full football seasons as a 12 member league. They placed 7 teams in bowls in year #1 and 8 teams in year #2. That would tend to indicate they will be filling the slot 50% of the time, but realistically---who knows? The track record is way too short to generate any statistically relevant numbers.

They also had 2 BCS teams both years. With basically 6 at-larges instead of 3-4, the power conferences each figure to have 2 schools per year in the playoff bowls. So 6 after-CFP-bowls (Alamo, Holiday, Kraft, Sun, Arizona, Las Vegas) should be fine for the PAC, which plays a 9-game schedule. The PAC signing another bowl would be a lot like the SEC signing #11 or 12--they'll probably never fill it, but for the conference, why not?

The PAC-12 has had 8 bowl eligible teams in 7 of the last 8 years without a guaranteed bowl for that team to go too. With the LA Christmas Bowl becoming a reality with the PAC-12 as an anchor don't look for them to be coming east for Florida Bowls unless they are in the Orange Bowl play off system. Thought they might commit their number 8 to the Aresco Bowl but it looks like the LA Christmas Bowl has nabbed them with the MWC and BYU (2 of 6 years). BYU is also listed as the primary backup but may be the Aresco bowl can get them for 2 years (their other rotations would be the Poinsettia 2 years and the LA Christmas Bowl 2 years), along with the ACC the four years they are not in the Beef O'Brady Bowl. The B-10 and B-12 are also looking to for a home the 3 years they are not rotating through the Armed Forces Bowl too. There are still lots of P-5 and BYU options for the Aresco Bowl with the PAC-12 going to the LA Christmas Bowl.

The Christmas Bowl has indicated that the slide show you keep referencing is just a proposal. There have been no commitments and, it should be noted, the PAC-12 and MW rejected the exact same proposal back in June (reported in multiple publications). Nothing in that proposal is agreed to. In fact, this same web based slide show had the AAC as the anchor conference just a week ago. That slide show means nothing.

(08-10-2013 07:32 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-09-2013 11:36 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-09-2013 11:13 PM)PT_american Wrote:  

(08-09-2013 10:33 PM)Bleeds_Purple Wrote:  Could the Miami bowl be where the ACC team is going the other four years they're not in St Pete? Beef bowl AAC vs ACC twice CUSA four times. Maimi Bowl AAC vs ACC four times and maybe BYU twice?

I am pretty sure the ACC is done based on their news release. I am assuming there is a logical reason for having the 2 years guaranteed. Like maybe it has to do with the years they have a better shot of landing in the Capital One Bowl or soemthing. So they have 9 tie ins for 4 years and 10 tie ins for 2 of the years. The Miami bowl has to be against the Mountain West at this point. No one else seems to have anything left to offer. The ACC and Big 10 are done. Big 12 and SEC seem to be pretty much done and the PAC 12 only has their #8 left which in most years won't be filled.

Hard to say if that's right or wrong. The Pac-12 has only had 12 members since the 2011 season. They have played just two full football seasons as a 12 member league. They placed 7 teams in bowls in year #1 and 8 teams in year #2. That would tend to indicate they will be filling the slot 50% of the time, but realistically---who knows? The track record is way too short to generate any statistically relevant numbers.

They also had 2 BCS teams both years. With basically 6 at-larges instead of 3-4, the power conferences each figure to have 2 schools per year in the playoff bowls. So 6 after-CFP-bowls (Alamo, Holiday, Kraft, Sun, Arizona, Las Vegas) should be fine for the PAC, which plays a 9-game schedule. The PAC signing another bowl would be a lot like the SEC signing #11 or 12--they'll probably never fill it, but for the conference, why not?

This was my point. Only once over the last 7 years has the PAC-12 had more than 8 teams bowl eligible. With 7 tie ins and a high probability they get either a team into the playoff or another access bowl this PAC-12 #8 will go unfilled the majority of the time. In this case 6 out of the last 7 years. So it holds little value to anyone. Makes sense for them since they will have a slot locked up for that 1 year they do have an extra team. But really no major loss for the conferences trying to get that tie in. The American really needs to have a good bowl against a top 2 or 3 MWC team since they will likely be ranked and a worthy opponent. The trick is a location that both fan bases will travel too so the stadium isn't empty and a poor reflection on both conferences.

Well, this bowl will end up with the last ACC team to squeak into the bowl picture (someone like Duke or Wake, if either manages to get six wins). The ONLY reason it will be better to play either than the C-USA champ, is because that league will be depleted beyond belief by then, with USM being the only good FB program remaining.

(08-10-2013 09:17 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-10-2013 08:19 AM)panite Wrote:  

(08-10-2013 07:32 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-09-2013 11:36 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-09-2013 11:13 PM)PT_american Wrote:  I am pretty sure the ACC is done based on their news release. I am assuming there is a logical reason for having the 2 years guaranteed. Like maybe it has to do with the years they have a better shot of landing in the Capital One Bowl or soemthing. So they have 9 tie ins for 4 years and 10 tie ins for 2 of the years. The Miami bowl has to be against the Mountain West at this point. No one else seems to have anything left to offer. The ACC and Big 10 are done. Big 12 and SEC seem to be pretty much done and the PAC 12 only has their #8 left which in most years won't be filled.

Hard to say if that's right or wrong. The Pac-12 has only had 12 members since the 2011 season. They have played just two full football seasons as a 12 member league. They placed 7 teams in bowls in year #1 and 8 teams in year #2. That would tend to indicate they will be filling the slot 50% of the time, but realistically---who knows? The track record is way too short to generate any statistically relevant numbers.

They also had 2 BCS teams both years. With basically 6 at-larges instead of 3-4, the power conferences each figure to have 2 schools per year in the playoff bowls. So 6 after-CFP-bowls (Alamo, Holiday, Kraft, Sun, Arizona, Las Vegas) should be fine for the PAC, which plays a 9-game schedule. The PAC signing another bowl would be a lot like the SEC signing #11 or 12--they'll probably never fill it, but for the conference, why not?

The PAC-12 has had 8 bowl eligible teams in 7 of the last 8 years without a guaranteed bowl for that team to go too. With the LA Christmas Bowl becoming a reality with the PAC-12 as an anchor don't look for them to be coming east for Florida Bowls unless they are in the Orange Bowl play off system. Thought they might commit their number 8 to the Aresco Bowl but it looks like the LA Christmas Bowl has nabbed them with the MWC and BYU (2 of 6 years). BYU is also listed as the primary backup but may be the Aresco bowl can get them for 2 years (their other rotations would be the Poinsettia 2 years and the LA Christmas Bowl 2 years), along with the ACC the four years they are not in the Beef O'Brady Bowl. The B-10 and B-12 are also looking to for a home the 3 years they are not rotating through the Armed Forces Bowl too. There are still lots of P-5 and BYU options for the Aresco Bowl with the PAC-12 going to the LA Christmas Bowl.

The Christmas Bowl has indicated that the slide show you keep referencing is just a proposal. There have been no commitments and, it should be noted, the PAC-12 and MW rejected the exact same proposal back in June (reported in multiple publications). Nothing in that proposal is agreed to. In fact, this same web based slide show had the AAC as the anchor conference just a week ago. That slide show means nothing.

Coug: I noticed you've posted multiple times that the Christmas Bowl has not been signed with the PAC and MWC. I'm assuming you care about this, and don't want those rumors to become true. What is it that you hope for? AAC in the Christmas Bowl? AAC vs PAC #8 in the Aresco Bowl? Not being a jerk, just want to know what you would rather see play out? My opinion: I myself am not in favor of the Christmas Bowl for ANYONE at all. I just don't think it'll be a good bowl.

(08-10-2013 05:56 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Just passing on info: I asked why the 2014 & 2016 tie-ins for the Beef O Brady Bowl for the ACC and the answer I was given is because those are the only years when the game is played after Christmas. With the ACC Championship game already the first or 2nd week of December, before Christmas is just too soon to know who goes to which bowls (and even though the ACCCG loser won't be in this bowl, it could be a trickle-down effect). So ultimately it was strictly an issue of timing.

Thx for the info...

(08-10-2013 11:21 AM)PT_american Wrote:  

(08-10-2013 07:32 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-09-2013 11:36 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-09-2013 11:13 PM)PT_american Wrote:  

(08-09-2013 10:33 PM)Bleeds_Purple Wrote:  Could the Miami bowl be where the ACC team is going the other four years they're not in St Pete? Beef bowl AAC vs ACC twice CUSA four times. Maimi Bowl AAC vs ACC four times and maybe BYU twice?

I am pretty sure the ACC is done based on their news release. I am assuming there is a logical reason for having the 2 years guaranteed. Like maybe it has to do with the years they have a better shot of landing in the Capital One Bowl or soemthing. So they have 9 tie ins for 4 years and 10 tie ins for 2 of the years. The Miami bowl has to be against the Mountain West at this point. No one else seems to have anything left to offer. The ACC and Big 10 are done. Big 12 and SEC seem to be pretty much done and the PAC 12 only has their #8 left which in most years won't be filled.

Hard to say if that's right or wrong. The Pac-12 has only had 12 members since the 2011 season. They have played just two full football seasons as a 12 member league. They placed 7 teams in bowls in year #1 and 8 teams in year #2. That would tend to indicate they will be filling the slot 50% of the time, but realistically---who knows? The track record is way too short to generate any statistically relevant numbers.

They also had 2 BCS teams both years. With basically 6 at-larges instead of 3-4, the power conferences each figure to have 2 schools per year in the playoff bowls. So 6 after-CFP-bowls (Alamo, Holiday, Kraft, Sun, Arizona, Las Vegas) should be fine for the PAC, which plays a 9-game schedule. The PAC signing another bowl would be a lot like the SEC signing #11 or 12--they'll probably never fill it, but for the conference, why not?

This was my point. Only once over the last 7 years has the PAC-12 had more than 8 teams bowl eligible. With 7 tie ins and a high probability they get either a team into the playoff or another access bowl this PAC-12 #8 will go unfilled the majority of the time. In this case 6 out of the last 7 years. So it holds little value to anyone. Makes sense for them since they will have a slot locked up for that 1 year they do have an extra team. But really no major loss for the conferences trying to get that tie in. The American really needs to have a good bowl against a top 2 or 3 MWC team since they will likely be ranked and a worthy opponent. The trick is a location that both fan bases will travel too so the stadium isn't empty and a poor reflection on both conferences.

http://image.slidesharecdn.com/2014-19la...1375914089

Pac-12 Bowl Eligible Teams:

2006 - 9
2007 - 8
2008 - 6
2009 - 8
2010 - 6
2011 - 8
2012 - 8

Most years the PAC-12 will fill the Christmas Bowl which appears to be the replacement for the New Mexico Bowl. More press, smoke and fire on this bowl than the Aresco Bowl.

Rose
Vegas
Holiday
Buffalo Wild Wings
Sun
Alamo
Kraft
LA Christmas Bowl / New Mexico Replacement

The Aresco bowl will have to get the B-10/B12 three years each, or the ACC - 4 years and BYU 2 years, or any combination of all of them. Be nice to see more info on this bowl to see where it really stands right now. Aresco seems to hold everything back until the deals are done though.

(08-11-2013 08:43 AM)panite Wrote:  

(08-10-2013 11:21 AM)PT_american Wrote:  

(08-10-2013 07:32 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-09-2013 11:36 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-09-2013 11:13 PM)PT_american Wrote:  I am pretty sure the ACC is done based on their news release. I am assuming there is a logical reason for having the 2 years guaranteed. Like maybe it has to do with the years they have a better shot of landing in the Capital One Bowl or soemthing. So they have 9 tie ins for 4 years and 10 tie ins for 2 of the years. The Miami bowl has to be against the Mountain West at this point. No one else seems to have anything left to offer. The ACC and Big 10 are done. Big 12 and SEC seem to be pretty much done and the PAC 12 only has their #8 left which in most years won't be filled.

Hard to say if that's right or wrong. The Pac-12 has only had 12 members since the 2011 season. They have played just two full football seasons as a 12 member league. They placed 7 teams in bowls in year #1 and 8 teams in year #2. That would tend to indicate they will be filling the slot 50% of the time, but realistically---who knows? The track record is way too short to generate any statistically relevant numbers.

They also had 2 BCS teams both years. With basically 6 at-larges instead of 3-4, the power conferences each figure to have 2 schools per year in the playoff bowls. So 6 after-CFP-bowls (Alamo, Holiday, Kraft, Sun, Arizona, Las Vegas) should be fine for the PAC, which plays a 9-game schedule. The PAC signing another bowl would be a lot like the SEC signing #11 or 12--they'll probably never fill it, but for the conference, why not?

This was my point. Only once over the last 7 years has the PAC-12 had more than 8 teams bowl eligible. With 7 tie ins and a high probability they get either a team into the playoff or another access bowl this PAC-12 #8 will go unfilled the majority of the time. In this case 6 out of the last 7 years. So it holds little value to anyone. Makes sense for them since they will have a slot locked up for that 1 year they do have an extra team. But really no major loss for the conferences trying to get that tie in. The American really needs to have a good bowl against a top 2 or 3 MWC team since they will likely be ranked and a worthy opponent. The trick is a location that both fan bases will travel too so the stadium isn't empty and a poor reflection on both conferences.

http://image.slidesharecdn.com/2014-19la...1375914089

Pac-12 Bowl Eligible Teams:

2006 - 9 Bazinga!
2007 - 8 Bazinga!
2008 - 6
2009 - 8 Bazinga!
2010 - 6 2 in the BCS
2011 - 8 2 in the BCS, so no PAC #8
2012 - 8 2 in the BCS, so no PAC #8

Most years the PAC-12 will fill the Christmas Bowl which appears to be the replacement for the New Mexico Bowl. More press, smoke and fire on this bowl than the Aresco Bowl.

3/7 is more than I thought, actually.

Wasn't the Pac 12 really the Pac 10 until Utah and CO recently joined? That could affect their # of bowl-eligible teams.

(08-11-2013 01:53 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Wasn't the Pac 12 really the Pac 10 until Utah and CO recently joined? That could affect their # of bowl-eligible teams.

(08-11-2013 01:53 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Wasn't the Pac 12 really the Pac 10 until Utah and CO recently joined? That could affect their # of bowl-eligible teams.

Yes---2011 was the first year for 12 teams in the Pac-12.

(08-11-2013 08:43 AM)panite Wrote:  

(08-10-2013 11:21 AM)PT_american Wrote:  

(08-10-2013 07:32 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-09-2013 11:36 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-09-2013 11:13 PM)PT_american Wrote:  I am pretty sure the ACC is done based on their news release. I am assuming there is a logical reason for having the 2 years guaranteed. Like maybe it has to do with the years they have a better shot of landing in the Capital One Bowl or soemthing. So they have 9 tie ins for 4 years and 10 tie ins for 2 of the years. The Miami bowl has to be against the Mountain West at this point. No one else seems to have anything left to offer. The ACC and Big 10 are done. Big 12 and SEC seem to be pretty much done and the PAC 12 only has their #8 left which in most years won't be filled.

Hard to say if that's right or wrong. The Pac-12 has only had 12 members since the 2011 season. They have played just two full football seasons as a 12 member league. They placed 7 teams in bowls in year #1 and 8 teams in year #2. That would tend to indicate they will be filling the slot 50% of the time, but realistically---who knows? The track record is way too short to generate any statistically relevant numbers.

They also had 2 BCS teams both years. With basically 6 at-larges instead of 3-4, the power conferences each figure to have 2 schools per year in the playoff bowls. So 6 after-CFP-bowls (Alamo, Holiday, Kraft, Sun, Arizona, Las Vegas) should be fine for the PAC, which plays a 9-game schedule. The PAC signing another bowl would be a lot like the SEC signing #11 or 12--they'll probably never fill it, but for the conference, why not?

This was my point. Only once over the last 7 years has the PAC-12 had more than 8 teams bowl eligible. With 7 tie ins and a high probability they get either a team into the playoff or another access bowl this PAC-12 #8 will go unfilled the majority of the time. In this case 6 out of the last 7 years. So it holds little value to anyone. Makes sense for them since they will have a slot locked up for that 1 year they do have an extra team. But really no major loss for the conferences trying to get that tie in. The American really needs to have a good bowl against a top 2 or 3 MWC team since they will likely be ranked and a worthy opponent. The trick is a location that both fan bases will travel too so the stadium isn't empty and a poor reflection on both conferences.

http://image.slidesharecdn.com/2014-19la...1375914089

Pac-12 Bowl Eligible Teams:

2006 - 9
2007 - 8
2008 - 6
2009 - 8
2010 - 6
2011 - 8
2012 - 8

Most years the PAC-12 will fill the Christmas Bowl which appears to be the replacement for the New Mexico Bowl. More press, smoke and fire on this bowl than the Aresco Bowl.

Rose
Vegas
Holiday
Buffalo Wild Wings
Sun
Alamo
Kraft
LA Christmas Bowl / New Mexico Replacement

The Aresco bowl will have to get the B-10/B12 three years each, or the ACC - 4 years and BYU 2 years, or any combination of all of them. Be nice to see more info on this bowl to see where it really stands right now. Aresco seems to hold everything back until the deals are done though.

Your assumption doesn't reflect the additional games that will be party of the playoff. So it is likely they will have an additional game above the Rose bowl which would mean they only fill the Christmas Bowl once in the last 7 years if you assume they land that spot. I think the committee will divide the slots in some equal manner so the power 5 are all equally represented to some degree. So maybe 2 spots each with what everyone thinks is the strongest conference getting a 3rd slot which bases on recent history would be the SEC.

(08-11-2013 03:58 PM)PT_american Wrote:  

(08-11-2013 08:43 AM)panite Wrote:  

(08-10-2013 11:21 AM)PT_american Wrote:  

(08-10-2013 07:32 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-09-2013 11:36 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Hard to say if that's right or wrong. The Pac-12 has only had 12 members since the 2011 season. They have played just two full football seasons as a 12 member league. They placed 7 teams in bowls in year #1 and 8 teams in year #2. That would tend to indicate they will be filling the slot 50% of the time, but realistically---who knows? The track record is way too short to generate any statistically relevant numbers.

They also had 2 BCS teams both years. With basically 6 at-larges instead of 3-4, the power conferences each figure to have 2 schools per year in the playoff bowls. So 6 after-CFP-bowls (Alamo, Holiday, Kraft, Sun, Arizona, Las Vegas) should be fine for the PAC, which plays a 9-game schedule. The PAC signing another bowl would be a lot like the SEC signing #11 or 12--they'll probably never fill it, but for the conference, why not?

This was my point. Only once over the last 7 years has the PAC-12 had more than 8 teams bowl eligible. With 7 tie ins and a high probability they get either a team into the playoff or another access bowl this PAC-12 #8 will go unfilled the majority of the time. In this case 6 out of the last 7 years. So it holds little value to anyone. Makes sense for them since they will have a slot locked up for that 1 year they do have an extra team. But really no major loss for the conferences trying to get that tie in. The American really needs to have a good bowl against a top 2 or 3 MWC team since they will likely be ranked and a worthy opponent. The trick is a location that both fan bases will travel too so the stadium isn't empty and a poor reflection on both conferences.

http://image.slidesharecdn.com/2014-19la...1375914089

Pac-12 Bowl Eligible Teams:

2006 - 9
2007 - 8
2008 - 6
2009 - 8
2010 - 6
2011 - 8
2012 - 8

Most years the PAC-12 will fill the Christmas Bowl which appears to be the replacement for the New Mexico Bowl. More press, smoke and fire on this bowl than the Aresco Bowl.

Rose
Vegas
Holiday
Buffalo Wild Wings
Sun
Alamo
Kraft
LA Christmas Bowl / New Mexico Replacement

The Aresco bowl will have to get the B-10/B12 three years each, or the ACC - 4 years and BYU 2 years, or any combination of all of them. Be nice to see more info on this bowl to see where it really stands right now. Aresco seems to hold everything back until the deals are done though.

Your assumption doesn't reflect the additional games that will be party of the playoff. So it is likely they will have an additional game above the Rose bowl which would mean they only fill the Christmas Bowl once in the last 7 years if you assume they land that spot. I think the committee will divide the slots in some equal manner so the power 5 are all equally represented to some degree. So maybe 2 spots each with what everyone thinks is the strongest conference getting a 3rd slot which bases on recent history would be the SEC.

That's where I'm having a problem seeing where the Marlins Bowl is going to fit in (one writer even said it would be our top bowl). A Pac-12 tie would be nice, but its also going to be very hit and miss. Basically, its the same story with all the Power conferences at this point. You're looking at the bottom of the barrel. The ACC has already announced their ties--so there are no more ACC teams to be had. That means either a bottom bowl qualified school from SEC, B1G, or Big-12 would be all that's still out there.

Unless Aresco can somehow get the Marlins Bowl in position to be part of the same bowl pool as the Liberty, Belk, Music City---then I don't see how the Marlins Bowl could be a number one bowl. Frankly, unless it can sign a deal with several P-5 conferences to back each other up with their bottom picks, then even having ANY P-5 team in the bowl would be a fairly dicey.

Other than Oregon who from the PAC 12 is ever going to finish in the top 4?

They wont make the playoffs that often.

(08-11-2013 02:12 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(08-11-2013 01:53 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Wasn't the Pac 12 really the Pac 10 until Utah and CO recently joined? That could affect their # of bowl-eligible teams.

Yeah, you know I'm old enough to recall the Pac 8.

I was just referencing the years on his list. Cool pic, though.