Buck the system!

In all seriousness, the G5, Notre Dame, BYU, and Army should move an existing G5 bowl game to December 31 or January 1 or create a new bowl that is outside of the NY6, that can select the best remaining from the group.

In most seasons, the bowl game would pair ranked teams for an exciting game. Go to CBS, FOX, or even NBC and get this bowl game on Network television. This bowl game could and would compete with the non-CFP NY6 bowl games.

So far in 2014, Notre Dame is ranked #9, but is predicted to play UNranked Oregon St. in the Sun Bowl. Instead, the matchup could be: #9 Notre Dame v. #21 BYU, with ECU, Cincy, Marshall, or N. Illinois as the likely NY6 candidates or NY"7" replacements if Notre Dame or BYU falter.

Here's what the games would have looked like in recent seasons:

2013 - #18 Louisville v. 20 Fresno St.
(#15 Central Florida still to the Fiesta Bowl)
[N. Illinois was also ranked]
- Louisville played unranked Miami in the Russell Athletics Bowl. Cincinnati would have played here instead.
- Fresno St. played USC in the Las Vegas Bowl. Utah St. or Boise St. would have played here instead.

2012 - #19 Boise St. v. #21 Louisville
(#1 Notre Dame to the CFP, #15 N. Illinois to NY6)
[Utah St., San Jose St., and Kent St. were also all ranked]
- Louisville played Florida in the Sugar Bowl, but that wouldn't happen under the current system
- Boise St. played unranked Washington in the Las Vegas Bowl. Utah St. or SJSU would have played in the Las Vegas Bowl instead

2011 - #18 TCU v. #19 Houston
(#7 Boise St. to NY6)
[#21 S. Miss and #23 W. Virginia also ranked]

2010 - #10 Boise St. v. #15 Nevada
(#3 TCU to the CFP or NY6)
[#19 Utah, #22 W. Virginia, #24 Hawaii, and #25 Central Florida also ranked]

2009 - #15 BYU v. #17 Pitt
(#3 TCU, #4 Cincinnati, and #6 Boise St. to CFP or NY6)
[#18 W. Virginia, #23 Utah, and #25 C. Michigan also ranked]

Or, you could even take a couple of bowl games and rotate them. Because it's brand new, the Miami Beach Bowl could be a candidate. There was also talk of a Los Angeles "Christmas" Bowl involving the MWC and BYU. You could alternate venues each season.

What do you think?

(09-19-2014 03:42 PM)YNot Wrote:  Buck the system!

In all seriousness, the G5, Notre Dame, BYU, and Army should move an existing G5 bowl game to December 31 or January 1 or create a new bowl that is outside of the NY6, that can select the best remaining from the group.

In most seasons, the bowl game would pair ranked teams for an exciting game. Go to CBS, FOX, or even NBC and get this bowl game on Network television. This bowl game could and would compete with the non-CFP NY6 bowl games.

So far in 2014, Notre Dame is ranked #9, but is predicted to play UNranked Oregon St. in the Sun Bowl. Instead, the matchup could be: #9 Notre Dame v. #21 BYU, with ECU, Cincy, Marshall, or N. Illinois as the likely NY6 candidates or NY"7" replacements if Notre Dame or BYU falter.

Here's what the games would have looked like in recent seasons:

2013 - #18 Louisville v. 20 Fresno St.
(#15 Central Florida still to the Fiesta Bowl)
[N. Illinois was also ranked]
- Louisville played unranked Miami in the Russell Athletics Bowl. Cincinnati would have played here instead.
- Fresno St. played USC in the Las Vegas Bowl. Utah St. or Boise St. would have played here instead.

2012 - #19 Boise St. v. #21 Louisville
(#1 Notre Dame to the CFP, #15 N. Illinois to NY6)
[Utah St., San Jose St., and Kent St. were also all ranked]
- Louisville played Florida in the Sugar Bowl, but that wouldn't happen under the current system
- Boise St. played unranked Washington in the Las Vegas Bowl. Utah St. or SJSU would have played in the Las Vegas Bowl instead

2011 - #18 TCU v. #19 Houston
(#7 Boise St. to NY6)
[#21 S. Miss and #23 W. Virginia also ranked]

2010 - #10 Boise St. v. #15 Nevada
(#3 TCU to the CFP or NY6)
[#19 Utah, #22 W. Virginia, #24 Hawaii, and #25 Central Florida also ranked]

2009 - #15 BYU v. #17 Pitt
(#3 TCU, #4 Cincinnati, and #6 Boise St. to CFP or NY6)
[#18 W. Virginia, #23 Utah, and #25 C. Michigan also ranked]

Or, you could even take a couple of bowl games and rotate them. Because it's brand new, the Miami Beach Bowl could be a candidate. There was also talk of a Los Angeles "Christmas" Bowl involving the MWC and BYU. You could alternate venues each season.

What do you think?

Notre Dame will be tied to the ACC bowls--so they probably wouldn't be interested. I like the idea to a degree---but I'd rather develop a post season model for the G5 that guarantees a quality post season destination for every G5 champ. It's hard to get too excited about winning the conference when the payoff is an 80% chance you end up in a crappy Birmingham level bowl (which is no different than the bowl the 5th place finisher in your conference attends). The key is to develop a series of bowls that would be placed in the same pool as the Gator, Texas, Liberty, and Music City bowls. The key is to have your champ playing a 9-3 Oklahoma instead of a 6-6 Kentucky--or worse---a 7-6 Georgia St. The bowls you send your champs to need to be a showcase---not a generic McBowl.

If it were me, I wouldn't wait for the rest of the G5 to gel around this idea. If I was Aresco, I'd take 5 million of the realignment fund and set it aside as our "Champions Bowl Fund". Then, over the next 6 years, I would take one million a year of our share of The College Football Playoff money and add it to the fund. At the end of 6 years, when it's time to renegotiate bowl ties, the AAC would have 11 million dollars in the Champions Bowl Fund. I would use that money to beef up the Miami Bowl payout enough to get it included in the same bowl pool as the Liberty, Gator, Texas, and Music City Bowls. That means the AAC would have a guaranteed signature post season destination for their champion EVERY year where the champ would meet a #3-5 selection from a power conference. Now that's how a champion should end a season---not playing in some McBowl vs a 6-6 team. As for the date it's played, if yo sell the rights to someone other than ESPN, you can play it any day you want.

Good point about Notre Dame. They're probably out.

I get the point about improving the bowl situation to which the champion is selected.

But, the current reality is:

- the American champ/runner-up gets an ACC also-ran (predicted Bitcoin and Military Bowl opponents are Boston College and UNC);
- the MWC champ/runner-up plays a PAC 12 also-ran (predicted Las Vegas Bowl opponent is Arizona);
-C-USA gets a Big Ten also-ran (predicted Heart of Dallas opponent is Michigan);
-MAC and Sun Belt champs play a MWC runner-up.

Those bowls are actually decent, but the ranked G5 deserve to play other ranked teams in the bowl season. The easiest, and likely only way, to have such matchups is to take matters into their own hands.

IMO, the American, MWC, MAC, C-USA, Sun Belt, BYU and Army could all get on board with this. May be the MWC would prefer to have its champion play in the Las Vegas Bowl against #5 PAC 12 if they're not selected for the NY6 bid. But, there would be at least two ranked teams from the best of the G5, BYU, and Army that could make it worthwhile.

So, if ECU or Cincinnati finishes as a ranked non-champ - they're ineligible for the NY6 spot - just perhaps a bowl matchup against ranked BYU or ranked Boise St. or 10-win Marshall or 10-win Northern Illinois might be more attractive than a bowl against 7-5 Boston College.

I have always pushed for this type of idea. My concern would be that the powers that control the playoff would incorporate this as part of the playoff and modify the ideal exclude a gang of five champion from playing a power five school in a major bowl games.

They could offer the the top two gang of five champions more money if they agree to play each other on seventh new years bowl game. This way they protect their 6 games while granting the G5 more money. The could also use this strategy in playoff expansion. The top five conference champions receive automatic bids to playoff leaving open three at-large bids. The top two conference champions not selected for the playoff will play each other in a "major" (or minor) new years bowl.

(09-19-2014 04:39 PM)YNot Wrote:  Good point about Notre Dame. They're probably out.

I get the point about improving the bowl situation to which the champion is selected.

But, the current reality is:

- the American champ/runner-up gets an ACC also-ran (predicted Bitcoin and Military Bowl opponents are Boston College and UNC);
- the MWC champ/runner-up plays a PAC 12 also-ran (predicted Las Vegas Bowl opponent is Arizona);
-C-USA gets a Big Ten also-ran (predicted Heart of Dallas opponent is Michigan);
-MAC and Sun Belt champs play a MWC runner-up.

Those bowls are actually decent, but the ranked G5 deserve to play other ranked teams in the bowl season. The easiest, and likely only way, to have such matchups is to take matters into their own hands.

IMO, the American, MWC, MAC, C-USA, Sun Belt, BYU and Army could all get on board with this. May be the MWC would prefer to have its champion play in the Las Vegas Bowl against #5 PAC 12 if they're not selected for the NY6 bid. But, there would be at least two ranked teams from the best of the G5, BYU, and Army that could make it worthwhile.

So, if ECU or Cincinnati finishes as a ranked non-champ - they're ineligible for the NY6 spot - just perhaps a bowl matchup against ranked BYU or ranked Boise St. or 10-win Marshall or 10-win Northern Illinois might be more attractive than a bowl against 7-5 Boston College.

I might be wrong, but I think the Las Vegas Bowl opponent is the #6 Pac-12 team.

Pretty sure the AAC would rather play a P5 ranked team. The question is--"Are they willing to pay for it?".

I actually think if the AAC would try to create another bowl, Atlanta would be the ideal place. Atlanta already has shown with Chik Fila they can host games Friday and Saturday all during Comicon. Since the Peach will be either Dec 31 or Jan 1, a second bowl game 2-3 days prior would be no issue.

(09-19-2014 06:19 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  I actually think if the AAC would try to create another bowl, Atlanta would be the ideal place. Atlanta already has shown with Chik Fila they can host games Friday and Saturday all during Comicon. Since the Peach will be either Dec 31 or Jan 1, a second bowl game 2-3 days prior would be no issue.

I think there's a rule that Access Bowl sites have to not have another bowl game within a week or so of the Access Bowl. I read something about that as why Orlando didn't bid. (That also means that the New Orleans and former Copper Bowls have to be early.)

Otherwise Atlanta would be a natural for a secondary bowl game 2 weeks after the SEC championship game.

Quote:“no other college football game shall be hosted at the venue within the seven-day periods preceding and following the game.”

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...ll-playoff

Well if Georgia St. gets Turner Field, that could be an option around that issue but I will say I remember the Peach Bowl in Fulton County Stadium. it was very wet and cold. :)

It could also make a lot of sense, next cycle to pick 2 G5-controlled bowls and set them up as champ vs champ games. MWC in Las Vegas, and the Cure Bowl or Miami Beach or maybe a bowl in Houston's or Tulane's stadium (NutraSweet Bowl?) Houston might be further west than you'd really like. Maybe a second Memphis or Nashville bowl?

Problem is you need at least 4 of 5 G5s to sign on.

Everything the P5 and networks, along with bowls did was to lift P5 up and drive down G5. Why would networks, or bowls, or ND for that matter want to lift any G5 or Byu to a better bowl?

(09-20-2014 09:01 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  Everything the P5 and networks, along with bowls did was to lift P5 up and drive down G5. Why would networks, or bowls, or ND for that matter want to lift any G5 or Byu to a better bowl?

The networks and bowls won't exactly help, and Notre Dame will not even return phone calls related to this plan. But the bowls have lost most of their power to the conferences and to ESPN, and I suspect that if the conferences arrange a bowl game, they'll line up a bowl committee and ESPN will televise it.

If you sold the plan as two "G5 Contract Bowls" you'd probably be able to hype the games up to the point where MWC #1 vs MAC/SBC/CUSA/AAC #1 would pay as much as MWC #1 vs PAC #6/7/8, as opposed to now when I don't think there's a perceived difference between Sun Belt #1 vs MAC #1 and CUSA 6-6 vs MAC 7-5.

Obstacles:

1 Getting the MWC and Las Vegas Bowl on board. Vegas Bowl will be reluctant to trade a 6-6 USC or Washington or Cal for a 10-3 Toledo or an 11-2 Arkansas State etc. Maybe the MWC slides their champion to the Poinsettia or an LA Christmas Bowl vs a G5 champ, but then will the PAC stay in Las Vegas to play the MWC #2?

2. Getting the AAC on board. Would the AAC prefer a G5 Contract Bowl to their champ playing the SEC in Birmingham or the ACC in Annapolis or St Petersburg or the Big Ten in the Heart of Dallas Bowl? Without the AAC, I don't think you get the MWC. And with 2 of the 5 G5 conferences out, I think the plan collapses.

(09-20-2014 09:28 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(09-20-2014 09:01 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  Everything the P5 and networks, along with bowls did was to lift P5 up and drive down G5. Why would networks, or bowls, or ND for that matter want to lift any G5 or Byu to a better bowl?

The networks and bowls won't exactly help, and Notre Dame will not even return phone calls related to this plan. But the bowls have lost most of their power to the conferences and to ESPN, and I suspect that if the conferences arrange a bowl game, they'll line up a bowl committee and ESPN will televise it.

If you sold the plan as two "G5 Contract Bowls" you'd probably be able to hype the games up to the point where MWC #1 vs MAC/SBC/CUSA/AAC #1 would pay as much as MWC #1 vs PAC #6/7/8, as opposed to now when I don't think there's a perceived difference between Sun Belt #1 vs MAC #1 and CUSA 6-6 vs MAC 7-5.

Obstacles:

1 Getting the MWC and Las Vegas Bowl on board. Vegas Bowl will be reluctant to trade a 6-6 USC or Washington or Cal for a 10-3 Toledo or an 11-2 Arkansas State etc. Maybe the MWC slides their champion to the Poinsettia or an LA Christmas Bowl vs a G5 champ, but then will the PAC stay in Las Vegas to play the MWC #2?

2. Getting the AAC on board. Would the AAC prefer a G5 Contract Bowl to their champ playing the SEC in Birmingham or the ACC in Annapolis or St Petersburg or the Big Ten in the Heart of Dallas Bowl? Without the AAC, I don't think you get the MWC. And with 2 of the 5 G5 conferences out, I think the plan collapses.

For the AAC, I think a plan like this would be the wrong place to spend thier effort. What the AAC needs is a signature bowl that serves as a quality post season destination against a high quality P5 opponent. P5 opponents of this caliber typically command 2-4 million in a bowl payout. Bowls that pay 3 million each to participants are not interested in G5 schools. If they pay that much, they want a power school. Thus, the only answer for the AAC is to increase the payout to the Miami bowl high enough to obtain a #3-5 P5 selection orland it a position in the same pool of P5 bowls that includes the Liberty, Music City, Belk, Texas, and Gator bowls.

This could be accomplished by setting aside 5 million of the realignment fund into a special Bowl Fund. We would add one million a year to the fund from our split of the CFP money. In 6 years, when it's time to renegotiate bowl ties, the AAC would have a fund of 11 million dollars with an additional 6 million dollar stream of income coming over the next 6 years. Thats a 17 million dollar fund that the conference could use to beef up the payout of the Miami Bowl in order to either obtain a a 3-5 pick from a specific P5 or to make the bowl attractive enough to get in a rotating pool of similar bowl receiving a similar range of picks (Liberty, Gator, Texas, etc).

The Miami Bowl would be 6 years old by then. It would no longer be unknown. The pinstripe upgraded its opponent after the first 6 years--no reason Miami cant. By offering a 3 million dollar payout to the P5 participant, it should be able to attract a solid opponent for the AAC champ. As for finances, my guess is the newly established bowl fund is barely tapped. By the time the TV rights fees, ticket sales, and sponsorship rights are counted, my guess is the Miami Bowl would be just as profitable as any other upper mid-tier bowl.

Im pretty sure the AAC would rather see the AAC champ play in Miami in a signiure bowl vs a 9-3 Oklahoma type team than a 10-2 Utah St.

(09-20-2014 10:57 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  For the AAC, I think a plan like this (G5 Contract Bowls) would be the wrong place to spend thier effort. What the AAC needs is a signature bowl that serves as a quality post season destination against a high quality P5 opponent. P5 opponents of this caliber typically command 2-4 million in a bowl payout. Bowls that pay 3 million each to participants are not interested in G5 schools. If they pay that much, they want a power school. Thus, the only answer for the AAC is to increase the payout to the Miami bowl high enough to land it a position in the same pool of P5 bowls that includes the Liberty, Music City, Belk, Texas, and Gator bowls.

If the Miami Beach Bowl can reach that level, the P5 will rip it out of your hands and gobble it up, just like the Pinstripe Bowl that the old Big East Football Conference started, or the Detroit bowl that the MAC champ was in. Owning the bowl means jack squat, because the venue's contract with the Miami Beach Bowl ends and they sign a contract with Marlins Park Bowl Inc, which matches the ACC and PAC or whatever.

Quote:This could be accomplished by setting aside 5 million of the realignment fund into a special Bowl Fund. We would add one million a year to the fund from our split of the CFP money. In 6 years, when it's time to renegotiate bowl ties, the AAC would have a fund of 11 million dollars with an additional 6 million dollar stream of income coming over the next 6 years. Thats a 17 million dollar fund that the conference could use to beef up the payout of the Miami Bowl in order to either obtain a a 3-5 pick from a specific P5 or to make the bowl attractive enough to get in a rotating pool of similar bowl receiving a similar range of picks (Liberty, Gator, Texas, etc).

I don't think the difference in money (say $5M vs $2M) is going to be enough to overcome your "G5 cooties".

Quote:The Miami Bowl would be 6 years old by then. It would no longer be unheard of. By offering a 3 million dollar payout to the P5 participant, it should be able to attract a solid opponent for the AAC champ. As for finances, my guess is the newly established bowl fund is barely tapped. By the time the TV rights fees, ticket sales, and sponsorship rights are counted, my guess is the Miami Bowl would be just as profitable as any other upper mid-tier bowl.

More likely, the Miami Bowl is just another lower-FBS bowl. Better than the FIU Bowl, (or maybe FAU bowl, I don't know or care) but in the same category.

Quote:Im pretty sure the AAC would rather see the AAC champ play in Miami in a signiure bowl vs a 9-3 Oklahoma type team than a 10-2 Utah St.

That's true. But I don't think a 9-3 unranked Oklahoma is achievable. You're still going to be looking at a 10-2 Utah State or Marshall or Ball State compared to a 6-6 Utah or Pitt or Arkansas.

(09-20-2014 11:08 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(09-20-2014 10:57 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  For the AAC, I think a plan like this (G5 Contract Bowls) would be the wrong place to spend thier effort. What the AAC needs is a signature bowl that serves as a quality post season destination against a high quality P5 opponent. P5 opponents of this caliber typically command 2-4 million in a bowl payout. Bowls that pay 3 million each to participants are not interested in G5 schools. If they pay that much, they want a power school. Thus, the only answer for the AAC is to increase the payout to the Miami bowl high enough to land it a position in the same pool of P5 bowls that includes the Liberty, Music City, Belk, Texas, and Gator bowls.

If the Miami Beach Bowl can reach that level, the P5 will rip it out of your hands and gobble it up, just like the Pinstripe Bowl that the old Big East Football Conference started, or the Detroit bowl that the MAC champ was in. Owning the bowl means jack squat, because the venue's contract with the Miami Beach Bowl ends and they sign a contract with Marlins Park Bowl Inc, which matches the ACC and PAC or whatever.

Quote:This could be accomplished by setting aside 5 million of the realignment fund into a special Bowl Fund. We would add one million a year to the fund from our split of the CFP money. In 6 years, when it's time to renegotiate bowl ties, the AAC would have a fund of 11 million dollars with an additional 6 million dollar stream of income coming over the next 6 years. Thats a 17 million dollar fund that the conference could use to beef up the payout of the Miami Bowl in order to either obtain a a 3-5 pick from a specific P5 or to make the bowl attractive enough to get in a rotating pool of similar bowl receiving a similar range of picks (Liberty, Gator, Texas, etc).

I don't think the difference in money (say $5M vs $2M) is going to be enough to overcome your "G5 cooties".

Quote:The Miami Bowl would be 6 years old by then. It would no longer be unheard of. By offering a 3 million dollar payout to the P5 participant, it should be able to attract a solid opponent for the AAC champ. As for finances, my guess is the newly established bowl fund is barely tapped. By the time the TV rights fees, ticket sales, and sponsorship rights are counted, my guess is the Miami Bowl would be just as profitable as any other upper mid-tier bowl.

More likely, the Miami Bowl is just another lower-FBS bowl. Better than the FIU Bowl, (or maybe FAU bowl, I don't know or care) but in the same category.

Quote:Im pretty sure the AAC would rather see the AAC champ play in Miami in a signiure bowl vs a 9-3 Oklahoma type team than a 10-2 Utah St.

That's true. But I don't think a 9-3 unranked Oklahoma is achievable. You're still going to be looking at a 10-2 Utah State or Marshall or Ball State compared to a 6-6 Utah or Pitt or Arkansas.

Unlike the Pinstripe, the AAC owns the Miami Bowl. Might another group steals the venue---perhaps. I felt it was a mistake not to use a member school venue after the G5 experience in the Pinstripe and Detroit Bowls. Still, I don think we would have any problems doing the exact same bowl using the exact same technique in Yulman Satdium. New Orleans might be a better draw than Miami. Perhaps the real answer is to simply enter into a much longer contract with Marlins Stadium with options that would that would eliminate the threat of a venue heist by the P5. I would do that BEFORE putting a bunch of money into the bowl to upgrade the opponent. I would also rename it the Miami Beach AAC Champions Bowl. Brand that baby as your own.

As for G5 cooties--yeah, they exist. The Miami Bowl may need to have a slightly fatter paycheck tied around its neck to entice the cool kids to play with it. Aresco is personal friends with Delany and Swofford--maybe they throw Aresco a bone (since in a pool format the commitment is limited). In reality, if the bowl is included in a pool with the Liberty, Texas, Music, Belk, and Gator---then its just one more destination that a P5 conference makes once (maybe twice) every 6 years. It's not a big deal, in fact, it helps with "bowl fatigue" for traveling fan bases by giving the travelers more post season variety---less burn out due to going to the same places over and over.

(09-20-2014 11:58 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Unlike the Pinstripe, the AAC owns the Miami Bowl. Might another group steals the venue---perhaps. I felt it was a mistake not to use a member school venue after the G5 experience in the Pinstripe and Detroit Bowls.

I agree. I was arguing for a deal between AAC and CUSA where AAC plays CUSA in Houston's new stadium, at the UCF "Cure Bowl" and in Boca Raton.

Quote:Still, I don think we would have any problems doing the exact same bowl using the exact same technique in Yulman Satdium. New Orleans might be a better draw than Miami.

Not 100% sure that the New Orleans business community can support a 3rd bowl. Houston is a better target there--top ten metro with only one bowl.

Quote:As for G5 cooties--yeah, they exist. The Miami Bowl may need to have a slightly fatter paycheck tied around its neck to entice the cool kids to play with it.

I really don't think that the AAC is going to be able to come up with that kind of money. I figure you'd have to double what a P5 gets for a "mid-range" bowl like the Belk/Pinstripe/Sun/Gator/Holiday. A slightly fatter paycheck probably doesn't get it done.

Quote:Aresco is personal friends with Delany and Swofford--maybe they throw Aresco a bone (since in a pool format the commitment is limited).

I saw this movie with Marinatto and Delany and Swofford and Bowlsby, sending flowers while the P5 conferences were poaching our teams. So I don't put much stock in being friends with Swofford and Delany.

Quote:In reality, if the bowl is included in a pool with the Liberty, Texas, Music, Belk, and Gator---then its just one more destination that a P5 conference makes once (maybe twice) every 6 years.

I think you're better off trying to weasel your way into a spot in that pool. Possibly in conjunction with the other G5 conferences--if the SEC Belk-Gator-Music City-Houston pool is short, the bowl gets to pick from the G5 champions not in the Access Bowl.

Problem is the same--you have to bed down with the other G5s, which is not your conferences' strategic objective.

Quote: It's not a big deal, in fact, it helps with "bowl fatigue" for traveling fan bases by giving the travelers more post season variety---less burn out due to going to the same places over and over.

I think that's taken care of by the pool system. Even if Minnesota is 8-4 every year, they're still rotating between NEw York, San Francisco, JAcksonville, and Nashville. In reality, some year they'll be better and go to Orlando/Tampa/San Diego and/or some year they'll be 6-6 and go to Detroit or DFW. Sure, Miami would beat a lot of those places for a bowl vacation, but the problem of Pitt-to-Birmingham 3 years in a row is solved.

(09-20-2014 01:12 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(09-20-2014 11:58 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Unlike the Pinstripe, the AAC owns the Miami Bowl. Might another group steals the venue---perhaps. I felt it was a mistake not to use a member school venue after the G5 experience in the Pinstripe and Detroit Bowls.

I agree. I was arguing for a deal between AAC and CUSA where AAC plays CUSA in Houston's new stadium, at the UCF "Cure Bowl" and in Boca Raton.

Quote:Still, I don think we would have any problems doing the exact same bowl using the exact same technique in Yulman Satdium. New Orleans might be a better draw than Miami.

Not 100% sure that the New Orleans business community can support a 3rd bowl. Houston is a better target there--top ten metro with only one bowl.

Quote:As for G5 cooties--yeah, they exist. The Miami Bowl may need to have a slightly fatter paycheck tied around its neck to entice the cool kids to play with it.

I really don't think that the AAC is going to be able to come up with that kind of money. I figure you'd have to double what a P5 gets for a "mid-range" bowl like the Belk/Pinstripe/Sun/Gator/Holiday. A slightly fatter paycheck probably doesn't get it done.

Quote:Aresco is personal friends with Delany and Swofford--maybe they throw Aresco a bone (since in a pool format the commitment is limited).

I saw this movie with Marinatto and Delany and Swofford and Bowlsby, sending flowers while the P5 conferences were poaching our teams. So I don't put much stock in being friends with Swofford and Delany.

Quote:In reality, if the bowl is included in a pool with the Liberty, Texas, Music, Belk, and Gator---then its just one more destination that a P5 conference makes once (maybe twice) every 6 years.

I think you're better off trying to weasel your way into a spot in that pool. Possibly in conjunction with the other G5 conferences--if the SEC Belk-Gator-Music City-Houston pool is short, the bowl gets to pick from the G5 champions not in the Access Bowl.

Problem is the same--you have to bed down with the other G5s, which is not your conferences' strategic objective.

Quote: It's not a big deal, in fact, it helps with "bowl fatigue" for traveling fan bases by giving the travelers more post season variety---less burn out due to going to the same places over and over.

I think that's taken care of by the pool system. Even if Minnesota is 8-4 every year, they're still rotating between NEw York, San Francisco, JAcksonville, and Nashville. In reality, some year they'll be better and go to Orlando/Tampa/San Diego and/or some year they'll be 6-6 and go to Detroit or DFW. Sure, Miami would beat a lot of those places for a bowl vacation, but the problem of Pitt-to-Birmingham 3 years in a row is solved.

Thats an unknow factor. P5 teams play G5 teams for much less. It appears to be that the pecking order almost directly corresponds to payout. No G5 bowl has ever offered that kind of money for a P5 pick. My guess is that if the bowl payed as much (or slightly more) then the P5 would be interested.

I explained how the startup money fund could be established (realignment fund cash + annual contributions from the CFP share). Once established, there is no reason to believe such a bowl would have any more trouble being profitable than the Liberty, Texas, or Music City Bowls. Hell, it might even throw odf a profit. The bowl should be self supporting (ending any need for annual contributions to the bowl fund), but the fund would be there to back stop the financials of the bowl. Over time, the existence of a solid, well known, upper middle tier bowl featuring a name brand opponent would lift the image and value of the AAC (by making the conference race of more interest o the general public--the public has little interest now because their champ doesnt really go to anywhere in the post season).

(09-20-2014 01:33 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  --the public has little interest now because their champ doesnt really go to anywhere in the post season).

Actually, this may be the core of the issue.

Does the MWC really benefit because we know that their champion is going to Las Vegas to play a PAC also-ran?

Would the MWC's perception really benefit over 4 years if they played say the loser of the PAC CCG in Las Vegas and won 2 and lost 2?

I really don't think anyone outside of CUSA's fanbases followed the CUSA race to the Liberty Bowl. I think the problem is more that the champ doesn't really go anywhere in the postseason because the public has little interest. I don't think that changes because Georgia or Houston might play UCF or Penn State in a bowl game (besides the Access Bowl).

A pair of G5 Contract Bowls would generate a little bit of attention for the game itself, but I wouldn't expect any spillover to the conference season(s).

(09-20-2014 02:03 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(09-20-2014 01:33 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  --the public has little interest now because their champ doesnt really go to anywhere in the post season).

Actually, this may be the core of the issue.

Does the MWC really benefit because we know that their champion is going to Las Vegas to play a PAC also-ran?

Would the MWC's perception really benefit over 4 years if they played say the loser of the PAC CCG in Las Vegas and won 2 and lost 2?

I really don't think anyone outside of CUSA's fanbases followed the CUSA race to the Liberty Bowl. I think the problem is more that the champ doesn't really go anywhere in the postseason because the public has little interest. I don't think that changes because Georgia or Houston might play UCF or Penn State in a bowl game (besides the Access Bowl).

A pair of G5 Contract Bowls would generate a little bit of attention for the game itself, but I wouldn't expect any spillover to the conference season(s).

I think it helps. The Liberty Bowl for CUSA isn't a good example because the CUSA champ was looking at the #8 SEC team or the #5 Big East selection. If the AAC signature bowls is vs a 9-3 LSU rather than a 6-6 Kentucky, I think the conference race becomes more relevant because the postseason destination is more relevant. Birmingham and Annapolis are not relevant. Even Las Vegas, vs the #6-7 Pac12 school, is hardly a big deal. The AAC, with their large realignment fund and thier conference owned bowl, is in a unique position within the G5 as they are likey the only G5 that could create a more interesting post season for themselves (if they are willing to expend sufficient resources towards that end).

(09-20-2014 02:47 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-20-2014 02:03 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(09-20-2014 01:33 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  --the public has little interest now because their champ doesnt really go to anywhere in the post season).

Actually, this may be the core of the issue.

Does the MWC really benefit because we know that their champion is going to Las Vegas to play a PAC also-ran?

Would the MWC's perception really benefit over 4 years if they played say the loser of the PAC CCG in Las Vegas and won 2 and lost 2?

I really don't think anyone outside of CUSA's fanbases followed the CUSA race to the Liberty Bowl. I think the problem is more that the champ doesn't really go anywhere in the postseason because the public has little interest. I don't think that changes because Georgia or Houston might play UCF or Penn State in a bowl game (besides the Access Bowl).

A pair of G5 Contract Bowls would generate a little bit of attention for the game itself, but I wouldn't expect any spillover to the conference season(s).

I think it helps. The Liberty Bowl for CUSA isn't a good example because the CUSA champ was looking at the #8 SEC team or the #5 Big East selection. If the AAC signature bowls is vs a 9-3 LSU rather than a 6-6 Kentucky, I think the conference race becomes more relevant because the postseason destination is more relevant. Birmingham and Annapolis are not relevant. Even Las Vegas, vs the #6-7 Pac12 school, is hardly a big deal. The AAC, with their large realignment fund and thier conference owned bowl, is in a unique position within the G5 as they are likey the only G5 that could create a more interesting post season for themselves (if they are willing to expend sufficient resources towards that end).

I don't know. I was behind the idea when we were talking about taking 10% of the football TV contract and using it to fund a bowl, but the value of the football contract crashed without Boise State, Louisville and the NYC TV market. I just don't think the money is there. (Yes, the money exists in the realignment fund, but I don't see the universities signing off of this sort of "zany scheme.")

You're talking about subsidizing a bowl beyond its market value to attract a significantly better opponent, through a 6-year bowl cycle. That's a $12-18-30M commitment, depending on what it takes to get a quality opponent, and what you're considering a quality opponent. Is it worth it, to play a Pinstripe Bowl quality opponent instead of a Military Bowl quality opponent? Are you breaking the bank for a Russell Athletic- or Holiday-/Outback- quality opponent?

(09-20-2014 03:18 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(09-20-2014 02:47 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-20-2014 02:03 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(09-20-2014 01:33 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  --the public has little interest now because their champ doesnt really go to anywhere in the post season).

Actually, this may be the core of the issue.

Does the MWC really benefit because we know that their champion is going to Las Vegas to play a PAC also-ran?

Would the MWC's perception really benefit over 4 years if they played say the loser of the PAC CCG in Las Vegas and won 2 and lost 2?

I really don't think anyone outside of CUSA's fanbases followed the CUSA race to the Liberty Bowl. I think the problem is more that the champ doesn't really go anywhere in the postseason because the public has little interest. I don't think that changes because Georgia or Houston might play UCF or Penn State in a bowl game (besides the Access Bowl).

A pair of G5 Contract Bowls would generate a little bit of attention for the game itself, but I wouldn't expect any spillover to the conference season(s).

I think it helps. The Liberty Bowl for CUSA isn't a good example because the CUSA champ was looking at the #8 SEC team or the #5 Big East selection. If the AAC signature bowls is vs a 9-3 LSU rather than a 6-6 Kentucky, I think the conference race becomes more relevant because the postseason destination is more relevant. Birmingham and Annapolis are not relevant. Even Las Vegas, vs the #6-7 Pac12 school, is hardly a big deal. The AAC, with their large realignment fund and thier conference owned bowl, is in a unique position within the G5 as they are likey the only G5 that could create a more interesting post season for themselves (if they are willing to expend sufficient resources towards that end).

I don't know. I was behind the idea when we were talking about taking 10% of the football TV contract and using it to fund a bowl, but the value of the football contract crashed without Boise State, Louisville and the NYC TV market. I just don't think the money is there. (Yes, the money exists in the realignment fund, but I don't see the universities signing off of this sort of "zany scheme.")

You're talking about subsidizing a bowl beyond its market value to attract a significantly better opponent, through a 6-year bowl cycle. That's a $12-18-30M commitment, depending on what it takes to get a quality opponent, and what you're considering a quality opponent. Is it worth it, to play a Pinstripe Bowl quality opponent instead of a Military Bowl quality opponent? Are you breaking the bank for a Russell Athletic- or Holiday-/Outback- quality opponent?

The question is really----what is really the cost? Say the bowl pays 500K now. Going to a 3 million payout for the P5 opponenet costs 2.5 over 6 years. The chmap stays at 500K. Thats 15 million extra dollars. That's the maximum additional cost. Let's be realistic--if you have a high p5 selection vs the AAC champ (the AAC champ usually is going to have an enthusiastic fan base for that season)---the bowl tv rights, bowl ticket sales, and bowl sponsorship value---are all going to increase over the current low end bowl set up vs the Sunbelt. I would be surprised if there is any significant cost once the increased revenue streams are included. Say the new income come s up short by 500k a year. Is it worth 500K a year to provide your conference champion with a quality post season destination? The truth is, the deck is usually stacked in such a way that a decent bowl can't lose many. I personally doubt such a bowl would lose money. There may be up front costs---but over time my guess is the bowl cost is zero. Hell--it probably ends up becoming a minor income stream.