If the Little Caesar's Bowl wasn't history might we not have had say WMU (or CMU) vs. Rutgers???

Just asking. Wouldn't that have been good for our team.

UNC/Rutgers. Will 30 - 40K travel to it? I doubt it.

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/sports/.../20075851/

(12-08-2014 02:51 AM)emu steve Wrote:  If the Little Caesar's Bowl wasn't history might we not have had say WMU (or CMU) vs. Rutgers???

Just asking. Wouldn't that have been good for our team.

UNC/Rutgers. Will 30 - 40K travel to it? I doubt it.

Though the MAC does not get to pick and choose the bowl alignment it wants ... under the previous MAC bowl alignment, two schools with winning records would likely have been staying home.

The "Bankrupt Bowl" will look like Rynearson Northeast.

I know we're not advocating this bowl to be successful, but seems that with Illinois returning to a bowl for the first time in a few years, the BIG should have put them in Detroit to garner fan interest and a bigger turnout than Rutgers. Can't imagine Rutgers brings that many fans.

Or swap Rutgers for Penn State in New York.

I think Rutgers to the HoD(or) Bowl and then Illini to Detroit would have made more sense. I believe Pinstripe is the next higher tier, so it would have been gone by the time the Illini & Rutgers were being placed.

(12-08-2014 09:03 AM)rocketinchitown Wrote:  I know we're not advocating this bowl to be successful, but seems that with Illinois returning to a bowl for the first time in a few years, the BIG should have put them in Detroit to garner fan interest and a bigger turnout than Rutgers. Can't imagine Rutgers brings that many fans.

Or swap Rutgers for Penn State in New York.

Did they ever 'project', when dreaming up this bowl, that a 6 - 6 vs say 6 - 6 or 7 - 5 might be a very unappealing matchup?

Sorry, but the most attractive matchup in Detroit, and we know this by our experience, is a highly ranked MAC team (esp a school within say 100 miles of Detroit) vs. a mid-pack B1G team.

All sides should have worked hard to make that happen.

I have no idea what the purpose of this new bowl is. Simply kill off the Little Caesars Bowl????

Mid-pack B1G vs. mid-pack ACC ain't going to hack it.

Agreed.

A CMU/WMU vs Illinois matchup would have been a good matchup and brought a good turnout.

I cant see North Carolina bringing that many fans either to Detroit.

(12-08-2014 09:37 AM)emu steve Wrote:  

(12-08-2014 09:03 AM)rocketinchitown Wrote:  I know we're not advocating this bowl to be successful, but seems that with Illinois returning to a bowl for the first time in a few years, the BIG should have put them in Detroit to garner fan interest and a bigger turnout than Rutgers. Can't imagine Rutgers brings that many fans.

Or swap Rutgers for Penn State in New York.

Did they ever 'project', when dreaming up this bowl, that a 6 - 6 vs say 6 - 6 or 7 - 5 might be a very unappealing matchup?

Sorry, but the most attractive matchup in Detroit, and we know this by our experience, is a highly ranked MAC team (esp a school within say 100 miles of Detroit) vs. a mid-pack B1G team.

All sides should have worked hard to make that happen.

I have no idea what the purpose of this new bowl is. Simply kill off the Little Caesars Bowl????

Mid-pack B1G vs. mid-pack ACC ain't going to hack it.

Sometimes I wonder if the B1G just wanted to KO the Little Caeser's Bowl because they didn't want to play the MAC. Period.

Did they REALLY want this new bowl? I think not. That my "B1G conspiracy" for today.

Quite frankly for MOST conferences, having one additional team which is eligible but not selected actually increases the value of a bowl invite. A team has to be selected instead of simply qualifying.

(12-08-2014 10:50 AM)emu steve Wrote:  Sometimes I wonder if the B1G just wanted to KO the Little Caeser's Bowl because they didn't want to play the MAC. Period.

Did they REALLY want this new bowl? I think not. That my "B1G conspiracy" for today.

Quite frankly for MOST conferences, having one additional team which is eligible but not selected actually increases the value of a bowl invite. A team has to be selected instead of simply qualifying.

I think they wanted to bring fans that would actually stay a day or two and
spend money in the area vs MAC fans that drive to the game and then leave for home right after the game.

I think it's great. Maybe the MAC won't get dismissed so easily now.

But the real question is: is Detroit actually a step up from NJ?

(12-08-2014 11:01 AM)Boca Rocket Wrote:  

(12-08-2014 10:50 AM)emu steve Wrote:  Sometimes I wonder if the B1G just wanted to KO the Little Caeser's Bowl because they didn't want to play the MAC. Period.

Did they REALLY want this new bowl? I think not. That my "B1G conspiracy" for today.

Quite frankly for MOST conferences, having one additional team which is eligible but not selected actually increases the value of a bowl invite. A team has to be selected instead of simply qualifying.

I think they wanted to bring fans that would actually stay a day or two and
spend money in the area vs MAC fans that drive to the game and then leave for home right after the game.

Will 10K fans from an ACC state come to Detroit?

Would 20K fans from say IL, IN, etc. come (and stay a day) if IL/NU/IU/Purdue were in the game?

The 'flip side' is that 15 - 20K CMU or WMU fans won't be there and will be replaced by 1, 668 fans (rough guess, Lol) from N. Carolina.

I'd think 7K Rutgers fans + 20K WMU fans would have been a nice game.

OR 15K Illini fans + 25K WMU fans is even better.

WMU fans would have been hungry for post season FB vs. B1G.

This game has CHERRY BOWL II written all over it.
Remember when that bowl dissed CMU and then failed? Will this be a repeat?

People can say all the bad things they want about the MAC, but the fans did a great job of supporting the Motor City/Pizza Bowl.

Okie has this one "nailed". The high and mighty power conference 6-6 squads from far away will not bring fans to this game....just like the Cherry Bowl of the mid 80's. As Okie and I and a few other "seasoned" MAC followers remember, CMU was the logical pick for the Cherry Bowl that year (I think they were something like 10-1) and the bowl organizers wanted "big name" opponents. So, who did they invite? I think it was Maryland vs. Syracuse (did I get that right??). Anyway, about 10K attended and the bowl folded.

I will be shocked if they get 15K for this year's match up....serves 'em right!

I don't know about you, but if I were a UNC fan there's nothing I'd rather do than go to Detroit in late December to see my squeaky-clean Tar Heels play Big Ten powerhouse Rutgers. Yup, nothing else.

The sad thing is that if the Big Ten is truly adamant about not wanting to play the MAC in Detroit, there's no way the Quick Lane Bowl will switch their tie-in from ACC to MAC after this bowl flops and they realize their mistake. They'd rather have the bowl go down in flames instead of swallowing their pride and letting us back in.

L&H: Your post reminded me of the Randy Walker coached Miami team of 1998 that went 10-1, including beating the TarHeels in Chapel Hill, only to be passed over for the Las Vegas Bowl in favor of 6-5 UNC. Predictably, UNC took less than 500 fans to the game...about the same they'll take to Detroit this year.

I'm dumbfounded. Lol.

How did Tom Lewand (Lions), B1G, ACC, etc. not know that the last tie-in game is basically a loser bowl?

Insist that the Detroit bowl get a top one or two team from the MAC, hopefully WMU, CMU, UT, BG, etc., vs. any B1G team.

The MAC school will carry the day attendance wise.

(12-08-2014 01:35 PM)exCincy Kid1 Wrote:  L&H: Your post reminded me of the Randy Walker coached Miami team of 1998 that went 10-1, including beating the TarHeels in Chapel Hill, only to be passed over for the Las Vegas Bowl in favor of 6-5 UNC. Predictably, UNC took less than 500 fans to the game...about the same they'll take to Detroit this year.

Are you saying that my 'estimate' of 1,668 Tar Heel fans is too high.

(12-08-2014 11:26 AM)Okie Chippewa Wrote:  This game has CHERRY BOWL II written all over it.
Remember when that bowl dissed CMU and then failed? Will this be a repeat?

People can say all the bad things they want about the MAC, but the fans did a great job of supporting the Motor City/Pizza Bowl.

Attendance at both Cherry Bowls was reasonable.

This current one however, I believe will be a mess.

I think thats the problem.

A psuedo home game for the MAC team with the encouragement to take down a BIG team, they wont have that

(12-08-2014 01:46 PM)emu steve Wrote:  I'm dumbfounded. Lol.

How did Tom Lewand (Lions), B1G, ACC, etc. not know that the last tie-in game is basically a loser bowl?

Insist that the Detroit bowl get a top one or two team from the MAC, hopefully WMU, CMU, UT, BG, etc., vs. any B1G team.

The MAC school will carry the day attendance wise.

Many on the board are quickly forgetting this bowl has been averaging 20-30K since becoming the Pizza Bowl while featuring a MAC vs whomever team during that time period.

I can't see this matchup failing to achieve at least that. This bowl is advertised throughout Metro Detroit and its backed by the Lions (who have gained a lot of support in a positive year).