(06-29-2015 07:45 AM)RedWolf_Rex Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 06:24 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(06-28-2015 11:55 PM)RedWolf_Rex Wrote:  

(06-28-2015 06:35 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  

(06-28-2015 04:19 PM)RedWolf_Rex Wrote:  9 Football schools is just a dumb concept, its small time and we don't need that. It we went even 10 teams I think we lose any outside shot at the access bowl we have now. We need 12 teams 2 divisions and a championship game. The playoff committee said as much with the way they treated the Big 12 last season.

We ain't the Big 12.

But just so I understand the argument here, do you believe 12 teams, 2 divisions, and a championship game are going to change the perception of the SunBelt with the outside world?

Sorry my friend, but in my humble opinion, the only thing that is going to change that perception is for SunBelt teams to consistently kick the crap out of teams on their OOC schedules.

It'll take an undefeated, ranked Belt team, with wins against a couple of damn decent OOC foes, and the rest of the Belt playing well against their OOC before any of us is considered for an Access Bowl slot. Easy? No. Attainable? Absolutely.

And while I cringe every time I see EKU, Coastal Carolina, or whatever other FCS flavor-of-the-day mentioned as a potential member of the Belt, let me say this. App State and GaSouthern were the two BEST possible add-ons in our footprint and coupled with shedding the likes of the UNTs and the F_U's, they have made Belt football significantly stronger and I believe will be the catalyst to take our conference to another level.

I think you misunderstood what I meant. Of course we aren't the Big 12 heck we aren't even the AAC. But if we want a shot at the access bowl a 9 team conference isn't going to get that, period, neither will a 10 team 9 conference game schedule. As you said we have to win our OOC and at least for starters do so convincingly.

I do however believe that adding two more teams and dumping Idaho gives us our best shot at being that access bowl conference. My reference to the Big 12 was simply that they play a 9 conf game schedule and don't have a CCG and they were left out of the playoffs because of it. Do you really think we can get the only G5 access bowl doing what they did and were left from the playoffs? I don't think so.

Big 12 was not left out because of a lack of a title game. That's a myth that the media likes to talk about. Big 12 was left out because they did two things wrong:

1: They never actually declared a league champ...going with the co champs route like the SBC does. No Tiebreaker.

2. They played absolutely no one in OOC play. Baylor played the worst OOC imaginable, and TCU played a bad FCS, and two low rated G5's before beating a mediocre Minnesota.

People talk about the Big 12 losing out on a title game because Ohio State got in because they had an extra game against a very good Michigan State team. Had the Big 12 added 2 teams and gone to 12 with divisions, they likely see no benefit because Baylor would be playing in the game and not TCU, and they likely would be playing an Oklahoma State type based off of fictional divisions...not someone as good at Michigan State. (Meaning OSU passes either way) It's why we are hearing about Deregulation instead of the "12 TEAMS NOW" idea. ACC has the same problem.

I will grant you the OOC but if you're trying to say Baylor beating Oklahoma St the same day Ohio St beat Mich St would make no difference I respectfully disagree with you. One team putting a beat down on another while the 3rd team is idle cost them. You can pretend it didn't if you want to.

Baylor and TCU did everything they had to do and even if the Big12 said "Baylor is our champion" The fact they didn't play the CCG gives Ohio St one more game to impress people.

I think you are right. The BIG 12 not declaring one winner gave the CFP committee an easy out.

Both Conference champions had dropped one surprising conference game, but I think Baylor was in had they played and won a CCG.

But hey, I like it - controversy is good for our cause. They just need to expand the field & give the "Access" Bowl actual access to the playoff (OR CHANGE THE NAME!)

(06-28-2015 06:35 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  

(06-28-2015 04:19 PM)RedWolf_Rex Wrote:  9 Football schools is just a dumb concept, its small time and we don't need that. It we went even 10 teams I think we lose any outside shot at the access bowl we have now. We need 12 teams 2 divisions and a championship game. The playoff committee said as much with the way they treated the Big 12 last season.

We ain't the Big 12.

But just so I understand the argument here, do you believe 12 teams, 2 divisions, and a championship game are going to change the perception of the SunBelt with the outside world?

Sorry my friend, but in my humble opinion, the only thing that is going to change that perception is for SunBelt teams to consistently kick the crap out of teams on their OOC schedules.

It'll take an undefeated, ranked Belt team, with wins against a couple of damn decent OOC foes, and the rest of the Belt playing well against their OOC before any of us is considered for an Access Bowl slot. Easy? No. Attainable? Absolutely.

And while I cringe every time I see EKU, Coastal Carolina, or whatever other FCS flavor-of-the-day mentioned as a potential member of the Belt, let me say this. App State and GaSouthern were the two BEST possible add-ons in our footprint and coupled with shedding the likes of the UNTs and the F_U's, they have made Belt football significantly stronger and I believe will be the catalyst to take our conference to another level.

Yes, I certainly do believe that it WILL change the perception of the league. Going the path the SBC is travelling now isn't getting it done.
A 12-team, 2 division league, IMO, is what we need to grow. Like it or not, the MAC has a CCG and they seem to be doing well. Even they are recognized as being ranked higher than the Belt.

(06-29-2015 08:08 AM)JoeJag Wrote:  

(06-28-2015 06:35 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  

(06-28-2015 04:19 PM)RedWolf_Rex Wrote:  9 Football schools is just a dumb concept, its small time and we don't need that. It we went even 10 teams I think we lose any outside shot at the access bowl we have now. We need 12 teams 2 divisions and a championship game. The playoff committee said as much with the way they treated the Big 12 last season.

We ain't the Big 12.

But just so I understand the argument here, do you believe 12 teams, 2 divisions, and a championship game are going to change the perception of the SunBelt with the outside world?

Sorry my friend, but in my humble opinion, the only thing that is going to change that perception is for SunBelt teams to consistently kick the crap out of teams on their OOC schedules.

It'll take an undefeated, ranked Belt team, with wins against a couple of damn decent OOC foes, and the rest of the Belt playing well against their OOC before any of us is considered for an Access Bowl slot. Easy? No. Attainable? Absolutely.

And while I cringe every time I see EKU, Coastal Carolina, or whatever other FCS flavor-of-the-day mentioned as a potential member of the Belt, let me say this. App State and GaSouthern were the two BEST possible add-ons in our footprint and coupled with shedding the likes of the UNTs and the F_U's, they have made Belt football significantly stronger and I believe will be the catalyst to take our conference to another level.

Yes, I certainly do believe that it WILL change the perception of the league. Going the path the SBC is travelling now isn't getting it done.
A 12-team, 2 division league, IMO, is what we need to grow. Like it or not, the MAC has a CCG and they seem to be doing well. Even they are recognized as being ranked higher than the Belt.

I agree with this, and even if it doesn't change the Conference pecking order, a CG will give the Conference additional media exposure . . . never a bad thing IMO

12 teams would help insulate the conference in the event of further defections. App should get a travel partner out of it.

And 2 divisions would reduce travel costs and cut out some of that East Coast whining. (Actually with the COA about to kick in, offsetting travel costs may help many).

Grow, Baby Grow . . . . .

(06-27-2015 05:00 PM)Georgia_Power_Company Wrote:  Look if those of us who continually advocate for keeping the Belt at 10 football schools get their way then a 9 game conference schedule is the logical outcome. If those of us who advocate going to 12 football schools get their way then playing 8 seems logical. I personally want to see us at 12 but if we go to 10 then by all means play a 9 game conference schedule and be done with it.

Why is a 10 team league with a 9 game schedule the "logical" outcome?

The SEC had 10 teams for years and played a 7 game slate.
The Big 10 had 10 teams for years and played an 8 game schedule. They played 8 games with 11 members.
The Pac-10 had 10 teams and played 7 and 8 game schedules.
MAC played 8 games with 10 members.
The WAC played 8 games with 10 members.
Big West played 6 games with 10 members.

(06-29-2015 10:30 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-27-2015 05:00 PM)Georgia_Power_Company Wrote:  Look if those of us who continually advocate for keeping the Belt at 10 football schools get their way then a 9 game conference schedule is the logical outcome. If those of us who advocate going to 12 football schools get their way then playing 8 seems logical. I personally want to see us at 12 but if we go to 10 then by all means play a 9 game conference schedule and be done with it.

Why is a 10 team league with a 9 game schedule the "logical" outcome?

The SEC had 10 teams for years and played a 7 game slate.
The Big 10 had 10 teams for years and played an 8 game schedule. They played 8 games with 11 members.
The Pac-10 had 10 teams and played 7 and 8 game schedules.
MAC played 8 games with 10 members.
The WAC played 8 games with 10 members.
Big West played 6 games with 10 members.

Because if you have 10 teams in a league you can play a true round robin and choose you champion the proper way. I'm not saying the Belt would have a 9 game conference schedule with a 10 team conference just that it would be the most logical thing to do.

(06-29-2015 10:47 AM)Georgia_Power_Company Wrote:  Because if you have 10 teams in a league you can play a true round robin and choose you champion the proper way. I'm not saying the Belt would have a 9 game conference schedule with a 10 team conference just that it would be the most logical thing to do.

I disagree that it is the most logical thing to do.

It limits your OOC opportunities and stymies the growth of a conference.

If anything, the conference should be looking to REDUCE the number of conference games. 8 seems to be the "norm", but I wouldn't scoff at 7, if everyone could schedule accordingly.

(06-29-2015 10:47 AM)Georgia_Power_Company Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 10:30 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-27-2015 05:00 PM)Georgia_Power_Company Wrote:  Look if those of us who continually advocate for keeping the Belt at 10 football schools get their way then a 9 game conference schedule is the logical outcome. If those of us who advocate going to 12 football schools get their way then playing 8 seems logical. I personally want to see us at 12 but if we go to 10 then by all means play a 9 game conference schedule and be done with it.

Why is a 10 team league with a 9 game schedule the "logical" outcome?

The SEC had 10 teams for years and played a 7 game slate.
The Big 10 had 10 teams for years and played an 8 game schedule. They played 8 games with 11 members.
The Pac-10 had 10 teams and played 7 and 8 game schedules.
MAC played 8 games with 10 members.
The WAC played 8 games with 10 members.
Big West played 6 games with 10 members.

Because if you have 10 teams in a league you can play a true round robin and choose you champion the proper way. I'm not saying the Belt would have a 9 game conference schedule with a 10 team conference just that it would be the most logical thing to do.

Well it is nice and neat but nice and neat isn't what drives athletic departments and if I'm a commissioner I don't want to hear the annual whines that ______ got hosed by having to play five league road games this year.

(06-29-2015 01:34 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 10:47 AM)Georgia_Power_Company Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 10:30 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-27-2015 05:00 PM)Georgia_Power_Company Wrote:  Look if those of us who continually advocate for keeping the Belt at 10 football schools get their way then a 9 game conference schedule is the logical outcome. If those of us who advocate going to 12 football schools get their way then playing 8 seems logical. I personally want to see us at 12 but if we go to 10 then by all means play a 9 game conference schedule and be done with it.

Why is a 10 team league with a 9 game schedule the "logical" outcome?

The SEC had 10 teams for years and played a 7 game slate.
The Big 10 had 10 teams for years and played an 8 game schedule. They played 8 games with 11 members.
The Pac-10 had 10 teams and played 7 and 8 game schedules.
MAC played 8 games with 10 members.
The WAC played 8 games with 10 members.
Big West played 6 games with 10 members.

Because if you have 10 teams in a league you can play a true round robin and choose you champion the proper way. I'm not saying the Belt would have a 9 game conference schedule with a 10 team conference just that it would be the most logical thing to do.

Well it is nice and neat but nice and neat isn't what drives athletic departments and if I'm a commissioner I don't want to hear the annual whines that ______ got hosed by having to play five league road games this year.

It doesn't make everything nice and neat because you have half the conference playing five conf home games with the other half only playing four. This could lead to difficulty with scheduling non-conference and leaving some teams only having five home games in a year.

In 2013 the CCG cost the MAC something on the order of $6MM.

Sorry guys, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Until the Belt earns respect by consistently beating a solid OOC schedule, I don't see the need for a CCG.

(06-29-2015 03:21 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  In 2013 the CCG cost the MAC something on the order of $6MM.

Sorry guys, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Until the Belt earns respect by consistently beating a solid OOC schedule, I don't see the need for a CCG.

I'm not saying that that is wrong, just curious as to how that was figured?
Was it played at a neutral site, etc?

(06-29-2015 03:26 PM)The4thOption Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 03:21 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  In 2013 the CCG cost the MAC something on the order of $6MM.

Sorry guys, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Until the Belt earns respect by consistently beating a solid OOC schedule, I don't see the need for a CCG.

I'm not saying that that is wrong, just curious as to how that was figured?
Was it played at a neutral site, etc?

In 2014 15,000 attendance at neutral site Ford Field in Detroit. Tickets cost $10, $15, and $20.

(06-29-2015 03:26 PM)The4thOption Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 03:21 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  In 2013 the CCG cost the MAC something on the order of $6MM.

Sorry guys, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Until the Belt earns respect by consistently beating a solid OOC schedule, I don't see the need for a CCG.

I'm not saying that that is wrong, just curious as to how that was figured?
Was it played at a neutral site, etc?

Wasn't the game that lost them the money, but the fact that Northern Illinois was
perfect going in, but lost, and with that loss, lost any chance at
whatever the ridiculous BCS G5 bowl money was called.

Northern went on to lose their lower division bowl game.

So, the CCG did generate revenue, it's just that the loss cost N.Ill. and the conference because they didn't win.

Having watched Boise rise from the obscurity twenty years ago, it (P5 level prominence ) could happen in the Sun Belt,
but certainly not this year or in the immediate future.

(06-29-2015 03:26 PM)The4thOption Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 03:21 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  In 2013 the CCG cost the MAC something on the order of $6MM.

Sorry guys, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Until the Belt earns respect by consistently beating a solid OOC schedule, I don't see the need for a CCG.

I'm not saying that that is wrong, just curious as to how that was figured?
Was it played at a neutral site, etc?

Ok, so here is what I found out about it.(as some pointed out before I submitted this reply)... IT DOESN'T TRANSLATE AT ALL TO 2015!

Read over this and see how they "lost money" - which is money that they really didn't earn to begin with that no longer exist.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2...p-victory/

They didn't lose money playing the game, only NIU got upset and missed a BCS Bowl thus costing a doubled payout that the MAC would have gotten most of and the rest split with the remaining other non BCS conferences.

So, a conference could lose out on sending their team to the Access bowl and not EARN that money for their conference. But it is getting paid to some G5 now.

The important thing to note is that NOT playing a CCG Could allow another program from another G5 to leap frog us in the rankings should their top team not get upset - and we would lose the extra Payout of the Access spot and being the "best G5". I'm not even sure that the "best G5" is determined by which conference sends the Access spot representative, although it would stand to reason that THAT conference might be one and the same.

Anyway, it is not a valid argument against holding a CCG in todays environment. Maybe they shouldn't have held it back then.

(06-29-2015 03:42 PM)The4thOption Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 03:26 PM)The4thOption Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 03:21 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  In 2013 the CCG cost the MAC something on the order of $6MM.

Sorry guys, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Until the Belt earns respect by consistently beating a solid OOC schedule, I don't see the need for a CCG.

I'm not saying that that is wrong, just curious as to how that was figured?
Was it played at a neutral site, etc?

Ok, so here is what I found out about it.(as some pointed out before I submitted this reply)... IT DOESN'T TRANSLATE AT ALL TO 2015!

Read over this and see how they "lost money" - which is money that they really didn't earn to begin with that no longer exist.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2...p-victory/

They didn't lose money playing the game, only NIU got upset and missed a BCS Bowl thus costing a doubled payout that the MAC would have gotten most of and the rest split with the remaining other non BCS conferences.

So, a conference could lose out on sending their team to the Access bowl and not EARN that money for their conference. But it is getting paid to some G5 now.

The important thing to note is that NOT playing a CCG Could allow another program from another G5 to leap frog us in the rankings should their top team not get upset - and we would lose the extra Payout of the Access spot and being the "best G5". I'm not even sure that the "best G5" is determined by which conference sends the Access spot representative, although it would stand to reason that THAT conference might be one and the same.

Anyway, it is not a valid argument against holding a CCG in todays environment. Maybe they shouldn't have held it back then.

Good info along with Aggie's.

If you host it at the highest rated / best team then you give them a better chance of winning. Playing in a 25% filled neutral stadium doesn't seem to be too exciting.

(06-29-2015 03:42 PM)The4thOption Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 03:26 PM)The4thOption Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 03:21 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  In 2013 the CCG cost the MAC something on the order of $6MM.

Sorry guys, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Until the Belt earns respect by consistently beating a solid OOC schedule, I don't see the need for a CCG.

I'm not saying that that is wrong, just curious as to how that was figured?
Was it played at a neutral site, etc?

Ok, so here is what I found out about it.(as some pointed out before I submitted this reply)... IT DOESN'T TRANSLATE AT ALL TO 2015!

Read over this and see how they "lost money" - which is money that they really didn't earn to begin with that no longer exist.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2...p-victory/

They didn't lose money playing the game, only NIU got upset and missed a BCS Bowl thus costing a doubled payout that the MAC would have gotten most of and the rest split with the remaining other non BCS conferences.

So, a conference could lose out on sending their team to the Access bowl and not EARN that money for their conference. But it is getting paid to some G5 now.

The important thing to note is that NOT playing a CCG Could allow another program from another G5 to leap frog us in the rankings should their top team not get upset - and we would lose the extra Payout of the Access spot and being the "best G5". I'm not even sure that the "best G5" is determined by which conference sends the Access spot representative, although it would stand to reason that THAT conference might be one and the same.

Anyway, it is not a valid argument against holding a CCG in todays environment. Maybe they shouldn't have held it back then.

Right. Say once every ten years the Sun Belt had a school with a perfect, Access worthy record.

We would hope that if that team wasn't a pretender, they would win the CCG anyway.

But even if they didn't, the ten years of CCG TV revenue and exposure would be lost
for the hope of an Access team for which the CCG was skipped.

What I found about Boise and the Access Bowl:

http://www.idahostatesman.com/2014/12/07...boise.html

"The Mountain West will receive $6 million for placing a team in a New Year’s Six bowl. Boise State will receive $3.25 million of that total (pending a review of the contract with the Mountain West; there are two different interpretations). The Broncos must sell 12,500 tickets as part of their payout and cover their own expenses, so the potential profit likely is between $1.5 million and $1.75 million.

Most of Boise State's 12,500 tickets cost $162, including fees. The school also has club ($270) and premium club seats ($315).

Season-ticket holders can reserve their tickets through 9 p.m. Tuesday. Other fans can submit requests for tickets and will be notified by Wednesday if they were successful.

Tickets are $162 in sections 101-108 (lower level) and 403-412 (upper level). Seat locations are allocated to season-ticket holders based on priority points and to the general public based on order date. (Seating chart here.)

Parking can be purchased for $31.

The Fiesta Bowl has some upper-deck seats for $75 on its website.

Fans are asked to wear orange.

Student tickets are $57 and can be purchased beginning Monday. Students are limited to two each, but the second ticket can be used for a non-student. The tickets must be picked up in Glendale with a student ID.

Read more here: http://www.idahostatesman.com/2014/12/07...rylink=cpy"

$162/Ticket. Anybody think they would have a problem selling out their 12,500 tickets?

(06-29-2015 03:56 PM)The4thOption Wrote:  What I found about Boise and the Access Bowl:

http://www.idahostatesman.com/2014/12/07...boise.html

"The Mountain West will receive $6 million for placing a team in a New Year’s Six bowl. Boise State will receive $3.25 million of that total (pending a review of the contract with the Mountain West; there are two different interpretations). The Broncos must sell 12,500 tickets as part of their payout and cover their own expenses, so the potential profit likely is between $1.5 million and $1.75 million.
............[/b]

What would the split be of that 6 Million in the belt? How is it different than Boise's?

(06-29-2015 03:49 PM)DoubleAggie Wrote:  Right. Say once every ten years the Sun Belt had a school with a perfect, Access worthy record.

We would hope that if that team wasn't a pretender, they would win the CCG anyway.

But even if they didn't, the ten years of CCG TV revenue and exposure would be lost
for the hope of an Access team for which the CCG was skipped.

That's they way I see it, although I hope we have a better shot than once a decade. Since some G5 will go every year, it isn't the same as trying to send a team to a BCS bowl from years past.

Judging by the amount of that hideous orange and blue, they sold quite a few:


It could happen to a Sun Belt school, maybe to Southern because they may rank highest in true fanaticism which the Boises seem to have.

The Boise community may have a fair amount of money, though, because they seem to travel and support very well.

And I should have added, the CCG for the MAC in 2013 not only cost them about $6MM, it also resulted in the Belt being the highest ranked non AQ conference that year.

Quote:How much did it cost the Mid-American Conference missing out on a BCS bowl? Only $6 million.

That's among the conclusions from the final revenue distribution among the four non-BCS conferences in 2013. CBSSports.com obtained documents (seen here and here) detailing the revenue split among those four leagues -- Sun Belt, Conference USA, MAC and Mountain West.

The Sun Belt led those leagues, taking in almost $4 million in BCS revenue. However, the MAC went from potentially first among the non-automatic qualifying conferences to last among the four when it lost an undefeated Northern Illinois in the MAC championship game, then went 0-5 in bowl games.

Had the Huskies beaten Bowling Green in that MAC title game, they would have almost certainly played in a BCS bowl for the second consecutive season. That would have earned the school an extra $6 million from that BCS pool.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...ear-of-bcs