(10-30-2015 05:12 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-30-2015 04:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-30-2015 04:36 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The best we can do is upgrade the Miami Bowl payout enough to get it included in the same bowl pool with the Liberty, Texas, Belk, Outback, Gator, and Music City Bowls. Those bowls get a #3-5 picks from the Big-10, SEC, ACC, and Big-12. You'd probably need a 2.5 to 3.5 million dollar payout for the P5 team. I don't care if the AAC team gets less (say 1.5 million). The key is to have at least one high quality bowl game for the champ if the AAC champ doesn't get the G5 access bowl. The P5 conferences would get another solid bowl payout, and because it would rotate through the P5 conferences, nobody would be committing to playing the AAC champ every year. It would be similar to the old rotating slot the Big East had in the BCS, but at a lower level.

Yes, this would be similar to the Champs Sports/Gator/Sun Bowl tie-in the Big East had at various points. A decent bowl game for the #2 team to go to matched against a quality opponent from the Big 12 or ACC.

Not sure where we'd come up with the $3 million for the opponent, though.

Ive proposed we build a "bowl upgrade" pool of money from money we cant count on anyway. About 19 million is divided on the basis of performance by the G5. The poorest performing G5 gets 1/15th of the 19 million and the best performing G5 gets 5/15ths. If just pretend we came in last every year, the other 1/15th to 4/15ths can be diverted to the fund. Over the 5 years between now and the next bowl cycle, if we just averaged a second place finish every year, the fund would be worth almost 19 million dollars. My guess is, with a P5 opponent, the bowls revenue from naming rights, ticket sales, and TV rights would be higher. So, at worst, the fund would be more than enough to offset the difference if the bowl failed to quite break even. Personally, my feeling is that there is little reason to think this bowl would be a money loser when so many other similar bowls make money. But if it DID lose money, the fund would keep it solvent.

Alright ... that could actually work.

(10-31-2015 02:34 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-30-2015 10:21 PM)Hashtag Wrote:  

(10-30-2015 06:32 PM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  Interesting idea, and could work, but not as well as you're suggesting, I think.

Problems: Notre Dame can take an ACC bowl bid if they don't make the playoff. The XII already has 7 bowls plus the playoff. Neither have any reason to pass up matches against other P5 opponents.

That's the reason to make this the highest pay day among non-NY6 bowls, so ND/B12 are slotted into this bowl ahead of all other non-NY6 bowls.

The main issue is that the free market sets the pay day - you can't just unilaterally decide that you should get paid more for a bowl (just as you can't just unilaterally decide that you should get paid more for TV rights). As of now, the highest pay days are all P5 vs. P5 bowls (with the biggest non-NY6 bowl payouts being the Citrus Bowl and Outback Bowl, which both feature the best Big Ten vs. SEC matchups available) because TV partners, bowl committees, stadiums and sponsors make the most money from those matchups. The payouts are then set accordingly. If you're looking at it from the perspective of all of those third parties that are involved in organizing a bowl, why would they pay more for an AAC school when they could get a P5 school instead (especially for the upper level matchups featuring one of the top 4 or 5 teams from each P5 league)? You can't artificially subvert the pecking order of college football - Big Ten and SEC teams are consistently the most valuable bowl participants year-to-year, so they get the higher payout bowls. The other P5 conferences get paid a premium, as well.

All valid points. I'd say some P5 less attracitve than the top G5, in terms of attractiveness to a bowl and TV. A ranked BYU, Memphis, ECU, or Temple would get higher ratings than a middle of pack Wake, Vandy, Texas Tech or Kentucky.

If AAC puts their best package out there, I think it could compete with the Citrus payout. I'd say this is their best package in terms of highest payout potential for sponsorship money. The aggregate of these games could command more than the Citrus.

AAC#1/(BYU if AAC is in NY6) vs ND/B12/BYU

Basketbal "Paradise bowl basketball classic"
UCONN v BYU
Memphis v ND

Basketball (women)
UCONN v BYU

(11-01-2015 09:10 AM)Hashtag Wrote:  

(10-31-2015 02:34 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-30-2015 10:21 PM)Hashtag Wrote:  

(10-30-2015 06:32 PM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  

All valid points. I'd say some P5 less attracitve than the top G5, in terms of attractiveness to a bowl and TV. A ranked BYU, Memphis, ECU, or Temple would get higher ratings than a middle of pack Wake, Vandy, Texas Tech or Kentucky.

If AAC puts their best package out there, I think it could compete with the Citrus payout. I'd say this is their best package in terms of highest payout potential for sponsorship money. The aggregate of these games could command more than the Citrus.

AAC#1/(BYU if AAC is in NY6) vs ND/B12/BYU

Basketbal "Paradise bowl basketball classic"
UCONN v BYU
Memphis v ND

Basketball (women)
UCONN v BYU

The bowls and market already decided a P5 #7/8 is more valuable than the AAC #1-2. We can pretend otherwise, but it is what it is. I do think some kind of bowl deal with BYU and AAC makes sense for both. Is it possible to take Miami bowl an unequal payout and grab a decent P5, yes, but that also points to who we are, and where we stand. I think Miami bowl could end up with a 8-10 type P5 next time without the unequal pay.
I think at best next time, we may in a liberty level bowl or 2, and get a 1 out of 4 years agreement for our #1-2.

Temple could go 11-1. Toughest remaining game: home v Memphis.

Houston could go 12-0. Toughest remaining game: home v Memphis likely for division title.

Memphis could go 12-0. Toughest remaining games: road games v Temple and Houston.

Temple finishes 12-1 and wins AAC and goes to NY6 bowl.

A highly ranked Houston 12-1 or Memphis 10-2 are more valuable than a P5 #7 or 8, especially if matched against Notre Dame/Texas/Oklahoma/FSU.

Just bc AAC didn't negotiate a better bowl deal a few years ago doesn't mean their product is at same market level.

I've been shot down for this line of thinking before, but I think something like this would work:

- MWC, AAC, Army and BYU affiliate and grab Las Vegas (v. PAC 12), Armed Forces (v. B1G), Poinsettia (v. each other), Miami Beach (v. each other).

So, this year, the lineup could be:

NY6: #15 Memphis v. #10 Iowa
Armed Forces (Pool v. B1G): #18 Houston v. Minnesota
Las Vegas (Pool v. PAC): Boise St. v. Arizona St.
Military (AAC v. ACC): Navy v. Pitt
St. Petersburg (AAC v. ACC): #23 Temple v. Miami
Birmingham (AAC v. SEC): Cincinnati v. Auburn
Miami Beach (AAC v. MWC): USF v. Air Force
Poinsettia (MWC v. AAC): SDSU v. BYU
Hawaii (MWC v. AAC): Nevada v. UConn
Boca Raton (AAC v. MAC): ECU v. W. Michigan
Cure (AAC v. SB): Tulsa v. Arkansas St.
Idaho (MWC v. MAC): Utah St. v. Ohio
New Mexico (MWC v. CUSA): CSU v. Rice
Arizona (MWC v. CUSA): SJSU v. Old Dominion

(11-03-2015 01:36 PM)YNot Wrote:  I've been shot down for this line of thinking before, but I think something like this would work:

- MWC, AAC, Army and BYU affiliate and grab Las Vegas (v. PAC 12), Armed Forces (v. B1G), Poinsettia (v. each other), Miami Beach (v. each other).

I like the idea. My edit would be:

Highest ranked non-NY6 from AAC/MW/BYU/Army vs highest ranked non-NY6 from B12/P12/ACC/ND

Played in a fun locale like Vegas/Austin/Miami/Orlando/Myrtle Beach

(11-01-2015 09:26 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(11-01-2015 09:10 AM)Hashtag Wrote:  

(10-31-2015 02:34 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-30-2015 10:21 PM)Hashtag Wrote:  

(10-30-2015 06:32 PM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  

All valid points. I'd say some P5 less attracitve than the top G5, in terms of attractiveness to a bowl and TV. A ranked BYU, Memphis, ECU, or Temple would get higher ratings than a middle of pack Wake, Vandy, Texas Tech or Kentucky.

If AAC puts their best package out there, I think it could compete with the Citrus payout. I'd say this is their best package in terms of highest payout potential for sponsorship money. The aggregate of these games could command more than the Citrus.

AAC#1/(BYU if AAC is in NY6) vs ND/B12/BYU

Basketbal "Paradise bowl basketball classic"
UCONN v BYU
Memphis v ND

Basketball (women)
UCONN v BYU

The bowls and market already decided a P5 #7/8 is more valuable than the AAC #1-2. We can pretend otherwise, but it is what it is. I do think some kind of bowl deal with BYU and AAC makes sense for both. Is it possible to take Miami bowl an unequal payout and grab a decent P5, yes, but that also points to who we are, and where we stand. I think Miami bowl could end up with a 8-10 type P5 next time without the unequal pay.
I think at best next time, we may in a liberty level bowl or 2, and get a 1 out of 4 years agreement for our #1-2.

Yes, you can't subvert the market, and even if you could, you're simply not going to get a top P5 team locked into a matchup with a G5 school outside of the CFP bowls (which is something forced upon them by the CFP committee as opposed to willingly done by the P5). The P5 might fill out the very bottom of their bowl lineups against the G5 (as some do now), but top P5 bowl picks want to play against other top P5 bowl picks, whether it's fair or not.

Realistically, the AAC, MWC, BYU and Army could get together to pool various bowl permutations. Those are the conferences and schools with the most leverage from a bowl perspective (but all still having FAR less leverage than even the bottom barrel P5 conference picks). For example, you could put these 6 schools into a pool:

AAC #1
AAC#2
MWC #1
MWC #2
BYU
Army

Enter into agreements with three different bowls and base the matchups on the CFP rankings or some other objective factor (i.e. the best 2 teams from that pool play each other as long they're not from the same conference).

The issue is that none of the G5 conferences really have any brand value on their own. Their fans want to believe that they do as soon as they have one good season, but the marketplace says otherwise. The bowls are perfectly fine with locking in even the worst Big Ten/SEC teams, but the G5 teams that they might find desirable (outside of maybe Boise State) are almost entirely dependent upon how they are playing in a particular season and their conference home is irrelevant. If NIU is playing well one year, then a bowl might like NIU for that particular year, but that doesn't mean that they want anything to do with a long-term contract with the MAC. You could say the same thing about any of the AAC teams playing this year or basically any G5 school besides Boise State - the performance of individual teams in a particular season does not translate into bowls wanting into long-term agreements with their respective conferences. (Note that BYU and Army are technically not G5 schools - those are 2 schools that *do* have some bowl negotiating leverage, which is why they are included in this proposed pool.) This points to pooling picks together to garner more revenue since that gives the bowls the options (and comfort level) to enter into a deal with G5 leagues.

(10-31-2015 02:34 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-30-2015 10:21 PM)Hashtag Wrote:  

(10-30-2015 06:32 PM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  Interesting idea, and could work, but not as well as you're suggesting, I think.

Problems: Notre Dame can take an ACC bowl bid if they don't make the playoff. The XII already has 7 bowls plus the playoff. Neither have any reason to pass up matches against other P5 opponents.

That's the reason to make this the highest pay day among non-NY6 bowls, so ND/B12 are slotted into this bowl ahead of all other non-NY6 bowls.

The main issue is that the free market sets the pay day - you can't just unilaterally decide that you should get paid more for a bowl (just as you can't just unilaterally decide that you should get paid more for TV rights). As of now, the highest pay days are all P5 vs. P5 bowls (with the biggest non-NY6 bowl payouts being the Citrus Bowl and Outback Bowl, which both feature the best Big Ten vs. SEC matchups available) because TV partners, bowl committees, stadiums and sponsors make the most money from those matchups. The payouts are then set accordingly. If you're looking at it from the perspective of all of those third parties that are involved in organizing a bowl, why would they pay more for an AAC school when they could get a P5 school instead (especially for the upper level matchups featuring one of the top 4 or 5 teams from each P5 league)? You can't artificially subvert the pecking order of college football - Big Ten and SEC teams are consistently the most valuable bowl participants year-to-year, so they get the higher payout bowls. The other P5 conferences get paid a premium, as well.

Correct. Any bowl with a payout high enough to attract P5 teams would rather tie themselves to P5 teams. Thus, the only bowl that would have enough money to attract a decent selection from the P5 AND be willing to also tie one of its slots to the G5 would be a bowl owned by a G5 conference or a bowl owned by the entire G5 as a group. Which is why I think the G5 should be creating 3 high paying bowls to serve as the landing places for the 4 G5 champs that are currently stuck with very poor post season options. If the G5 is not willing to build a fund with thier CFP money to accomplish this, then the AAC should do it on thier own on a much smaller basis by using a portion of their CFP split and upgrading the payout on the Miami Bowl when the next bowl cycle rolls around.

G5 #1---access bowl

#2 G5 champ vs #3-5 selection from a P5 (same bowl pool as the Libery Bowl). Owned by G5
#3 G5 champ vs #3-5 selection from a P5 (same bowl pool as the Liberty Bowl). owned by G5
#4 G5 champ vs #5 G5 champ. Owned by G5