(11-13-2017 10:06 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-13-2017 10:00 AM)otown Wrote:  

(11-13-2017 08:55 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-13-2017 08:26 AM)otown Wrote:  

(11-13-2017 08:18 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Yeah ... good luck with that.

I would not have not expected anything less from you and your anti AAC diatribes. At least you kept this one short.

It's simply a question of logic: First, why on earth would the other G5 conferences just give up their shot at the NY6 for no other reason than, well, the AAC would like to have it to ourselves? That's just dumb.

Second, the idea is on its surface contradictory: If "going forward" the AAC is going to get the bid every year anyway, then what's the point of formalizing it in our favor? If we're not, then that suggests it shouldn't be reserved for us.

Bottom line is that if we get the NY6 slot this year, that will make 2 years out of 4 that we got it, hardly enough dominance to suggest we should, or will, always get it.

Next time, use your head to think, OK?

There is the diatribe I was waiting for. I knew the verbal sewage was coming.

I am talking about when bowl contracts are up. It seems that all the other G conferences didn't lift a finger last go around and just deferred to Aresco to do the negotiating. Yes, the same Aresco that you perceived killed your first born. I can't see their argument if in fact the AAC takes it consistently the next few years.

Carry on with drinking your coffee. Maybe next time you will think more clearly and be less of a condescending know it all.

Your definition of a "diatribe" seems to be a short set of statements that blow your soft-headed ideas away. Duly noted.

I can only imagine the pain your coworkers must feel having to get up and work with someone like you each morning.

1) isn't there still a moratorium on adding new bowl games? 2) it would make more sense to just give the AAC the access slot and put a carrot in there for a G4 school. Something such as if ranked in top 10/15 and finish higher than the AAC ranked school they get the slot. 3) back when it was the Big East, wasn't there a good relationship with the Fiesta Bowl and Orange Bowl? I think it would be harder to negotiate a deal with the Orange Bowl but think the Fiesta Bowl would welcome them based on history


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(11-13-2017 10:20 AM)fanhood Wrote:  

(11-13-2017 08:55 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-13-2017 08:26 AM)otown Wrote:  

(11-13-2017 08:18 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-13-2017 06:19 AM)otown Wrote:  What about simply changing the G5 spot to an AAC spot? From here on out, it looks like AAC is gonna be the favorite every year. Too many strong teams at the top. The P5 wouldn't be losing any slots. I am pretty sure the bowl would be happier with this setup and not having a chance of getting stuck with a WMU or NIU.

Hell, Aresco was the one who negotiated the G5 slot from the beginning........ I just don't see any of the G4 commissioners suddenly becoming proactive and fighting for something. All they are good for is rolling over and playing dead. So simply take it from them.

Yeah ... good luck with that.

I would not have not expected anything less from you and your anti AAC diatribes. At least you kept this one short.

It's simply a question of logic: First, why on earth would the other G5 conferences just give up their shot at the NY6 for no other reason than, well, the AAC would like to have it to ourselves? That's just dumb.

Second, the idea is on its surface contradictory: If "going forward" the AAC is going to get the bid every year anyway, then what's the point of formalizing it in our favor? If we're not, then that suggests it shouldn't be reserved for us.

Bottom line is that if we get the NY6 slot this year, that will make 2 years out of 4 that we got it, hardly enough dominance to suggest we should, or will, always get it.

Next time, use your head to think, OK?

The fact that this poster things the Cotton Bowl for example is upset about having Western Michigan, while they would be enthused about having Temple, shows how out of tough he/she is.

I am still waiting for true numbers on the NY6 attendance. I know when the BCS was still around, UCF did a pretty good job with getting people out across the country to the worst possible bowl for them to travel to. Everyone is throwing out their opinion, but nobody has numbers.
As far as WMU, even with an undefeated season last year, they still averaged less home attendance than Temple. So yea, I am pretty sure the safer bet would have been Temple. Those are hard numbers that you cannot manipulate.

Please, never ever the Birmingham bowl again, wouldn't wish it on any of our conference mates, wish it wasn't a part of the AAC's bowl agreements. I've attended all of our bowl games but one, and the Birmingham bowl was terribly run that was the absolute worst, never want to go back there again. Terrible run down stadium in a town that's not much better. Memphis went 2 years ago and brought a large contingent of fans (3 hour drive from Memphis). I know many Memphis fans who went the last time who've said they'd never go back. Hell, most UAB fans want no part of it.

(11-13-2017 10:42 AM)otown Wrote:  

(11-13-2017 10:20 AM)fanhood Wrote:  

(11-13-2017 08:55 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-13-2017 08:26 AM)otown Wrote:  

(11-13-2017 08:18 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Yeah ... good luck with that.

I would not have not expected anything less from you and your anti AAC diatribes. At least you kept this one short.

It's simply a question of logic: First, why on earth would the other G5 conferences just give up their shot at the NY6 for no other reason than, well, the AAC would like to have it to ourselves? That's just dumb.

Second, the idea is on its surface contradictory: If "going forward" the AAC is going to get the bid every year anyway, then what's the point of formalizing it in our favor? If we're not, then that suggests it shouldn't be reserved for us.

Bottom line is that if we get the NY6 slot this year, that will make 2 years out of 4 that we got it, hardly enough dominance to suggest we should, or will, always get it.

Next time, use your head to think, OK?

The fact that this poster things the Cotton Bowl for example is upset about having Western Michigan, while they would be enthused about having Temple, shows how out of tough he/she is.

I am still waiting for true numbers on the NY6 attendance. I know when the BCS was still around, UCF did a pretty good job with getting people out across the country to the worst possible bowl for them to travel to. Everyone is throwing out their opinion, but nobody has numbers.
As far as WMU, even with an undefeated season last year, they still averaged less home attendance than Temple. So yea, I am pretty sure the safer bet would have been Temple. Those are hard numbers that you cannot manipulate.

Yea, the Bowl Game cares that Temple averaged ~4,000 more per home game. That effects the bottom line of the Cotton Bowl. Lets ignore the fact that Western Michigan fans showed up to the point that Ford Field had nearly 50k at the MAC Championship game.

Just stop. What would you rather have if you were the Peach Bowl or Cotton or whatever, the chance of having Auburn/South Carolina and Kansas State/TCU or be guaranteed of having USF/UCF? Furthermore, why would they be willing to tie up their game with UCONN or Memphis, just so they could be assured to not get NIU or WMU? What you are saying is illogical.

(11-13-2017 11:25 AM)fanhood Wrote:  

(11-13-2017 10:42 AM)otown Wrote:  

(11-13-2017 10:20 AM)fanhood Wrote:  

(11-13-2017 08:55 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-13-2017 08:26 AM)otown Wrote:  I would not have not expected anything less from you and your anti AAC diatribes. At least you kept this one short.

It's simply a question of logic: First, why on earth would the other G5 conferences just give up their shot at the NY6 for no other reason than, well, the AAC would like to have it to ourselves? That's just dumb.

Second, the idea is on its surface contradictory: If "going forward" the AAC is going to get the bid every year anyway, then what's the point of formalizing it in our favor? If we're not, then that suggests it shouldn't be reserved for us.

Bottom line is that if we get the NY6 slot this year, that will make 2 years out of 4 that we got it, hardly enough dominance to suggest we should, or will, always get it.

Next time, use your head to think, OK?

The fact that this poster things the Cotton Bowl for example is upset about having Western Michigan, while they would be enthused about having Temple, shows how out of tough he/she is.

I am still waiting for true numbers on the NY6 attendance. I know when the BCS was still around, UCF did a pretty good job with getting people out across the country to the worst possible bowl for them to travel to. Everyone is throwing out their opinion, but nobody has numbers.
As far as WMU, even with an undefeated season last year, they still averaged less home attendance than Temple. So yea, I am pretty sure the safer bet would have been Temple. Those are hard numbers that you cannot manipulate.

Yea, the Bowl Game cares that Temple averaged ~4,000 more per home game. That effects the bottom line of the Cotton Bowl. Lets ignore the fact that Western Michigan fans showed up to the point that Ford Field had nearly 50k at the MAC Championship game.

Just stop. What would you rather have if you were the Peach Bowl or Cotton or whatever, the chance of having Auburn/South Carolina and Kansas State/TCU or be guaranteed of having USF/UCF? Furthermore, why would they be willing to tie up their game with UCONN or Memphis, just so they could be assured to not get NIU or WMU? What you are saying is illogical.

No, it would continue to be rolling, like how it is now.
As far as the 50K at Ford Field..... congrats. I would hope they can manage that with an undefeated season, NY6 bowl invite on the line, a stadium located 140 miles from campus.........

(11-13-2017 11:39 AM)otown Wrote:  

(11-13-2017 11:25 AM)fanhood Wrote:  

(11-13-2017 10:42 AM)otown Wrote:  

(11-13-2017 10:20 AM)fanhood Wrote:  

(11-13-2017 08:55 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  It's simply a question of logic: First, why on earth would the other G5 conferences just give up their shot at the NY6 for no other reason than, well, the AAC would like to have it to ourselves? That's just dumb.

Second, the idea is on its surface contradictory: If "going forward" the AAC is going to get the bid every year anyway, then what's the point of formalizing it in our favor? If we're not, then that suggests it shouldn't be reserved for us.

Bottom line is that if we get the NY6 slot this year, that will make 2 years out of 4 that we got it, hardly enough dominance to suggest we should, or will, always get it.

Next time, use your head to think, OK?

The fact that this poster things the Cotton Bowl for example is upset about having Western Michigan, while they would be enthused about having Temple, shows how out of tough he/she is.

I am still waiting for true numbers on the NY6 attendance. I know when the BCS was still around, UCF did a pretty good job with getting people out across the country to the worst possible bowl for them to travel to. Everyone is throwing out their opinion, but nobody has numbers.
As far as WMU, even with an undefeated season last year, they still averaged less home attendance than Temple. So yea, I am pretty sure the safer bet would have been Temple. Those are hard numbers that you cannot manipulate.

Yea, the Bowl Game cares that Temple averaged ~4,000 more per home game. That effects the bottom line of the Cotton Bowl. Lets ignore the fact that Western Michigan fans showed up to the point that Ford Field had nearly 50k at the MAC Championship game.

Just stop. What would you rather have if you were the Peach Bowl or Cotton or whatever, the chance of having Auburn/South Carolina and Kansas State/TCU or be guaranteed of having USF/UCF? Furthermore, why would they be willing to tie up their game with UCONN or Memphis, just so they could be assured to not get NIU or WMU? What you are saying is illogical.

No, it would continue to be rolling, like how it is now.
As far as the 50K at Ford Field..... congrats. I would hope they can manage that with an undefeated season, NY6 bowl invite on the line, a stadium located 140 miles from campus.........

Exactly. My point. The G5 will continue to compete for the game. As Quo said, you shouldn't have anything to worry about it, if you think you will get the game every year.

The AAC's best option is to create their own Bowl Game, and make it their marquee game. However, as others point out to me, the AAC tried to do this with the Miami Bowl and failed.

My solution would be for the MW and the AAC to sign a contract with the Las Vegas Bowl, to where the 1/2 AAC team plays the 1/2 MW team. This way, in most years, two ranked teams will be playing each other, in what most people would argue would be one of the top Bowl games. Move the game to NYE and put it at 7pm EST. From what I hear, this is possible, and Thompson and Aresco have discussed it, but have not received a commitment from the Vegas Bowl yet. Also, the MW would rather play the 3/4 Pac 12 team and the AAC would rather play the 3/4 AAC or SEC team. Both want to see if they can make that happen before committing to this match-up. Time will tell.

(11-09-2017 09:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 09:15 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 08:42 PM)fanhood Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 08:27 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  https://soundcloud.com/nickgryniewicz/aa...scott-anez

**Thinks UCF is under rated

**Thinks the committee should understand by now our top teams are competetive with anyone after the AAC performance vs Baylor and Florida St in the NYD bowls.

**Next TV deal is about a year away

**Thinks we will get a better TV deal

**Doesn't believe the playoff will be expanded soon---but thinks there will be there will be an opportunity in several years to get the AAC a contract bowl. Believes we will have proven we deserve it by then as we are 30-6 in regular season vs G5 and are ussually ranked way ahead of the G5 in the computer polls.

**Thinks the P6 campaign is getting some traction.

**Thinks the AAC deserves a guaranteed slot. Says if the AAC doesnt get the access bowl, the AAC doesnt have an ideal place to go. Believes the AAC deserves a guaranteed place for its champ and thinks that needs to get fixed.

**Would like to keep our good coaches, but its out of our control. The money and P5-G5 divide works against us. Believes we pay our coaches well--just below P5. Its a tribute to how good we are doing at hiring coaches.

What Access Bowl does he think will agree to have the American Champ as its representative? How will he "fix" this problem/deficiency?

My suggestion is that he establish a new Bowl Game, that the American controls, in a professional stadium, in a destination city. Then try to get the best possible match-up for that team.

The real question is--what bowl wants to be part of the CFP rotation enough to accept the AAC champ vs the second or third selection from Pac12 or Big12 (basically it would be similar to the Orange Bowl deal with ACC vs B1G/SEC). I suspect a number of bowls would be interested in that deal. I dont think that would be the issue. The issue would be how much would a network pay for that bowl (that was the hang up with a similar concept in 2012).

Personally, I think it might be easier to make a major bowl part of the negotiations for the new TV contract. A network like ESPN could make that happen. I imagine NBC could as well if they wanted to.

What would such a bowl be worth? Looking at comparable P5 bowls, maybe about the same as the Outback Bowl?

That would be a nice bowl for us, but it would be a cut in pay for the PAC or Big 12 second or third choice (if they made the playoffs). And even if we got the PAC or Big 12 to do it, we are not talking about an NY6 level bowl.

I don't think that any single conference has gotten three (3) teams in CFP ...

(11-10-2017 08:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 09:42 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 09:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 09:15 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 08:42 PM)fanhood Wrote:  What Access Bowl does he think will agree to have the American Champ as its representative? How will he "fix" this problem/deficiency?

My suggestion is that he establish a new Bowl Game, that the American controls, in a professional stadium, in a destination city. Then try to get the best possible match-up for that team.

The real question is--what bowl wants to be part of the CFP rotation enough to accept the AAC champ vs the second or third selection from Pac12 or Big12 (basically it would be similar to the Orange Bowl deal with ACC vs B1G/SEC). I suspect a number of bowls would be interested in that deal. I dont think that would be the issue. The issue would be how much would a network pay for that bowl (that was the hang up with a similar concept in 2012).

Personally, I think it might be easier to make a major bowl part of the negotiations for the new TV contract. A network like ESPN could make that happen. I imagine NBC could as well if they wanted to.

What would such a bowl be worth? Looking at comparable P5 bowls, maybe about the same as the Outback Bowl?

That would be a nice bowl for us, but it would be a cut in pay for the PAC or Big 12 second or third choice (if they made the playoffs). And even if we got the PAC or Big 12 to do it, we are not talking about an NY6 level bowl.

How is it a cut in pay? These bowls are filled after the CFP fills thier 4 slots. If it was a non-CFP bowl then it doesnt get filled until after the CFP fills its 4-slots and all the other CFP sponsored bowls are filled. If it pays 4 million for the P5 team and 2 million for the AAC team,then that would be the second highest non-CFP payout to a P5 team available.

Right now the SEC has the Sugar. The Big has the Rose. Both also have a second contract bowl opportunity for an additional team to go the to Orange Bowl---a option the Big12 and Pac12 dont have. So, the idea of creating another contract bowl that would match the SEC/B1G second opportunity would likely have significant traction with the Pac12 and Big12. If its not a CFP bowl, but pays at the top of the non-CFP scale, there is no reason that wouldnt be attractive to any P5 conference. It should often offer a very attractive non-CFP match up. I suspect even the non-CFP bowl would be pretty valuable to TV--but even more so if its a CFP sponsored bowl that is looped into the CFP rotation (you'd get a prime kick-off slot as well).

I agree it is possible that a bowl that pays $4m to a Big 12 or PAC rep and $2m to the AAC champ could be feasible.

But, that would in no way shape or form be a "contract bowl" in the sense of being a major bowl along with the rest of the NY6. It would not be the "7th bowl" that Aresco advocated for when the CFP deal was being made.

It would be just another non-NY6 bowl. Good for us, but not the same as having a "contract bowl", a major bowl, like the P5 have for their champs.

I agree. My gut feeling, however, is that the AAC will not get the desired "Bowl Agreements" until they get a better TV contract. Contract Bowls Alignments kinda follow the status quo. They are not likely to go out on a limb and hand a conference a lucrative tie-in like that unless they feel like the market is there.

A Solid TV Contract says to the nation that the AAC has arrived (or at least separated itself from the rest of G5) ...

(11-13-2017 12:50 PM)TonyTiger06 Wrote:  

(11-10-2017 08:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 09:42 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 09:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 09:15 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The real question is--what bowl wants to be part of the CFP rotation enough to accept the AAC champ vs the second or third selection from Pac12 or Big12 (basically it would be similar to the Orange Bowl deal with ACC vs B1G/SEC). I suspect a number of bowls would be interested in that deal. I dont think that would be the issue. The issue would be how much would a network pay for that bowl (that was the hang up with a similar concept in 2012).

Personally, I think it might be easier to make a major bowl part of the negotiations for the new TV contract. A network like ESPN could make that happen. I imagine NBC could as well if they wanted to.

What would such a bowl be worth? Looking at comparable P5 bowls, maybe about the same as the Outback Bowl?

That would be a nice bowl for us, but it would be a cut in pay for the PAC or Big 12 second or third choice (if they made the playoffs). And even if we got the PAC or Big 12 to do it, we are not talking about an NY6 level bowl.

How is it a cut in pay? These bowls are filled after the CFP fills thier 4 slots. If it was a non-CFP bowl then it doesnt get filled until after the CFP fills its 4-slots and all the other CFP sponsored bowls are filled. If it pays 4 million for the P5 team and 2 million for the AAC team,then that would be the second highest non-CFP payout to a P5 team available.

Right now the SEC has the Sugar. The Big has the Rose. Both also have a second contract bowl opportunity for an additional team to go the to Orange Bowl---a option the Big12 and Pac12 dont have. So, the idea of creating another contract bowl that would match the SEC/B1G second opportunity would likely have significant traction with the Pac12 and Big12. If its not a CFP bowl, but pays at the top of the non-CFP scale, there is no reason that wouldnt be attractive to any P5 conference. It should often offer a very attractive non-CFP match up. I suspect even the non-CFP bowl would be pretty valuable to TV--but even more so if its a CFP sponsored bowl that is looped into the CFP rotation (you'd get a prime kick-off slot as well).

I agree it is possible that a bowl that pays $4m to a Big 12 or PAC rep and $2m to the AAC champ could be feasible.

But, that would in no way shape or form be a "contract bowl" in the sense of being a major bowl along with the rest of the NY6. It would not be the "7th bowl" that Aresco advocated for when the CFP deal was being made.

It would be just another non-NY6 bowl. Good for us, but not the same as having a "contract bowl", a major bowl, like the P5 have for their champs.

I agree. My gut feeling, however, is that the AAC will not get the desired "Bowl Agreements" until they get a better TV contract. Contract Bowls Alignments kinda follow the status quo. They are not likely to go out on a limb and hand a conference a lucrative tie-in like that unless they feel like the market is there.

A Solid TV Contract says to the nation that the AAC has arrived (or at least separated itself from the rest of G5) ...

The next TV contract comes in in a few years. It conceivably will be in the $4-6 million range. There is a strong likelihood that the new contract will be for another 5-6 years. Which would mean that the AAC will be negotiating its 3rd TV contract when bowl affiliations are up for renewal in 2025.

(11-13-2017 11:53 AM)fanhood Wrote:  

(11-13-2017 11:39 AM)otown Wrote:  

(11-13-2017 11:25 AM)fanhood Wrote:  

(11-13-2017 10:42 AM)otown Wrote:  

(11-13-2017 10:20 AM)fanhood Wrote:  The fact that this poster things the Cotton Bowl for example is upset about having Western Michigan, while they would be enthused about having Temple, shows how out of tough he/she is.

I am still waiting for true numbers on the NY6 attendance. I know when the BCS was still around, UCF did a pretty good job with getting people out across the country to the worst possible bowl for them to travel to. Everyone is throwing out their opinion, but nobody has numbers.
As far as WMU, even with an undefeated season last year, they still averaged less home attendance than Temple. So yea, I am pretty sure the safer bet would have been Temple. Those are hard numbers that you cannot manipulate.

Yea, the Bowl Game cares that Temple averaged ~4,000 more per home game. That effects the bottom line of the Cotton Bowl. Lets ignore the fact that Western Michigan fans showed up to the point that Ford Field had nearly 50k at the MAC Championship game.

Just stop. What would you rather have if you were the Peach Bowl or Cotton or whatever, the chance of having Auburn/South Carolina and Kansas State/TCU or be guaranteed of having USF/UCF? Furthermore, why would they be willing to tie up their game with UCONN or Memphis, just so they could be assured to not get NIU or WMU? What you are saying is illogical.

No, it would continue to be rolling, like how it is now.
As far as the 50K at Ford Field..... congrats. I would hope they can manage that with an undefeated season, NY6 bowl invite on the line, a stadium located 140 miles from campus.........

Exactly. My point. The G5 will continue to compete for the game. As Quo said, you shouldn't have anything to worry about it, if you think you will get the game every year.

The AAC's best option is to create their own Bowl Game, and make it their marquee game. However, as others point out to me, the AAC tried to do this with the Miami Bowl and failed.

My solution would be for the MW and the AAC to sign a contract with the Las Vegas Bowl, to where the 1/2 AAC team plays the 1/2 MW team. This way, in most years, two ranked teams will be playing each other, in what most people would argue would be one of the top Bowl games. Move the game to NYE and put it at 7pm EST. From what I hear, this is possible, and Thompson and Aresco have discussed it, but have not received a commitment from the Vegas Bowl yet. Also, the MW would rather play the 3/4 Pac 12 team and the AAC would rather play the 3/4 AAC or SEC team. Both want to see if they can make that happen before committing to this match-up. Time will tell.

The AAC attempt failed because they didn't put any money into it. The concept is sound--but the bowl must pay as well (probably needs to pay better) than competing bowls to lure a high end selection for a P5 as the opponent.

As for a MW-AAC bowl in Vegas---why would we commit to put our champion in a bowl 1000 miles from the closest campus in order to play a G5 team? There would be zero reasons for the AAC to commit their champion to such a bowl. Given they dont really have a good alternative, the CUSA, SB, or MAC would likely be interested in sending their champ to that venue to play the MW champ.

Personally, I think the AAC is likely to pick up the Heart of Dallas and Fort Worth Bowls in the next bowl cycle. I think we probably dump some low end tiles like Hawaii. We'll will seek to maximize P5 matchups, so I think we will look to get the ACC to place a team every year at St Pete and maybe push for a slot in the Indy Bowl or a rotational slot for the champ in a large bowl pool that includes some of the betterl ESPN bowls like the Texas Bowl. Then we could pick up a few select G5 bowls that have good destinations--and are preferably in the AAC footprint. I think NOLA will come into play here. I could see a lower end MW vs AAC developing in Frisco (since attendance wont matter much there) or even Vegas. Yes, Vegas is out of the footprint and ridiculously far for a G5 bowl, it is a destination city---and I think we want at least one AAC vs MW bowl.

I think we will look something like this--

1) Shared G5 access slot
2) Best case scenario a rotation slot in a pool of several mid/upper level ESPN Bowls linked with the Texas Bowl (say a pool of Texas, Liberty, Music City, Belk, Gator, ). Long shot.

From here on I think this is all fairly likely, though still best case scenario.

3) Military vs ACC
4) Heart of Dallas vs B12/B10
5) Ft Worth vs B10/B12
6) Birmingham vs SEC
7) St Pete vs ACC
8) Indy vs SEC
9+) any of these could fill out the bottom of the AAC bowl list---NOLA vs SB, Cure vs CUSA, BOCA vs CUSA, or Frisco vs MW


Thats 6 potential games vs the P5 with some G5 games to fill in. You'd really need 2 G5 east games and one G5 west game because the P5 opportunities seem to be westward leaning.

(11-13-2017 11:53 AM)fanhood Wrote:  

(11-13-2017 11:39 AM)otown Wrote:  

(11-13-2017 11:25 AM)fanhood Wrote:  

(11-13-2017 10:42 AM)otown Wrote:  

(11-13-2017 10:20 AM)fanhood Wrote:  The fact that this poster things the Cotton Bowl for example is upset about having Western Michigan, while they would be enthused about having Temple, shows how out of tough he/she is.

I am still waiting for true numbers on the NY6 attendance. I know when the BCS was still around, UCF did a pretty good job with getting people out across the country to the worst possible bowl for them to travel to. Everyone is throwing out their opinion, but nobody has numbers.
As far as WMU, even with an undefeated season last year, they still averaged less home attendance than Temple. So yea, I am pretty sure the safer bet would have been Temple. Those are hard numbers that you cannot manipulate.

Yea, the Bowl Game cares that Temple averaged ~4,000 more per home game. That effects the bottom line of the Cotton Bowl. Lets ignore the fact that Western Michigan fans showed up to the point that Ford Field had nearly 50k at the MAC Championship game.

Just stop. What would you rather have if you were the Peach Bowl or Cotton or whatever, the chance of having Auburn/South Carolina and Kansas State/TCU or be guaranteed of having USF/UCF? Furthermore, why would they be willing to tie up their game with UCONN or Memphis, just so they could be assured to not get NIU or WMU? What you are saying is illogical.

No, it would continue to be rolling, like how it is now.
As far as the 50K at Ford Field..... congrats. I would hope they can manage that with an undefeated season, NY6 bowl invite on the line, a stadium located 140 miles from campus.........

Exactly. My point. The G5 will continue to compete for the game. As Quo said, you shouldn't have anything to worry about it, if you think you will get the game every year.

The AAC's best option is to create their own Bowl Game, and make it their marquee game. However, as others point out to me, the AAC tried to do this with the Miami Bowl and failed.

My solution would be for the MW and the AAC to sign a contract with the Las Vegas Bowl, to where the 1/2 AAC team plays the 1/2 MW team. This way, in most years, two ranked teams will be playing each other, in what most people would argue would be one of the top Bowl games. Move the game to NYE and put it at 7pm EST. From what I hear, this is possible, and Thompson and Aresco have discussed it, but have not received a commitment from the Vegas Bowl yet. Also, the MW would rather play the 3/4 Pac 12 team and the AAC would rather play the 3/4 AAC or SEC team. Both want to see if they can make that happen before committing to this match-up. Time will tell.

Yeah, no one cares about MWC. Boise State is the MWC and when they are down the MWC is off the map.

(11-14-2017 09:04 AM)baruna falls Wrote:  

(11-13-2017 11:53 AM)fanhood Wrote:  

(11-13-2017 11:39 AM)otown Wrote:  

(11-13-2017 11:25 AM)fanhood Wrote:  

(11-13-2017 10:42 AM)otown Wrote:  I am still waiting for true numbers on the NY6 attendance. I know when the BCS was still around, UCF did a pretty good job with getting people out across the country to the worst possible bowl for them to travel to. Everyone is throwing out their opinion, but nobody has numbers.
As far as WMU, even with an undefeated season last year, they still averaged less home attendance than Temple. So yea, I am pretty sure the safer bet would have been Temple. Those are hard numbers that you cannot manipulate.

Yea, the Bowl Game cares that Temple averaged ~4,000 more per home game. That effects the bottom line of the Cotton Bowl. Lets ignore the fact that Western Michigan fans showed up to the point that Ford Field had nearly 50k at the MAC Championship game.

Just stop. What would you rather have if you were the Peach Bowl or Cotton or whatever, the chance of having Auburn/South Carolina and Kansas State/TCU or be guaranteed of having USF/UCF? Furthermore, why would they be willing to tie up their game with UCONN or Memphis, just so they could be assured to not get NIU or WMU? What you are saying is illogical.

No, it would continue to be rolling, like how it is now.
As far as the 50K at Ford Field..... congrats. I would hope they can manage that with an undefeated season, NY6 bowl invite on the line, a stadium located 140 miles from campus.........

Exactly. My point. The G5 will continue to compete for the game. As Quo said, you shouldn't have anything to worry about it, if you think you will get the game every year.


The AAC's best option is to create their own Bowl Game, and make it their marquee game. However, as others point out to me, the AAC tried to do this with the Miami Bowl and failed.

My solution would be for the MW and the AAC to sign a contract with the Las Vegas Bowl, to where the 1/2 AAC team plays the 1/2 MW team. This way, in most years, two ranked teams will be playing each other, in what most people would argue would be one of the top Bowl games. Move the game to NYE and put it at 7pm EST. From what I hear, this is possible, and Thompson and Aresco have discussed it, but have not received a commitment from the Vegas Bowl yet. Also, the MW would rather play the 3/4 Pac 12 team and the AAC would rather play the 3/4 AAC or SEC team. Both want to see if they can make that happen before committing to this match-up. Time will tell.

Yeah, no one cares about MWC. Boise State is the MWC and when they are down the MWC is off the map.