Hello - some info. please, since tise the season for bowl games...
Right now there are 2 MAC Bowl affiliations, correct? GMAC and Motor City.
How do they choose which teams go to which bowls? Does the winner of the MAC Championship game get one and the best remaining team get the other? And which team gets which? As a side question, I'm guessing it is straight up the team in each division with the best overall record that gets to play in the MAC Championship game?
As I understand it, next year (2006) there may be a Toronto Bowl which would pit a MAC team vs. a Big East team? It will be voted on in April by the NCAA? If the NCAA agrees, will they play the inaugural game Dec. 2006?
As it now stands you have to be at least 6-5 to be bowl eligible. Will that become 7-5 next year? It would seem so? That could lead to a lot of Bowl games searching for teams that don't have tie-in relationships with bowls. Yesterday's Music City Bowl I think was suppose to have one of the teams from the Southeastern Conference, but they didn't have enough teams eligible so they took Virginia from the ACC.
Question is will this (again guessing you will have to be 7-5) help out the MAC maybe get some non-tie-in bowl games? Does it hurt the bowl system because going 7-5 clearly is a lot harder than 6-5 and maybe make the bowl games scramble for teams in down NCAA years to fill spaces?
Again, thanks with the questions. Look forward to joining the MAC in the 2007 season! I think in the end, over a few years, we will be a positive in football. Happy 2006.
NCAA put limit at 28, 2 bowls would have to die for Toronto. I don't think Toronto gets off ground. Right before next season NCAA will announce 6-6 BCS schools are eligable for conf tie-ins. there not gonna let 8 wins MAC teams in with 6-6 B-10 sitting at home.
templefootballfan Wrote:NCAA put limit at 28, 2 bowls would have to die for Toronto. I don't think Toronto gets off ground. Right before next season NCAA will announce 6-6 BCS schools are eligable for conf tie-ins. there not gonna let 8 wins MAC teams in with 6-6 B-10 sitting at home.
IMHO you are right on the money, and & BC$ greed & money is what will drive the NCAA to change to 6 & 6 record eligibility.
"there not gonna let 8 wins MAC teams in with 6-6 B-10 sitting at home."
Thats what i was afraid of!!
screw the BCS!! as another BCS team BigLEAST teams USF is down 14-nil at half...
When it becomes time this spring for the NCAA Committee on Bowls to meet, it is THEN they need to decide whether or not a 6-6 record makes a team bowl-eligible.
If 6-6 teams are not eligible, the 28 bowls are probably enough and the MAC should be able to get a 3rd and maybe 4th team due to other leagues not filling their quota.
If 6-6 teams are eligible, then the Toronto Bowl or other bowl aspirant (if they have their act together), should be able to get certified for 2006. If they can't get certified, the MAC should file an anti-trust lawsuit against the NCAA. For the past several decades, at least one MAC team has been bowl-eligible with no place to go. If someone is willing to start a new bowl that includes a third MAC squad, legal eagles should be able to argue the bowl deserves to exist as much as those slotted to the 7th or 8th place teams of the BCS cartel.
Please tell me if i got this right
BCS Conference =
ACC
Big LeEast
Big 10
Big 12
Pac 10
SEC
Non-BCS =
Conference USA
Mountain West
MAC
Sunbelt
WAC
If the above is right, maybe it behoves all Non-BCS schools to get their big time lawyers together and fight if 7th and 8th place BSC schools
get bowl slots ahead of Non-BCS teams that finish with 8 or 9 wins... or at least some more bowl game tie-ins for Non-BCS schools...
It turns out CUSA and MTW are already aligned with several bowls, so they are content. The WAC usually gets three teams in every years, so they are O.K. as well. Regarding the Sun Belt, most years they only have one bowl-eligible team anyway.
The leaves the MAC alone in needing more bowls.
"It turns out CUSA and MTW are already aligned with several bowls, so they are content. The WAC usually gets three teams in every years, so they are O.K. "
Obviously, I am new to the MAC, but I have been an avid Temple football fan since I was about ten y.o. or since 1972 really... and am really looking forward to following MAC football in the coming years...
But, anyway, an honest opin, if you would. But my guess, hunch is that MAC football is of equal - or in some years - better quality than CUSA, MTW and WAC. So... the MAC should have at least equal bowl representation/footing as these other conferences. No?
Owls Head Wrote:But, anyway, an honest opin, if you would. But my guess, hunch is that MAC football is of equal - or in some years - better quality than CUSA, MTW and WAC. So... the MAC should have at least equal bowl representation/footing as these other conferences. No?
In recent years it seems that the Mountain West has been the "class" of the non-BCS, the Sun-Belt has been the worst, and the WAC, MAC, and CUSA have generally been a mixed bag in the middle.
And welcome, Owls Head, it's good to see you aboard.
Owls Head Wrote:"It turns out CUSA and MTW are already aligned with several bowls, so they are content. The WAC usually gets three teams in every years, so they are O.K. "
Obviously, I am new to the MAC, but I have been an avid Temple football fan since I was about ten y.o. or since 1972 really... and am really looking forward to following MAC football in the coming years...
But, anyway, an honest opin, if you would. But my guess, hunch is that MAC football is of equal - or in some years - better quality than CUSA, MTW and WAC. So... the MAC should have at least equal bowl representation/footing as these other conferences. No?
Welcome to the MAC and the board OH. You seem like a classy Temple fan and someone that appreciates the opportunity to be in the MAC. We welcome fans like you with open arms. If you get a chance to make it out to DeKalb this year for our game make sure you stop by and say hi.
And yes, the MAC gets screwed more than any other conference in D1A football.
The MAC has the quality of teams to get more bowl games, however your attendance averages scare away bowl execs. It sucks, but thier primary agenda is to make money.
Thanks for the welcome, I like to think I am a classy sports fan. Actually I really am! Don't really like to talk smack. Just good honest sports talk. Right now I'm watching my Owls take on Nova in a Big 5 Tilt! I called a 20 point victory for Nova on their message board so I don't talk smack, just the truth and Nova is very very good... look forward to football talk on this form, very much so...
Thanks for the welcome again!
The Knight Time Wrote:The MAC has the quality of teams to get more bowl games, however your attendance averages scare away bowl execs. It sucks, but thier primary agenda is to make money.
For once I think KT is right
MidnightBlue&Gold Wrote:The Knight Time Wrote:The MAC has the quality of teams to get more bowl games, however your attendance averages scare away bowl execs. It sucks, but thier primary agenda is to make money.
For once I think KT is right
Sort of.
When it comes to bowls deciding tie-ins for the non-BCS conferences, geography is the main factor. Bowls in Memphis, Mobile, Fort Worth, and New Orleans enjoy having commitments from schools within a stone's throw of the stadium.
If for some odd reason bowls sprouted up in Chicago, Indianapolis, and Cleveland, the MAC would be looked at before CUSA. It's just the way it goes.
And Akron's presence at the Motor City Bowl proved that mid-season attendance doesn't always dictate bowl turnout. They probably brought more fans than some "spoiled" BCS schools that unexpectedly went to a minor bowl.
Owls Head
IMO, the difference between what the MAC and other mid-major conferences gets when it comes to bowl tie ins has to do with geography.
The MAC is in the shadow of large, powerhouse football programs which overshadow even good MAC teams. Out West in the MWC and WAC, many of the schools have little or no competition with "big time" programs and end up with a lot more fan and business community support as a result.
The Knight Time wrote:
"The MAC has the quality of teams to get more bowl games, however your attendance averages scare away bowl execs. It sucks, but thier primary agenda is to make money."
I am afraid Temple won't help in the attendance department. We are pretty bad with support at games. But I do think we will greatly improve over the next few years, and I do think if that is the case, and we do become competitive in the MAC the only plus we will bring, other than another good team, will be a larger TV market, city presence etc. But I do hope in time we contribute to improving football in the MAC.
Again, still trying to figure out the MAC, but with all these teams with tied records in the MAC how did they pick the 2 teams to play in the championship game? Obviously not overall record or Toledo would have beat out NIU in the West; and a 3 way tie in the East, some crazy tie-break there?
WEST MAC Overall
Northern Illinois 6-2 7-5
Toledo 6-2 9-3
Western Michigan 5-3 7-4
Central Michigan 5-3 6-5
Ball State 4-4 4-7
Eastern Michigan 3-5 4-7
EAST MAC Overall
Akron 5-3 7-6
Miami 5-3 7-4
Bowling Green 5-3 6-5
Ohio 3-5 4-7
Buffalo 1-7 1-10
Kent State 0-8 1-10
Owls Head Wrote:The Knight Time wrote:
"The MAC has the quality of teams to get more bowl games, however your attendance averages scare away bowl execs. It sucks, but thier primary agenda is to make money."
I am afraid Temple won't help in the attendance department. We are pretty bad with support at games. But I do think we will greatly improve over the next few years, and I do think if that is the case, and we do become competitive in the MAC the only plus we will bring, other than another good team, will be a larger TV market, city presence etc. But I do hope in time we contribute to improving football in the MAC.
Again, still trying to figure out the MAC, but with all these teams with tied records in the MAC how did they pick the 2 teams to play in the championship game? Obviously not overall record or Toledo would have beat out NIU in the West; and a 3 way tie in the East, some crazy tie-break there?
WEST MAC Overall
Northern Illinois 6-2 7-5
Toledo 6-2 9-3
Western Michigan 5-3 7-4
Central Michigan 5-3 6-5
Ball State 4-4 4-7
Eastern Michigan 3-5 4-7
EAST MAC Overall
Akron 5-3 7-6
Miami 5-3 7-4
Bowling Green 5-3 6-5
Ohio 3-5 4-7
Buffalo 1-7 1-10
Kent State 0-8 1-10
NIU beat Toledo, therefor NIU had the tiebreaker. I am not sure about the MAC East and how that was broken. As for the 2 bowls, normally the 2 teams that compete in the MAC Championship game go to bowls. There are many reasons why NIU fans feel we got screwed out of a bowl, but I don't want to hijack this thread so I won't go into that. Just be careful because Temple doesn't play in Ohio, you guys could very well get screwed out of a bowl too.
"Temple doesn't play in Ohio, you guys could very well get screwed out of a bowl too."
As it seems from this thread that a good case can be made for a 3rd MAC bowl tie-in -- Philly wouldn't be a good place. While the Linc is a nice venue, no roof...
I think Toronto would be a good place. I would take a road trip to Toronto. I may even take a road trip to Buffalo. I think the Owls open there in 2006 and two new coachs and two horrible programs probably make for good drama... maybe??
Bronco79 Wrote:IMO, the difference between what the MAC and other mid-major conferences gets when it comes to bowl tie ins has to do with geography.
The MAC is in the shadow of large, powerhouse football programs which overshadow even good MAC teams.
That's amazing. Yup, there's no SEC schools around C-USA. USM = Ole Miss, MSU. Memphis = Tennessee, Vandy. Tulane = LSU. UAB = Bama, Auburn. UCF = UF.
That's not mentioning The Texas schools fighting Texas, A&M, Tech, etc. UCF also fighting FSU and UCF. ECU inthe middle of ACC heaven. And Marshall in talent-forsaken land with WVU.
Please find a better excuse.
Owls Head Wrote:The Knight Time wrote:
"The MAC has the quality of teams to get more bowl games, however your attendance averages scare away bowl execs. It sucks, but thier primary agenda is to make money."
Use the "Quote" button. ;-)