CSNbbs

Well, it is in Texas and since many teams in their conference are in Texas it makes sense. CUSA only has all these games because they are close to them, not because they are good in football. No other conference is close enough to the Texas Bowl to warrant a tie-in. BE didn't make any sense in that game. MAC needs to start new bowl games closer to its own region (Indianapolis and St. Louis, for example) because most of these bowls are too far south or west for our fan bases.

This was announced a couple of months ago. They are just having the press conference today. The Big East dropped the Texas Bowl for the new bowl in St. Petersburg.

Makes sense to me. Like it or not the C-USA schools have a greater appeal in football versus the MAC. I'm not saying that is right or wrong. But it is what it is.

Nigel Incubator-Jones Wrote:Makes sense to me. Like it or not the C-USA schools have a greater appeal in football versus the MAC. I'm not saying that is right or wrong. But it is what it is.

In the region i would agree. On the national scale their appeal is the same as the MAC. Look at the TV ratings for the bowl games last season. CUSA's numbers were very similar to the MAC's. Only one that did well for CUSA was the Liberty Bowl and that's because it featured an SEC team.

Most of the bowl games are in their region and even if those teams aren't the established or main programs of their states, which they aren't, they're at least somewhat more known because they're in that region. Games in Texas make much more sense for the Big 12 and CUSA than MAC, WAC, MWC (unless they get TCU), BE, ACC, or SEC. Like i said, MAC needs to start bowl games in its own region so our fans can go. It cost too much to go down south or out west. Look how well the MCB has done. It's because our fans can actually make a 5-6 hour trip for a lot cheaper. It's hard for MAC fans to go to a bowl game on a weekday when you have work and they're so far south or out west somewhere.

epasnoopy Wrote:Well, it is in Texas and since many teams in their conference are in Texas it makes sense. CUSA only has all these games because they are close to them, not because they are good in football. No other conference is close enough to the Texas Bowl to warrant a tie-in. BE didn't make any sense in that game. This makes it nearly certain the BE will have someone to send to the Congressional Bowl. MAC needs to start new bowl games closer to its own region (Indianapolis and St. Louis, for example) because most of these bowls are too far south or west for our fan bases.

Maybe it is because their commissioner doesn't SUCK - and they outdraw us by a health margin in attendance as a conference.

Nicer weather and bigger cities.

NIU Chicago Wrote:

epasnoopy Wrote:Well, it is in Texas and since many teams in their conference are in Texas it makes sense. CUSA only has all these games because they are close to them, not because they are good in football. No other conference is close enough to the Texas Bowl to warrant a tie-in. BE didn't make any sense in that game. This makes it nearly certain the BE will have someone to send to the Congressional Bowl. MAC needs to start new bowl games closer to its own region (Indianapolis and St. Louis, for example) because most of these bowls are too far south or west for our fan bases.

Maybe it is because their commissioner doesn't SUCK - and they outdraw us by a health margin in attendance as a conference.

Of course they outdraw us in average attendance. When its cold, raining, or snowing out here in October and November its still sunny and nice out down south. The MAC is at a geographic disadvantage for outdoor sports.

More bowl games overall means there is more of a chance that there will be a shortage of bowl elligible teams from conference tie-ins, which increases the chances of a MAC team filling the spot. For example, look at NIU's last two bowl trips.

Of course the MAC as a whole needs to do better than last year.

Huskie_Jon Wrote:More bowl games overall means there is more of a chance that there will be a shortage of bowl elligible teams from conference tie-ins, which increases the chances of a MAC team filling the spot. For example, look at NIU's last two bowl trips.

Of course the MAC as a whole needs to do better than last year.

I agree, but these games are still too far for MAC fans. We need to take our own initiative and start more games in our region. The success of the MCB shows that the MAC can do it even without a BCS participant (BT has only participated in the game twice).

So we need to hope that Clemson and South Carolina have another huge fight the last week of the year.

NIU Chicago Wrote:

epasnoopy Wrote:Well, it is in Texas and since many teams in their conference are in Texas it makes sense. CUSA only has all these games because they are close to them, not because they are good in football. No other conference is close enough to the Texas Bowl to warrant a tie-in. BE didn't make any sense in that game. This makes it nearly certain the BE will have someone to send to the Congressional Bowl. MAC needs to start new bowl games closer to its own region (Indianapolis and St. Louis, for example) because most of these bowls are too far south or west for our fan bases.

Maybe it is because their commissioner doesn't SUCK - and they outdraw us by a health margin in attendance as a conference.

Yep. You hit the nail right on the head.

After the MAC and Toledo worked together to secure their bowl bid when they didnt deserve back in 2005, I lost all little remaining faith in MAC leadership. However having said that, I dont really care if CUSA is getting more opportunities for bowl games because bowl games have now become almost meaningless. There are just too many and are awarded not based on actual performance but instead of what connections people have. I think you are really starting to see fans tune out these games, just not exciting anymore. I think this trend of disinterest with the bowls will continue over the next 5 years and eventually get the drumbeat of a playoff louder and louder and louder until it cannot be ignored.

MaddDawgz02 Wrote:After the MAC and Toledo worked together to secure their bowl bid when they didnt deserve back in 2005, I lost all little remaining faith in MAC leadership. However having said that, I dont really care if CUSA is getting more opportunities for bowl games because bowl games have now become almost meaningless. There are just too many and are awarded not based on actual performance but instead of what connections people have. I think you are really starting to see fans tune out these games, just not exciting anymore. I think this trend of disinterest with the bowls will continue over the next 5 years and eventually get the drumbeat of a playoff louder and louder and louder until it cannot be ignored.

Toledo went 9-3 in 2005 and won the GMAC Bowl 45-13.The Rockets finished with the 26th most AP votes in the country and certainly qualified to be in a Bowl.Bowl selection is somewhat arbitrary. A #1/#2 league tie-in is not a guarantee that the Bowl will select the the top 2 finishers in a Conference,but the selection committee has the right to pick those teams before they go somewhere else.

Boca Rocket Wrote:A #1/#2 league tie-in is not a guarantee that the Bowl will select the the top 2 finishers in a Conference,but the selection committee has the right to pick those teams before they go somewhere else.

True but when Team A handily beats Team B, and Team B still gets to be the top showdog put out there by the MAC front office to the GMAC committee, it just does not look good at all. These bowl subcommittees base a large part of their decision on what the individual conferences want. That is where our commish fails in forgetting there are teams that play outside of Ohio in the MAC and why many Huskie fans are anxious to see the end of his "leadership". For bowl bids to have any merit in the eyes of fans, it needs to be based on performance on the field, the current system is about as far away from that as you can get.

MaddDawgz02 Wrote:After the MAC and Toledo worked together to secure their bowl bid when they didnt deserve back in 2005, I lost all little remaining faith in MAC leadership. However having said that, I dont really care if CUSA is getting more opportunities for bowl games because bowl games have now become almost meaningless. There are just too many and are awarded not based on actual performance but instead of what connections people have. I think you are really starting to see fans tune out these games, just not exciting anymore. I think this trend of disinterest with the bowls will continue over the next 5 years and eventually get the drumbeat of a playoff louder and louder and louder until it cannot be ignored.

There's definitely no disinterest. College bowls had their best attendance and tv ratings ever last season. I love all the bowl games. I'll watch most of them regardless who's playing, but i'm a huge college football fan and its my favorite sport.

http://www.ncaafootball.com/index.php?s=..._well_id=2

MaddDawgz02 Wrote:

Boca Rocket Wrote:A #1/#2 league tie-in is not a guarantee that the Bowl will select the the top 2 finishers in a Conference,but the selection committee has the right to pick those teams before they go somewhere else.

True but when Team A handily beats Team B, and Team B still gets to be the top showdog put out there by the MAC front office to the GMAC committee, it just does not look good at all. These bowl subcommittees base a large part of their decision on what the individual conferences want. That is where our commish fails in forgetting there are teams that play outside of Ohio in the MAC and why many Huskie fans are anxious to see the end of his "leadership". For bowl bids to have any merit in the eyes of fans, it needs to be based on performance on the field, the current system is about as far away from that as you can get.

Getting beat "handily" at home by a 4-7 team doesn't look very good either to Bowl reps.Bottomline,the Bowl selection committees pick who they want to invite even with the lobbying of league comissioners.
Obviously UT was a good choice by the GMAC Bowl.

Boca Rocket Wrote:

MaddDawgz02 Wrote:

Boca Rocket Wrote:A #1/#2 league tie-in is not a guarantee that the Bowl will select the the top 2 finishers in a Conference,but the selection committee has the right to pick those teams before they go somewhere else.

True but when Team A handily beats Team B, and Team B still gets to be the top showdog put out there by the MAC front office to the GMAC committee, it just does not look good at all. These bowl subcommittees base a large part of their decision on what the individual conferences want. That is where our commish fails in forgetting there are teams that play outside of Ohio in the MAC and why many Huskie fans are anxious to see the end of his "leadership". For bowl bids to have any merit in the eyes of fans, it needs to be based on performance on the field, the current system is about as far away from that as you can get.

Getting beat "handily" at home by a 4-7 team doesn't look very good either to Bowl reps.Bottomline,the Bowl selection committees pick who they want to invite even with the lobbying of league comissioners.
Obviously UT was a good choice by the GMAC Bowl.

If I ran for President and found a way to win based on voter fraud, but I still did a good job running the country, would I have still been a good choice? Sure, Toledo did a great job in the bowl game, but they didnt deserve to be there.

epasnoopy Wrote:

NIU Chicago Wrote:

epasnoopy Wrote:Well, it is in Texas and since many teams in their conference are in Texas it makes sense. CUSA only has all these games because they are close to them, not because they are good in football. No other conference is close enough to the Texas Bowl to warrant a tie-in. BE didn't make any sense in that game. This makes it nearly certain the BE will have someone to send to the Congressional Bowl. MAC needs to start new bowl games closer to its own region (Indianapolis and St. Louis, for example) because most of these bowls are too far south or west for our fan bases.

Maybe it is because their commissioner doesn't SUCK - and they outdraw us by a health margin in attendance as a conference.

Of course they outdraw us in average attendance. When its cold, raining, or snowing out here in October and November its still sunny and nice out down south. The MAC is at a geographic disadvantage for outdoor sports.

Always the same excuses - what are the numbers if you only took September and the 1st 2 weeks of October???? I bet we still are handily defeated.

The MAC has too many BRUTAL teams and programs without ANY identity!

The difference between the MAC and CUSA is that CUSA seemed to actually have an idea of what they were doing. So they can draw fans to games.

NIU just seems like a bad fit for a Michigan/Ohio conference. And I include Balls Tate and Buffalo in the bad fit department. Temple is probably in that group, and IF WKU comes aboard they are a bad fit too.

I'm not saying there is a fix, I'm just saying the MAC would be better off without us, and us without them. Can you imagine if it was the MOC (michigan-Ohio conference), they can have a lot of good interstate rivalries that would be a step below the UM - OSU games. If Youngstown ever wanted to go FBS, and some other schools in that range they could have a neat conference.

Leaving us and the other schools free to find a new home. It would probably be the best system:

MOC
Akron
Bowling Green
Ohio
Miami
Toledo
Kent State
EMU
CMU
WMU
Youngstown

(And then if they were smart they would attempt to get 2 bowl games, both near Ohio-Michigan...and not in alabama.)

10 teams...chryst would be happy, and if we could find a new home we would be too.