Sorry if a repost - I didn't see it posted and I saw other posts mentioning it as a C-USA bowl for 2009.
Unfortunately, the team putting it together was not able to secure a title sponsor in time for NCAA approval. The news release that I received said that it was a 2-year plan originally so they are okay with waiting until 2010.
http://ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=360273
Where exactly does GMAC stand with its tie-ins for next year?
Quote:Conference USA is losing its affiliation to the GMAC Bowl, so this will allow the league to maintain its six bowl ties. C-USA has never had less than six bowl eligible teams since the NCAA switched to a 12-game season.
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/sports_...-deta.html
Quote:The biggest change for the MAC could come in the GMAC Bowl. The contacts with both Conference USA and the MAC end with the GMAC Bowl after the Jan. 6 game in 2009.
The GMAC Bowl has reportedly contacted the Southeastern Conference, the Atlantic Coast Conference, the Big East, the Western Athletic Conference and the Sun Belt about becoming part of its game.
“Where we stand is, we’re talking to a lot of people and we’ll probably make some changes,” GMAC Bowl president Jerry Silverstein told the Mobile Press-Register in May.
“Mobile has been very honest with us about where they would like to go," noted Gennarelli. "There are conversations ongoing right now how we can help the GMAC Bowl achieve what they want to. It’s pretty simple. They would like a BCS (conference) tie-in on one side and still involve the MAC and potentially C-USA.”
There will be an opening in the Humanitarian Bowl in Boise as the ACC plans to end its arrangement with that game. The MAC could become part of a rotation between the GMAC and Humanitarian bowls.
http://macreportonline.com/index.php/200...r-Now.html
MAC is looking very much in for next year's GMAC after its been pretty much announced when the schedule was released.
The ACC is I believe out of Boise with the MWC making a strong push for that slot therefore freeing up a school for the GMAC.
CUSA down to 5 bowls? And what they do have is very low level offerings like Armed Forces an NO. Houston and St. Pete are solid bowls with the BCS tie-ins.
If the MAC will have 3 tie-ins with BCS conferences and CUSA will have 3 tie-ins with BCS conferences+NO and AF bowls.....is CUSA any better off than the MAC who has picked up at larges in the Independence, Houston, and Poinsettia bowls in recent years?
The MAC, IMO is better off only having 3 quality tie-ins than tie-ins with struggling bowls like NO or AF that may go under.
C-USA had to be incredibly desperate to try for a bowl against a Sun Belt also-ran.
They're slipping out of the picture in football, and the only good thing they have going in basketball took a major hit. The MAC needs to take advantage of this downturn by our closest conference competition.
(04-04-2009 05:14 PM)uakronkid Wrote: [ -> ]C-USA had to be incredibly desperate to try for a bowl against a Sun Belt also-ran.
They're slipping out of the picture in football, and the only good thing they have going in basketball took a major hit. The MAC needs to take advantage of this downturn by our closest conference competition.
CUSA is going to take a hit on ESPN without Memphis BB to showcase. The contract for CUSA on ESPN runs out in after 2010-2011. With the SEC the new flagship conference on ESPN, there is very little need to broadcast CUSA games at any type of a price. CUSA will leave and the SBC will pick up the scraps.
As far as the MAC trying to position itself bowl wise, I don't know if we could really do any better than what we've already have access to. A new bowl in Indy vs. SBC or something would suck I think. I'd rather pick up a nice at-large in the Independence or Poinsettia Bowls.
What we really need is more bowls vs. BCS opponents. The best way we are going to get those kind of games is by winning 7+ and filling in at-large. The way its moving though is BCS conference are tieing in with a non-BCS as their 8th or 9th selections which they routinely don't fill. A game like that is not going to help the MAC, we already have a problem with the Big Ten in the MCB.
(04-04-2009 04:30 PM)Airport KC Wrote: [ -> ]MAC is looking very much in for next year's GMAC after its been pretty much announced when the schedule was released.
The ACC is I believe out of Boise with the MWC making a strong push for that slot therefore freeing up a school for the GMAC.
CUSA down to 5 bowls? And what they do have is very low level offerings like Armed Forces an NO. Houston and St. Pete are solid bowls with the BCS tie-ins.
If the MAC will have 3 tie-ins with BCS conferences and CUSA will have 3 tie-ins with BCS conferences+NO and AF bowls.....is CUSA any better off than the MAC who has picked up at larges in the Independence, Houston, and Poinsettia bowls in recent years?
The MAC, IMO is better off only having 3 quality tie-ins than tie-ins with struggling bowls like NO or AF that may go under.
Um Kitty Cat, if you have not noticed the Big 3 car companies are struggling just to pay bills right now. Not sure how great of shape GMAC is right now but I would have to guess it is not overly strong at this point. I wouldn't call either of those Bowls "quality tie-ins" as you call them. I would have to put both in a "questionable" group. I know, it has been mentioned to me that there will be replacement companies but with the way things are going, I can't see it happening.
Don't count the orlando bowl out.. the st pete was approved last year without a sponsor.. My understanding is every thing else is in place. If not they likely find one before 2010 which was their original plan. You may see a few bowls go under after this year with economy like it is. With Gmac getting tarp $$$ they may or may not be allowed to keep sponsorship going for very long.
(04-05-2009 06:54 AM)goodknightfl Wrote: [ -> ]Don't count the orlando bowl out.. the st pete was approved last year without a sponsor.. My understanding is every thing else is in place. If not they likely find one before 2010 which was their original plan. You may see a few bowls go under after this year with economy like it is. With Gmac getting tarp $$$ they may or may not be allowed to keep sponsorship going for very long.
You are right about the sponsorship; a major golf tournament here in Phoenix recently lost its sponsor. With money tight, sponsors will be dropping like flies in 2009 and 2010. Any entity that receives taxpayer dollars to stay afloat financially will most likely not be allowed to sponsor something so frivolous as a bowl game.
Even taking Govt money, you still have to market & advertize.
what kinda bang you get from buck will be the key.
are sponsorships tax-deductable, most bowls are tied to charities
(04-05-2009 02:07 AM)RobertN Wrote: [ -> ] (04-04-2009 04:30 PM)Airport KC Wrote: [ -> ]MAC is looking very much in for next year's GMAC after its been pretty much announced when the schedule was released.
Um Kitty Cat, if you have not noticed the Big 3 car companies are struggling just to pay bills right now. Not sure how great of shape GMAC is right now but I would have to guess it is not overly strong at this point. I wouldn't call either of those Bowls "quality tie-ins" as you call them. I would have to put both in a "questionable" group. I know, it has been mentioned to me that there will be replacement companies but with the way things are going, I can't see it happening.
You bring up an excellent point, the MAC should be proactive and assume that the Motor City & GMAC bowls are on life support. One of the motor vehicle industries that should be doing well as the economy continues (especially if gas prices go back up to $3-$4 per gallon) is motorcycles. Milwaukee has an outstanding natural surface indoor stadium that sits nearly vacant 6 months a year. Harley Davidson is not only America's best known manufacturer in that segment but a Milwaukee icon. MAC leadership should be talking to HD or Victory about a bowl sponsorship and since Milwaukee really isn't far outside the MAC footprint plus has an indoor stadium to boot. This should be a high priority item.
HD is struggling somewhat. Just saw a feature on them that they are experiencing layoffs for the first time and that business is really slowing. As their market has shifted over time to middle and upper-middle class leisure consumers, they are now having the same problems others who sell to that demo have. People don't buy Harley and Victory for basic transportation.
I don't know what will or will not happen with GMAC.. but the govt has its hands in many places now.. and how that will effect things long term who knows. It may be tough on non bcs conf as a whole over the next couple of years if 3 to 5 minor bowls go belly up.. you know darn well it is those conf who will lose most if not all of those spots..
My take on the MCB:
1). Chrysler was not a sponser in '08.
2). Ford is strugling financially but the game is in "Ford Field" - I think they'll try to stick it out.
3). GM - God only knows the answer to this one.
Might the MCB survive with reduced $ from title sponsers?
If there is a GM bankrupcy who knows how a judge would feel about this contract.
Seriously we need to know how much C / GM / F were putting up.
Do we really think each was putting up say $1M?
If each was putting up say $500K, would Ford pull out to save that money? Are they scrapping their marketing budget????
Can this bowl survive on say $1.2M from title sponsers, plus ESPN plus ticket sales?
After all, I believe each school essentially get their payout from THEIR OWN ticket sales.
In that case, the bowl would be funded by title sponsers and ticket sales not done through the two schools.
the game can surive, especially with lower payouts.
of course the B-10 would pull out.
the game had 2 nice crowds with Sun Belt schools.
as long as the MAC area fans support game,
there shouldn't be a promblem
They talked about all three manufacturers having to pull out of MCB sponsorship late last year when they received their initial bailout money because the bowl sponsorship was considered a non-critical expense.
And as other articles seem to have stated, the Orlando bowl paperwork was indeed submitted without a title sponsorship and the St. Pete bowl from last year did not have a title sponsor when its paperwork was submitted.
One big difference between the Orlando and St. Pete bowls: St. Pete's bowl was owned and operated by ESPN Regional Television, Orlando is not. The St. Pete bowl was essentially submitted with the backing of ESPN as an owner and broadcast outlet, which is huge for any new bowl to have a TV partner lined up. Remember that the Rocky Mountain Bowl application that was supposed to be hosted in Denver or Salt Lake City did not have a sponsor, did not have a broadcast partner lined up and I don't think the conferences involved (MWC and WAC) provided letters of recommendation that the bowl be certifiied.
From all I read.. I doubt this game gets approved this year.. they are using it as a trial run.. for next year.. they get to meet those on the NCAA comittee.. The original article I read said orlando bowl had a TV partner in place.. though it did not state who that was.. but no sponsorship.. Delaying it for one year may well be a good thing..give economy a while to turn.. and find a sponsor.. rather than forcing the issue without proper $$$ backing in place.
(04-06-2009 06:49 AM)goodknightfl Wrote: [ -> ]From all I read.. I doubt this game gets approved this year.. they are using it as a trial run.. for next year.. they get to meet those on the NCAA comittee.. The original article I read said orlando bowl had a TV partner in place.. though it did not state who that was.. but no sponsorship.. Delaying it for one year may well be a good thing..give economy a while to turn.. and find a sponsor.. rather than forcing the issue without proper $$$ backing in place.
The economy is a good reason (or excuse) for the NCAA to say "no' to a new bowl.
The economy is causing a lot of enterprises and individuals to exercise greater caution.
Here is a snipet about Ford. I believe Ford will pull through without gov't help and will be able to continue to support the MCB (just MY opinion):
"Monday, April 6, 2009
Ford reduces debt by $9.9 billion
Bryce G. Hoffman / The Detroit News
Ford Motor Co. today announced that it has successfully completed the debt restructuring initiatives it announced last month, reducing its automotive division's debt by $9.9 billion -- a move that it says will save the company $500 million a year.
The Dearborn automaker and its credit subsidiary are using $2.4 billion in cash and 468 million shares of stock to retire that amount.
"By substantially reducing our debt, Ford is taking another step toward creating an exciting, viable enterprise," said CEO Alan Mulally. "As with our recent agreements with the UAW, Ford continues to lead the industry in taking the decisive actions necessary to weather the current downturn and deliver long-term profitable growth."