CSNbbs

I dunno...... maybe that's where we can prove who's better. I honestly think I'd be more interested in that than a game vs a P5 #4, 5 or 6.

What say you?

I see what you are saying but IMO it would just reinforce the belief that we don't belong being mentioned with the P5 conferences.

Plus the ways the P5 conferences are stacked nowadays, if you face a P5 #4 , 5 or 6 its likely going to be a "name" opponent with a large following and an opportunity to be a "statement" game if one of our AAC teams can win the game or just play with them. Unfortunately, its all about perception and I think we get more mileage beating a upper half P5 team than a MWC team. The same thing would apply from a MWC perspective as well. I have no problem playing MWC teams with our lower ranked teams but not our #1 or #2s.

My $0.02

My thought is AAC Champ - Access Bowl and I don't care who it's against.

I'd love to play the MWC champ vs. AAC champ... but I can't shake the feeling that it would further distance us as a separate entity. I feel it would be viewed, in time, as nothing more than an FCS championship equivalent. Even if it's against a lower tier school like Wake Forest or Indiana (as boring as that sounds), we still have to prove ourselves against the higher conferences.

But what about #2 versus #2?

In most years that would be SDSU / Fresno / UNR vs. Any of ECU / Tulsa / UCF / USF / Cinci / Houston.

That way it leaves our #1 (hopefully in BCS slot), allowing our #2 to take our #1 bowl, thus making it AAC #3 vs. MWC #2... not a bad deal imo. It leaves our best shots against p5, and still gives us a chance to show who is really boss if our #3 can win that bowl the majority of the time.

There is value in establishing the top dog of the Go5

(05-16-2013 07:29 PM)blunderbuss Wrote: [ -> ]I dunno...... maybe that's where we can prove who's better. I honestly think I'd be more interested in that than a game vs a P5 #4, 5 or 6.

What say you?

Well, I have been totally against this idea as I think we can only gain in perception by beating P-5 schools. That said, I think a MW #1 vs AAC #1 is probably a much better game than we might end up with for our champ. Right now, we are looking at the Liberty vs the B-12 #8/9 as our best bowl and thats really just pathetic (assuming we even hold that bowl). With the MW playing the Pac-12 #5 and even CUSA lining up against the Big-10 #7---we've lost the perception battle before the football is even snapped. Just to put that in prospective, the MW #4 will play a higher quality opponent than our champion (the MW #4 plays the Pac-12 #7 in New Mexico).

Because of that issue, Im a little more open to the idea of a MW#1 vs a AAC#1. The problem is, the MW has the best regular bowl game slot in the gang of 5. They would be stupid to give up that recruiting advantage. All I can say is I sure hope Aresco has a really strong finish planned for the bowl bid season--otherwise this could get embarassing.

By the way, I like Kruciffs #2 vs #2 idea. That might be a nice matchup for the Armed Forces Bowl---though realistically, it may need to be #3 vs #3. Even under the worst case senario, I think we would still end up with a game in the west vs a P-5 and a game in east vs a P-5. Thus, #1 and #2 will likley be spoken for leaving #3 available.

At this point, the AAC bowl picture is a total unknown. The news that the ACC is looking to sign 9-10 bowls means the ACC can take on every bowl we have heard about and still maintain the Sun Bowl--so the Sun Bowl might not even have an opening. ...lol, honestly I have no idea where we'll end up.

(05-16-2013 07:40 PM)CyberBull Wrote: [ -> ]I see what you are saying but IMO it would just reinforce the belief that we don't belong being mentioned with the P5 conferences.

Plus the ways the P5 conferences are stacked nowadays, if you face a P5 #4 , 5 or 6 its likely going to be a "name" opponent with a large following and an opportunity to be a "statement" game if one of our AAC teams can win the game or just play with them. Unfortunately, its all about perception and I think we get more mileage beating a upper half P5 team than a MWC team. The same thing would apply from a MWC perspective as well. I have no problem playing MWC teams with our lower ranked teams but not our #1 or #2s.

My $0.02

This.

(05-16-2013 08:21 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-16-2013 07:40 PM)CyberBull Wrote: [ -> ]I see what you are saying but IMO it would just reinforce the belief that we don't belong being mentioned with the P5 conferences.

Plus the ways the P5 conferences are stacked nowadays, if you face a P5 #4 , 5 or 6 its likely going to be a "name" opponent with a large following and an opportunity to be a "statement" game if one of our AAC teams can win the game or just play with them. Unfortunately, its all about perception and I think we get more mileage beating a upper half P5 team than a MWC team. The same thing would apply from a MWC perspective as well. I have no problem playing MWC teams with our lower ranked teams but not our #1 or #2s.

My $0.02

This.

What if the opponent is more of a 6-6 #9 selection from a power conference?

(05-16-2013 08:32 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-16-2013 08:21 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-16-2013 07:40 PM)CyberBull Wrote: [ -> ]I see what you are saying but IMO it would just reinforce the belief that we don't belong being mentioned with the P5 conferences.

Plus the ways the P5 conferences are stacked nowadays, if you face a P5 #4 , 5 or 6 its likely going to be a "name" opponent with a large following and an opportunity to be a "statement" game if one of our AAC teams can win the game or just play with them. Unfortunately, its all about perception and I think we get more mileage beating a upper half P5 team than a MWC team. The same thing would apply from a MWC perspective as well. I have no problem playing MWC teams with our lower ranked teams but not our #1 or #2s.

My $0.02

This.

What if the opponent is more of a 6-6 #9 selection from a power conference?

That is a different question and not what the original poster listed as an option.

I don't want much to do with the MWC. In the long run their Boise deal will be poison. Let them choke on it.

(05-16-2013 10:02 PM)CyberBull Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-16-2013 08:32 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-16-2013 08:21 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-16-2013 07:40 PM)CyberBull Wrote: [ -> ]I see what you are saying but IMO it would just reinforce the belief that we don't belong being mentioned with the P5 conferences.

Plus the ways the P5 conferences are stacked nowadays, if you face a P5 #4 , 5 or 6 its likely going to be a "name" opponent with a large following and an opportunity to be a "statement" game if one of our AAC teams can win the game or just play with them. Unfortunately, its all about perception and I think we get more mileage beating a upper half P5 team than a MWC team. The same thing would apply from a MWC perspective as well. I have no problem playing MWC teams with our lower ranked teams but not our #1 or #2s.

My $0.02

This.

What if the opponent is more of a 6-6 #9 selection from a power conference?

That is a different question and not what the original poster listed as an option.

I know. Just curious if people's opinion changes under that senerio or if most people just want a P5 team regardless of the selection.

I'd take the worst P5 matchup over any Sun Belt, MAC, and almost every CUSA matchup. The MWC is a step above those 3 and I'd take playing their champ over a pick 6 or lower from a P5.

The more things change the more the revert back to how they were.

Many of us were in a conference that from 1998 through 2005 had a tie-in to play the Mountain West champion every year in the Liberty Bowl. That ended because the MTN tired of sending it's champion a thousand miles or so away for a bowl.

Progress has a weird appearance at times.

(05-16-2013 11:00 PM)oldtiger Wrote: [ -> ]The more things change the more the revert back to how they were.

Many of us were in a conference that from 1998 through 2005 had a tie-in to play the Mountain West champion every year in the Liberty Bowl. That ended because the MTN tired of sending it's champion a thousand miles or so away for a bowl.

Progress has a weird appearance at times.

good point. This wouldn't be an appealing yearly match up for either conference.

(05-16-2013 11:00 PM)oldtiger Wrote: [ -> ]The more things change the more the revert back to how they were.

Many of us were in a conference that from 1998 through 2005 had a tie-in to play the Mountain West champion every year in the Liberty Bowl. That ended because the MTN tired of sending it's champion a thousand miles or so away for a bowl.

Progress has a weird appearance at times.

If it were in Texas with a better payout then it could be a different story. As for me, I'd take a ranked AAC opponent over the #65 ranked PAC #5/6 team any day.

No Thanks! That's simply not a reward for the team. If you win, there is no appreciation. If you lose, than it looks really bad and degrades the conference further.

The Champion should play against ACC or Big12. If the ACC wants to send us their 4th best team to play our champion, well then that's an easy win.

(05-17-2013 04:49 PM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote: [ -> ]No Thanks! That's simply not a reward for the team. If you win, there is no appreciation. If you lose, than it looks really bad and degrades the conference further.

The Champion should play against ACC or Big12. If the ACC wants to send us their 4th best team to play our champion, well then that's an easy win.

If we can get the ACC #4 we need to lock that up pronto. Unfortunately, I dont get the feeling that offer is out there. Too many P5 vs P5 matchups have tied up the best selections from the eastern P-5 leagues. I have a suspicion that we will need to travel west to find a high P-5 match-up. I think we might be able to pull off something like a #4 selection for the Pac-12 if we move quick and are creative.

(05-16-2013 07:53 PM)Kruciff Wrote: [ -> ]But what about #2 versus #2?

In most years that would be SDSU / Fresno / UNR vs. Any of ECU / Tulsa / UCF / USF / Cinci / Houston.

That way it leaves our #1 (hopefully in BCS slot), allowing our #2 to take our #1 bowl, thus making it AAC #3 vs. MWC #2... not a bad deal imo. It leaves our best shots against p5, and still gives us a chance to show who is really boss if our #3 can win that bowl the majority of the time.

There is value in establishing the top dog of the Go5

I agree... there definitely be interest value between these two pound for pound horses... I think I like your AAC #3 vs MWC #2 idea... but what will we call this trophy/matchup though???

Why would their champs play two bowls? How much of the fanbases can pay to go away twice too? Dumb Idea!

Boise State will just be the highest ranked GO5 champion without having to play in another game.

Yep, keeping 50% of that access bowl payout most years will be pretty sweet...