Question...

Why is it the GMAC bowl could wait until today to offer the bid to UTEP, yet had to offer Toledo a bid on MOnday? It seems as though the logical explanition they give for offering early is assbackwards.


Interesting question... Something fishy here?

The Liberty REFUSED to release any CUSA team from consideration until after the CUSA title game. Until that happened GMAC could not under their contract issue a bid.

He's right. The Liberty Bowl has a strange arrangement with CUSA. They don't get the winner of the championship game, they get "first pick" from all CUSA Teams.

-Dan

I think after this year the MCB will do the same.

According to articles in papers out west, the GMAC knew before the C-USA title game that they were going to give UTEP the bid. Again, I think it's a good match-up for the MAC and despite the travel distance, UTEP has a great fan base and I suspect will support the game well.....besides, didn't they end up with the best record in C-USA??

UTEP did have the best record 8-3, beating: New Mexico State ,Houston, New Mexico,Tulane, Marshall, Rice, Tulsa, Texas Southern
And lost to: UAB, Southern Methodist, Memphis

thats all well and good except that the reasoning given for taking toledo on monday was so that they could market teh game as long as possible, but since there was no opponent they couldn't market it until today. There was no reason at all for them to make any choice on monday. it could have waited until wednesday.

calvin12 Wrote:thats all well and good except that the reasoning given for taking toledo on monday was so that they could market teh game as long as possible, but since there was no opponent they couldn't market it until today. There was no reason at all for them to make any choice on monday. it could have waited until wednesday.

You mean Toledo wasn't selling tickets, putting together fan travel packages, or issuing releases about their participation.

COHUSKIE Wrote:Question...

Why is it the GMAC bowl could wait until today to offer the bid to UTEP, yet had to offer Toledo a bid on MOnday?

Because they looked at the possibilities
- Northern Illinois if they lost the MACC (or won the MACC and still got passed over by the MCB)
- Akron if they won the MACC (and were passed over by the MCB)
- or any other bowl eligible MAC team (Toledo, BGSU, Miami(OH), WMU, CMU)

...and they decided that they wanted Toledo.

If they wait and the MCB took the team with the greatest upside - then the GMAC might have to accept whoever won the MACC (even if they would have preferred someone else).

Since the MAC requires that the MACC winner gets a bowl game - but not "which" bowl game; the first contracted bowl to offer a slot to a MAC school forces the other bowl to take the MACC winner.

They could have offered a slot to Northern Illinois before the MACC too - then the MCB would have had to either:
- taken Akron if it won the MACC
- taken someone other than the MACC winner if Northern Illinois had won (they couldn't even have taken Akron - which would then have been ineligible if they lost the MACC).

But they chose to invite Toledo - bacause they apparently wanted Toledo - even over the possibility of getting a MACC Champ Northern Illinois or Akron. And yes, even over a MACC loser Northern Illinois.

COHUSKIE Wrote:Question...

Why is it the GMAC bowl could wait until today to offer the bid to UTEP, yet had to offer Toledo a bid on MOnday? It seems as though the logical explanition they give for offering early is assbackwards.


Interesting question... Something fishy here?

I don't even think it was a factor of issuing early or not, Toledo is just a better selection. Exciting QB, better record, etc. Head to head means nothing, pleas people, understand this. The bowls don't care about head to head.

UT__Rockets Wrote:

COHUSKIE Wrote:Question...

Why is it the GMAC bowl could wait until today to offer the bid to UTEP, yet had to offer Toledo a bid on MOnday? It seems as though the logical explanition they give for offering early is assbackwards.


Interesting question...  Something fishy here?

I don't even think it was a factor of issuing early or not, Toledo is just a better selection. Exciting QB, better record, etc. Head to head means nothing, pleas people, understand this. The bowls don't care about head to head.

exciting QB?? hes looked like crap on national TV this year, remember playing NIU? I'm pretty sure there an NCAA leading rusher playing for NIU, and hes looked very good on TV this year. And hes had fans travel to watch him play.

calvin12 Wrote:

UT__Rockets Wrote:

COHUSKIE Wrote:Question...

Why is it the GMAC bowl could wait until today to offer the bid to UTEP, yet had to offer Toledo a bid on MOnday? It seems as though the logical explanition they give for offering early is assbackwards.


Interesting question...  Something fishy here?

I don't even think it was a factor of issuing early or not, Toledo is just a better selection. Exciting QB, better record, etc. Head to head means nothing, pleas people, understand this. The bowls don't care about head to head.

exciting QB?? hes looked like crap on national TV this year, remember playing NIU? I'm pretty sure there an NCAA leading rusher playing for NIU, and hes looked very good on TV this year. And hes had fans travel to watch him play.

He looked pretty damn good on national TV against BG and Ohio though.

calvin12 Wrote:thats all well and good except that the reasoning given for taking toledo on monday was so that they could market teh game as long as possible, but since there was no opponent they couldn't market it until today. There was no reason at all for them to make any choice on monday. it could have waited until wednesday.

The GMAC Bowl needed to get at least one school on board right away. If they could have got both schools on board at the same time they got Toledo they would have done that too, but at least getting the MAC school (which has a longer drive/flight to get to the game) on board as soon as possible is better than waiting another 4 or 5 days without either school on board.

The main problem here is that the GMAC Bowl is played on December 21st. Push the game back to December 28th and they could wait the extra few days as it gives people more time for travel plans.


It is no coincidence that the GMAC Bowl has picked the MAC team in their bowl game before the MACC Game in each year since the MAC began it's participation in the bowl game in 2001.

rocketfootball Wrote:It is no coincidence that the GMAC Bowl has picked the MAC team in their bowl game before the MACC Game in each year since the MAC began it's participation in the bowl game in 2001.

That's the problem. The bowls for the BCS schools can do that, because half the conference ends up going to a bowl anyway. In our case at least, they should be waiting until after the MACC game. Look at what happened to Fresno after they got a bowl bid locked up.

The Liberty Bowl does have the 1st pick and did refuse to release ANYONE. HOwever, UTEP knew they weren't headed there and worked something out in advance...but they couldn't announce it until the LB made it's pick. Then the GMAC bowl gets 2nd pick...they didn't even pick the runner-up (some CUSA fans are bitching about that). They picked the 2nd place team in the west.

UTEP finished 8-3
UCF & Tulsa finished 8-4

Technically, UTEP finished with the best overall record in CUSA. Tulsa had the best conference record at 7-2.

rocketfootball Wrote:

calvin12 Wrote:thats all well and good except that the reasoning given for taking toledo on monday was so that they could market teh game as long as possible, but since there was no opponent they couldn't market it until today.  There was no reason at all for them to make any choice on monday.  it could have waited until wednesday.

The GMAC Bowl needed to get at least one school on board right away. If they could have got both schools on board at the same time they got Toledo they would have done that too, but at least getting the MAC school (which has a longer drive/flight to get to the game) on board as soon as possible is better than waiting another 4 or 5 days without either school on board.

The main problem here is that the GMAC Bowl is played on December 21st. Push the game back to December 28th and they could wait the extra few days as it gives people more time for travel plans.


It is no coincidence that the GMAC Bowl has picked the MAC team in their bowl game before the MACC Game in each year since the MAC began it's participation in the bowl game in 2001.

Monday ->Thursday, 3 day difference, not 4-5 and they still didnt have an opponent.
I also understand that they take a team prior to the MACC but they have always taken a team that was *in* the MACC. If they were that seperate for a team they should have taken NIU. Then in NIU won, they have the champ and the MCB get toledo again, the GMAC does not care who get the MCB. if NIU loses they have the runner up, and the MCB get akron.

calvin12 Wrote:

rocketfootball Wrote:

calvin12 Wrote:thats all well and good except that the reasoning given for taking toledo on monday was so that they could market teh game as long as possible, but since there was no opponent they couldn't market it until today.  There was no reason at all for them to make any choice on monday.  it could have waited until wednesday.

The GMAC Bowl needed to get at least one school on board right away. If they could have got both schools on board at the same time they got Toledo they would have done that too, but at least getting the MAC school (which has a longer drive/flight to get to the game) on board as soon as possible is better than waiting another 4 or 5 days without either school on board.

The main problem here is that the GMAC Bowl is played on December 21st. Push the game back to December 28th and they could wait the extra few days as it gives people more time for travel plans.


It is no coincidence that the GMAC Bowl has picked the MAC team in their bowl game before the MACC Game in each year since the MAC began it's participation in the bowl game in 2001.

Monday ->Thursday, 3 day difference, not 4-5 and they still didnt have an opponent.
I also understand that they take a team prior to the MACC but they have always taken a team that was *in* the MACC. If they were that seperate for a team they should have taken NIU. Then in NIU won, they have the champ and the MCB get toledo again, the GMAC does not care who get the MCB. if NIU loses they have the runner up, and the MCB get akron.

Technically you are wrong.....they took BG last year and they were not in the MACC Game. BG was the first MAC school invited to a bowl game and I seem to remember that the only fans complaining about it were NIU fans. Why shouldn't I be surprised by that?

rocketfootball Wrote:

calvin12 Wrote:

rocketfootball Wrote:

calvin12 Wrote:thats all well and good except that the reasoning given for taking toledo on monday was so that they could market teh game as long as possible, but since there was no opponent they couldn't market it until today.  There was no reason at all for them to make any choice on monday.  it could have waited until wednesday.

The GMAC Bowl needed to get at least one school on board right away. If they could have got both schools on board at the same time they got Toledo they would have done that too, but at least getting the MAC school (which has a longer drive/flight to get to the game) on board as soon as possible is better than waiting another 4 or 5 days without either school on board.

The main problem here is that the GMAC Bowl is played on December 21st. Push the game back to December 28th and they could wait the extra few days as it gives people more time for travel plans.


It is no coincidence that the GMAC Bowl has picked the MAC team in their bowl game before the MACC Game in each year since the MAC began it's participation in the bowl game in 2001.

Monday ->Thursday, 3 day difference, not 4-5 and they still didnt have an opponent.
I also understand that they take a team prior to the MACC but they have always taken a team that was *in* the MACC. If they were that seperate for a team they should have taken NIU. Then in NIU won, they have the champ and the MCB get toledo again, the GMAC does not care who get the MCB. if NIU loses they have the runner up, and the MCB get akron.

Technically you are wrong.....they took BG last year and they were not in the MACC Game. BG was the first MAC school invited to a bowl game and I seem to remember that the only fans complaining about it were NIU fans. Why shouldn't I be surprised by that?

yes techincally I had that wrong, but it was already assured that the teams in the MACC were going to bowl games. mis-statment on my part.

calvin12 Wrote:

rocketfootball Wrote:

calvin12 Wrote:

rocketfootball Wrote:

calvin12 Wrote:thats all well and good except that the reasoning given for taking toledo on monday was so that they could market teh game as long as possible, but since there was no opponent they couldn't market it until today.  There was no reason at all for them to make any choice on monday.  it could have waited until wednesday.

The GMAC Bowl needed to get at least one school on board right away. If they could have got both schools on board at the same time they got Toledo they would have done that too, but at least getting the MAC school (which has a longer drive/flight to get to the game) on board as soon as possible is better than waiting another 4 or 5 days without either school on board.

The main problem here is that the GMAC Bowl is played on December 21st. Push the game back to December 28th and they could wait the extra few days as it gives people more time for travel plans.


It is no coincidence that the GMAC Bowl has picked the MAC team in their bowl game before the MACC Game in each year since the MAC began it's participation in the bowl game in 2001.

Monday ->Thursday, 3 day difference, not 4-5 and they still didnt have an opponent.
I also understand that they take a team prior to the MACC but they have always taken a team that was *in* the MACC. If they were that seperate for a team they should have taken NIU. Then in NIU won, they have the champ and the MCB get toledo again, the GMAC does not care who get the MCB. if NIU loses they have the runner up, and the MCB get akron.

Technically you are wrong.....they took BG last year and they were not in the MACC Game. BG was the first MAC school invited to a bowl game and I seem to remember that the only fans complaining about it were NIU fans. Why shouldn't I be surprised by that?

yes techincally I had that wrong, but it was already assured that the teams in the MACC were going to bowl games. mis-statment on my part.

Technically it wasn't assured that both teams in the MACC Game were going bowling. The MAC had 6 bowl eligible teams and after gaining the SVC and Independence that made 4 bowl tie-ins with none of them saying that both schools in the MACC Game had to be picked.

Of course both Miami and Toledo were more desireable than Akron was last year so they were picked for bowl games, but there was no guarantee for the loser of the MACC game at the time that the GMAC picked Bowling Green.

UT__Rockets Wrote:Exciting QB, better record, etc.

Did Omar transfer to Toledo? Those wins over WIU/Temple really overshadowed the Fresno/NIU losses.