There is quite a bit of talk of the GMAC bowl looking for new partners for next year when its contract is up for negotiation.

From what I read the ACC is very interested in Mobile and is ready to move its #8 pick out of Boise for this game.

The MAC expects to still be involved, while CUSA is as good as gone from the GMAC.

I'm wondering if it would make sense for the MAC to offer Army/Navy an option to play in Mobile in order to keep that bowl for the conference.

Navy has a deal in place for both the Congressional and Houston bowls. You could have a 3 game rotation for Army/Navy between the Congressional/GMAC/Houston as the options with the MAC in backup mode.

This way the MAC would have at least 3 bowls (MCB, International, rotation game) with a strong possibility of 4 or 5 games if Army or Navy don't qualify. The MAC could claim the rotation games as its bowls so officially the conference would have 5 bowls.

The one thing bowl games want is attendance and name recognition. Army and Navy have that. It would make good sense for the MAC to try and leverage the relationship with Army/Navy.

Here is more detail as how it could work:

Take the 3 bowls

Congressional
Houston
GMAC

Set up a contract that says each bowl is guaranteed to see both Army and Navy in a 3 year window. The MAC will be the conference when Army/Navy are not participants. The MAC can then claim all three of these games as its bowls for a total of 5 games.

When Army/Navy underperform the MAC will step in. There are some years where neither Army/Navy are bowl eligible thus the MAC wins big.

Games in DC, Mobile, Houston good for Army/Navy because of the strong military base presence in those areas. Also nice for the MAC to reach some fertile recruiting areas in bowl games.

Well, the MAC's continuing involvement (even as a back up) in the GMAC is up to those bowl officials...KC, are you hearing that the MAC will likely still be noted as a back-up to the bowl even if our official tie in is ended after this year?

exCincy Kid Wrote:Well, the MAC's continuing involvement (even as a back up) in the GMAC is up to those bowl officials...KC, are you hearing that the MAC will likely still be noted as a back-up to the bowl even if our official tie in is ended after this year?

What I'm hearing (this if from MAC Report Online) is that the GMAC is still very interested in keeping the MAC involved beyond this current contract. CUSA is much more likely to be thrown to the curb, which is surprising because of geography but this is the case as they have too many bowls already.

My idea of the MAC in a bowl rotation with the service academies is far less radical of an idea then trying to get Army or Navy to join for MAC football which will never happen. The MAC and Army/Navy already have a good relationship so why not make it better with a bowl relationship?

MAC Bowl Games
1.BCS vs. PAC-10 Champ (Pasadena, CA)^
2.Motor City vs. Big Ten (Detroit, MI)
3.International vs. Big East/Notre Dame (Toronto, ONT)
4.GMAC vs. SEC (Mobile, AL)*
5.Congressional vs. ACC (Washington, DC)*
6.Texas vs. Big XII (Houston, TX)*

^Played if MAC Champ ranked #16 or higher in BCS standings
*Service Academy bowl rotation games



All bowl games vs. BCS opponents would rock for the MAC. No CUSA scrubs on the slate. The SEC may end up going into Mobile instead of the ACC.

The way I have it set up is that if a MAC has another big year like 2003 it could end up with 6 bowls against each of the 6 BCS conferences for good diversity.

I would take this bowl lineup over what the MWC or CUSA are getting any day. Obviously we would need Army/Navy to do it but it would be worthwhile.

talk about the perfect storm
KC, I love your enthiussam, the Rose Bowl. That will never happen in our life time.
As for the GMAC Bowl, it does not make sence for them to hold onto the MAC. The BE, ACC, C-USA & Sun Belt all have to be talking to GMAC. I know GMAC said they might let C-USA go, but my take is it's negating ploy, C-USA is proabblly asking for million dollars for #2. GMAC pays more than Boise, St Pete & Birmingham, Why wouldn,t BE & ACC be intrested. Sun Belt would take that game for nothing.
MAC has to make thier own geografy friendly bowls

templefootballfan Wrote:talk about the perfect storm
KC, I love your enthiussam, the Rose Bowl. That will never happen in our life time.
As for the GMAC Bowl, it does not make sence for them to hold onto the MAC. The BE, ACC, C-USA & Sun Belt all have to be talking to GMAC. I know GMAC said they might let C-USA go, but my take is it's negating ploy, C-USA is proabblly asking for million dollars for #2. GMAC pays more than Boise, St Pete & Birmingham, Why wouldn,t BE & ACC be intrested. Sun Belt would take that game for nothing.
MAC has to make thier own geografy friendly bowls

I see your point of view but I contend the MAC should shoot for better than geography friendly bowls.

KC, I'd like to see MAC, sell off there best team, like the WAC does. IF you can get TCU-BallSt matchup in Poinsetta, Maybe Boise in Haw.

If the MAC needs to "share" bowl alliances with Army to keep them then the Fit is about to hit the Shan......