(08-19-2009 11:34 AM)Tigeer Wrote:  

(08-19-2009 11:30 AM)wvucrazed Wrote:  As for a replacement - if the Liberty is feasible, it would be a perfect fit. But my own personal preference is for the BE to really take hold of the opportunities presented by the Yankee's new stadium in NYC and create an exciting new bowl in the Big Apple.

Memphis is cold in December/January. Can not imagine weather for a bowl in NYC.

Beer + warm jacket + earmuffs + cold weather + great football in NYC = one happy Mountaineer.

(08-19-2009 11:30 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(08-19-2009 11:19 AM)brista21 Wrote:  Well not for nothing but El Paso is not a place I care to visit, perhaps we can be in the mix for the Liberty now instead. I'd much prefer traveling to Memphis and eating good BBQ and listening to Blues.

Good thinking, not to mention that El Paso is about 3 times farther to travel from the average Big East school. The tradition-rich Liberty Bowl (going on 51 years) is there for the taking on one condition.

If that's the condition it solves many problems for us at once. But you folks best get that football program up to speed as fast as Cincy and USF did. But I think you have the kind of support and administration that would do that.

I'd say it is all but certain Big East #3 is going to the Meineke Bowl again.

(08-19-2009 11:35 AM)swash Wrote:  

(08-19-2009 11:28 AM)animus Wrote:  I'm shocked but then again i'm not shocked.

Let the Liberty Bowl/Memphis rumors recommence.

The Big East in the Sun Bowl always seemed a little odd to me as an outsider, so I'm not shocked that you guys are no longer partners. I am a little shocked that the ACC slid in there, though. That's just weird.

The ACC now has two western bowls, the Sun and Emerald. Can't hurt to get exposure out west, and now we've lost that.

As i explained in the other post on bowl revenue, the Big East is very competitive on that measure. The "loss" here is in prestige and national perception. We lose tie-ins with two well-known bowls, one in the west.

From a national POV, that looks bad, and the media will spin it as such. Doesn't matter in terms of immediate dollars, but it hurts the BE brand name, making us less attractive for sponsors, recruits, etc.

(08-19-2009 11:35 AM)swash Wrote:  I'm not shocked that you guys are no longer partners. I am a little shocked that the ACC slid in there, though. That's just weird.

The ACC has 12 teams compared to 8 1/2. Among them are powerful brands such as Miami, Florida State, Virginia Tech, Boston College, Georgia Tech, Duke and North Carolina. Those teams are not very good in football, you say? Neither is Notre Dame. It's tradition, name recognition and fan following that counts most for bowls.

Also that the lower half (Birmingham, Toronto, St. Petersburg) will remain unchanged. Lets hope that the folks in Providence weren't blindsided by this.

I'm going to throw out a couple bowl destinations that may be out there with the reshuffling of the PAC-10 and Big 12 lineups:

San Diego for the Holiday Bowl (opposite the PAC-10 No. 3)
Las Vegas for the Las Vegas Bowl (opposite MWC No. 1)

Anyone interested? I know they aren't on the east coast and neither was the Sun, but at least these are two destinations offering plenty of attractions. Easy to get flights to as well.

(08-19-2009 11:39 AM)BullsFanatic Wrote:  I'd say it is all but certain Big East #3 is going to the Meineke Bowl again.

There's a slight chance that some bowl that gets moved down the ACC pecking order, like the Music City, would be amenable to taking our #3. And the MC pays better than the Meineke.

But like you, i doubt it will happen.

(08-19-2009 11:35 AM)wvucrazed Wrote:  

(08-19-2009 11:34 AM)Tigeer Wrote:  

(08-19-2009 11:30 AM)wvucrazed Wrote:  As for a replacement - if the Liberty is feasible, it would be a perfect fit. But my own personal preference is for the BE to really take hold of the opportunities presented by the Yankee's new stadium in NYC and create an exciting new bowl in the Big Apple.

Memphis is cold in December/January. Can not imagine weather for a bowl in NYC.

Beer + warm jacket + earmuffs + cold weather + great football in NYC = one happy Mountaineer.

(08-19-2009 11:43 AM)mattsarz Wrote:  Also that the lower half (Birmingham, Toronto, St. Petersburg) will remain unchanged. Lets hope that the folks in Providence weren't blindsided by this.

I'm going to throw out a couple bowl destinations that may be out there with the reshuffling of the PAC-10 and Big 12 lineups:

San Diego for the Holiday Bowl (opposite the PAC-10 No. 3)
Las Vegas for the Las Vegas Bowl (opposite MWC No. 1)

Anyone interested? I know they aren't on the east coast and neither was the Sun, but at least these are two destinations offering plenty of attractions. Easy to get flights to as well.

I would love the Las Vegas Bowl.

(08-19-2009 11:41 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(08-19-2009 11:35 AM)swash Wrote:  I'm not shocked that you guys are no longer partners. I am a little shocked that the ACC slid in there, though. That's just weird.

The ACC has 12 teams compared to 8 1/2. Among them are powerful brands such as Miami, Florida State, Virginia Tech, Boston College, Georgia Tech, Duke and North Carolina. Those teams are not very good in football, you say? Neither is Notre Dame. It's tradition, name recognition and fan following that counts most for bowls.

No doubt...I agree with pretty much everything you said...just surprised the ACC picked up the slack by agreeing to send teams and fans to the end of the earth (ie El Paso). I'd think they would try to solidify more of an eastern presence. I understand that the Sun Bowl has a strong local following but as a fan of an eastern school, I'd hate that trip. Just me personally, though.

(08-19-2009 11:50 AM)swash Wrote:  

(08-19-2009 11:41 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(08-19-2009 11:35 AM)swash Wrote:  I'm not shocked that you guys are no longer partners. I am a little shocked that the ACC slid in there, though. That's just weird.

The ACC has 12 teams compared to 8 1/2. Among them are powerful brands such as Miami, Florida State, Virginia Tech, Boston College, Georgia Tech, Duke and North Carolina. Those teams are not very good in football, you say? Neither is Notre Dame. It's tradition, name recognition and fan following that counts most for bowls.

No doubt...I agree with pretty much everything you said...just surprised the ACC picked up the slack by agreeing to send teams and fans to the end of the earth (ie El Paso). I'd think they would try to solidify more of an eastern presence. I understand that the Sun Bowl has a strong local following but as a fan of an eastern school, I'd hate that trip. Just me personally, though.

I thought the ACC was trying to stay closer to home too as they got out of Boise and appeared to be trying to get our of San Francisco too. Guess El Paso is a step closer to home.

(08-19-2009 11:47 AM)MichaelSavage Wrote:  

(08-19-2009 11:43 AM)mattsarz Wrote:  Also that the lower half (Birmingham, Toronto, St. Petersburg) will remain unchanged. Lets hope that the folks in Providence weren't blindsided by this.

I'm going to throw out a couple bowl destinations that may be out there with the reshuffling of the PAC-10 and Big 12 lineups:

San Diego for the Holiday Bowl (opposite the PAC-10 No. 3)
Las Vegas for the Las Vegas Bowl (opposite MWC No. 1)

Anyone interested? I know they aren't on the east coast and neither was the Sun, but at least these are two destinations offering plenty of attractions. Easy to get flights to as well.

I would love the Las Vegas Bowl.

If there's one destination that sells itself, it's Las Vegas. I think that's a viable possibility for the BE since that bowl's Pac-10 tie-in isn't as attractive anymore (as the Alamo is now taking Pac-10 #2, which slides the Pac-10's current bowls down if they were to stay the same).

(08-19-2009 11:54 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-19-2009 11:47 AM)MichaelSavage Wrote:  

(08-19-2009 11:43 AM)mattsarz Wrote:  Also that the lower half (Birmingham, Toronto, St. Petersburg) will remain unchanged. Lets hope that the folks in Providence weren't blindsided by this.

I'm going to throw out a couple bowl destinations that may be out there with the reshuffling of the PAC-10 and Big 12 lineups:

San Diego for the Holiday Bowl (opposite the PAC-10 No. 3)
Las Vegas for the Las Vegas Bowl (opposite MWC No. 1)

Anyone interested? I know they aren't on the east coast and neither was the Sun, but at least these are two destinations offering plenty of attractions. Easy to get flights to as well.

I would love the Las Vegas Bowl.

If there's one destination that sells itself, it's Las Vegas. I think that's a viable possibility for the BE since that bowl's Pac-10 tie-in isn't as attractive anymore (as the Alamo is now taking Pac-10 #2, which slides the Pac-10's current bowls down if they were to stay the same).

The other part of that is where the MWC teams haven't been thrilled with the quality of team they get in the Vegas bowl from the PAC-10. I would have no problem offering Big East #4 or at least playing the Meineke against the Vegas Bowl so that Meineke ups the payout to keep #3.

(08-19-2009 11:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-19-2009 11:19 AM)brista21 Wrote:  Well not for nothing but El Paso is not a place I care to visit, perhaps we can be in the mix for the Liberty now instead. I'd much prefer traveling to Memphis and eating good BBQ and listening to Blues.

It would be nice to get the Liberty, but as it stands right now, our lineup has taken a hit, particularly in the "prestige" sense. The Gator and Sun are far better known than the Champs Sports, we lose chances to play Pac-10 or Big-12 teams.

And let's face it, THIS was real disrespect. Our #3 gets ousted in favor of the ACC #5? That's a tough one to take.

you were right from the beginning, really its worse because they picked acc5 over a possible ND,BE2, BE3, BE3.

I always prefered the liberty, but nothing out there points to either side even talking. wow

(08-19-2009 11:27 AM)MichaelSavage Wrote:  

(08-19-2009 11:24 AM)ECMAN79 Wrote:  wow! Wonder if Meineke tries to move up to #3 now?

Probably. That's one bowl that apparently likes the Big East...

they already are no.3, no.2 when ND chosen. That is the problem.

(08-19-2009 11:52 AM)mattsarz Wrote:  

(08-19-2009 11:50 AM)swash Wrote:  

(08-19-2009 11:41 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(08-19-2009 11:35 AM)swash Wrote:  I'm not shocked that you guys are no longer partners. I am a little shocked that the ACC slid in there, though. That's just weird.

The ACC has 12 teams compared to 8 1/2. Among them are powerful brands such as Miami, Florida State, Virginia Tech, Boston College, Georgia Tech, Duke and North Carolina. Those teams are not very good in football, you say? Neither is Notre Dame. It's tradition, name recognition and fan following that counts most for bowls.

No doubt...I agree with pretty much everything you said...just surprised the ACC picked up the slack by agreeing to send teams and fans to the end of the earth (ie El Paso). I'd think they would try to solidify more of an eastern presence. I understand that the Sun Bowl has a strong local following but as a fan of an eastern school, I'd hate that trip. Just me personally, though.

I thought the ACC was trying to stay closer to home too as they got out of Boise and appeared to be trying to get our of San Francisco too. Guess El Paso is a step closer to home.

I don't quite understand the ACC's overall bowl choices - while the SEC, Big Ten, and Big 12 can fully support tie-ins out west, the ACC is much different in terms of attractive traveling fan bases far from home (as has been pointed out by others on this board). The main attraction of the Sun Bowl is that it has a good TV time slot assuming that it will continue the same as now (New Year's Eve afternoon on CBS), so I guess that's what any eastern-based conference would take into account to balance out the hinterlands location.

(08-19-2009 12:03 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I don't quite understand the ACC's overall bowl choices - while the SEC, Big Ten, and Big 12 can fully support tie-ins out west, the ACC is much different in terms of attractive traveling fan bases far from home (as has been pointed out by others on this board). The main attraction of the Sun Bowl is that it has a good TV time slot assuming that it will continue the same as now (New Year's Eve afternoon on CBS), so I guess that's what any eastern-based conference would take into account to balance out the hinterlands location.

I see your point, but .. isn't that the problem for the bowls, not the ACC? If these bowls out west value the ACC that highly and want to give their teams higher-paying slots, then why not take them?

Today's Sun Bowl decision tells us all we need to know about the gap between the ACC and BE in perceived quality. And that was *with* ND in the equation.

true, definatley stings, but have to let it play out I guess.

(08-19-2009 12:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-19-2009 12:03 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I don't quite understand the ACC's overall bowl choices - while the SEC, Big Ten, and Big 12 can fully support tie-ins out west, the ACC is much different in terms of attractive traveling fan bases far from home (as has been pointed out by others on this board). The main attraction of the Sun Bowl is that it has a good TV time slot assuming that it will continue the same as now (New Year's Eve afternoon on CBS), so I guess that's what any eastern-based conference would take into account to balance out the hinterlands location.

I see your point, but .. isn't that the problem for the bowls, not the ACC? If these bowls out west value the ACC that highly and want to give their teams higher-paying slots, then why not take them?

Today's Sun Bowl decision tells us all we need to know about the gap between the ACC and BE in perceived quality. And that was *with* ND in the equation.

Maybe since there is talk with the ACC and PAC10 possibly starting a network together. Might not be such a bad idea to have the ACC in the western bowls.