(11-19-2009 10:19 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(11-19-2009 10:00 PM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  there was early talk of the champs wanting ND 2 of 4. I know he is saying they were interested in BE without them, but I think no way they do the deal without them, especially that early in the process. He's talking like a good bowl partner, unlike the publicly demeaning one the BE has this year.

I never heard any such talk. Nor have I read anything of the sort. These folks approached the BE, not the other way around. If they wanted ND so bad, why didnt they go and make some side arrangement with ND like other bowls have done? I can only go by what I read, from credible sources.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2009...itrus-bowl

(11-20-2009 10:49 AM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  

(11-19-2009 10:19 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(11-19-2009 10:00 PM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  there was early talk of the champs wanting ND 2 of 4. I know he is saying they were interested in BE without them, but I think no way they do the deal without them, especially that early in the process. He's talking like a good bowl partner, unlike the publicly demeaning one the BE has this year.

I never heard any such talk. Nor have I read anything of the sort. These folks approached the BE, not the other way around. If they wanted ND so bad, why didnt they go and make some side arrangement with ND like other bowls have done? I can only go by what I read, from credible sources.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2009...itrus-bowl

The Orlando Sentinel would certainly be a credible source. But so is the Dunn and Bradstreet Business Report which said this:

Marinatto said the Champs Sports was "aggressive" in trying to align itself with the Big East.
"The came toward us trying to reach an agreement before the Gator did and we felt we'd honor our word and make a commitment," Marinatto said.

The Champs Sports is allowed to take Notre Dame if the Fighting Irish are 7-5 or better, and have two more wins than the Big East second-place team.

Hogan said his side wanted the Big East regardless of Notre Dame's involvement.

http://www.allbusiness.com/sports-recrea...963-1.html

And we should NEVER have allowed the Irish to be part of the deal. In the next round of negotiations - if the bowls as such still exist - we should drop Irish involvement altogether. They add no value for us...

As a NonBCS conference, CUSA is always at the bottom of the barrel looking up. The question I have is: Why is this taking so long? It does not seem terribly complicated. Being a CUSA "homer" and without any facts, I am going to go ahead and guess. The Liberty Bowl folks, if I recall correctly, are moving the team payout from I think $1.7 million to a bit over $2 million. My guess is that Liberty Bowl is holding out for sharing SEC #7/#8 with Music Bowl...and refusing SEC #8/#9. An attractive site (Memphis) and a $2 million payout would be attractive to close by Big-12....or (in the future) the ACC who is already playing in Independence Bowl in Shreveport. Who knows? But speculating is one of the things that makes these boards fun.

(11-20-2009 01:34 PM)Tallgrass Wrote:  As a NonBCS conference, CUSA is always at the bottom of the barrel looking up. The question I have is: Why is this taking so long? It does not seem terribly complicated. Being a CUSA "homer" and without any facts, I am going to go ahead and guess. The Liberty Bowl folks, if I recall correctly, are moving the team payout from I think $1.7 million to a bit over $2 million. My guess is that Liberty Bowl is holding out for sharing SEC #7/#8 with Music Bowl...and refusing SEC #8/#9. An attractive site (Memphis) and a $2 million payout would be attractive to close by Big-12....or (in the future) the ACC who is already playing in Independence Bowl in Shreveport. Who knows? But speculating is one of the things that makes these boards fun.

There are 5 bowls which have yet to sign for 2010-2013:

Liberty (CUSA vs. SEC?)
Papa John's (SEC vs. Big East?)
International (MAC vs. Big East?)
Boise (WAC vs. MAC?)
Detroit (MAC vs. Big Ten?)

-If the Big East does not sign Papa John's that bowl is likely going under. The SEC would then at best provide a #9 looking to play a SBC #3 or MAC #4 or #5. The SEC would then need a backup too. They'd have to play the MAC #4/#5 with SBC backup....what a waste of time for the SEC. With the SEC and Big East out the game is toast as the MAC and SBC already agreed upon the GMAC together. The Big East would then sign with the International Bowl for its #5/#6 team.

-If the SEC opts to go with a #8 in Papa John's and solidifies with the Big East, the Liberty Bowl is looking elsewhere than CUSA #9. The International Bowl likely goes under in this case, which hurts the MAC. The MAC could then supply its champ to Memphis which would be an upgrade over Toronto while the Big East backs up Detroit.

-If the Big East sends its #5 to the Liberty Bowl to play would could now be a CUSA East winner, the SEC #8 would stay in Papa John's possibly to play the MAC which there are no in-state matchups. I find it highly unlikely the Liberty would boot the SEC for a low Big East pick but it could happen.

-The Big East could stay with its #5 in Papa John's while getting a rotaton of CUSA #2 and SEC #8. Two years out of 4 the Liberty would be stuck with SEC #9. This would all be done to accomadate the Big East's wishes.

There are a lot of scenarios out there. My feeling is the SEC would be best off sending an #8 to Memphis for a nice payout over trying to placate the Big East. Why even sign a #9 for the SEC? If there is an open slot they'll surely get in at 6-6. Its the MAC and SBC which have to be concerned about how many bowls they have signed because they risk being boxed out with at-large selections.

agree, I can't think of any reason the sec is enteraining the idea except that they are hell bent in not playing any non bcs teams in bowls. They have connections in birmingham but all this really doesn't make sense. oh well

(11-20-2009 09:10 PM)Airport KC Wrote:  There are 5 bowls which have yet to sign for 2010-2013:

Liberty (CUSA vs. SEC?)
Papa John's (SEC vs. Big East?)
International (MAC vs. Big East?)
Boise (WAC vs. MAC?)
Detroit (MAC vs. Big Ten?)

-If the Big East does not sign Papa John's that bowl is likely going under. The SEC would then at best provide a #9 looking to play a SBC #3 or MAC #4 or #5. The SEC would then need a backup too. They'd have to play the MAC #4/#5 with SBC backup....what a waste of time for the SEC. With the SEC and Big East out the game is toast as the MAC and SBC already agreed upon the GMAC together. The Big East would then sign with the International Bowl for its #5/#6 team.

-If the SEC opts to go with a #8 in Papa John's and solidifies with the Big East, the Liberty Bowl is looking elsewhere than CUSA #9. The International Bowl likely goes under in this case, which hurts the MAC. The MAC could then supply its champ to Memphis which would be an upgrade over Toronto while the Big East backs up Detroit.

-If the Big East sends its #5 to the Liberty Bowl to play would could now be a CUSA East winner, the SEC #8 would stay in Papa John's possibly to play the MAC which there are no in-state matchups. I find it highly unlikely the Liberty would boot the SEC for a low Big East pick but it could happen.

-The Big East could stay with its #5 in Papa John's while getting a rotaton of CUSA #2 and SEC #8. Two years out of 4 the Liberty would be stuck with SEC #9. This would all be done to accomadate the Big East's wishes.

There are a lot of scenarios out there. My feeling is the SEC would be best off sending an #8 to Memphis for a nice payout over trying to placate the Big East. Why even sign a #9 for the SEC? If there is an open slot they'll surely get in at 6-6. Its the MAC and SBC which have to be concerned about how many bowls they have signed because they risk being boxed out with at-large selections.

Nice post Airport, thanks for clarifying this.

Memphis/Liberty Bowl folks have been very kind and have taken CUSA under their wing. As I stated before, a NonBCS conference like CUSA is always at the bottom of the barrel looking up. But, Memphis is a nice travel site...and offers a nice payout. If SEC can only come up with a #9 team or a #8/#9 rotation....I would support severing Liberty Bowl tie to SEC. With so many deals already signed, the best Liberty Bowl could probably come up with is WAC #1. As much as I recognize the powerful recognition and tv audience that the SEC brings, even its #8/#9, I would sever ties with SEC. And go for a long run approach to attract Big-12 #7 from Yankee Bowl or ACC #7 from Independence Bowl in the next bow go round in four years.

Regardless how the many possible bowl deals eventually shake out, I think the International Bowl is a goner. Too bad. Nice stadium and strong local support. I would hope CUSA got this International Bowl moved to UCF/Orlando....and ditch Hawaii Bowl.

(11-21-2009 09:38 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  Memphis/Liberty Bowl folks have been very kind and have taken CUSA under their wing. As I stated before, a NonBCS conference like CUSA is always at the bottom of the barrel looking up. But, Memphis is a nice travel site...and offers a nice payout. If SEC can only come up with a #9 team or a #8/#9 rotation....I would support severing Liberty Bowl tie to SEC. With so many deals already signed, the best Liberty Bowl could probably come up with is WAC #1. As much as I recognize the powerful recognition and tv audience that the SEC brings, even its #8/#9, I would sever ties with SEC. And go for a long run approach to attract Big-12 #7 from Yankee Bowl or ACC #7 from Independence Bowl in the next bow go round in four years.

-First off, the way its looking Boise State will be joining the MWC by 2012 for the MWC to secure that BCS autobid. If Boise left that would severely weaken the WAC.

-The WAC #1 has just signed a deal to rotate among the Poinsettia and Emerald Bowls, taking them off the table. I highly doubt the conference would have any interest in the Liberty Bowl.

-If the MAC does lose the International, its all the more likely they'll be poised to pick up some additional games in replacement. They would jump at the chance to play in the Liberty and for a much lower payout than the SEC. This would make sense because the two leagues don't play each other in any other bowls and both the two largest non-AQ leagues. A lot of MAC schools can drive to Memphis within a day. The MAC has more leverage here than what you might think.

If Boise leaves the WAC, they'll officially take over the mantle of worst FBS conference...

(11-21-2009 11:26 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  If Boise leaves the WAC, they'll officially take over the mantle of worst FBS conference...

The Sun Belt is barely better than the CAA.

The WAC will be even worse than the Sunbelt if Boise leaves. Who else do they have that's any good?

(11-21-2009 11:48 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The WAC will be even worse than the Sunbelt if Boise leaves. Who else do they have that's any good?

Fresno.

Yes it will hurt the league greatly however if they only have 8 schools. Scheduling unbalanced and nobody like ND to help fill things out.

Who has Notre Dame to help out? Notre Dame doesn't help anybody but themselves...

(11-22-2009 07:29 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Who has Notre Dame to help out? Notre Dame doesn't help anybody but themselves...

By ND playing BE schools on neutal sites that counts as home gams for the Big East.

The only gams I know of are attached to females...

As for GAMES, Notre Dame can have their neutral site games with anyone they choose. But if they aren't willing to join The BEast for football, we don't need 'em...

(11-21-2009 11:48 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The WAC will be even worse than the Sunbelt if Boise leaves. Who else do they have that's any good?

If you limit it to this season--Nevada, who is 8-3, 7-0 in the WAC, and now has three 1,000 yard rushers on the team after this weekend. They're the best WAC opponent Boise will face.

(11-22-2009 10:29 PM)BlazerUnit Wrote:  

(11-21-2009 11:48 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The WAC will be even worse than the Sunbelt if Boise leaves. Who else do they have that's any good?

If you limit it to this season--Nevada, who is 8-3, 7-0 in the WAC

True, although I think it says a lot that Nevada is 7-0 in the WAC, yet was beaten easily at home by Mizzou, a team who is 3-4 in a very subpar Big 12 North.

(11-22-2009 11:27 PM)CollegeCard Wrote:  

(11-22-2009 10:29 PM)BlazerUnit Wrote:  

(11-21-2009 11:48 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The WAC will be even worse than the Sunbelt if Boise leaves. Who else do they have that's any good?

If you limit it to this season--Nevada, who is 8-3, 7-0 in the WAC

True, although I think it says a lot that Nevada is 7-0 in the WAC, yet was beaten easily at home by Mizzou, a team who is 3-4 in a very subpar Big 12 North.

Nevada also lost to ND 31-0 or something. We all know what happened to ND when facing BE teams.

Boise is untested big time. I think they are a good team, but I think they will be in for a big surprise when facing a team with a real defense.

Watch 'em get stuck having to play Oregon again...