(01-10-2012 10:21 PM)attackfrog Wrote:  

(01-10-2012 05:52 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  With the previously mentioned good points in mind, does the Big EAST want to have their bowl tie in more than 1,000 miles from most of its members? If so, would you rather have the bowl tie-in at a tourist destination or Dallas?

I like the Cotton Bowl history and all, but perhaps an Orlando or Tampa based bowl elevated to BCS level (hey, add the Cotton Bowl, too for a few more BCS at large teams).

I like the Pinstripe Bowl but I don't see that being a BCS level bowl ever. As much of a tourist destination as it is, it is hard to believe any school would choose to play there if they can play in the sun in January.

The new stadium is enclosed so the game itself is climate controlled. But for a handfull of days each year, the climate in Dallas is ussually pretty mild for the winter. I cant imagine that climate would be an issue preventing Dallas from getting a BCS bowl.

My point wasn't so much about the stadium, but rather the whole trip. Dallas is not a tourist destination. When you live in the northeast, do you want to travel to Miami, Orlando, Tampa, San Diego, L.A. or Dallas? Dallas just doesn't win the majority of times. The other cities are dedicated to tourism.

Understand, I'm not saying that the Big East shouldn't choose Dallas for a bowl tie in if they can get one, but asking if there is a better choice? Any major bowl tie-in is better than none and if the Cotton is elevated to the BCS level, the Big East should take it if they can get it. I was just wondering if there was a better choice.

To answer your question, not that getting a Cotton Bowl Tie in would be a "reasonable expectation" at this point, but when you consider the alternatives the Cotton Bowl has currently, I think, the 3rd highest non-BCS payout, and probably is still considered the top or secondto best non-BCS Bowl (Capitol One Bowl). I think it woudl definitely be the bowl the BE would love to have. The Capitol One bowl has an SEC/Big Ten tie in that it is simply not going to give up for the BE, unless maybe the new set up dictates that Big Ten now gets three tie-ins with the current BCS Bowls*, and even at that point, I would think the number 4 Big Ten team still trumps the number 1 Big East team. Not to mention you still have ACC lurking for better conferences. So there is no question that if the Cotton Bowl wanted the Big East, the Big East would say yes, no questions asked.

*I did not include the SEC in this, because with their expansion, the number 4 SEC team is about the quivalent of the current number 3 team.

(01-10-2012 10:09 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(01-10-2012 07:39 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-10-2012 07:27 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Kansas State and Arkansas are both within easy driving distance of Dallas too, dude. Anyone with half a brain would expect a good crowd under the circumstances. You had 2 good teams, fairly evenly matched, and easily accessible for their both fanbases...

The Cotton has had smashing attendance the last few years because whereas BCS bowls often have to accept unattractive automatic qualifiers, it always gets to match two good B12 and SEC teams.

You thihk so? Put Ole Miss and Iowa State in the game and see what happens...

.... remember, the Cotton gets #3 SEC and Big12, and that is almost never a bad match.

(01-11-2012 09:45 AM)HtownOrange Wrote:  

(01-10-2012 10:21 PM)attackfrog Wrote:  

(01-10-2012 05:52 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  With the previously mentioned good points in mind, does the Big EAST want to have their bowl tie in more than 1,000 miles from most of its members? If so, would you rather have the bowl tie-in at a tourist destination or Dallas?

I like the Cotton Bowl history and all, but perhaps an Orlando or Tampa based bowl elevated to BCS level (hey, add the Cotton Bowl, too for a few more BCS at large teams).

I like the Pinstripe Bowl but I don't see that being a BCS level bowl ever. As much of a tourist destination as it is, it is hard to believe any school would choose to play there if they can play in the sun in January.

The new stadium is enclosed so the game itself is climate controlled. But for a handfull of days each year, the climate in Dallas is ussually pretty mild for the winter. I cant imagine that climate would be an issue preventing Dallas from getting a BCS bowl.

My point wasn't so much about the stadium, but rather the whole trip. Dallas is not a tourist destination. When you live in the northeast, do you want to travel to Miami, Orlando, Tampa, San Diego, L.A. or Dallas? Dallas just doesn't win the majority of times. The other cities are dedicated to tourism.

Understand, I'm not saying that the Big East shouldn't choose Dallas for a bowl tie in if they can get one, but asking if there is a better choice? Any major bowl tie-in is better than none and if the Cotton is elevated to the BCS level, the Big East should take it if they can get it. I was just wondering if there was a better choice.

The Cotton has no interest in a Big East tie-in, and there is no other choice nearly ad good for us.

(01-10-2012 10:47 PM)UHCougar Wrote:  What Jerry Jones, the Cotton Bowl, and the city of Dallas/Ft. Worth want, they will get. . . and money is NEVER an object for the folks in North Texas. . . . really, people, this is the city that took a Super Bowl on their first try. . .

First try? Jerry's been angling for years.

Good turnout for all the local bowls. Even drew 46,000 for the Ticket City Bowl, better than expected given that Penn State fans stayed home and did not sell their allotment.

(01-11-2012 01:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-10-2012 10:09 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(01-10-2012 07:39 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-10-2012 07:27 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Kansas State and Arkansas are both within easy driving distance of Dallas too, dude. Anyone with half a brain would expect a good crowd under the circumstances. You had 2 good teams, fairly evenly matched, and easily accessible for their both fanbases...

The Cotton has had smashing attendance the last few years because whereas BCS bowls often have to accept unattractive automatic qualifiers, it always gets to match two good B12 and SEC teams.

You thihk so? Put Ole Miss and Iowa State in the game and see what happens...

.... remember, the Cotton gets #3 SEC and Big12, and that is almost never a bad match.

The key word here is ALMOST...

(01-11-2012 02:45 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(01-11-2012 01:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-10-2012 10:09 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(01-10-2012 07:39 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-10-2012 07:27 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Kansas State and Arkansas are both within easy driving distance of Dallas too, dude. Anyone with half a brain would expect a good crowd under the circumstances. You had 2 good teams, fairly evenly matched, and easily accessible for their both fanbases...

The Cotton has had smashing attendance the last few years because whereas BCS bowls often have to accept unattractive automatic qualifiers, it always gets to match two good B12 and SEC teams.

You thihk so? Put Ole Miss and Iowa State in the game and see what happens...

.... remember, the Cotton gets #3 SEC and Big12, and that is almost never a bad match.

The key word here is ALMOST...

Yes, but remember that no bowl, except for the national title game, always has a good match. The Cotton's arrangement gives it a higher probability of a good match than just about any other bowl.

I'll give you that...

(01-11-2012 09:45 AM)HtownOrange Wrote:  My point wasn't so much about the stadium, but rather the whole trip. Dallas is not a tourist destination. When you live in the northeast, do you want to travel to Miami, Orlando, Tampa, San Diego, L.A. or Dallas? Dallas just doesn't win the majority of times. The other cities are dedicated to tourism.

Understand, I'm not saying that the Big East shouldn't choose Dallas for a bowl tie in if they can get one, but asking if there is a better choice? Any major bowl tie-in is better than none and if the Cotton is elevated to the BCS level, the Big East should take it if they can get it. I was just wondering if there was a better choice.

This is a simple point that too many people are forgetting. If you're going to be asking people to spending thousands of dollars and travel thousands of miles, you need it to be a great vacation destination. Once again, that's why Orlando, which might have the worst actual stadium of ANY bowl, is able to get very best non-BCS matchup (SEC #2 vs. Big Ten #2) and offer the top payout. It's not a tough sell to get someone from the Midwest to shell out some cash to go to wrap in a trip to Disney World with a bowl game with nice weather in the middle winter. Dallas just doesn't and won't ever have that allure. It's not that Dallas is bad (as it certainly has better weather than Chicago) - it's just that when Northerners think of places to travel over the holidays, Florida, California and Arizona are already at the top of their lists with or without football. (Note that I'm talking about the AVERAGE Northerner. I'm sure that there are some here that hate some or all of those warm weather places, but as evidenced by airline and hotel prices, that's not the norm in terms of holiday travel.) Dallas isn't even part of the discussion.

The Cotton Bowl's main location attribute is that it's the center of the Big 12 alumni base along with having a large presence of SEC West alums, so many of its ticket buyers are in the DFW area directly and then most of the rest are from the other Texas markets like Houston, Austin and San Antonio that are effectively day trips. It's not a bowl that's suited for bringing in teams from long distances in the manner that the Rose, Fiesta and the Florida-based bowls are. That's why the Cotton needs to have a Big 12 tie-in, whether it's #1 or #2.

(01-13-2012 11:09 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-11-2012 09:45 AM)HtownOrange Wrote:  My point wasn't so much about the stadium, but rather the whole trip. Dallas is not a tourist destination. When you live in the northeast, do you want to travel to Miami, Orlando, Tampa, San Diego, L.A. or Dallas? Dallas just doesn't win the majority of times. The other cities are dedicated to tourism.

Understand, I'm not saying that the Big East shouldn't choose Dallas for a bowl tie in if they can get one, but asking if there is a better choice? Any major bowl tie-in is better than none and if the Cotton is elevated to the BCS level, the Big East should take it if they can get it. I was just wondering if there was a better choice.

This is a simple point that too many people are forgetting. If you're going to be asking people to spending thousands of dollars and travel thousands of miles, you need it to be a great vacation destination. Once again, that's why Orlando, which might have the worst actual stadium of ANY bowl, is able to get very best non-BCS matchup (SEC #2 vs. Big Ten #2) and offer the top payout. It's not a tough sell to get someone from the Midwest to shell out some cash to go to wrap in a trip to Disney World with a bowl game with nice weather in the middle winter. Dallas just doesn't and won't ever have that allure. It's not that Dallas is bad (as it certainly has better weather than Chicago) - it's just that when Northerners think of places to travel over the holidays, Florida, California and Arizona are already at the top of their lists with or without football. (Note that I'm talking about the AVERAGE Northerner. I'm sure that there are some here that hate some or all of those warm weather places, but as evidenced by airline and hotel prices, that's not the norm in terms of holiday travel.) Dallas isn't even part of the discussion.

The Cotton Bowl's main location attribute is that it's the center of the Big 12 alumni base along with having a large presence of SEC West alums, so many of its ticket buyers are in the DFW area directly and then most of the rest are from the other Texas markets like Houston, Austin and San Antonio that are effectively day trips. It's not a bowl that's suited for bringing in teams from long distances in the manner that the Rose, Fiesta and the Florida-based bowls are. That's why the Cotton needs to have a Big 12 tie-in, whether it's #1 or #2.

Thanks, Frank. That was the point I was trying to make. Dallas simply does not scream vacation to snow bound people.

(01-13-2012 11:09 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-11-2012 09:45 AM)HtownOrange Wrote:  My point wasn't so much about the stadium, but rather the whole trip. Dallas is not a tourist destination. When you live in the northeast, do you want to travel to Miami, Orlando, Tampa, San Diego, L.A. or Dallas? Dallas just doesn't win the majority of times. The other cities are dedicated to tourism.

Understand, I'm not saying that the Big East shouldn't choose Dallas for a bowl tie in if they can get one, but asking if there is a better choice? Any major bowl tie-in is better than none and if the Cotton is elevated to the BCS level, the Big East should take it if they can get it. I was just wondering if there was a better choice.

The Cotton Bowl's main location attribute is that it's the center of the Big 12 alumni base along with having a large presence of SEC West alums, so many of its ticket buyers are in the DFW area directly and then most of the rest are from the other Texas markets like Houston, Austin and San Antonio that are effectively day trips. It's not a bowl that's suited for bringing in teams from long distances in the manner that the Rose, Fiesta and the Florida-based bowls are. That's why the Cotton needs to have a Big 12 tie-in, whether it's #1 or #2.

Fortunately, the Cotton will never have trouble with having a Big12 tie-in, nor an SEC tie-in as long as it wants them, and why wouldn't it want them?

(01-11-2012 09:45 AM)HtownOrange Wrote:  

(01-10-2012 10:21 PM)attackfrog Wrote:  

(01-10-2012 05:52 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  With the previously mentioned good points in mind, does the Big EAST want to have their bowl tie in more than 1,000 miles from most of its members? If so, would you rather have the bowl tie-in at a tourist destination or Dallas?

I like the Cotton Bowl history and all, but perhaps an Orlando or Tampa based bowl elevated to BCS level (hey, add the Cotton Bowl, too for a few more BCS at large teams).

I like the Pinstripe Bowl but I don't see that being a BCS level bowl ever. As much of a tourist destination as it is, it is hard to believe any school would choose to play there if they can play in the sun in January.

The new stadium is enclosed so the game itself is climate controlled. But for a handfull of days each year, the climate in Dallas is ussually pretty mild for the winter. I cant imagine that climate would be an issue preventing Dallas from getting a BCS bowl.

My point wasn't so much about the stadium, but rather the whole trip. Dallas is not a tourist destination. When you live in the northeast, do you want to travel to Miami, Orlando, Tampa, San Diego, L.A. or Dallas? Dallas just doesn't win the majority of times. The other cities are dedicated to tourism.

Understand, I'm not saying that the Big East shouldn't choose Dallas for a bowl tie in if they can get one, but asking if there is a better choice? Any major bowl tie-in is better than none and if the Cotton is elevated to the BCS level, the Big East should take it if they can get it. I was just wondering if there was a better choice.

Would love to see the Holiday Bowl, in SD, get serious again about striving to be a bigger bowl. Seems they have taken a step back lately in terms of $$$ which has led to less attractive match-ups. Obviously as an Aztec fan, I am hoping that somehow the BE ends up with a bowl tie in to one of the SD bowls.

In a weird way, I think "TV" coverage killed off the Cotton Bowl...because it was already a historic game when it first started and was covered by radio broadcast for 2 decades or more...but when fans/viewers watched a few Cotton Bowl Games with temperatures dropping into the low 20's and even the "teens", the Cotton Bowl had a hard time competing for new lucrative TV contracts with new "BCS" Conferences...as the advantage went to "sunny" locations in AZ and FLA...and/or those with Domes (New Orleans...and then later, AZ's dome too).

Jerry's World now gives the Cotton Bowl Game a fighting chance to put on a BCS Bowl Game (or National Championship Game) in a huge Dome stadium.

If the Cotton Bowl Game stayed outdoors at the ancient Cotton Bowl Stadium, it would have 0% chance of landing a BCS Bowl Game, let alone a National Championship Game.

(01-14-2012 09:22 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  In a weird way, I think "TV" coverage killed off the Cotton Bowl...because it was already a historic game when it first started and was covered by radio broadcast for 2 decades or more...but when fans/viewers watched a few Cotton Bowl Games with temperatures dropping into the low 20's and even the "teens", the Cotton Bowl had a hard time competing for new lucrative TV contracts with new "BCS" Conferences...as the advantage went to "sunny" locations in AZ and FLA...and/or those with Domes (New Orleans...and then later, AZ's dome too).

Jerry's World now gives the Cotton Bowl Game a fighting chance to put on a BCS Bowl Game (or National Championship Game) in a huge Dome stadium.

If the Cotton Bowl Game stayed outdoors at the ancient Cotton Bowl Stadium, it would have 0% chance of landing a BCS Bowl Game, let alone a National Championship Game.

The last cold game at the CB was 1979, so that's a weak argument.

TV moeny doesn't revolve around temperatures, it's about the conference tie-ins and with the loss of the SWC the CB lost a seat at the table and it's enver really had one since. Another problem? It's the only major bowl not in ESPN's shadow.

As to the "ancient" CB, it's been throughly renovated in the last four years and seats more (92,000) than the Sugar, Orange, or Fiesta bowl sites. Jerry would like to demolish it and drive all the sports traffic to Arlington, but hey, that's bid-ness.

(01-13-2012 09:30 PM)dshawfan Wrote:  

(01-11-2012 09:45 AM)HtownOrange Wrote:  

(01-10-2012 10:21 PM)attackfrog Wrote:  

(01-10-2012 05:52 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  With the previously mentioned good points in mind, does the Big EAST want to have their bowl tie in more than 1,000 miles from most of its members? If so, would you rather have the bowl tie-in at a tourist destination or Dallas?

I like the Cotton Bowl history and all, but perhaps an Orlando or Tampa based bowl elevated to BCS level (hey, add the Cotton Bowl, too for a few more BCS at large teams).

I like the Pinstripe Bowl but I don't see that being a BCS level bowl ever. As much of a tourist destination as it is, it is hard to believe any school would choose to play there if they can play in the sun in January.

The new stadium is enclosed so the game itself is climate controlled. But for a handfull of days each year, the climate in Dallas is ussually pretty mild for the winter. I cant imagine that climate would be an issue preventing Dallas from getting a BCS bowl.

My point wasn't so much about the stadium, but rather the whole trip. Dallas is not a tourist destination. When you live in the northeast, do you want to travel to Miami, Orlando, Tampa, San Diego, L.A. or Dallas? Dallas just doesn't win the majority of times. The other cities are dedicated to tourism.

Understand, I'm not saying that the Big East shouldn't choose Dallas for a bowl tie in if they can get one, but asking if there is a better choice? Any major bowl tie-in is better than none and if the Cotton is elevated to the BCS level, the Big East should take it if they can get it. I was just wondering if there was a better choice.

Would love to see the Holiday Bowl, in SD, get serious again about striving to be a bigger bowl. Seems they have taken a step back lately in terms of $$$ which has led to less attractive match-ups. Obviously as an Aztec fan, I am hoping that somehow the BE ends up with a bowl tie in to one of the SD bowls.

The Poinsettia Bowl would seem to be a good possibility for a NBE bowl.

(01-15-2012 12:16 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  

(01-14-2012 09:22 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  In a weird way, I think "TV" coverage killed off the Cotton Bowl...because it was already a historic game when it first started and was covered by radio broadcast for 2 decades or more...but when fans/viewers watched a few Cotton Bowl Games with temperatures dropping into the low 20's and even the "teens", the Cotton Bowl had a hard time competing for new lucrative TV contracts with new "BCS" Conferences...as the advantage went to "sunny" locations in AZ and FLA...and/or those with Domes (New Orleans...and then later, AZ's dome too).

Jerry's World now gives the Cotton Bowl Game a fighting chance to put on a BCS Bowl Game (or National Championship Game) in a huge Dome stadium.

If the Cotton Bowl Game stayed outdoors at the ancient Cotton Bowl Stadium, it would have 0% chance of landing a BCS Bowl Game, let alone a National Championship Game.

The last cold game at the CB was 1979, so that's a weak argument.

It's not.

The average LOW for Dallas on EVERY Jan 1st is 37 degrees (ave high is just 55 degrees)...that's hardly beach/golf weather when they have to compete with cities like Miami (ave high 77 degrees, ave low 60) or Pasadena.

Cotton Bowl Game and even the refurbished Cotton Bowl Stadium had zero shot at hosting a BCS Game unless the game was moved to Jerry World's Dome.

PS. I am glad though Texas/OU have agreed to keep the Red River Rivalry at the old Cotton Bowl stadium for a long-time to come.

(01-11-2012 11:02 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  To answer your question, not that getting a Cotton Bowl Tie in would be a "reasonable expectation" at this point, but when you consider the alternatives the Cotton Bowl has currently, I think, the 3rd highest non-BCS payout, and probably is still considered the top or secondto best non-BCS Bowl (Capitol One Bowl). I think it woudl definitely be the bowl the BE would love to have. The Capitol One bowl has an SEC/Big Ten tie in that it is simply not going to give up for the BE, unless maybe the new set up dictates that Big Ten now gets three tie-ins with the current BCS Bowls*, and even at that point, I would think the number 4 Big Ten team still trumps the number 1 Big East team. .

*

BE isn't going to get cap 1 bowl. WE will have to go past #2 B12, #3 B10 and #4 Sec, and #2 pac, and #1 ACC before we will even get a sniff of a bowl. Truth to be known you probably can add one to most of those conf before we get a look. If we didn't have ND to throw into the mix it would even be worse.

Orlando's stadium problems will be addressed soon. It was in the works when the economy went to hell, Magic's place is done, Performing arts, which was also approved I think is in the works, Bond sales were all but impossible for a while, I expect stadium work will begin in 2 to 3 years.

(01-16-2012 08:08 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(01-11-2012 11:02 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  To answer your question, not that getting a Cotton Bowl Tie in would be a "reasonable expectation" at this point, but when you consider the alternatives the Cotton Bowl has currently, I think, the 3rd highest non-BCS payout, and probably is still considered the top or secondto best non-BCS Bowl (Capitol One Bowl). I think it woudl definitely be the bowl the BE would love to have. The Capitol One bowl has an SEC/Big Ten tie in that it is simply not going to give up for the BE, unless maybe the new set up dictates that Big Ten now gets three tie-ins with the current BCS Bowls*, and even at that point, I would think the number 4 Big Ten team still trumps the number 1 Big East team. .

*

BE isn't going to get cap 1 bowl. WE will have to go past #2 B12, #3 B10 and #4 Sec, and #2 pac, and #1 ACC before we will even get a sniff of a bowl. Truth to be known you probably can add one to most of those conf before we get a look. If we didn't have ND to throw into the mix it would even be worse.

If you read my post, I never said the BE would get it. The OP I responded to asked if the BE would like to have the Cotton Bowl, and my poitn was there is no way you turn it down, because there is simply no way the BE gets a better tie in for a top bowl. I used the Cap One bowl as an example, since it is the highest paying non BCS bowl, and pointed out the near impossibility of getting that one, thus the Cotton would be the next best thing, though I don't especially consider it a reasonable expectation either.

(01-16-2012 08:13 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  Orlando's stadium problems will be addressed soon. It was in the works when the economy went to hell, Magic's place is done, Performing arts, which was also approved I think is in the works, Bond sales were all but impossible for a while, I expect stadium work will begin in 2 to 3 years.

A friend mine works on the production crew of WWE. He told me a couple of years ago when Wrestlemania was held in Orlando, they had to spend nearly one month and $7 million to give the Citrus Bowl a face lift, just so it would look good on TV. Not sure what they had to do, but basically he said it was a dump and looked like it needed to be condemned. He said even though they made a ton at the gate, it was one of the least profitable WM's in recent years ebcause of the expense of making the Orange Bowl presentable.

Unrelated, on the flipside he said the plus side was that because it was Orlando, and they attracted so many fans from outside of Orlando to come (estimates of 50,000 fans traveled into Orlando), and they spent so much money in Orlando - the city estimated $50 million in economic impact, making it basically like a bowl game only without the payout - that cities started bidding on Wrestlemania after that because of all of the money dumped in Orlando that year.