If it comes to fruition, fine, we'll accept it. But I would MUCH rather have a BE owned champions bowl and invite the Big12 and Pac12 to be a part of that rather than sharing with the other conference. I trust Aresco to get it done. This could end up being GOOD news.

(10-24-2012 11:08 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  If it comes to fruition, fine, we'll accept it. But I would MUCH rather have a BE owned champions bowl and invite the Big12 and Pac12 to be a part of that rather than sharing with the other conference. I trust Aresco to get it done. This could end up being GOOD news.

I disagree. If we can't get a 7th bowl b/c none of the major bowls want to participate, why would we do any better on our own? It would be worse, and a much lower payout, and no rotation in the semifinals, and much less prestige. As an adjunct to a 7th bowl, it would work fine. By itself, not so much.

As long as we can play in the finals where we can win the championship if we deserve it it really does not matter does it?

Ha! I just posted this same thought on the Bronco board.

(10-24-2012 11:10 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(10-24-2012 11:08 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  If it comes to fruition, fine, we'll accept it. But I would MUCH rather have a BE owned champions bowl and invite the Big12 and Pac12 to be a part of that rather than sharing with the other conference. I trust Aresco to get it done. This could end up being GOOD news.

I disagree. If we can't get a 7th bowl b/c none of the major bowls want to participate, why would we do any better on our own? It would be worse, and a much lower payout, and no rotation in the semifinals, and much less prestige. As an adjunct to a 7th bowl, it would work fine. By itself, not so much.

Aresco will get us a good bowl. Not to worry.

It probably won't even happen anyways.

(10-24-2012 11:10 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(10-24-2012 11:08 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  If it comes to fruition, fine, we'll accept it. But I would MUCH rather have a BE owned champions bowl and invite the Big12 and Pac12 to be a part of that rather than sharing with the other conference. I trust Aresco to get it done. This could end up being GOOD news.

I disagree. If we can't get a 7th bowl b/c none of the major bowls want to participate, why would we do any better on our own? It would be worse, and a much lower payout, and no rotation in the semifinals, and much less prestige. As an adjunct to a 7th bowl, it would work fine. By itself, not so much.

Agreed - if it's true that the marketplace is tepid on a pool of picking the highest ranked from the Big East and the non-AQs, then it's even less likely that they would want to just pick from strictly the Big East.

That being said, I wouldn't put the 7th bowl plans on ice just yet. If a place like Houston is willing to pay a gazillion dollars to be a part of the semifinal rotation and take the Big East/non-AQs in the other years, then that's going to drive the issue more than anything. If they're not willing to pay a gazillion dollars for that combo, though, then that's where the 7th bowl is in trouble.

(10-24-2012 11:33 AM)Bearcat_Bounce Wrote:  It probably won't even happen anyways.

Tell that to Mike Aresco who is saying different.

(10-24-2012 11:36 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-24-2012 11:10 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(10-24-2012 11:08 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  If it comes to fruition, fine, we'll accept it. But I would MUCH rather have a BE owned champions bowl and invite the Big12 and Pac12 to be a part of that rather than sharing with the other conference. I trust Aresco to get it done. This could end up being GOOD news.

I disagree. If we can't get a 7th bowl b/c none of the major bowls want to participate, why would we do any better on our own? It would be worse, and a much lower payout, and no rotation in the semifinals, and much less prestige. As an adjunct to a 7th bowl, it would work fine. By itself, not so much.

Agreed - if it's true that the marketplace is tepid on a pool of picking the highest ranked from the Big East and the non-AQs, then it's even less likely that they would want to just pick from strictly the Big East.

That being said, I wouldn't put the 7th bowl plans on ice just yet. If a place like Houston is willing to pay a gazillion dollars to be a part of the semifinal rotation and take the Big East/non-AQs in the other years, then that's going to drive the issue more than anything. If they're not willing to pay a gazillion dollars for that combo, though, then that's where the 7th bowl is in trouble.

Yeah, I agree that the 7th bowl is still a possibility. The rumor from McMurphy's source just makes it sound less certain. The only reason I give the rumor any credence is that I believe the bowls just aren't that enthused over any BE teams, and certainly not over the conference as a whole, whatever criteria you want to use. It just happens to be an unpopular position on here, for obvious reasons.

(10-24-2012 11:45 AM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(10-24-2012 11:33 AM)Bearcat_Bounce Wrote:  It probably won't even happen anyways.

Tell that to Mike Aresco who is saying different.

I admire him for working very hard to try to make it happen. Just don't see the money being on par with the other bowls which is what the Big East needs it to be.

(10-24-2012 11:51 AM)Bearcat_Bounce Wrote:  

(10-24-2012 11:45 AM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(10-24-2012 11:33 AM)Bearcat_Bounce Wrote:  It probably won't even happen anyways.

Tell that to Mike Aresco who is saying different.

I admire him for working very hard to try to make it happen. Just don't see the money being on par with the other bowls which is what the Big East needs it to be.

I disagree. The contract is the important thing, even if the money is less, and even if it's shared, as far as access.

(10-24-2012 11:36 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Agreed - if it's true that the marketplace is tepid on a pool of picking the highest ranked from the Big East and the non-AQs, then it's even less likely that they would want to just pick from strictly the Big East.

They're not picking from a pool of all non-AQs, they would have to take the highest ranked team from that group regardless of market value. That means potentially being forced to host a team from the Sun Belt or MAC. The Big East is more attractive on it's own.

My understanding is that the reason we were going to share the 7th bowl was that the BCS told us that was they only way they would even allow a 7th bowl to be created. It wasn't the bowls telling us they wanted access to the Sun Belt.

(10-24-2012 11:14 AM)War Torn Ruston Wrote:  As long as we can play in the finals where we can win the championship if we deserve it it really does not matter does it?

It matters ... "Opportunities to be seen on national TV and in front of NFL scouts will always matter to recruits, not to mention the conference payoff ... "