http://csnbbs.com/showthread.php?tid=623715

Yeah, let's just embrace Division IAAA... that will help.

Seriously, USM has already collaborated more than Marshall Petain on Ecstasy.

(03-13-2013 12:19 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  Yeah, let's just embrace Division IAAA... that will help.

Seriously, USM has already collaborated more than Marshall Petain on Ecstasy.

Andre why would the idea not be worth trying? If we can make sure we get our share of bowls for our conferences to keep our better teams able to go to bowls, then all football fans will be winners. By the way USM might even get to go to bigger bowls this way.

(03-13-2013 12:23 PM)SgtGoldenEagle Wrote:  

(03-13-2013 12:19 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  Yeah, let's just embrace Division IAAA... that will help.

Seriously, USM has already collaborated more than Marshall Petain on Ecstasy.

Andre why would the idea not be worth trying? If we can make sure we get our share of bowls for our conferences to keep our better teams able to go to bowls, then all football fans will be winners. By the way USM might even get to go to bigger bowls this way.

Because CUSA is >> than SBC or MAC. If it was with MWC, sure. But not those two scrubs.

(03-13-2013 12:23 PM)SgtGoldenEagle Wrote:  

(03-13-2013 12:19 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  Yeah, let's just embrace Division IAAA... that will help.

Seriously, USM has already collaborated more than Marshall Petain on Ecstasy.

Andre why would the idea not be worth trying? If we can make sure we get our share of bowls for our conferences to keep our better teams able to go to bowls, then all football fans will be winners. By the way USM might even get to go to bigger bowls this way.

nope, sorry Sarge, but this is one where I side with Andre.... Your'e just furthering the split between the universities that GET the big money and the universities that get the scraps.

(03-13-2013 12:33 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(03-13-2013 12:23 PM)SgtGoldenEagle Wrote:  

(03-13-2013 12:19 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  Yeah, let's just embrace Division IAAA... that will help.

Seriously, USM has already collaborated more than Marshall Petain on Ecstasy.

Andre why would the idea not be worth trying? If we can make sure we get our share of bowls for our conferences to keep our better teams able to go to bowls, then all football fans will be winners. By the way USM might even get to go to bigger bowls this way.

nope, sorry Sarge, but this is one where I side with Andre.... Your'e just furthering the split between the universities that GET the big money and the universities that get the scraps.

interesting I would like to hear more of why you think so, and would like to hear the other side as well. I think it is a good debate to be had.

(03-13-2013 12:40 PM)SgtGoldenEagle Wrote:  

(03-13-2013 12:33 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(03-13-2013 12:23 PM)SgtGoldenEagle Wrote:  

(03-13-2013 12:19 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  Yeah, let's just embrace Division IAAA... that will help.

Seriously, USM has already collaborated more than Marshall Petain on Ecstasy.

Andre why would the idea not be worth trying? If we can make sure we get our share of bowls for our conferences to keep our better teams able to go to bowls, then all football fans will be winners. By the way USM might even get to go to bigger bowls this way.

nope, sorry Sarge, but this is one where I side with Andre.... Your'e just furthering the split between the universities that GET the big money and the universities that get the scraps.

interesting I would like to hear more of why you think so, and would like to hear the other side as well. I think it is a good debate to be had.

Do you really want to play GSU or Toledo in a bowl? I think most people who see a GSU vs. USM score on ESPN in December will assume it's an FCS quarterfinal.

(03-13-2013 12:46 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  

(03-13-2013 12:40 PM)SgtGoldenEagle Wrote:  

(03-13-2013 12:33 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(03-13-2013 12:23 PM)SgtGoldenEagle Wrote:  

(03-13-2013 12:19 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  Yeah, let's just embrace Division IAAA... that will help.

Seriously, USM has already collaborated more than Marshall Petain on Ecstasy.

Andre why would the idea not be worth trying? If we can make sure we get our share of bowls for our conferences to keep our better teams able to go to bowls, then all football fans will be winners. By the way USM might even get to go to bigger bowls this way.

nope, sorry Sarge, but this is one where I side with Andre.... Your'e just furthering the split between the universities that GET the big money and the universities that get the scraps.

interesting I would like to hear more of why you think so, and would like to hear the other side as well. I think it is a good debate to be had.

Do you really want to play GSU or Toledo in a bowl? I think most people who see a GSU vs. USM score on ESPN in December will assume it's an FCS quarterfinal.

Andre you do bring up a good point there, so I guess the big question is would it restrict shots at the big guys. Very good point.

Since the B1G, B12, ACC and SEC have all gotten together to make sure they don't have to appear in bowl games vs the Gof5, the result is going to be more bowls between the Gof5 whether anyone in those conferences like it or not. I'm sure all 5 of the Gof5 will try their best to have a bowl or 2 vs the contract 5 but if they are in collusion to exclude us, I don't see what we can do about it. Freedom of association and all. I also don't see the A-12 and MWC being better off with the exception that the PAC 12 is so far not included in the collusion of the rest of the contract 5 and will likely continue their 2 bowls that include the MWC, LV Bowl and the NM Bowl. The NM Bowl is for the PAC 12 last selection and with that conference playing 9 conference games its going to be difficult to count on a PAC 12 team every year.

(03-13-2013 12:51 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  Since the B1G, B12, ACC and SEC have all gotten together to make sure they don't have to appear in bowl games vs the Gof5, the result is going to be more bowls between the Gof5 whether anyone in those conferences like it or not. I'm sure all 5 of the Gof5 will try their best to have a bowl or 2 vs the contract 5 but if they are in collusion to exclude us, I don't see what we can do about it. Freedom of association and all. I also don't see the A-12 and MWC being better off with the exception that the PAC 12 is so far not included in the collusion of the rest of the contract 5 and will likely continue their 2 bowls that include the MWC, LV Bowl and the NM Bowl. The NM Bowl is for the PAC 12 last selection and with that conference playing 9 conference games its going to be difficult to count on a PAC 12 team every year.

I'd rather just not play in a bowl. USM has had many good seasons that ended without a bowl. I think that we've lost something good by being so promiscuous with new bowl games. Back in the day, they really meant something... if you look at who was going to bowls in the eighties and nineties, there was typically one MAC team in a bowl and no SBC teams. That's as it should be, IMHO.

(03-13-2013 12:58 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  if you look at who was going to bowls in the eighties and nineties, there was typically one MAC team in a bowl and no SBC teams. That's as it should be, IMHO.

This is where you lost me... The SBC was a basketball only conference from 1976-1991 when UAB, VCU, Charlotte, ODU, and USF left the conference

They became a D1AA all sports conference then iirc and moved up

(03-13-2013 12:58 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  

(03-13-2013 12:51 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  Since the B1G, B12, ACC and SEC have all gotten together to make sure they don't have to appear in bowl games vs the Gof5, the result is going to be more bowls between the Gof5 whether anyone in those conferences like it or not. I'm sure all 5 of the Gof5 will try their best to have a bowl or 2 vs the contract 5 but if they are in collusion to exclude us, I don't see what we can do about it. Freedom of association and all. I also don't see the A-12 and MWC being better off with the exception that the PAC 12 is so far not included in the collusion of the rest of the contract 5 and will likely continue their 2 bowls that include the MWC, LV Bowl and the NM Bowl. The NM Bowl is for the PAC 12 last selection and with that conference playing 9 conference games its going to be difficult to count on a PAC 12 team every year.

I'd rather just not play in a bowl. USM has had many good seasons that ended without a bowl. I think that we've lost something good by being so promiscuous with new bowl games. Back in the day, they really meant something... if you look at who was going to bowls in the eighties and nineties, there was typically one MAC team in a bowl and no SBC teams. That's as it should be, IMHO.

Well, I'm old enough to remember the days when the Big 10 would only allow it's champ to go bowling and that was in the Rose Bowl. No other team in the conference went bowling. Just the champ. But now that tv wants content that time of year, there will be as many bowls as can be given air time. You just can't put the toothpaste back in the tube once it's out. Well you can but that would require a full playoff system with all conference champs involved. I'm not going to hold my breath.

(03-13-2013 01:25 PM)Dracorex Wrote:  

(03-13-2013 12:58 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  if you look at who was going to bowls in the eighties and nineties, there was typically one MAC team in a bowl and no SBC teams. That's as it should be, IMHO.

This is where you lost me... The SBC was a basketball only conference from 1976-1991 when UAB, VCU, Charlotte, ODU, and USF left the conference

They became a D1AA all sports conference then iirc and moved up

Agreed, but my point is that those SBC schools weren't going to bowls. Some of them didn't play football, some played it but at a lower level (ASU?), and some were technically FBS but were perennial homecoming opponents (ULL). It won't happen, but that's the status quo ante that I'd like to dream about returning to. Sorry, but "South Alabama" and "Bowl game" go together about as well as ice cream and wasabe mustard IMHO.

(03-13-2013 01:40 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(03-13-2013 12:58 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  

(03-13-2013 12:51 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  Since the B1G, B12, ACC and SEC have all gotten together to make sure they don't have to appear in bowl games vs the Gof5, the result is going to be more bowls between the Gof5 whether anyone in those conferences like it or not. I'm sure all 5 of the Gof5 will try their best to have a bowl or 2 vs the contract 5 but if they are in collusion to exclude us, I don't see what we can do about it. Freedom of association and all. I also don't see the A-12 and MWC being better off with the exception that the PAC 12 is so far not included in the collusion of the rest of the contract 5 and will likely continue their 2 bowls that include the MWC, LV Bowl and the NM Bowl. The NM Bowl is for the PAC 12 last selection and with that conference playing 9 conference games its going to be difficult to count on a PAC 12 team every year.

I'd rather just not play in a bowl. USM has had many good seasons that ended without a bowl. I think that we've lost something good by being so promiscuous with new bowl games. Back in the day, they really meant something... if you look at who was going to bowls in the eighties and nineties, there was typically one MAC team in a bowl and no SBC teams. That's as it should be, IMHO.

Well, I'm old enough to remember the days when the Big 10 would only allow it's champ to go bowling and that was in the Rose Bowl. No other team in the conference went bowling. Just the champ. But now that tv wants content that time of year, there will be as many bowls as can be given air time. You just can't put the toothpaste back in the tube once it's out. Well you can but that would require a full playoff system with all conference champs involved. I'm not going to hold my breath.

Any full playoff system will turn into an SEC coronation. Those southern kids will go to Alabama or LSU even knowing they'll probably never start and that their scholarship can get yanked at ant point. Not even the B1G can do that... Cam Newton might fall for that, but Drew Brees won't, just to give one thing example. The result will always be that SEC teams will have more scholarship caliber players, and more late-season DEPTH (which matters in a playoff) than anyone else.

Well my two cents is to: reduce the number of bowls; allow only teams with winning conference records and a minimum of seven (?) overall wins; and an APR score of 960 based on the "starting"* 22 players plus the kicker, punter, and kick returner. At a push I might expand it to 30 players, but not to the limit where someone collecting splinters is making it possible for Forrest Gump to play in the Sugar Bowl (sorry Forrest). Evey FBS conference champion would be guaranteed a bowl appearance.

Also anyone academically ineligible would have to sit out an entire academic year and would be prohibited from practicing with the team. Any scholarship attributed to a player who left school as academically ineligible would be lost for one year. No more summer school for Bozos where everyone earns 24 hours credit. No more freshman starters.

I better stop. I'm turning football players into student athletes and that would never wash in the SEC or with ESPN.

OK while I'm at it...the networks would rotate the bowls, probably in two pools - major and minor bowls. If you participate in one pool then you participate in the other. This should result in no more bowls broadcast on limited access cable. And all bowls would have to pay a minimum payout to cover the costs without a requirement by the team to purchase/underwrite any tickets, not one.

*"starting" - refers to players entering the game in the first half of play. Where there is rotation of players then an average could be calculated based upon participation (number of plays).

(03-13-2013 02:55 PM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  Well my two cents is to: reduce the number of bowls; allow only teams with winning conference records and a minimum of seven (?) overall wins; and an APR score of 960 based on the "starting"* 22 players plus the kicker, punter, and kick returner. At a push I might expand it to 30 players, but not to the limit where someone collecting splinters is making it possible for Forrest Gump to play in the Sugar Bowl (sorry Forrest). Evey FBS conference champion would be guaranteed a bowl appearance.

Also anyone academically ineligible would have to sit out an entire academic year and would be prohibited from practicing with the team. Any scholarship attributed to a player who left school as academically ineligible would be lost for one year. No more summer school for Bozos where everyone earns 24 hours credit. No more freshman starters.

I better stop. I'm turning football players into student athletes and that would never wash in the SEC or with ESPN.

OK while I'm at it...the networks would rotate the bowls, probably in two pools - major and minor bowls. If you participate in one pool then you participate in the other. This should result in no more bowls broadcast on limited access cable. And all bowls would have to pay a minimum payout to cover the costs without a requirement by the team to purchase/underwrite any tickets, not one.

*"starting" - refers to players entering the game in the first half of play. Where there is rotation of players then an average could be calculated based upon participation (number of plays).

"Mersey, Mersey honey (your mom speaking), it's time to wake up for school, dear".

(03-13-2013 12:40 PM)SgtGoldenEagle Wrote:  

(03-13-2013 12:33 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(03-13-2013 12:23 PM)SgtGoldenEagle Wrote:  

(03-13-2013 12:19 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  Yeah, let's just embrace Division IAAA... that will help.

Seriously, USM has already collaborated more than Marshall Petain on Ecstasy.

Andre why would the idea not be worth trying? If we can make sure we get our share of bowls for our conferences to keep our better teams able to go to bowls, then all football fans will be winners. By the way USM might even get to go to bigger bowls this way.

nope, sorry Sarge, but this is one where I side with Andre.... Your'e just furthering the split between the universities that GET the big money and the universities that get the scraps.

interesting I would like to hear more of why you think so, and would like to hear the other side as well. I think it is a good debate to be had.

Sarge, do you really think that the Big4/5 are going to let the Go5 have a spot in a bowl that could give them $3M, much less $5? Hell, the Belk bowl has already dumped the nBE.. the Pinstripe is rumoured to be doing the same, as was the Champs bowl.

Hey, you guys in the Go5 will still get your Million dollar payday in the Compass Bowl to spread out among your 12-16 teams... We'll just make sure you never get near those $3 to 5M games like the Alamo Bowl or the Pinstripe!

Hell, the Holiday Bowl was one of my favorites, because it matched up the PAC vs. an MWC/WAC team on occasion... and you never knew what would happen. The B1G just nudges the PAC... "Hey you see that ACC team over there?"