(05-06-2013 12:20 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  ... I do believe that ECU's inclusion did increase the chances of either keeping the Belk or maybe having a backup tie in with the bowl.

If the SEC and ACC want the Belk they will have it, and I do not think adding ECU moved the needle on that at all, so i guess we disagree on that.

But if the issue is having a backup tie-in, then yes, having ECU does increase the chances that the Belk would be willing to have a back-up tie-in with the AAC, and given how the bowl situation for the P5 is very much in-flux because of the unknowns about how many teams will qualify for playoffs and access bowls each year, it is very important for non-P5 like us to have those backup tie-ins in place.

(05-06-2013 01:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-06-2013 12:20 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  ... I do believe that ECU's inclusion did increase the chances of either keeping the Belk or maybe having a backup tie in with the bowl.

If the SEC and ACC want the Belk they will have it, and I do not think adding ECU moved the needle on that at all, so i guess we disagree on that.

But if the issue is having a backup tie-in, then yes, having ECU does increase the chances that the Belk would be willing to have a back-up tie-in with the AAC, and given how the bowl situation for the P5 is very much in-flux because of the unknowns about how many teams will qualify for playoffs and access bowls each year, it is very important for non-P5 like us to have those backup tie-ins in place.

This is where the AAC can be aggressive. Aresco needs to be in talks with the last 3 picks of every contract conference to work out deals where if teams don't qualify the AAC can fill in. I'm sure most if not all of those bowls would rather have a backup agreement with the AAC then taking their chances with whatever Sun-Belt/MAC/C-USA school was leftover. If the AAC can't get very many quality tie ins I'd rather the league have 4 solid tie ins and then a bunch of backups. Likely that would end up year in and year out with AAC teams going to better locations than just signing 6 or 7 tie ins with what's left after the contract leagues are done.

(05-06-2013 01:21 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(05-06-2013 01:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-06-2013 12:20 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  ... I do believe that ECU's inclusion did increase the chances of either keeping the Belk or maybe having a backup tie in with the bowl.

If the SEC and ACC want the Belk they will have it, and I do not think adding ECU moved the needle on that at all, so i guess we disagree on that.

But if the issue is having a backup tie-in, then yes, having ECU does increase the chances that the Belk would be willing to have a back-up tie-in with the AAC, and given how the bowl situation for the P5 is very much in-flux because of the unknowns about how many teams will qualify for playoffs and access bowls each year, it is very important for non-P5 like us to have those backup tie-ins in place.

This is where the AAC can be aggressive. Aresco needs to be in talks with the last 3 picks of every contract conference to work out deals where if teams don't qualify the AAC can fill in. I'm sure most if not all of those bowls would rather have a backup agreement with the AAC then taking their chances with whatever Sun-Belt/MAC/C-USA school was leftover. If the AAC can't get very many quality tie ins I'd rather the league have 4 solid tie ins and then a bunch of backups. Likely that would end up year in and year out with AAC teams going to better locations than just signing 6 or 7 tie ins with what's left after the contract leagues are done.

I think we can now declare 100 agreement, LOL.

Quo's "master plan" for AAC bowls is now coming to fruition!

1) Beef Bowl vs CUSA
2) BBVA bowl vs at last place Sun Belt team
3) Military bowl vs. MAC 7th selection
4) New Orleans bowl vs. 4 win Sun Belt team who got an exemption
5) Toilet Bowl vs a "deserving" FCS team
6) Garbage Bowl vs. the DIII national champ!

Now we are truly set!!!

(05-06-2013 02:16 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  Quo's "master plan" for AAC bowls is now coming to fruition!

1) Beef Bowl vs CUSA
2) BBVA bowl vs at last place Sun Belt team
3) Military bowl vs. MAC 7th selection
4) New Orleans bowl vs. 4 win Sun Belt team who got an exemption
5) Toilet Bowl vs a "deserving" FCS team
6) Garbage Bowl vs. the DIII national champ!

Actually, my master plan would include a spot in the playoffs, a berth in he Rose Bowl if our champ doesn't make the playoffs, and the Cap One, Peach, and Russell Bowls for our #3, #4, and #5 teams.

But realistically, I think it unlikely we can land a bowl better than something like the Liberty Bowl for our champion, matched against say a #7 SEC team. I just don't see how we get a regular (not back-up) berth in the Belk, Russell, or Pinstripe bowls.

(05-06-2013 12:20 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(05-06-2013 11:55 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-06-2013 07:59 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(05-06-2013 07:40 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-05-2013 09:02 PM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote:  ECU's inclusion should be a strong point for keeping the Belk.

Beef O'Brady's should be a lock with UCF AND USF in the conference.
*Russell Athletic was a Florida bowl too....

Liberty Bowl should be a lock with Memphis and previously good relationships with former CUSA members in ECU, UCF, and Tulsa.

The Liberty Bowl cares about the SEC, not Memphis. If the SEC wants a Big 12 opponent, that's how it will be.

And ECU's inclusion will mean next to nothing for the Belk, which clearly wants an SEC/ACC matchup.

It's not that ECU's inclusion means nothing to the Belk, but that the SEC is clearly the top choice for almost any bowl, especially 1 in the south east. The people in Charlotte certainly know and like ECU, as ECU's played more games at Bank of America Stadium than any other team, but if they can get an SEC tie in then of course they are going to take it. The Belk Bowl did want ECU added, along with the Liberty Bowl, and maybe the AAC can get a backup tie in with the Belk if it is indeed lost.

I think we are saying the same thing in different ways. My point was that, compared to the wishes of the Belk to have the SEC, ECUs inclusion meana very little.

Yes we agree on that, but I do believe that ECU's inclusion did increase the chances of either keeping the Belk or maybe having a backup tie in with the bowl. Aresco needs to try to get as many fall back agreements with eastern bowls as possible. If the SEC and others are all going to 9 conference games and there is no limit to how many teams can get in the playoffs/contract/access bowls there will likely be a good number of tie ins every year that can't be filled. The SEC for example really has no shot at filling 8 or 9 bowl tie ins a year when they will likely have their top 3 every year in either the playoffs or contract/access bowls. Aresco needs to get backup deals with the ACC, SEC, B1G, and B12 lower bowls because every year a few of these will not get filled.

If they are counting 6 win teams toward bowl counters AND the P5 leagues are purposely scaling back tie-ins in anticipation of landing multiple CFP bowls. I don't expect there will be a lot of contingency agreements signed this time around. Perhaps even none with the way the P5 is moving toward sharing bowl tie-ins.

(05-07-2013 10:16 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(05-06-2013 12:20 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(05-06-2013 11:55 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-06-2013 07:59 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(05-06-2013 07:40 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  The Liberty Bowl cares about the SEC, not Memphis. If the SEC wants a Big 12 opponent, that's how it will be.

And ECU's inclusion will mean next to nothing for the Belk, which clearly wants an SEC/ACC matchup.

It's not that ECU's inclusion means nothing to the Belk, but that the SEC is clearly the top choice for almost any bowl, especially 1 in the south east. The people in Charlotte certainly know and like ECU, as ECU's played more games at Bank of America Stadium than any other team, but if they can get an SEC tie in then of course they are going to take it. The Belk Bowl did want ECU added, along with the Liberty Bowl, and maybe the AAC can get a backup tie in with the Belk if it is indeed lost.

I think we are saying the same thing in different ways. My point was that, compared to the wishes of the Belk to have the SEC, ECUs inclusion meana very little.

Yes we agree on that, but I do believe that ECU's inclusion did increase the chances of either keeping the Belk or maybe having a backup tie in with the bowl. Aresco needs to try to get as many fall back agreements with eastern bowls as possible. If the SEC and others are all going to 9 conference games and there is no limit to how many teams can get in the playoffs/contract/access bowls there will likely be a good number of tie ins every year that can't be filled. The SEC for example really has no shot at filling 8 or 9 bowl tie ins a year when they will likely have their top 3 every year in either the playoffs or contract/access bowls. Aresco needs to get backup deals with the ACC, SEC, B1G, and B12 lower bowls because every year a few of these will not get filled.

If they are counting 6 win teams toward bowl counters AND the P5 leagues are purposely scaling back tie-ins in anticipation of landing multiple CFP bowls. I don't expect there will be a lot of contingency agreements signed this time around. Perhaps even none with the way the P5 is moving toward sharing bowl tie-ins.

That bowl sharing thing may not happen. Apparantly its difficult to get all 4 power conferences on the same page. The word is enthusiasm for this bowl sharing concept may be fading.