(05-08-2013 05:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  One other note that is good news--the fact is those Cotton Bowl and Chick Filet slots are not really "lost". In fact, they will be filled by power-5 conferences almost every year (except in the rare year when 2 non-AQ schools make the playoff and/or an access bowl). So often, power conference bowl slots will go unfilled. Due to this situation, I could see more backup contracts or multiple conference tie-ins that may allow us to consistently get in a few better bowls than what it may appear at this point.

I'm not sure the situation is so dire, mainly because of what you noted here. There are going to be 12 teams playing in either the playoff or one of the access bowls, usually only one of them coming from a Go5 conference. Right now there are 10 teams playing in BCS bowls including the MNC, and and in recent years usually one from a non-AQ conference. That means there are two fewer teams available for the lower level bowls.

Granted there are a few more schools among the ranks of the Power conferences now, but 6 new teams doesn't necessarily mean 6 new bowl eligible teams. Cuse and Pitt still suck, and a team like Louisville will likely knock a mid level team like Wake Forest out of bowl eligibility some years who would have played in one otherwise.

(05-08-2013 10:43 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Yep, the league needs to be working with the last 3 or 4 picks of every contract conference to be the top backup for those bowls. The SEC is going to have 3-4 teams a year in the playoff/contract/access bowls, so it's likely they almost never fill their bowl lineup. If the league can't get anything but bad bowl options I'd rather sign no more than 4 tie ins and then as many backups as possible.

I know it's tangential to the discussion, but the SEC's run of success is really unprecedented and won't go on forever.

I bet in most years the SEC puts 2 teams in the access/playoffs and the times it has 3 teams in will be as rare as the times it has only 1 team in.

(05-08-2013 06:26 PM)MechaKnight Wrote:  

(05-08-2013 05:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  One other note that is good news--the fact is those Cotton Bowl and Chick Filet slots are not really "lost". In fact, they will be filled by power-5 conferences almost every year (except in the rare year when 2 non-AQ schools make the playoff and/or an access bowl). So often, power conference bowl slots will go unfilled. Due to this situation, I could see more backup contracts or multiple conference tie-ins that may allow us to consistently get in a few better bowls than what it may appear at this point.

I'm not sure the situation is so dire, mainly because of what you noted here. There are going to be 12 teams playing in either the playoff or one of the access bowls, usually only one of them coming from a Go5 conference. Right now there are 10 teams playing in BCS bowls including the MNC, and and in recent years usually one from a non-AQ conference. That means there are two fewer teams available for the lower level bowls.

Granted there are a few more schools among the ranks of the Power conferences now, but 6 new teams doesn't necessarily mean 6 new bowl eligible teams. Cuse and Pitt still suck, and a team like Louisville will likely knock a mid level team like Wake Forest out of bowl eligibility some years who would have played in one otherwise.

I agree with most of what you said. However, every game within a confernece has a winner and a loser. Even if Pitt and Cuse are the worst teams in the conference, it just means that one or two other teams that USED to be the worst team in the conference can now get bowl qualified with two more easy wins. I figure in a power confernece, half the teams will end up getting bowl qualified--maybe more than half due to body bag OOC games.

lol...By the way, I dont think Pitt and Syracuse will be that bad...

(05-08-2013 06:17 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  As for funding the bowl, the conference has a 70 million dollar realignment fund, a 22 million dollar a year contract, and roughly 16 million a year in BCS money to split annually after 2014. ESPN would likely be our partner in such a venture. Plus, there are some strong conference corporate supporters that would likely lend a hand. Ideally, once it starts, it will either be revenue neutral or even make us a few bucks.

Great post overall, but I question the financing aspect posted above.

#1. The majority of that $70 million realignment fund is earmarked for UConn, Cincinnati and USF (some of the things I've read have it at around 80%). Now, those schools could choose to forgo some or all of the multi-million-dollar installments they'll receive over a four-to-five period to help create a conference bowl game, but I find that unlikely. Why? Because as it stands now, whatever money they get from the realignment fund is 100% theirs and they can use it however they want (e.g. facility upgrades, hiring or retaining coaches, recruiting, adding scholarships, etc).

On the other hand, if they use all or part of the money to create a bowl, then some of that money will be permanently lost (e.g. operational expenses, pay out to the other conference, advertising, etc) and the rest will go to the conference and be split among all teams. In other words, UConn, UC, USF would only get a fraction of the money they would have received by just keeping it to themselves and would not directly benefit from the bowl unless they were playing in it (something that isn't guaranteed). In my opinion, if I'm any of those three, I think it would be better to have a shorter but certain advantage for myself than the possibility of a conference bowl game that yields less money for me and that I may never play in.


#2. The $22 million a year TV contract is not going to be used to create or buy a bowl game in my opinion. I can't see any of the current members of the conference (and especially not UConn, USF, or UC) agreeing to further reduce their own revenue stream to sponsor a bowl against a #4 or #5 P5 conference opponent. At some point, I think you have to stop trading incoming revenue for exposure. Having a good bowl won't mean much if everyone in the league is broke.

(05-08-2013 09:47 PM)UofLgrad07 Wrote:  

(05-08-2013 06:17 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  As for funding the bowl, the conference has a 70 million dollar realignment fund, a 22 million dollar a year contract, and roughly 16 million a year in BCS money to split annually after 2014. ESPN would likely be our partner in such a venture. Plus, there are some strong conference corporate supporters that would likely lend a hand. Ideally, once it starts, it will either be revenue neutral or even make us a few bucks.

Great post overall, but I question the financing aspect posted above.

#1. The majority of that $70 million realignment fund is earmarked for UConn, Cincinnati and USF (some of the things I've read have it at around 80%). Now, those schools could choose to forgo some or all of the multi-million-dollar installments they'll receive over a four-to-five period to help create a conference bowl game, but I find that unlikely. Why? Because as it stands now, whatever money they get from the realignment fund is 100% theirs and they can use it however they want (e.g. facility upgrades, hiring or retaining coaches, recruiting, adding scholarships, etc).

On the other hand, if they use all or part of the money to create a bowl, then some of that money will be permanently lost (e.g. operational expenses, pay out to the other conference, advertising, etc) and the rest will go to the conference and be split among all teams. In other words, UConn, UC, USF would only get a fraction of the money they would have received by just keeping it to themselves and would not directly benefit from the bowl unless they were playing in it (something that isn't guaranteed). In my opinion, if I'm any of those three, I think it would be better to have a shorter but certain advantage for myself than the possibility of a conference bowl game that yields less money for me and that I may never play in.


#2. The $22 million a year TV contract is not going to be used to create or buy a bowl game in my opinion. I can't see any of the current members of the conference (and especially not UConn, USF, or UC) agreeing to further reduce their own revenue stream to sponsor a bowl against a #4 or #5 P5 conference opponent. At some point, I think you have to stop trading incoming revenue for exposure. Having a good bowl won't mean much if everyone in the league is broke.

A couple of things. Most bowl games make money--so theres really no reason to believe this one wouldnt (the dirty little secret is that the schools that play in the bowls are the one who actually lose money). Secondly, its not going to require that much money to create a bowl. I suspect 10 million would be adequate. Thats one million a team (its not like UConn, USF, or Cinci will be asked to pay more). Third, the remaining 3 schools may surprise you. The landscape appears to have changed. This could be thier home for a awhile. Its very possible that this created game could be the #1 bowl for us against a #3/4 power conference selection. While its not the Sugar Bowl, it would be the best non-AQ Bowl game. If the veteran members may very well begin to think more with an eye toward long term conference building just in case thier stay is measured in decades rather years. Personally, I think this is one the first truely wise and far sighted decisions we could make.

As a Cincinnati fan, I wouldn't mind adding a new project like Sidy to the roster because RS Junior Kelvin Gaines doesn't appear to be working out. Shame too because he is arguably the most gifted player on our roster athletically, but the kid has stones for hands and zero basketball IQ. With that said, Cincinnati is already one scholarship over the limit so I won't lose any sleep if he heads elsewhere. Cincinnati is already adding a promising center prospect in Jamaree Strickland along with 4 other freshman.

As for the delayed decision, I bet hiring his coach was a last minute stipulation and none of the three schools are budging (at least Memphis and Cincinnati).

(05-08-2013 11:20 PM)KnightChris Wrote:  

(05-08-2013 06:26 PM)MechaKnight Wrote:  Granted there are a few more schools among the ranks of the Power conferences now, but 6 new teams doesn't necessarily mean 6 new bowl eligible teams. Cuse and Pitt still suck

'Cuse & Pitt have combined to go to 5 bowl games in the last 3 years, and 'Cuse is 2-0 with wins against K-State & WVU.

I wasn't really trying to pick on Cuse and Pitt, I was just trying to point out that not all of the new schools in the P5 are going to be bowl eligible every year. Maybe using the word "suck" is harsh, but Cuse and Pitt have not been as competitive as most of the other Big East members over the last several years so it stands to reason that they're not going to walk in and dominate the ACC.

Even if Cuse and Pitt do perform very well in the ACC, that just means that two borderline teams like Virginia or Boston College will likely be knocked out of bowl eligibility, so the end result is the same: the 6 new P5 teams are only going to add 3-4 new bowl eligible P5 teams.

Things are definitely going to look very different. Every conference, including the SEC, are still going to assume they only have one spot in the 6 CFP bowls while negotiating (assume worse case senario). That's usually not going to be the case though with 12 openings. That means the SEC they sign up the maximum they are allowed by NCAA rules (which I believe is your average number of bowl eligible teams (taking into account new members) over a period of time). We are probably regularly going to see the SEC leave its bottom 2 bowls out though. With the Big Ten going to 9 conference games, it's probably going to leave it's bottom too as the current calculations will be done for an 8 game conference schedule and teams lose a higher percent in conference.

Quote:Brett McMurphy ‏@McMurphyESPN 9m
.@RussellAthBowl set to get ACC's top team after @CFBPlayoff & @OrangeBowl in ACC's new bowl lineup sources tell @ESPN

Well that's not very encouraging for the American. I doubt the ACC makes that deal is the American is still part of that bowl.

(05-13-2013 06:04 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

Quote:Brett McMurphy ‏@McMurphyESPN 9m
.@RussellAthBowl set to get ACC's top team after @CFBPlayoff & @OrangeBowl in ACC's new bowl lineup sources tell @ESPN

Well that's not very encouraging for the American. I doubt the ACC makes that deal is the American is still part of that bowl.

Yeah. McMurphy is reporting we are out. The opponent is the SEC. Sounds like we arr also out of the Belk too.

(05-13-2013 06:50 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-13-2013 06:04 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

Quote:Brett McMurphy ‏@McMurphyESPN 9m
.@RussellAthBowl set to get ACC's top team after @CFBPlayoff & @OrangeBowl in ACC's new bowl lineup sources tell @ESPN

Well that's not very encouraging for the American. I doubt the ACC makes that deal is the American is still part of that bowl.

Yeah. McMurphy is reporting we are out. The opponent is the SEC. Sounds like we arr also out of the Belk too.

I didn't get that impression from this report, although I have had that impression from previous reports from others.

(05-13-2013 07:57 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(05-13-2013 06:50 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-13-2013 06:04 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

Quote:Brett McMurphy ‏@McMurphyESPN 9m
.@RussellAthBowl set to get ACC's top team after @CFBPlayoff & @OrangeBowl in ACC's new bowl lineup sources tell @ESPN

Well that's not very encouraging for the American. I doubt the ACC makes that deal is the American is still part of that bowl.

Yeah. McMurphy is reporting we are out. The opponent is the SEC. Sounds like we arr also out of the Belk too.

I didn't get that impression from this report, although I have had that impression from previous reports from others.

He states that the planned opponent is all 3 bowls is the SEC. We dont appear to be an option on either side of the Belk or Russell. I think our best shots at a top game are against a #3/#4 Pac-12 in either the Sun or Meineke Car Care in Houston----or creating our own bowl. It looks like the best the Liberty might be able to manage is an SEC #7 (2 to the BCS, Belk, Russell, Gator, Music City, Cap 1) or an ACC #5/6. Both options are worse than the Mountain West top bowl (Las Vegas vs Pac-12 #5). I believe the MW also has a second bowl against the Pac-12 #7. That would currently rank as our best bowl.

Our bowl lineup is about to potentially be worse than the current C-USA's lineup. Aresco is a failure of epic proportions. Why is he still employed?

(05-13-2013 08:58 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Our bowl lineup is about to potentially be worse than the current C-USA's lineup. Aresco is a failure of epic proportions. Why is he still employed?

The only bowl CUSA is guaranteed to hold is the Heart of Texas. Expect our final lineup to be worse than the current Big East Bowl lineup but better than the current CUSA Bowl selection. Look, the pecking order is the pecking order. The bowl goal here is fairlly limited--just end up with a better line up than the Mountain West. That would give us the best bowl line up of the G5. Thats still doable. There remains the possibility of an upside surprise if Aresco is innovative and utilizes a portion of the realignment fund to create a good champions bowl opportunity for the conference.