(05-21-2013 01:38 PM)HuskieJohn Wrote:  

(05-21-2013 01:34 PM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  

(05-21-2013 01:30 PM)HuskieJohn Wrote:  

(05-21-2013 01:23 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(05-21-2013 01:06 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  The list is only one page back. The four that have drawn over 50K fans are:

60K, Purdue v CMU 2007
54K, MTSU v CMU 2006
52K, UConn v Toledo 2004
51K, NW v Bowling Green 2003

Thanks. I was just pointing out that the M/LCB hasn't been that much better than the worst Cherry Bowl.

MAC fans would have more room to complain if there was consistently 70K in the stadium.

Hua?
How are 9 of the last 12 M/LCB over 40k not much better than <20k for the Cherry Bowl of Maryland vs Syracuse?

Ford Field only holds 65k so 70k is impossible.

The attendance wasn't 20K. The attendance fell by 20K from the previous year. Per wikipedia...

The Cherry Bowl was apparently off to a good start with its 1984 game, drawing more than 70,000 to its Army-Michigan State matchup ... without the local Michigan State team attendance for the 1985 game (between Maryland and Syracuse) fell by nearly 20,000.

ah...misread.

Well crap there goes my argument.

I was actually AT the 1985 Cherry Bowl. Now, I was only 8-years-old and this was 27+ years ago now ... but I sure don't remember the Silverdome being more than 1/4-full.

This Mitch Albom column from the game pegs attendance in the 25K range. No matter what bogus # the Bowl game organizers put out back then.

http://mitchalbom.com/d/journalism/1137/...all-fandom

(05-21-2013 02:06 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  Is Ford and the Lions flat-out kicking us out and refusing to do business with us?

If they are, they are probably a mere agent for the real culprit.

(05-21-2013 02:06 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  We could set-up camp in Indy, but I really think attendance would drop for both the MACC and LCPB. The 3 Michigan schools and BG/Toledo made the LCPB and MACC. All the fans of those schools have relatives from Detroit and were around there during the holidays making it convienent to attend. Indy wont work the same.

Again, why cant both bowl be at Ford Field as long as they are on different weekends?? Unlike conference championships, bowl season is 4 weeks long. Why move it to Comerica or Indy when we could just move the date? Is Ford and the Lions flat-out kicking us out and refusing to do business with us?

This is what I'd like to know too. I don't understand why they can't have both there.

(05-21-2013 02:15 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-21-2013 02:06 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  We could set-up camp in Indy, but I really think attendance would drop for both the MACC and LCPB. The 3 Michigan schools and BG/Toledo made the LCPB and MACC. All the fans of those schools have relatives from Detroit and were around there during the holidays making it convienent to attend. Indy wont work the same.

Again, why cant both bowl be at Ford Field as long as they are on different weekends?? Unlike conference championships, bowl season is 4 weeks long. Why move it to Comerica or Indy when we could just move the date? Is Ford and the Lions flat-out kicking us out and refusing to do business with us?

This is what I'd like to know too. I don't understand why they can't have both there.

1. Detroit does not want to move the MAC bowl any earlier which would be closer to the MACC as one of the teams would have likely just been there.

2. The B1G does not want to host their bowl BEFORE the MAC bowl in the same stadium...so a later bowl season kickoff for a MAC bowl is out of the question.


Also to get a 100% new bowl going is MUCH harder than renaming and reallocating bids from a current bowl.

(05-21-2013 12:59 PM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote:  The thing is, the NCAA needs to approve this new bowl. The NCAA has denied new bowls in Orlando, LA, and another bowl or 2. Why would they sanction another bowl in Detroit? And a year or 2 ago the NCAA said they were not approving anymore new bowls that woudl raise the # of bowls above 35.

Hope you are right on this...

(05-21-2013 02:51 PM)emu steve Wrote:  

(05-21-2013 12:59 PM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote:  The thing is, the NCAA needs to approve this new bowl. The NCAA has denied new bowls in Orlando, LA, and another bowl or 2. Why would they sanction another bowl in Detroit? And a year or 2 ago the NCAA said they were not approving anymore new bowls that woudl raise the # of bowls above 35.

Hope you are right on this...

That is why its not going to be a new bowl. Its just going to be the old bowl which is rebranded and the contract is going to be with the ACC instead of the MAC.

The P5 are doing everything they can to push the GO5 teams out of the post season so we end up agreeing to a split of upper and lower FBS divisions.

(05-21-2013 02:53 PM)HuskieJohn Wrote:  

(05-21-2013 02:51 PM)emu steve Wrote:  

(05-21-2013 12:59 PM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote:  The thing is, the NCAA needs to approve this new bowl. The NCAA has denied new bowls in Orlando, LA, and another bowl or 2. Why would they sanction another bowl in Detroit? And a year or 2 ago the NCAA said they were not approving anymore new bowls that woudl raise the # of bowls above 35.

Hope you are right on this...

That is why its not going to be a new bowl. Its just going to be the old bowl which is rebranded and the contract is going to be with the ACC instead of the MAC.

I was going to post what you just posted.

LCPB can invite whomever it wants and it still is the LCPB. Same bowl. Different affiliations.

(05-21-2013 02:51 PM)HuskieJohn Wrote:  

(05-21-2013 02:15 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-21-2013 02:06 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  We could set-up camp in Indy, but I really think attendance would drop for both the MACC and LCPB. The 3 Michigan schools and BG/Toledo made the LCPB and MACC. All the fans of those schools have relatives from Detroit and were around there during the holidays making it convienent to attend. Indy wont work the same.

Again, why cant both bowl be at Ford Field as long as they are on different weekends?? Unlike conference championships, bowl season is 4 weeks long. Why move it to Comerica or Indy when we could just move the date? Is Ford and the Lions flat-out kicking us out and refusing to do business with us?

This is what I'd like to know too. I don't understand why they can't have both there.

1. Detroit does not want to move the MAC bowl any earlier which would be closer to the MACC as one of the teams would have likely just been there.

2. The B1G does not want to host their bowl BEFORE the MAC bowl in the same stadium...so a later bowl season kickoff for a MAC bowl is out of the question.


Also to get a 100% new bowl going is MUCH harder than renaming and reallocating bids from a current bowl.

But it's still a new bowl, they aren't just renaming the LCPB, from what I understand. The LCPB could still happen somewhere else theoretically.

(05-21-2013 10:27 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  Big 14 can't even fill the bowls it has, except maybe with a 6-6 team. Are 5-7 teams going to be eligible?

THIS is exactly why the non-Big 5 conferences should not play Big 5 conference teams. We help them get their 6-6 teams with their losing conference records into these games while wondering if our 7-5 and 8-4 squads will make a game. Make them play one another and maybe some of these bowl games will open up to us or maybe they will go away (are there really too many bowl games?).

(05-21-2013 01:32 PM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  If attendance is key, I'm still very hesitant to believe Minnesota vs. 6-6 ACC will pull in the same crowd as Minnesota vs. 9-3 UT/BGSU/WMU/CMU would. But they'll have the "sexier" name and can push this to advertisers, I suppose.

You better believe they will be announcing attendance as ticket sales and not by butts in the seats if its B1G v. ACC

(05-21-2013 02:56 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  But it's still a new bowl, they aren't just renaming the LCPB, from what I understand. The LCPB could still happen somewhere else theoretically.

That would need to get NCAA approval/certification.

Would it possibly be a blessing to not deal with the MACC in Detroit? Personally I would think it would be more fruitful to have the MACC at the top seed's stadium. Regarding the bowl game, would a bowl game in Cleveland (Browns stadium) or Columbus (Crew stadium) be a decent replacement for the LCPB?

McMurphy's tweet in the original post is wrong and irresponsible.

If the Lions are successful in getting the Big Ten to agree to a new "Detroit Lions Bowl" vs the ACC, they still need to get it certified. That would not decertify the LCB, and the owner of Little Caesars just happens to also be the owner of the Detroit Tigers and has already stated that he would just move the LCB to Comerica park.

"Possible 2nd bowl in Detroit" would be a better title for this thread.

I would love the MACC at the top seed's home stadium (sellout or near sellout each time I would imagine). Then a bowl in indy, or at Comerica Park.

Why can't we keep our date in Detroit, and have the Pig10 take one of the other saturdays?

I'd rather they flip the lights on at the Silverdome again than risk 15 degree temps and snow at Comerica Park.

I've always agreed about the MACC returning to school campus sites. Yeah, the weather might suck that day, too (not as bad as late December), but attendance won't be an issue.

Has Indianapolis even conveyed any interest in hosting a bowl? If not, then the point is moot to begin with.

NCAA certification is no big deal unless there is some dramatic rule change adopted in the near term.

All you need is:
1. Sufficient financial resources to meet NCAA requirements (to insure the teams get paid).
2. Sufficent contracts with leagues or teams to assure the NCAA there is a reasonable chance the game will be filled

To meet #2 each conference is allowed to sign deals based on the four year average number of members to be bowl eligible. The NCAA has interpreted this broadly in the past allowing leagues to count records of members coming in or going out. Permitting leagues adding members to count departing members because it provides a reasonable estimate of what new members might do and has permitted the other argument to work. If you sign with a league that doesn't have spots to give (ie. a league averaged 8 eligible but wants to sign contract #9) then the NCAA requires the bowl to sign a contract with a league that has spots to give, as a back-up. That's why a few years ago the Motor Pizza signed a back-up with the Sun Belt.

The LCPB has two problems.
The first is not huge and is alluded to in the Detroit News article. A place to play. If the landlord of the venue wants to kick you out, you can't play there any more, but that doesn't mean that you can't play someplace else. In the past bowls have moved their certification to other places. The Liberty Bowl started in Philadelphia and after a quick stop in Atlantic City moved to Memphis. The Belk Bowl in Charlotte used to be in Miami. Seattle and San Francisco got moved games from Hawaii. The early game in Phoenix used to be in Tucson. The Fiesta moved from Tempe to Phoenix and the Orange from Miami to around Ft. Lauderdale. Moving within a metro is no problem nor is moving cross country.
The second problem is potentially huge. You need someone else tied to the bowl other than the MAC. The Big 10 apparently is not going to renew. The likely options left? AAC, CUSA, and Sun Belt. Unless someone wants to sign that second contract alongside the MAC, then LCPB is out of business or if someone is willing to sign but only if the game moves, then LCPB stays in business but does business someplace other than Detroit.

(05-21-2013 02:58 PM)HuskieJohn Wrote:  

(05-21-2013 02:56 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  But it's still a new bowl, they aren't just renaming the LCPB, from what I understand. The LCPB could still happen somewhere else theoretically.

That would need to get NCAA approval/certification.

Why would the LCPB need to get approval, when they've been in existence and the Ford Field bowl is new?

As for the oft mentioned LA Christmas Bowl and the Orlando Cure Bowl.

I know Orlando never was able to secure adequate financial backing.
LA Christmas I don't believe ever had the needed league contracts.

(05-21-2013 03:40 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  NCAA certification is no big deal unless there is some dramatic rule change adopted in the near term.

All you need is:
1. Sufficient financial resources to meet NCAA requirements (to insure the teams get paid).
2. Sufficent contracts with leagues or teams to assure the NCAA there is a reasonable chance the game will be filled

To meet #2 each conference is allowed to sign deals based on the four year average number of members to be bowl eligible. The NCAA has interpreted this broadly in the past allowing leagues to count records of members coming in or going out. Permitting leagues adding members to count departing members because it provides a reasonable estimate of what new members might do and has permitted the other argument to work. If you sign with a league that doesn't have spots to give (ie. a league averaged 8 eligible but wants to sign contract #9) then the NCAA requires the bowl to sign a contract with a league that has spots to give, as a back-up. That's why a few years ago the Motor Pizza signed a back-up with the Sun Belt.

The LCPB has two problems.
The first is not huge and is alluded to in the Detroit News article. A place to play. If the landlord of the venue wants to kick you out, you can't play there any more, but that doesn't mean that you can't play someplace else. In the past bowls have moved their certification to other places. The Liberty Bowl started in Philadelphia and after a quick stop in Atlantic City moved to Memphis. The Belk Bowl in Charlotte used to be in Miami. Seattle and San Francisco got moved games from Hawaii. The early game in Phoenix used to be in Tucson. The Fiesta moved from Tempe to Phoenix and the Orange from Miami to around Ft. Lauderdale. Moving within a metro is no problem nor is moving cross country.
The second problem is potentially huge. You need someone else tied to the bowl other than the MAC. The Big 10 apparently is not going to renew. The likely options left? AAC, CUSA, and Sun Belt. Unless someone wants to sign that second contract alongside the MAC, then LCPB is out of business or if someone is willing to sign but only if the game moves, then LCPB stays in business but does business someplace other than Detroit.

The AAC and Sun Belt would be interested.

(05-21-2013 03:41 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-21-2013 02:58 PM)HuskieJohn Wrote:  

(05-21-2013 02:56 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  But it's still a new bowl, they aren't just renaming the LCPB, from what I understand. The LCPB could still happen somewhere else theoretically.

That would need to get NCAA approval/certification.

Why would the LCPB need to get approval, when they've been in existence and the Ford Field bowl is new?

I was talking about the other bowl.