(05-28-2013 06:24 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-28-2013 05:46 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-28-2013 04:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-28-2013 04:18 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-28-2013 12:43 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  The problem is I bet the majority of MWC presidents, AD's, and fans probably view playing the PAC #6 in Vegas more favorably than playing the AAC #1 or #2 (depending on who gets the access bowl) in Miami or Houston or wherever you'd put it. Put the shoe on the other foot if the AAC had a bowl against the B12, ACC, B1G, or SEC #6 we'd likely rather send our champ to that game than the MWC #1 or 2.

It might be that's what the MWC prefers, but for sure they'll prefer Vegas, whomever the opponent, to Miami or Houston. Vegas and San Diego are the MWC's best bowl sites because they have both close proximity and attractiveness as a destination.

If it were me, and we had the SEC #6 in a nice location that's near to most of our teams, I doubt I'd trade that for a MW #1 in a baseball stadium nearly 2000 miles away. That's a fairly tough sell. Especially since they have a far better#1 game than we likely will end up with, why give up that recruiting advantage? Nope, it's probably pull off a similar value game, or fall well behind the MW bowl line up. I doubt they bail us out. The only way I see that occurring is if the Pac12 seriously demotes the LV Bowl in it it's line up. If they were only getting a 7-8 pick, the MW might opt to play us (since thier best game and our best game would be about the same). That said, I don't think the LV Bowl drops below the 6th pick.

Pac-12 orders bowl choice based on how much money the Pac gets from the bowl. It does seem unlikely that Vegas would allow itself to be outbid by enough bowls to drop below 6th choice.

I can't remember who or where, but I thought the PAC said they were going for "matchups that made sense", i.e. if they're sending a team to play a #15 Boise, send a top-20 ranked team to Vegas and send the 6-6 Arizona to play a 6-6 power conference opponent in the Sun Bowl or Kraft Fight Hunger or whatever.

We're seeing a lot of things that indicate that the previous system, where a conference's bowls lined up in numerical order and made their picks, is going out the window, and the conferences are going to play a much bigger role in deciding who goes where.

Saying it is one thing, actually doing it is another. I'd doubt the PAC would send a top 25 team to play a ranked BSU in the Las Vegas bowl. The top 25 choice would still go the to Alamo or Holiday bowl. They may switch the Sun bowl choice in the LV bowl. Still it won't be a good matchup.
Regardless, I won't hold my breath. I believe it when I see it.

(05-28-2013 07:44 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(05-28-2013 06:24 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-28-2013 05:46 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-28-2013 04:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-28-2013 04:18 PM)Wedge Wrote:  It might be that's what the MWC prefers, but for sure they'll prefer Vegas, whomever the opponent, to Miami or Houston. Vegas and San Diego are the MWC's best bowl sites because they have both close proximity and attractiveness as a destination.

If it were me, and we had the SEC #6 in a nice location that's near to most of our teams, I doubt I'd trade that for a MW #1 in a baseball stadium nearly 2000 miles away. That's a fairly tough sell. Especially since they have a far better#1 game than we likely will end up with, why give up that recruiting advantage? Nope, it's probably pull off a similar value game, or fall well behind the MW bowl line up. I doubt they bail us out. The only way I see that occurring is if the Pac12 seriously demotes the LV Bowl in it it's line up. If they were only getting a 7-8 pick, the MW might opt to play us (since thier best game and our best game would be about the same). That said, I don't think the LV Bowl drops below the 6th pick.

Pac-12 orders bowl choice based on how much money the Pac gets from the bowl. It does seem unlikely that Vegas would allow itself to be outbid by enough bowls to drop below 6th choice.

I can't remember who or where, but I thought the PAC said they were going for "matchups that made sense", i.e. if they're sending a team to play a #15 Boise, send a top-20 ranked team to Vegas and send the 6-6 Arizona to play a 6-6 power conference opponent in the Sun Bowl or Kraft Fight Hunger or whatever.

We're seeing a lot of things that indicate that the previous system, where a conference's bowls lined up in numerical order and made their picks, is going out the window, and the conferences are going to play a much bigger role in deciding who goes where.

Saying it is one thing, actually doing it is another. I'd doubt the PAC would send a top 25 team to play a ranked BSU in the Las Vegas bowl. The top 25 choice would still go the to Alamo or Holiday bowl. They may switch the Sun bowl choice in the LV bowl. Still it won't be a good matchup.
Regardless, I won't hold my breath. I believe it when I see it.

I could see them at least sending a team that has a pretty good chance of winning the game. That hasnt been the case of late. Over the last 10 years the Pac-12 has won twice. Most recently in 2008. Worse yet, 40% of the time, the Pac doesnt just lose--they get blown out by 20 points or more.

(05-28-2013 07:54 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-28-2013 07:44 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(05-28-2013 06:24 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-28-2013 05:46 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-28-2013 04:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  If it were me, and we had the SEC #6 in a nice location that's near to most of our teams, I doubt I'd trade that for a MW #1 in a baseball stadium nearly 2000 miles away. That's a fairly tough sell. Especially since they have a far better#1 game than we likely will end up with, why give up that recruiting advantage? Nope, it's probably pull off a similar value game, or fall well behind the MW bowl line up. I doubt they bail us out. The only way I see that occurring is if the Pac12 seriously demotes the LV Bowl in it it's line up. If they were only getting a 7-8 pick, the MW might opt to play us (since thier best game and our best game would be about the same). That said, I don't think the LV Bowl drops below the 6th pick.

Pac-12 orders bowl choice based on how much money the Pac gets from the bowl. It does seem unlikely that Vegas would allow itself to be outbid by enough bowls to drop below 6th choice.

I can't remember who or where, but I thought the PAC said they were going for "matchups that made sense", i.e. if they're sending a team to play a #15 Boise, send a top-20 ranked team to Vegas and send the 6-6 Arizona to play a 6-6 power conference opponent in the Sun Bowl or Kraft Fight Hunger or whatever.

We're seeing a lot of things that indicate that the previous system, where a conference's bowls lined up in numerical order and made their picks, is going out the window, and the conferences are going to play a much bigger role in deciding who goes where.

Saying it is one thing, actually doing it is another. I'd doubt the PAC would send a top 25 team to play a ranked BSU in the Las Vegas bowl. The top 25 choice would still go the to Alamo or Holiday bowl. They may switch the Sun bowl choice in the LV bowl. Still it won't be a good matchup.
Regardless, I won't hold my breath. I believe it when I see it.

I could see them at least sending a team that has a pretty good chance of winning the game. That hasnt been the case of late.

Given the track record of the MW champ, the PAC would have to send the #3 choice...which won't happen. I'd rather play the #1 or #2 AAC given they would be ranked in the top 30....but that is just me apparently.

Much ado about nothing. Except for the BCS championship and then next year the 2 semis & finals, who cares who plays in these games?

(05-28-2013 08:18 PM)westwolf Wrote:  Much ado about nothing. Except for the BCS championship and then next year the 2 semis & finals, who cares who plays in these games?

Me

Supposedly the P5 are working toward moving away from #3 goes here and #4 goes there arrangements and inject more flexibility into the match-ups.