My feeling is that CUSA and the AAC lost in this deal if the rumors are true. Supposedly ESPN will own the bowls. The rotational deal wouldn't be so bad if a pair of G-5 conferences came out of this deal each owning a bowl. But if CUSA doesn't own Boca, and the ACC doesn't own the Marlins Bowl---then they cant make money off them in the future and they cant guarantee they will stay CUSA or AAC bowls.

The AAC and CUSA lost long before this happened. CUSA knew this, AAC posters had a tougher time swallowing this reality.

(10-07-2013 07:59 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  The AAC and CUSA lost long before this happened. CUSA knew this, AAC posters had a tougher time swallowing this reality.

What does that have to do with owning the bowl?

(10-07-2013 01:51 PM)OwlFamily Wrote:  

(10-07-2013 01:42 PM)SApuro Wrote:  If there is no iron clad agreement I could see alot of bickering over who gets selected to these bowls. Who MAY bring the bigger attendence is all relative.

Yup, but generally speaking the closer a school is to a bowl games location the better the attendance is. One has only to look to the Cajuns attendance at the NO Bowl to see what happens when you pick a local/close team to be in it.

Lets say the Boca Bowl gets UCF vs FAU and USF vs FIU goes to Miami bowl. Both of those would be very well attendned IMHO because the furthest fanbase is only 4 hours away. Of course that's an idea situation but I think thats one angle they are looking at.

Yea ideal but it reminds me of the ACC holding their CG in Tampa for years because they expected FSU and Miami to play in it every year.

(10-07-2013 08:23 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-07-2013 07:59 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  The AAC and CUSA lost long before this happened. CUSA knew this, AAC posters had a tougher time swallowing this reality.

What does that have to do with owning the bowl?

In the bigger picture these bowls mean nothing and the payouts will probably suck. This means programs playing in these bowls game will lose money as well. So what does it matter who owns whatever bowl game? In the bigger picture not a whole lot.

(10-07-2013 11:36 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  

(10-07-2013 08:23 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-07-2013 07:59 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  The AAC and CUSA lost long before this happened. CUSA knew this, AAC posters had a tougher time swallowing this reality.

What does that have to do with owning the bowl?

In the bigger picture these bowls mean nothing and the payouts will probably suck. This means programs playing in these bowls game will lose money as well. So what does it matter who owns whatever bowl game? In the bigger picture not a whole lot.

lol. Are we having a clinic in existentialism? Nothing matters and what if it did? If you feel that way then why go to the games? Why keep score? Why have a conference champ? Why make donations, or post on a board for that matter? To answer your question, it matters because if you own the bowl you control the bowl. Also, a well run bowl that is efficiently run by the conference would actually make money. At the G-5 level, every little bit helps.

(10-08-2013 12:11 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-07-2013 11:36 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  

(10-07-2013 08:23 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-07-2013 07:59 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  The AAC and CUSA lost long before this happened. CUSA knew this, AAC posters had a tougher time swallowing this reality.

What does that have to do with owning the bowl?

In the bigger picture these bowls mean nothing and the payouts will probably suck. This means programs playing in these bowls game will lose money as well. So what does it matter who owns whatever bowl game? In the bigger picture not a whole lot.

lol. Are we having a clinic in existentialism? Nothing matters and what if it did? If you feel that way then why go to the games? Why keep score? Why have a conference champ? Why make donations, or post on a board for that matter? To answer your question, it matters because if you own the bowl you control the bowl. Also, a well run bowl that is efficiently run by the conference would actually make money. At the G-5 level, every little bit helps.

I think the G-5 needs to become a little more creative than just creating bowl games that actually causes programs to lose money. And I think we have several welll run bowl games but the payout is so small or either the distance to travel to these games are so much most programs do end up losing money. Hell, Bama lost money playing in the Rose Bowl CG two years ago.

(10-07-2013 11:36 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  

(10-07-2013 08:23 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-07-2013 07:59 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  The AAC and CUSA lost long before this happened. CUSA knew this, AAC posters had a tougher time swallowing this reality.

What does that have to do with owning the bowl?

In the bigger picture these bowls mean nothing and the payouts will probably suck. This means programs playing in these bowls game will lose money as well. So what does it matter who owns whatever bowl game? In the bigger picture not a whole lot.

Lose money...maybe but the reason we have these bowls (beyond rewarding the team for playing well) is because every time we are seen on TV we get that much more exposure and maintain relevancy (as much as possible). What's the option, sit at home while the AQs play bowl games on TV? Who care if we lose a little money? As long as we can work it into the budget, I'm for it. Besides, you are making an assumption. We don't know that they will lose money.

(10-07-2013 07:16 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  My feeling is that CUSA and the AAC lost in this deal if the rumors are true. Supposedly ESPN will own the bowls. The rotational deal wouldn't be so bad if a pair of G-5 conferences came out of this deal each owning a bowl. But if CUSA doesn't own Boca, and the ACC doesn't own the Marlins Bowl---then they cant make money off them in the future and they cant guarantee they will stay CUSA or AAC bowls.

The AAC is the anchor of the Marlin's bowl - they will always have a team in - that's in the ESPN article - it also says the AAC created the bowl - though it doesn't say who owns it. I didn't see the same comments about the CUSA bowls.

(10-08-2013 10:00 AM)IceJus10 Wrote:  

(10-07-2013 07:16 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  My feeling is that CUSA and the AAC lost in this deal if the rumors are true. Supposedly ESPN will own the bowls. The rotational deal wouldn't be so bad if a pair of G-5 conferences came out of this deal each owning a bowl. But if CUSA doesn't own Boca, and the ACC doesn't own the Marlins Bowl---then they cant make money off them in the future and they cant guarantee they will stay CUSA or AAC bowls.

The AAC is the anchor of the Marlin's bowl - they will always have a team in - that's in the ESPN article - it also says the AAC created the bowl - though it doesn't say who owns it. I didn't see the same comments about the CUSA bowls.

Correct. The article doesn't say who owns it (which is why I said -if the rumor is correct). There is a tweet from the Beat of Sports web site that says ESPN will own all 3.

The Beat of Sports ‏@thebeatofsports 4 Oct
Look for bowl alliance between game in Bahamas, Boca Raton, Montgomery and Marlins Park(Miami)..non power leagues involved..ESPN owns bowls

However, a more recent tweet might alter that statement a bit--

The Beat of Sports ‏@thebeatofsports 23h
ESPN sources confirm new bowl games, which are either owned/and or operated by ESPN: http://es.pn/15hr950


As far as bowl slots--My guess is each of the conferences has been guaranteed at least one slot--but we really have no idea how the sharing agreement is set up at this point.

(10-08-2013 09:19 AM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  

(10-08-2013 12:11 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-07-2013 11:36 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  

(10-07-2013 08:23 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-07-2013 07:59 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  The AAC and CUSA lost long before this happened. CUSA knew this, AAC posters had a tougher time swallowing this reality.

What does that have to do with owning the bowl?

In the bigger picture these bowls mean nothing and the payouts will probably suck. This means programs playing in these bowls game will lose money as well. So what does it matter who owns whatever bowl game? In the bigger picture not a whole lot.

lol. Are we having a clinic in existentialism? Nothing matters and what if it did? If you feel that way then why go to the games? Why keep score? Why have a conference champ? Why make donations, or post on a board for that matter? To answer your question, it matters because if you own the bowl you control the bowl. Also, a well run bowl that is efficiently run by the conference would actually make money. At the G-5 level, every little bit helps.

I think the G-5 needs to become a little more creative than just creating bowl games that actually causes programs to lose money. And I think we have several welll run bowl games but the payout is so small or either the distance to travel to these games are so much most programs do end up losing money. Hell, Bama lost money playing in the Rose Bowl CG two years ago.

Naked cheerleaders ??
Free steak dinner with each ticket purchase ??

but in all seriousness, here's thinking outside the box.

Vince McMahon, WWE owner/president is an ECU alum. Imagine if you will, the WWE Smackdown Bowl.

Could be played in Atlanta, Georgia which is a great city to go to a bowl and its basically centrally located to schools in CUSA.

McMahon could promote the bowl through his shows and could afford a great half time show for the bowl instead of the local high school bands playing.

This is just an example, but if any of the G5 schools have alumni (like a Vince McMahon) imagine the possibilities.

Then we might not have to worry about an ESPN taking the Bowl.

Just a thought.

If the G-5 really wants to cooperate and think outside of the box---the best way to go would be to not worry about bowls at this point. The G5 should cooperate on the creation of a sports network that would concentrate on the non-AQ schools. Rather than a single conference network like the Pac-12 or Big-10---it would be a shared network with the AAC/CUSA/MW/SB/MAC. You would need just one game a week from each conference to get it started. By 2020 or sooner every G-5 conference would have a chance to rework their contracts to fit in a G-5 network.

Just as Fox News found a niche audience that was large and completely underserved---this proposed network already has a built-in niche audience. A Saturday Game Day shown on a non-AQ network alone would be worth it.

(10-08-2013 09:52 AM)BlueRaiderFan. Wrote:  

(10-07-2013 11:36 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  

(10-07-2013 08:23 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-07-2013 07:59 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  The AAC and CUSA lost long before this happened. CUSA knew this, AAC posters had a tougher time swallowing this reality.

What does that have to do with owning the bowl?

In the bigger picture these bowls mean nothing and the payouts will probably suck. This means programs playing in these bowls game will lose money as well. So what does it matter who owns whatever bowl game? In the bigger picture not a whole lot.

Lose money...maybe but the reason we have these bowls (beyond rewarding the team for playing well) is because every time we are seen on TV we get that much more exposure and maintain relevancy (as much as possible). What's the option, sit at home while the AQs play bowl games on TV? Who care if we lose a little money? As long as we can work it into the budget, I'm for it. Besides, you are making an assumption. We don't know that they will lose money.

History has proven programs generally lose money in bowl games. I'm not making this up. And when your program is on a tight budget (like a UAB or USM), losing a little money can hurt so lets not try to make this a non-issue. As far as exposure is concern, is it really quality exposure when no barely anyone is watching? And those who are watching are more than likely fans of the program or some schmuck that watches anything on TV.

That said, I'm not knocking the bowls but whatever.