Well the way it would work out would be for the involved parties to do what is best for parties involved....It is not like the Belk bowl is some great freaking bowl game. The difference in payout can be resolved rather easily....Other than that what would the AAC be losing out on if CUSA and the AAC switched the Liberty or Military bowls for the Belk Bowl...Seems like a pretty easy deal to get worked out if all parties are being reasonable.

It is a pretty good bowl game, IMO... Bank of America Stadium in Charlotte is a TOP NOTCH venue, Charlotte is a fantastic city with tons to do, and it'd be against an in-state ACC opponent! (When would be the last time ECU played UNC, NC State, & Duke in the same season?)

Playing 4 ACC teams and going (potentially) 3-1 vs them would be FANTASTIC.

(10-31-2013 08:27 AM)ECU-DMB Fanatic Wrote:  Well the way it would work out would be for the involved parties to do what is best for parties involved....

Seems like a pretty easy deal to get worked out if all parties are being reasonable.

How long have you been a college football fan?

Basically the cash strapped Belk Bowl committee wants the best matchup to sell tickets LOCALLY... and they don't feel that Houston, Rutgers, or Cincinnati will sell tickets and are looking elsewhere and this is has zero to do with the conferences looking for anything. I doubt the school lined up for the Belk or the AAC is going to be willing to part with the additional $300,000-500,000 the Belk pays out over other bowls mentioned in swapping.

(10-30-2013 07:29 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  Would Duke try to avoid a bowl game vs. ECU

Why would Duke do that?

(10-31-2013 08:47 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-30-2013 07:29 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  Would Duke try to avoid a bowl game vs. ECU

Why would Duke do that?

Because they don't want the beat-down.

(10-31-2013 08:47 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-30-2013 07:29 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  Would Duke try to avoid a bowl game vs. ECU

Why would Duke do that?

Because they're afraid of a beatdown on the field & in fan support. Seriously ECU fans would outnumber Dookies 10-1, maybe more.

Haha... I don't think they'd try to avoid us.

(10-31-2013 08:51 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(10-31-2013 08:47 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-30-2013 07:29 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  Would Duke try to avoid a bowl game vs. ECU

Why would Duke do that?

Because they're afraid of a beatdown on the field & in fan support. Seriously ECU fans would outnumber Dookies 10-1, maybe more.

Haha... I don't think they'd try to avoid us.

Like you said, I don't see any reason why Duke would try to avoid ECU. They play equal or must stiffer competition during the year. Besides, they seem to have one of their best teams in quite a while this year. Also, given their success this year, I'd imagine they'd get some fans to the game, not as many as ECU, but then again, the fans don't play the game.

Let them do it if the Belk bowl works out a future CUSA tie in or something. I think that bowl makes a lot of sense for CUSA anyway when you consider all the teams within driving distance which should mean tickets sold. (ODU, UNCC, UAB, MTSU, WKU, USM) Certainly more so than the North and Texas based AAC.

(10-31-2013 08:45 AM)IceJus10 Wrote:  Basically the cash strapped Belk Bowl committee wants the best matchup to sell tickets LOCALLY... and they don't feel that Houston, Rutgers, or Cincinnati will sell tickets and are looking elsewhere and this is has zero to do with the conferences looking for anything. I doubt the school lined up for the Belk or the AAC is going to be willing to part with the additional $300,000-500,000 the Belk pays out over other bowls mentioned in swapping.

I do not see the money as an issue...The difference in guaranteed payout for the AAC can be sent to the AAC from CUSA. The money issue is an easy solution.

(10-31-2013 09:00 AM)monarx Wrote:  Let them do it if the Belk bowl works out a future CUSA tie in or something. I think that bowl makes a lot of sense for CUSA anyway when you consider all the teams within driving distance which should mean tickets sold. (ODU, UNCC, UAB, MTSU, WKU, USM) Certainly more so than the North and Texas based AAC.

The Belk Bowl doesn't want any of them... they want someone who is going to bring 20-30k (or more) people to the game, most of them barely get that (and some don't even get that) at their home games. ECU travels well, that's why they want them!

(10-31-2013 08:41 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(10-31-2013 08:27 AM)ECU-DMB Fanatic Wrote:  Well the way it would work out would be for the involved parties to do what is best for parties involved....

Seems like a pretty easy deal to get worked out if all parties are being reasonable.

How long have you been a college football fan?

I know it seems crazy for some of these college football groups to work together but I have always thought that CUSA under the leadership of Banowsky has usually been a reasonable group to work with...In all the conference defections he has been a reasonable to the schools leaving.

(10-31-2013 09:13 AM)ECU-DMB Fanatic Wrote:  

(10-31-2013 08:45 AM)IceJus10 Wrote:  Basically the cash strapped Belk Bowl committee wants the best matchup to sell tickets LOCALLY... and they don't feel that Houston, Rutgers, or Cincinnati will sell tickets and are looking elsewhere and this is has zero to do with the conferences looking for anything. I doubt the school lined up for the Belk or the AAC is going to be willing to part with the additional $300,000-500,000 the Belk pays out over other bowls mentioned in swapping.

I do not see the money as an issue...The difference in guaranteed payout for the AAC can be sent to the AAC from CUSA. The money issue is an easy solution.

Why would CUSA do that for a departing member? If ECU wants to play in that bowl and the AAC agrees to it, thats fine. But the AAC should eat the difference or make ECU pay it themselves.

(10-31-2013 09:17 AM)IceJus10 Wrote:  

(10-31-2013 09:00 AM)monarx Wrote:  Let them do it if the Belk bowl works out a future CUSA tie in or something. I think that bowl makes a lot of sense for CUSA anyway when you consider all the teams within driving distance which should mean tickets sold. (ODU, UNCC, UAB, MTSU, WKU, USM) Certainly more so than the North and Texas based AAC.

The Belk Bowl doesn't want any of them... they want someone who is going to bring 20-30k (or more) people to the game, most of them barely get that (and some don't even get that) at their home games. ECU travels well, that's why they want them!

I get that ECU would fill the place well, but an AAC tie in doesn't guarantee ECU playing there. There is one team that will draw to Belk in the AAC and thats ECU. I doubt UConn, Temple, South Florida, Tulane, SMU etc would bring as many fans to Charlotte than WKU, MTSU, UNCC or ODU. (probably 7-10k each) So theres four times the chance of Belk having a better draw with CUSA. ECU is the exception. (thats a compliment by the way)

(10-31-2013 09:35 AM)monarx Wrote:  

(10-31-2013 09:13 AM)ECU-DMB Fanatic Wrote:  

(10-31-2013 08:45 AM)IceJus10 Wrote:  Basically the cash strapped Belk Bowl committee wants the best matchup to sell tickets LOCALLY... and they don't feel that Houston, Rutgers, or Cincinnati will sell tickets and are looking elsewhere and this is has zero to do with the conferences looking for anything. I doubt the school lined up for the Belk or the AAC is going to be willing to part with the additional $300,000-500,000 the Belk pays out over other bowls mentioned in swapping.

I do not see the money as an issue...The difference in guaranteed payout for the AAC can be sent to the AAC from CUSA. The money issue is an easy solution.

Why would CUSA do that for a departing member? If ECU wants to play in that bowl and the AAC agrees to it, thats fine. But the AAC should eat the difference or make ECU pay it themselves.

Obviously you do not understand how the bowl payouts work....All bowl payouts go to the league office for distribution to all members (after travel expenses). So in this situation lets say the Belk Bowl pays $300,000 more than the CUSA bowl that was swapped out to the AAC....Well CUSA would take this additional $300,000 in bowl revenue and just send it back to the AAC. That way CUSA does not get more money in the swap and the AAC does not lose any money.

(10-31-2013 09:43 AM)monarx Wrote:  

(10-31-2013 09:17 AM)IceJus10 Wrote:  

(10-31-2013 09:00 AM)monarx Wrote:  Let them do it if the Belk bowl works out a future CUSA tie in or something. I think that bowl makes a lot of sense for CUSA anyway when you consider all the teams within driving distance which should mean tickets sold. (ODU, UNCC, UAB, MTSU, WKU, USM) Certainly more so than the North and Texas based AAC.

The Belk Bowl doesn't want any of them... they want someone who is going to bring 20-30k (or more) people to the game, most of them barely get that (and some don't even get that) at their home games. ECU travels well, that's why they want them!

I get that ECU would fill the place well, but an AAC tie in doesn't guarantee ECU playing there. There is one team that will draw to Belk in the AAC and thats ECU. I doubt UConn, Temple, South Florida, Tulane, SMU etc would bring as many fans to Charlotte than WKU, MTSU, UNCC or ODU. (probably 7-10k each) So theres four times the chance of Belk having a better draw with CUSA. ECU is the exception. (thats a compliment by the way)

I disagree...You are playing with the numbers. You conveniently left out several schools from the AAC that would travel well to Charlotte. Not to mention the fact that UCONN and USF would no doubt bring more fans to Charlotte than WKU or MTSU, hell MTSU fans do not even show up for their home games. Hell I have been to a bowl game against USF and they travelled very well. Your example is nonsense....Talk about spin.

Food for thought.

Liberty is CUSA #1 v SEC #8 with a payout of #1.5 million

Belk is AAC #3 v ACC #5 with a payout of $1.7 million

So maybe the thought is some pieces have to fall in place and IF:

UCF wins the AAC - BCS bowl

Houston finishes second and would go to the Russell Athletic Bowl

It makes more sense (geography wise)for a Louisville who finishes 3rd to trade up the Belk and go to the Liberty and then have ECU (if they win the conference) go to the Belk instead.

The $200,000 difference between the Liberty and Belk could be picked up by the SEC.

Why?

Ask yourself

1. Would the SEC rather play East Carolina or Louisville in the Liberty?
2. Would Louisville v Tennessee be a bigger draw in the Liberty?
3. Would ECU v Duke be a bigger draw in the Belk?

From the way I see it, the geography rational makes perfect sense, if all the pieces fall into place.

(10-31-2013 10:27 AM)ECUPirated Wrote:  Food for thought.

Liberty is CUSA #1 v SEC #8 with a payout of #1.5 million

Belk is AAC #3 v ACC #5 with a payout of $1.7 million

So maybe the thought is some pieces have to fall in place and IF:

UCF wins the AAC - BCS bowl

Houston finishes second and would go to the Russell Athletic Bowl

It makes more sense (geography wise)for a Louisville who finishes 3rd to trade up the Belk and go to the Liberty and then have ECU (if they win the conference) go to the Belk instead.

The $200,000 difference between the Liberty and Belk could be picked up by the SEC.

Why?

Ask yourself

1. Would the SEC rather play East Carolina or Louisville in the Liberty?
2. Would Louisville v Tennessee be a bigger draw in the Liberty?
3. Would ECU v Duke be a bigger draw in the Belk?

From the way I see it, the geography rational makes perfect sense, if all the pieces fall into place.

Like I said before....The payout of the bowls is a non-factor as there is a very easy solution for that issue. CUSA could just reimburse the AAC for the difference from the bowl payout they receive....That way no one loses or gains anything from a contractual payout standpoint by swapping bowls and the bowls themselves could come out better off in attendance. Looks like it could be good situation for all parties involved.

(10-30-2013 08:22 PM)StillJonesing Wrote:  Also I'm not so sure most ECU fans wouldn't rather have a chance at a 8 or 9 win Duke in Charlotte than a 6-6 or 7-5 Vandy, Miss State, Ol Miss in Memphis if it worked out that way.

A win over an 8-9 win in-state team in Charlotte is much better IMO than a win over a 6-7 win SEC/B12 team in Memphis for ECU. Even if we win CUSA I'd take the option for the Belk Bowl if it was given. Way more upside for ECU in Charlotte.

(10-31-2013 10:33 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(10-30-2013 08:22 PM)StillJonesing Wrote:  Also I'm not so sure most ECU fans wouldn't rather have a chance at a 8 or 9 win Duke in Charlotte than a 6-6 or 7-5 Vandy, Miss State, Ol Miss in Memphis if it worked out that way.

A win over an 8-9 win in-state team in Charlotte is much better IMO than a win over a 6-7 win SEC/B12 team in Memphis for ECU. Even if we win CUSA I'd take the option for the Belk Bowl if it was given. Way more upside for ECU in Charlotte.

If we got a chance at Tennesse, Georgia, or Florida or someone like that it would be debatable for me though.