(12-02-2018 08:40 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(12-02-2018 05:02 PM)toddjnsn Wrote:  

Quote:Kinda surprised about USM and Wyoming, they both have decent fan bases.

I'm not about Wyoming. They're 6-6. To upend without a tie-in over a 7-5 mid-major, you're going to need more than Wyoming's fan base to do that.

I have a major problem with a 6-6 BYU bumping a 6-6 Wyoming from a MWC affiliated bowl.

Unless I'm missing something, the Mountain West never had a spot for Wyoming.
Looking at Football Bowl Association , MWC has New Mexico, Las Vegas, Idaho Potato, Hawaii and Arizona as their contracted tie-ins. That's 5 bowl spots.

MWC has Fresno State, Boise State, Utah State with 10+ wins, SDSU, Nevada and Hawaii with 7-8 wins, and Wyoming with 6 wins. That's 7 bowl eligible teams.

Mountain West effectively traded their Idaho Potato spot to ESPN for the Frisco Bowl and the First REsponders (old Cotton Bowl) Bowl. If they hadn't traded, you'd have something like Boise State playing a MAC team at home, BYU playing in Frisco or Dallas, and Wyoming AND San Diego State staying home. ESPN would have filled the other spot with USM, Miami-O or ULM, punishing the MWC for not playing ball.

EDIT: Remember, the Mountain West's bowl lineup was supposed to include the Poinsettia Bowl, but since that doesn't exist anymore.......

USM only played 11 games due to a game getting cancelled, and Wyoming had a game at Hawaii which would mean they can play 13 games. I wonder if they could apply for a waiver to play a game?

Idaho Potato is a tie in for both MWC and MAC. Putting BYU in is a breach of contract.
Frisco Bowl was never a MWC bowl to begin with.
First Responder was not MWC either. TCU screw the MWC up by going to the Cheez It Bowl. Big 12 was a team short, so the Cheez It bowl was actually supposed to be Boise State or Fresno State's spot.
MAC only had 4 tie in and 1 conditional in case another conference can't fill in.

USM got screwed this year like 6-5 UTSA who also lost a game in the same issues that USM had. Hurricane struck Houston last year when UTSA was supposed to play Houston.

Quote:So when the MAC made the argument, "we have a 7 win school, they have a 6 win school", they still would have had the inside track on that argument.

A 7W G5 by default is going to get the nod over a 6W G5, when it comes to at-larges (BYU is not a G5, btw). In reference to Southern Miss here -- I think the problem is that even though they have a Winning record unlike 6-6 teams -- they're going to be Treated like a 6-6 team when one of their wins is FCS. Much like a 7-5 team who plays *2* FCSs by rule have to sit out behind everyone else, I think the POV on a 6-5 team who played an FCS as part of their 6W is going to be looked upon as a 6-6 team -- so Southern Miss had no advantage over any other 6-6 team going for an at-large.

One should expect WMU or EMU to go ahead of Wyoming or Miami-OH @6-6, by default when seeking at-larges or dual-conference latter tie-ins. Maybe a big crowd/TV-watcher draw of a G5 like Houston, UCF, or Boise would trump that.

Quote:I have a major problem with a 6-6 BYU bumping a 6-6 Wyoming from a MWC affiliated bowl.

Wyoming wasn't denied a tie-in, though. THAT I would have a problem with. But Wyoming was not denied a conference tie-in. They ran out of them. ESPN traded that Idaho Bowl MW tie-in for BYU, and shifted the bowls the MW was in to one that they didn't have a direct tie-in for. It didn't cheat Wyoming out of anything.

Example: Say the MAC ran out of tie-ins and WMU didn't make it. But instead of putting EMU into the Camellia Bowl, they put BYU in there, and instead put EMU in some non-MAC-related bowl. I wouldn't get pissed they put BYU in a MAC-related bowl instead of WMU. They Wouldn't have been Nixing any MAC tie-ins for that, that's why.

Quote:There was never any announcement that Frisco was "set for a MAC tie-in". There was an announcement in early 2017 that an SBC school would play in 2017 and 2019, and a MAC school would play in 2018

Yes, that is an announcement, and reaffirmed by ESPN in early 2018 (this calendar year) -- that there would be a MAC tie-in set for 2018 bowl season. That changed. That was what I was saying.

Quote:You seem to have created a theory to explain the fact that some people were saying it was a MAC spot

Some PEOPLE were saying it was, and I argued against it. My point was that some people Still Thought it still was a primary MAC tie-in, when it wasn't anymore.

Quote:Unless I'm missing something, the Mountain West never had a spot for Wyoming.

Yes, you are right. They didn't have a spot for Wyoming. BYU getting into the Idaho Bowl wasn't erasing any tie-in. It was trading that spot for the MW with another one. ESPN does this kind of thing all the time.

If UCF would have lost, it Would have opened up another MW tie-in, and Wyoming would have gone, and EMU or WMU wouldn't have.

(12-03-2018 01:37 AM)toddjnsn Wrote:  

Quote:There was never any announcement that Frisco was "set for a MAC tie-in". There was an announcement in early 2017 that an SBC school would play in 2017 and 2019, and a MAC school would play in 2018

Yes, that is an announcement, and reaffirmed by ESPN in early 2018 (this calendar year) -- that there would be a MAC tie-in set for 2018 bowl season. That changed. That was what I was saying.

What I was said is there was no tie in. Which is a contractual arrangement between a bowl and a conference. There wasn't anything in the news story from 2017 or the announcement from March 2018 or the announcements from November 2018 that said there was a contract between the bowl and the MAC.

The 2017 announcement just said that that the MAC would be going to the bowl in 2018. The March 2018 announcement said the MAC would be going to the bowl. The list of bowl tie-ins that the MAC prepared as part of their weekly football news for football programs of member schools said LAST WEEK that the MAC would be going to the bowl.

And the MAC is going to the bowl.

Just as I said they would be.

By all appearances, they could be so confident they were going by virtue of an agreement with the Bowl owner rather than by virtue of a contract with the bowl. So people who cannot understand the difference between the two learned "no tie-in" and falsely concluded "they do not have a primary bowl agreement in place".

Quote:

Quote:You seem to have created a theory to explain the fact that some people were saying it was a MAC spot

Some PEOPLE were saying it was, and I argued against it. My point was that some people Still Thought it still was a primary MAC tie-in, when it wasn't anymore.

It's arguing about the wrong issue ... whether it was a "primary MAC tie-in" was always beside the point. Nobody cares WHY their conference has first right to a bid from that bowl, whether it is through a tie-in or through some other mechanism ... all that matters is that they do.

As the MAC did, which is why the MAC received the 2018 at-large bid that ESPN had agreed to give to the MAC nearly two years before.

If you have any evidence it ever was a tie-in, as you keep claiming, you haven't presented it. None of the news coverage or statements by the MAC that I saw ever described the nature of the guarantee of the place at that bowl. They just gave the information that people care about, that it was part of the primary bowl agreements that the MAC held.

Quote:

Quote:Unless I'm missing something, the Mountain West never had a spot for Wyoming.

Yes, you are right. They didn't have a spot for Wyoming. BYU getting into the Idaho Bowl wasn't erasing any tie-in. It was trading that spot for the MW with another one. ESPN does this kind of thing all the time.

If UCF would have lost, it Would have opened up another MW tie-in, and Wyoming would have gone, and EMU or WMU wouldn't have.

Could well be, yes ... the Boca Raton bowl secondary tie-in for the MAC opened up because the AAC took the Independence Bowl secondary tie-in and because UCF took a NY6 At-Large spot ... but if UCF had lost, the AAC may well have filled the Boca Raton spot.

(12-02-2018 05:19 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-02-2018 05:07 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  I am on the ESPN site. Frisco Bowl was not a tie in for either the MAC or MWC. They hae listed Boise State facing Boston College in the SerPRO Bowl.
2 bowls that the MWC have a tie in and a conditional are Arizona Bowl and Cheez It Bowls. There are 2 MWC teams yet not picked. UNR and Wyoming

Nevada plays Arkansas State in the Arizona Bowl in Phoenix.

Tucson not Phoenix

(12-02-2018 08:40 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(12-02-2018 05:02 PM)toddjnsn Wrote:  

Quote:Kinda surprised about USM and Wyoming, they both have decent fan bases.

I'm not about Wyoming. They're 6-6. To upend without a tie-in over a 7-5 mid-major, you're going to need more than Wyoming's fan base to do that.

Southern Miss on the other hand -- they have a winning record, at 6-5. They missed out on their game @App-State, which would definitely have been enough IF they won, to go over EMU. But still surprised since they still had a winning record, not to go. Their fan base, as with over 120 out of the 130 teams, have a better fan base than EMU. I do believe if USM missed out on a D1AA game instead, they would have gotten a bowl over EMU.

I have a major problem with a 6-6 BYU bumping a 6-6 Wyoming from a MWC affiliated bowl.

I don’t ever like an eligible team missing a bowl but BYU has a much better resume.

They win against common opponents with a 2-2 record vs 1-3 as BYU blew out the Hawaii squad that beat the Cowboys.

They faced a MUCH tougher schedule. They faced the two of the three best MWC teams that Wyoming faced (Boise, USU) while also playing MAC champ NIU, also playing 5 P5 teams that combined to go 38-24 and going 2-3 in those games. This includes both Pac12 division winners and two other bowl teams. Wyoming faced Wazzu and Mizzou to their credit but lost badly.

Also who did Wyoming beat? Their only win against a team with a winning record was 9-4 FCS team Wolford. NMSU, AFA, CSU, SJSU, and New Mexico combined to go 15-45. Take away their games against Wyoming it’s still bad at 15-39.

I don’t like anyone sitting home but it’s not like they made a slam dunk case.

(12-02-2018 11:02 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Idaho Potato is a tie in for both MWC and MAC. Putting BYU in is a breach of contract.
Frisco Bowl was never a MWC bowl to begin with.
First Responder was not MWC either. TCU screw the MWC up by going to the Cheez It Bowl. Big 12 was a team short, so the Cheez It bowl was actually supposed to be Boise State or Fresno State's spot.
MAC only had 4 tie in and 1 conditional in case another conference can't fill in.

USM got screwed this year like 6-5 UTSA who also lost a game in the same issues that USM had. Hurricane struck Houston last year when UTSA was supposed to play Houston.

Stop. Don't insinuate someone should be sued. Mountain West teams were placed in at least equivalent bowl as where they would have been in tie-in bowls. If the teams weren't happy with where they were going, they could have simply declined the invitation. If USM got screwed, they did it to themselves. USM most likely would have lost the Appalachian State game anyway and been 6-6, which is the record of all bowl eligible teams that are left home.

Nobody got "screwed". There were 82 eligible teams but only 78 bowl slots, so 4 teams HAD to stay home, period. All contracts were honored, as they have to be.

The blame here is ultimately with the conferences of the teams staying home. It's the conference's job to make sure it has tie-ins for its eligible teams.

One of the few things I give Aresco credit for is after Temple missed a bowl game in 2014 because the AAC had only 5 ties, he hustled and created bowl games and signed backup deals to get the AAC seven slots so that the chances of AAC teams missing bowl games would go way down, and IIRC no eligible AAC team has missed out on bowling since.

That's what a conference has to do.

(12-03-2018 12:15 PM)AZcats Wrote:  

(12-02-2018 11:02 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Idaho Potato is a tie in for both MWC and MAC. Putting BYU in is a breach of contract.
Frisco Bowl was never a MWC bowl to begin with.
First Responder was not MWC either. TCU screw the MWC up by going to the Cheez It Bowl. Big 12 was a team short, so the Cheez It bowl was actually supposed to be Boise State or Fresno State's spot.
MAC only had 4 tie in and 1 conditional in case another conference can't fill in.

USM got screwed this year like 6-5 UTSA who also lost a game in the same issues that USM had. Hurricane struck Houston last year when UTSA was supposed to play Houston.

Stop. Don't insinuate someone should be sued. Mountain West teams were placed in at least equivalent bowl as where they would have been in tie-in bowls. If the teams weren't happy with where they were going, they could have simply declined the invitation. If USM got screwed, they did it to themselves. USM most likely would have lost the Appalachian State game anyway and been 6-6, which is the record of all bowl eligible teams that are left home.

MWC is better off than they would have been without ESPN's horse-trading to get Boise St. a game against a P5 opponent and to get BYU into one of the ESPN-owned bowl games.

The MWC had conditional contracts with the Cheez-It and Redbox Bowls...as an alternate if the P5 conferences couldn't fill their spots. Well, the PAC and B12 fulfilled their tie-ins to the Cheez-It Bowl (Cal v. TCU) and the PAC and B1G fulfilled their tie-ins to the Red Box bowl (Oregon v. Michigan St.).

The MWC also had a *possible* a spot in the Frisco Bowl, which it landed (SDSU).

There wasn't a spot for Wyoming.

The MWC upgraded its bowl lineup by trading the Idaho Potato Bowl v. Western Michigan for a spot in the First Responder Bowl v. Boston College. That's a great trade. Get another bowl against a P5 opponent and relegate BYU to the Boise bowl against a lack-luster MAC opponent.

Champ - Las Vegas v. PAC: Fresno St. v. Arizona St.
Tier 1:
SERVPRO: Boise St. v. Boston College [traded for Idaho Potato Bowl spot]
New Mexico: Utah St. v. North Texas
Hawaii: Hawaii v. Louisiana Tech
Tier 2:
Arizona: Nevada v. Arkansas St.
Frisco: San Diego St. v. Ohio

No bowl available for: Wyoming

(12-03-2018 10:48 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(12-02-2018 05:19 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-02-2018 05:07 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  I am on the ESPN site. Frisco Bowl was not a tie in for either the MAC or MWC. They hae listed Boise State facing Boston College in the SerPRO Bowl.
2 bowls that the MWC have a tie in and a conditional are Arizona Bowl and Cheez It Bowls. There are 2 MWC teams yet not picked. UNR and Wyoming

Nevada plays Arkansas State in the Arizona Bowl in Phoenix.

Tucson not Phoenix

My bad. Thanks.

(12-03-2018 02:54 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-03-2018 10:48 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(12-02-2018 05:19 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-02-2018 05:07 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  I am on the ESPN site. Frisco Bowl was not a tie in for either the MAC or MWC. They hae listed Boise State facing Boston College in the SerPRO Bowl.
2 bowls that the MWC have a tie in and a conditional are Arizona Bowl and Cheez It Bowls. There are 2 MWC teams yet not picked. UNR and Wyoming

Nevada plays Arkansas State in the Arizona Bowl in Phoenix.

Tucson not Phoenix

My bad. Thanks.

The Copper/Insight/BWW/Cactus/Cheez-It going through so many names and starting in Tucson and moving to Phoenix doesn't help the confusion factor at all!