(10-15-2019 09:14 AM)mtmedlin Wrote:  We will never get our own bowl as long as the media spins the same thing two different ways. When the SEC beats each other and their top teams have 1-2 losses, they shouldnt be excluded because its a sign of strength that the SEC is so strong. When the AAC beats each other up, then we are excluded because we have a weak SOS.

I see that as being too passive and fatalistic. The situation can change.

Aresco's lobbying will have an impact. More importantly, AAC performance is having an impact. As people around the nation discover the new quality of AAC FB, and as AAC fans raise hell about it, there will be a ruckus. P5 is too dominant, everybody knows that.

The biggest disagreement I have with you is about SOS. The AAC does not have a weak SOS. It is #6 among conferences, but not very far behind the others, very close, in fact, completely different than the G4.

Instead of saying there's nothing that can be done, that we deserve this crapola cartel because we're "weak," the time has come to demand change. P5 is going to turn out to be a house of cards, now that it's clear that they're not head and shoulders above the rest.

Their motto might as well be, "P5: Let the rich get richer!"

(10-14-2019 07:58 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  One problem with Aresco's proposal is that it would appear on the surface to be too self-serving and too insensitive to the rights of the G4 and various independents.

I don't think that a single conference could or would be given an auto-bid.

Another issue is that some of the P5 conference champions could be left out of the NY6 bowls some seasons.

There is really nothing self-serving about it. We have the largest media deal of all those other conferences not Privileged 5 for a reason. ...Because we are substantially better than them. We deserve an auto bid when we are clearly out-performing one or more of the P5 conferences. Aresco is on point here. The conference champs from the Priveledged 5 has not been getting left out. They have been getting the red carpet treatment. Our product is good enough for one of those bowls, better than a ACC #2, especially this year.

This topic reminds me of when the current NY6 was being built. An NY10 was also being considered, giving a spot to all 10 conference champs. Obviously the “G4” would be playing in the 2 lowest revenue bowls most years, but most G4 fans would prefer champ-on-champ, as a consolation for missing out on a P5 scrum.

On a previous board we sketched out that all Top 25 teams are eligible but, can only be taken if certain teams from other conference are also chosen, according to each team’s rank within their conference; to summarize by example: The #4 SEC team can only be taken if all ranked #2 teams and all higher-ranked #3 teams are also chosen. Independents are all valued as #2 teams. Non-ranked champions are paired against each other. Using this week’s AP Poll, we might get something like this:

Fiesta: #1 Alabama vs. #4 Ohio State
Peach: #2 Clemson vs. #3 LSU
Rose: #6 Wisconsin vs. #12 Oregon
Sugar: #5 Oklahoma vs. #9 Florida
Orange: #7 Penn State vs. #8 Norte Dame (no Top 25 ACC team)
Cotton*: #10 Georgia vs. #16 Michigan
Vegas: #14 Boise St vs. #15 Texas
FtWorth: #13 Utah vs. #19 SMU
Military: #21 Cincy vs. #24 App St
Independence: La Tech vs. Toledo

*the last pool of eligible teams included Georgia, Michigan, #17 Arizona St, and #18 Baylor; the Cotton picked the biggest 2 names; we assume Texas just played in Arlington’s B12CCG

The CFP distributions to the G5 would be baked into the payouts of the lower bowls, so Power teams still get a decent bowl payout even if they are playing a G5 team. Boise may not be selected by the Cotton, but they still get that coveted P5 opponent and a decent payday.

Selection of the 4 lower tier bowls was done off the top of my head. These would likely be chosen for only 4 years (each bowl guaranteed to have 1 battle of unrankeds), to gauge the appetite for an expanded NY10 (need a better name), with any renewal open to inviting 4 different bowls.

(10-16-2019 12:32 AM)Crayton Wrote:  This topic reminds me of when the current NY6 was being built. An NY10 was also being considered, giving a spot to all 10 conference champs. Obviously the “G4” would be playing in the 2 lowest revenue bowls most years, but most G4 fans would prefer champ-on-champ, as a consolation for missing out on a P5 scrum.

On a previous board we sketched out that all Top 25 teams are eligible but, can only be taken if certain teams from other conference are also chosen, according to each team’s rank within their conference; to summarize by example: The #4 SEC team can only be taken if all ranked #2 teams and all higher-ranked #3 teams are also chosen. Independents are all valued as #2 teams. Non-ranked champions are paired against each other. Using this week’s AP Poll, we might get something like this:

Fiesta: #1 Alabama vs. #4 Ohio State
Peach: #2 Clemson vs. #3 LSU
Rose: #6 Wisconsin vs. #12 Oregon
Sugar: #5 Oklahoma vs. #9 Florida
Orange: #7 Penn State vs. #8 Norte Dame (no Top 25 ACC team)
Cotton*: #10 Georgia vs. #16 Michigan
Vegas: #14 Boise St vs. #15 Texas
FtWorth: #13 Utah vs. #19 SMU
Military: #21 Cincy vs. #24 App St
Independence: La Tech vs. Toledo

*the last pool of eligible teams included Georgia, Michigan, #17 Arizona St, and #18 Baylor; the Cotton picked the biggest 2 names; we assume Texas just played in Arlington’s B12CCG

The CFP distributions to the G5 would be baked into the payouts of the lower bowls, so Power teams still get a decent bowl payout even if they are playing a G5 team. Boise may not be selected by the Cotton, but they still get that coveted P5 opponent and a decent payday.

Selection of the 4 lower tier bowls was done off the top of my head. These would likely be chosen for only 4 years (each bowl guaranteed to have 1 battle of unrankeds), to gauge the appetite for an expanded NY10 (need a better name), with any renewal open to inviting 4 different bowls.

I think the ACC and Sunbelt proposed the general format your talking about. I think it would have been fun. Much more interesting to more people than what we ended up with. I think it would have pumped up the interest in that whole tier of bowl games. Even though they are not playoff games---they would have been relevant to a whole new group of fans who been basically pushed to a side show in the current format.

(10-14-2019 09:04 PM)Square Knight Wrote:  

(10-14-2019 07:42 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(10-14-2019 06:49 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(10-14-2019 06:11 PM)UCF_SystemsEng Wrote:  Notre Dame is part of the contract Bowl alliance by virtue of its tie in with the Orange Bowl as one of the (potential) designated opponents of the ACC representative

True. The AAC needs to get an actual contract with the Cotton Bowl, even if it is only a limited berth not unlike Notre Dame and the Orange Bowl.

THAT would give the AAC a real seat at the table.

At minimum, the new deal would also have to give an auto-bid to every P5 conference champion, irrespective of CFP rankings.

My understanding is that the conference champion of each P5 already is slotted for the NY6 games unless they are in the 4-team "playoff." That's part of the arrangements the bowls themselves have made...
Rose Bowl: PAC 12 Champ vs B10 Champ
Sugar Bowl: SEC Champ vs B12 Champ
Orange Bowl: ACC Champ vs B10, SEC or Notre Dame

The CFP committee only uses their rankings to fill in the G5 spot and the two non-contracted (at-large) participants.

That's part of the reason Aresco thinks the AAC is strong enough it should receive the same consideration, considering the weakness of two of the five "Power" 5 conferences.

The key thing to remember here is that these are contract bowls. The P5 doesn't have those slots because they're necessarily better on the field. They have those slots because they have contracts with third party entities (the bowl committees) that want to pay them around $40 million per bid for branding, prestige, the chance at getting an Ohio State/Alabama/Notre Dame-type program to visit, etc.

It doesn't matter how well the AAC or any other G5 conference perform on-the-field. These contract bowls are purely business propositions. The AAC has to show that its champion year-after-year is more *valuable* (which is an entirely different calculation than being better competitively) than the Fiesta, Peach or Cotton Bowls simply taking the next best available P5 schools.

The thing is that history says that the top bowl committees are actually the VERY snobbiest people in all of college sports. Frankly, convincing the media that the AAC is worthy of a contract bowl is much easier by comparison - you don't need help from columnists that are just focusing on whether Team X from the AAC can beat Team Y from the P5. It's a much tougher road to get those bowl committees that will *always* look at Team Y from the P5 as being a more *valuable* bowl team.

The mistake that too many G5 fans make is that they think that bowl committees want flexibility to get the best on-the-field matchups (e.g. "Doesn't the Orange Bowl prefer a ranked AAC champ or Boise State instead of an unranked ACC runner-up?"). That's NOT how they think. Instead, these bowl committees want the *guarantees* that a P5 tie-in provides them year-after-year-after-year. Getting "stuck" with a lower tier P5 team is an acceptable trade-off when the potential payoff is getting a marquee P5 brand name in a different year. That's where the G5 conferences will always have an uphill battle - the top tier bowls would be thrilled with half of the programs in either the SEC or Big Ten over even the very best G5 school in any given year, much less getting Alabama or Ohio State.

They're called contract bowls for a reason: they are purely about business. Period.

(10-15-2019 06:48 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(10-15-2019 09:14 AM)mtmedlin Wrote:  We will never get our own bowl as long as the media spins the same thing two different ways. When the SEC beats each other and their top teams have 1-2 losses, they shouldnt be excluded because its a sign of strength that the SEC is so strong. When the AAC beats each other up, then we are excluded because we have a weak SOS.

I see that as being too passive and fatalistic. The situation can change.

Aresco's lobbying will have an impact. More importantly, AAC performance is having an impact. As people around the nation discover the new quality of AAC FB, and as AAC fans raise hell about it, there will be a ruckus. P5 is too dominant, everybody knows that.

The biggest disagreement I have with you is about SOS. The AAC does not have a weak SOS. It is #6 among conferences, but not very far behind the others, very close, in fact, completely different than the G4.

Instead of saying there's nothing that can be done, that we deserve this crapola cartel because we're "weak," the time has come to demand change. P5 is going to turn out to be a house of cards, now that it's clear that they're not head and shoulders above the rest.

Their motto might as well be, "P5: Let the rich get richer!"

That isnt my desire... thats what "Is". It "can" be changed but I doubt it will be. The P5 have no desire or motivation to change. They were the ones that intentionally colluded and killed off the Big East.

So why would they ever allow us back into the fold. At BEST we can hope that they give us some interim title like "Aspiring P5" and give us a higher amount of the playoff money, but even if they expand to an 8 team playoff, I dont see them ever giving us a guranteed spot.

They will give each P5 conference a spot and then make 3 at large bids... 2 of which will be taken by P5 teams each year and I can damn near gurantee 1 of those will be an SEC team each year.

I think the most likely outcome is that if the AAC has a team in the top 10, then it gets a spot and the G4 loses theirs. Thats about as much hope as I have.
It would be a step in the right direction but overall we have to remember that this is a monopoly run by the P5 an ESPN... until their is a reason for them to include us, they wont... and right now, their is no upside to them helping us. So why do it?

(10-16-2019 10:07 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-14-2019 09:04 PM)Square Knight Wrote:  

(10-14-2019 07:42 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(10-14-2019 06:49 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(10-14-2019 06:11 PM)UCF_SystemsEng Wrote:  Notre Dame is part of the contract Bowl alliance by virtue of its tie in with the Orange Bowl as one of the (potential) designated opponents of the ACC representative

True. The AAC needs to get an actual contract with the Cotton Bowl, even if it is only a limited berth not unlike Notre Dame and the Orange Bowl.

THAT would give the AAC a real seat at the table.

At minimum, the new deal would also have to give an auto-bid to every P5 conference champion, irrespective of CFP rankings.

My understanding is that the conference champion of each P5 already is slotted for the NY6 games unless they are in the 4-team "playoff." That's part of the arrangements the bowls themselves have made...
Rose Bowl: PAC 12 Champ vs B10 Champ
Sugar Bowl: SEC Champ vs B12 Champ
Orange Bowl: ACC Champ vs B10, SEC or Notre Dame

The CFP committee only uses their rankings to fill in the G5 spot and the two non-contracted (at-large) participants.

That's part of the reason Aresco thinks the AAC is strong enough it should receive the same consideration, considering the weakness of two of the five "Power" 5 conferences.

The key thing to remember here is that these are contract bowls. The P5 doesn't have those slots because they're necessarily better on the field. They have those slots because they have contracts with third party entities (the bowl committees) that want to pay them around $40 million per bid for branding, prestige, the chance at getting an Ohio State/Alabama/Notre Dame-type program to visit, etc.

It doesn't matter how well the AAC or any other G5 conference perform on-the-field. These contract bowls are purely business propositions. The AAC has to show that its champion year-after-year is more *valuable* (which is an entirely different calculation than being better competitively) than the Fiesta, Peach or Cotton Bowls simply taking the next best available P5 schools.

The thing is that history says that the top bowl committees are actually the VERY snobbiest people in all of college sports. Frankly, convincing the media that the AAC is worthy of a contract bowl is much easier by comparison - you don't need help from columnists that are just focusing on whether Team X from the AAC can beat Team Y from the P5. It's a much tougher road to get those bowl committees that will *always* look at Team Y from the P5 as being a more *valuable* bowl team.

The mistake that too many G5 fans make is that they think that bowl committees want flexibility to get the best on-the-field matchups (e.g. "Doesn't the Orange Bowl prefer a ranked AAC champ or Boise State instead of an unranked ACC runner-up?"). That's NOT how they think. Instead, these bowl committees want the *guarantees* that a P5 tie-in provides them year-after-year-after-year. Getting "stuck" with a lower tier P5 team is an acceptable trade-off when the potential payoff is getting a marquee P5 brand name in a different year. That's where the G5 conferences will always have an uphill battle - the top tier bowls would be thrilled with half of the programs in either the SEC or Big Ten over even the very best G5 school in any given year, much less getting Alabama or Ohio State.

They're called contract bowls for a reason: they are purely about business. Period.

Well...maybe that will change in the future as well. "Power" 5 fans that don't make the playoffs view the NY6 bowls as a letdown and often attendance is not what these bowls would have hoped for.

UCF vs Auburn in the Peach Bowl is an example. UCF outnumbered Auburn 2-1 in fans because Auburn fans didn't care much for the "consolation prize." If UCF hadn't had so many fans wanting to attend, the Peach Bowl would likely have been trying to sell unwanted tickets with some type of special offer.

All that it takes to get this is ESPN deciding a NY7 is worth it and the American should have an autobid. If ESPN were willing to pay for another NY6 game and wanted the American in it, that would happen. Find a bowl game like the Citrus Bowl or the Gator Bowl that feels like it has been left out of the NY6 and go after it.

The Citrus definitely wants to be a NY6 Bowl and feels shafted that the Peach Bowl beat them out, but knowing the UF elitists that run it, they'd rather be getting SEC #3 and B1G #3 than accept an AAC team as the anchor for a NY7.

The Gator Bowl, on the other hand, was willing to become the BCS anchor game for the Big East if they could have gotten added to the BCS rotation. The Gator is a great bowl with a great history, but they've been relegated by the SEC into the same group as the Belk Bowl, Music City, Texas, and such...games they see as beneath them given their history. At times it seems like despite the official pecking order that the Gator is down with the Birmingham Bowl at the very bottom the SEC order. So if there was a chance to rescue their fortunes and move back into the top tier of bowls, I guarantee the Gator Bowl committee would chomp at it, even if it meant getting an AAC team that the UF elitists that run it see as beneath them.

So far as getting the AAC an autobid to the existing NY6...not going to happen. That said, I'd love to just have the autobid and being the conference that will face the G4 team unless some condition is met (e.g., AAC champ ranked Top 8) or something. That'd probably make the P5 happy to not play the G4 team, and it'd still put us a step above the G4 with some hope of getting a better game some years.

(10-16-2019 11:17 AM)Square Knight Wrote:  

(10-16-2019 10:07 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-14-2019 09:04 PM)Square Knight Wrote:  

(10-14-2019 07:42 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(10-14-2019 06:49 PM)YNot Wrote:  True. The AAC needs to get an actual contract with the Cotton Bowl, even if it is only a limited berth not unlike Notre Dame and the Orange Bowl.

THAT would give the AAC a real seat at the table.

At minimum, the new deal would also have to give an auto-bid to every P5 conference champion, irrespective of CFP rankings.

My understanding is that the conference champion of each P5 already is slotted for the NY6 games unless they are in the 4-team "playoff." That's part of the arrangements the bowls themselves have made...
Rose Bowl: PAC 12 Champ vs B10 Champ
Sugar Bowl: SEC Champ vs B12 Champ
Orange Bowl: ACC Champ vs B10, SEC or Notre Dame

The CFP committee only uses their rankings to fill in the G5 spot and the two non-contracted (at-large) participants.

That's part of the reason Aresco thinks the AAC is strong enough it should receive the same consideration, considering the weakness of two of the five "Power" 5 conferences.

The key thing to remember here is that these are contract bowls. The P5 doesn't have those slots because they're necessarily better on the field. They have those slots because they have contracts with third party entities (the bowl committees) that want to pay them around $40 million per bid for branding, prestige, the chance at getting an Ohio State/Alabama/Notre Dame-type program to visit, etc.

It doesn't matter how well the AAC or any other G5 conference perform on-the-field. These contract bowls are purely business propositions. The AAC has to show that its champion year-after-year is more *valuable* (which is an entirely different calculation than being better competitively) than the Fiesta, Peach or Cotton Bowls simply taking the next best available P5 schools.

The thing is that history says that the top bowl committees are actually the VERY snobbiest people in all of college sports. Frankly, convincing the media that the AAC is worthy of a contract bowl is much easier by comparison - you don't need help from columnists that are just focusing on whether Team X from the AAC can beat Team Y from the P5. It's a much tougher road to get those bowl committees that will *always* look at Team Y from the P5 as being a more *valuable* bowl team.

The mistake that too many G5 fans make is that they think that bowl committees want flexibility to get the best on-the-field matchups (e.g. "Doesn't the Orange Bowl prefer a ranked AAC champ or Boise State instead of an unranked ACC runner-up?"). That's NOT how they think. Instead, these bowl committees want the *guarantees* that a P5 tie-in provides them year-after-year-after-year. Getting "stuck" with a lower tier P5 team is an acceptable trade-off when the potential payoff is getting a marquee P5 brand name in a different year. That's where the G5 conferences will always have an uphill battle - the top tier bowls would be thrilled with half of the programs in either the SEC or Big Ten over even the very best G5 school in any given year, much less getting Alabama or Ohio State.

They're called contract bowls for a reason: they are purely about business. Period.

Well...maybe that will change in the future as well. "Power" 5 fans that don't make the playoffs view the NY6 bowls as a letdown and often attendance is not what these bowls would have hoped for.

UCF vs Auburn in the Peach Bowl is an example. UCF outnumbered Auburn 2-1 in fans because Auburn fans didn't care much for the "consolation prize." If UCF hadn't had so many fans wanting to attend, the Peach Bowl would likely have been trying to sell unwanted tickets with some type of special offer.

Possibly, although the argument that you would hear from the SEC office is that the reason why Auburn fans didn't show up is because UCF was the opponent. If one of the other P5 non-playoff teams was in the Peach Bowl instead, such as Ohio State, Penn State or USC that year, then the argument would be that Auburn fans would have shown up in droves. It doesn't matter how great UCF was that season on-the-field - the P5 school still looks at playing any G5 school in a bowl as a letdown.

To be sure, I'm not saying that this is a fair or correct statement... but it's absolutely the type of statement that the P5 conferences have made for many years and, more importantly, the bowls believe them. You can see it where the access bowls keep rotating around the G5 bid because they are always the last choice for those bowls. Whether it's fair or not, "P5 vs. P5" means "elite" status for bowls and they care about such things because that creates more TV and sponsorship revenue (beyond ticket sales).

(10-16-2019 10:07 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-14-2019 09:04 PM)Square Knight Wrote:  

(10-14-2019 07:42 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(10-14-2019 06:49 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(10-14-2019 06:11 PM)UCF_SystemsEng Wrote:  Notre Dame is part of the contract Bowl alliance by virtue of its tie in with the Orange Bowl as one of the (potential) designated opponents of the ACC representative

True. The AAC needs to get an actual contract with the Cotton Bowl, even if it is only a limited berth not unlike Notre Dame and the Orange Bowl.

THAT would give the AAC a real seat at the table.

At minimum, the new deal would also have to give an auto-bid to every P5 conference champion, irrespective of CFP rankings.

My understanding is that the conference champion of each P5 already is slotted for the NY6 games unless they are in the 4-team "playoff." That's part of the arrangements the bowls themselves have made...
Rose Bowl: PAC 12 Champ vs B10 Champ
Sugar Bowl: SEC Champ vs B12 Champ
Orange Bowl: ACC Champ vs B10, SEC or Notre Dame

The CFP committee only uses their rankings to fill in the G5 spot and the two non-contracted (at-large) participants.

That's part of the reason Aresco thinks the AAC is strong enough it should receive the same consideration, considering the weakness of two of the five "Power" 5 conferences.

The key thing to remember here is that these are contract bowls. The P5 doesn't have those slots because they're necessarily better on the field. They have those slots because they have contracts with third party entities (the bowl committees) that want to pay them around $40 million per bid for branding, prestige, the chance at getting an Ohio State/Alabama/Notre Dame-type program to visit, etc.

It doesn't matter how well the AAC or any other G5 conference perform on-the-field. These contract bowls are purely business propositions. The AAC has to show that its champion year-after-year is more *valuable* (which is an entirely different calculation than being better competitively) than the Fiesta, Peach or Cotton Bowls simply taking the next best available P5 schools.

The thing is that history says that the top bowl committees are actually the VERY snobbiest people in all of college sports. Frankly, convincing the media that the AAC is worthy of a contract bowl is much easier by comparison - you don't need help from columnists that are just focusing on whether Team X from the AAC can beat Team Y from the P5. It's a much tougher road to get those bowl committees that will *always* look at Team Y from the P5 as being a more *valuable* bowl team.

The mistake that too many G5 fans make is that they think that bowl committees want flexibility to get the best on-the-field matchups (e.g. "Doesn't the Orange Bowl prefer a ranked AAC champ or Boise State instead of an unranked ACC runner-up?"). That's NOT how they think. Instead, these bowl committees want the *guarantees* that a P5 tie-in provides them year-after-year-after-year. Getting "stuck" with a lower tier P5 team is an acceptable trade-off when the potential payoff is getting a marquee P5 brand name in a different year. That's where the G5 conferences will always have an uphill battle - the top tier bowls would be thrilled with half of the programs in either the SEC or Big Ten over even the very best G5 school in any given year, much less getting Alabama or Ohio State.

They're called contract bowls for a reason: they are purely about business. Period.

This is why I long maintained that getting a much improved TV deal is far easier and much more likely to occur than getting a better post season bowl line up. This is also why Ive always pushed more out of the box ideas. For instance, Ive suggested the idea of creating our own bowl with a high enough payout to attract the kind of P5 opponent the league desires. The other possible option that might work is getting ESPN to lobby on the leagues behalf for a slot in pool of mid-to-upper tier bowls that would effectively be a rotating AAC slot (that way no single bowl or P5 conference would have to commit to the AAC post season bowl partner every single year of the bowl cycle).

(10-16-2019 11:47 AM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  All that it takes to get this is ESPN deciding a NY7 is worth it and the American should have an autobid. If ESPN were willing to pay for another NY6 game and wanted the American in it, that would happen. Find a bowl game like the Citrus Bowl or the Gator Bowl that feels like it has been left out of the NY6 and go after it.

The Citrus definitely wants to be a NY6 Bowl and feels shafted that the Peach Bowl beat them out, but knowing the UF elitists that run it, they'd rather be getting SEC #3 and B1G #3 than accept an AAC team as the anchor for a NY7.

The Gator Bowl, on the other hand, was willing to become the BCS anchor game for the Big East if they could have gotten added to the BCS rotation. The Gator is a great bowl with a great history, but they've been relegated by the SEC into the same group as the Belk Bowl, Music City, Texas, and such...games they see as beneath them given their history. At times it seems like despite the official pecking order that the Gator is down with the Birmingham Bowl at the very bottom the SEC order. So if there was a chance to rescue their fortunes and move back into the top tier of bowls, I guarantee the Gator Bowl committee would chomp at it, even if it meant getting an AAC team that the UF elitists that run it see as beneath them.

So far as getting the AAC an autobid to the existing NY6...not going to happen. That said, I'd love to just have the autobid and being the conference that will face the G4 team unless some condition is met (e.g., AAC champ ranked Top 8) or something. That'd probably make the P5 happy to not play the G4 team, and it'd still put us a step above the G4 with some hope of getting a better game some years.

The Gator bowl would be a great choice and it has been hurting and needing an infusion, but for it to be our Contract bowl, they would have to come up with more money.
I think it paid something like $3.5 million total... Now the Citrus Bowl on the other hand pays closer to $9 million and right now they are getting the Big 10s number 3 or 4 vs the SEC 3 or 4.

Either bowl game would be great for us, but I dont see anyone coughing up even the low end of what the P5 are getting on contract.

Hell, if we could get a bowl to pay $10 million total, it would be a massive step up... I dont even dare dream of the $40-80 million they are getting.

(10-16-2019 11:59 AM)mtmedlin Wrote:  

(10-16-2019 11:47 AM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  All that it takes to get this is ESPN deciding a NY7 is worth it and the American should have an autobid. If ESPN were willing to pay for another NY6 game and wanted the American in it, that would happen. Find a bowl game like the Citrus Bowl or the Gator Bowl that feels like it has been left out of the NY6 and go after it.

The Citrus definitely wants to be a NY6 Bowl and feels shafted that the Peach Bowl beat them out, but knowing the UF elitists that run it, they'd rather be getting SEC #3 and B1G #3 than accept an AAC team as the anchor for a NY7.

The Gator Bowl, on the other hand, was willing to become the BCS anchor game for the Big East if they could have gotten added to the BCS rotation. The Gator is a great bowl with a great history, but they've been relegated by the SEC into the same group as the Belk Bowl, Music City, Texas, and such...games they see as beneath them given their history. At times it seems like despite the official pecking order that the Gator is down with the Birmingham Bowl at the very bottom the SEC order. So if there was a chance to rescue their fortunes and move back into the top tier of bowls, I guarantee the Gator Bowl committee would chomp at it, even if it meant getting an AAC team that the UF elitists that run it see as beneath them.

So far as getting the AAC an autobid to the existing NY6...not going to happen. That said, I'd love to just have the autobid and being the conference that will face the G4 team unless some condition is met (e.g., AAC champ ranked Top 8) or something. That'd probably make the P5 happy to not play the G4 team, and it'd still put us a step above the G4 with some hope of getting a better game some years.

The Gator bowl would be a great choice and it has been hurting and needing an infusion, but for it to be our Contract bowl, they would have to come up with more money.
I think it paid something like $3.5 million total... Now the Citrus Bowl on the other hand pays closer to $9 million and right now they are getting the Big 10s number 3 or 4 vs the SEC 3 or 4.

Either bowl game would be great for us, but I dont see anyone coughing up even the low end of what the P5 are getting on contract.

Hell, if we could get a bowl to pay $10 million total, it would be a massive step up... I dont even dare dream of the $40-80 million they are getting.

I feel like that payout is TV driven. Right now they're getting SEC #8 vs ACC #8 or something similar...B1G is out after this season. It's a big stadium and they can sell a lot of tickets, so the challenge is getting a TV payout for the game that allows them to increase the per-team payout. That's where becoming an NY7 steps in, because that means ESPN is paying $40m to the bowl game to be distributed to the teams plus the ticket revenue, which would go up. Yeah, some AAC teams might not sell their allotment of tickets (and I think honestly having a few of those team is a huge problem for us), but the TV payout would make up for that.

My understanding is that all the stated bowl payouts are only if the game is sold out (so ticket sales + bowl TV contract) and that everything goes down from there. Please let me know if this understanding is incorrect.

(10-16-2019 12:04 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  

(10-16-2019 11:59 AM)mtmedlin Wrote:  

(10-16-2019 11:47 AM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  All that it takes to get this is ESPN deciding a NY7 is worth it and the American should have an autobid. If ESPN were willing to pay for another NY6 game and wanted the American in it, that would happen. Find a bowl game like the Citrus Bowl or the Gator Bowl that feels like it has been left out of the NY6 and go after it.

The Citrus definitely wants to be a NY6 Bowl and feels shafted that the Peach Bowl beat them out, but knowing the UF elitists that run it, they'd rather be getting SEC #3 and B1G #3 than accept an AAC team as the anchor for a NY7.

The Gator Bowl, on the other hand, was willing to become the BCS anchor game for the Big East if they could have gotten added to the BCS rotation. The Gator is a great bowl with a great history, but they've been relegated by the SEC into the same group as the Belk Bowl, Music City, Texas, and such...games they see as beneath them given their history. At times it seems like despite the official pecking order that the Gator is down with the Birmingham Bowl at the very bottom the SEC order. So if there was a chance to rescue their fortunes and move back into the top tier of bowls, I guarantee the Gator Bowl committee would chomp at it, even if it meant getting an AAC team that the UF elitists that run it see as beneath them.

So far as getting the AAC an autobid to the existing NY6...not going to happen. That said, I'd love to just have the autobid and being the conference that will face the G4 team unless some condition is met (e.g., AAC champ ranked Top 8) or something. That'd probably make the P5 happy to not play the G4 team, and it'd still put us a step above the G4 with some hope of getting a better game some years.

The Gator bowl would be a great choice and it has been hurting and needing an infusion, but for it to be our Contract bowl, they would have to come up with more money.
I think it paid something like $3.5 million total... Now the Citrus Bowl on the other hand pays closer to $9 million and right now they are getting the Big 10s number 3 or 4 vs the SEC 3 or 4.

Either bowl game would be great for us, but I dont see anyone coughing up even the low end of what the P5 are getting on contract.

Hell, if we could get a bowl to pay $10 million total, it would be a massive step up... I dont even dare dream of the $40-80 million they are getting.

I feel like that payout is TV driven. Right now they're getting SEC #8 vs ACC #8 or something similar...B1G is out after this season. It's a big stadium and they can sell a lot of tickets, so the challenge is getting a TV payout for the game that allows them to increase the per-team payout. That's where becoming an NY7 steps in, because that means ESPN is paying $40m to the bowl game to be distributed to the teams plus the ticket revenue, which would go up. Yeah, some AAC teams might not sell their allotment of tickets (and I think honestly having a few of those team is a huge problem for us), but the TV payout would make up for that.

My understanding is that all the stated bowl payouts are only if the game is sold out (so ticket sales + bowl TV contract) and that everything goes down from there. Please let me know if this understanding is incorrect.

I think you are right... Maybe ESPN will step up. We got a hell of a bump in pay. Most analyst though we would double up at most, so maybe ESPN is willing to work with us.

I am still waiting to see what BYU and the MWC gets. That wil let us know where we are in the market. If the MWC stays under $3 million, then we know our worth has gone way up... if they get close to us, then were probably not gonna see increased bowl payouts nor a bigger share of the playoff money.

(10-14-2019 04:50 PM)Square Knight Wrote:  Another Aresco talking point from the Memphis newspaper article...

https://amp.commercialappeal.com/amp/3958082002

For Aresco, maintaining the conference championship game fits with his vision of the AAC becoming a Power Six conference and seeking an automatic bid to a New Year’s Six bowl game. He believes this season, in which Memphis is one of three AAC teams currently ranked in the national polls, is proof as to why it's more prudent to remain at 11 schools moving forward.

“If we have six or seven teams that we think are just as good or better than anybody in the other (Group of Five) conferences and we might not get to New Year’s Day because somebody else has a slightly better record than our teams because they’re beating each other, that’s a perfect example of what I’m talking about," Aresco said, "that we really deserve that contract bowl game because we’re a really strong conference."

This is another fairness issue AAC fans need to hammer away at. The ACC may have a team not even in the Top 25 receiving an auto bid to the Orange Bowl (assuming Clemson goes to the playoffs). Meanwhile, the AAC probably has at least five teams as good or better than whatever ACC team will play in the Orange Bowl.

The situation gives us the perfect opportunity to continue to hammer away at the many biases in college football.

He’s right. That scenario would be total BS

(10-16-2019 07:10 PM)First Mate Wrote:  

(10-14-2019 04:50 PM)Square Knight Wrote:  Another Aresco talking point from the Memphis newspaper article...

https://amp.commercialappeal.com/amp/3958082002

For Aresco, maintaining the conference championship game fits with his vision of the AAC becoming a Power Six conference and seeking an automatic bid to a New Year’s Six bowl game. He believes this season, in which Memphis is one of three AAC teams currently ranked in the national polls, is proof as to why it's more prudent to remain at 11 schools moving forward.

“If we have six or seven teams that we think are just as good or better than anybody in the other (Group of Five) conferences and we might not get to New Year’s Day because somebody else has a slightly better record than our teams because they’re beating each other, that’s a perfect example of what I’m talking about," Aresco said, "that we really deserve that contract bowl game because we’re a really strong conference."

This is another fairness issue AAC fans need to hammer away at. The ACC may have a team not even in the Top 25 receiving an auto bid to the Orange Bowl (assuming Clemson goes to the playoffs). Meanwhile, the AAC probably has at least five teams as good or better than whatever ACC team will play in the Orange Bowl.

The situation gives us the perfect opportunity to continue to hammer away at the many biases in college football.

He’s right. That scenario would be total BS

Very true.

It's interesting to note that Aresco's statement was very carefully phrased, like there was a subtle suggestion that the law may turn out to favor the AAC, given the AAC's performance.

No amount of grumbling is going to force a change in the situation, unless there is a nationwide tide of opinion. However, there could be a way to use legal means to facilitate the AAC's case. Not an antitrust case, mind you, but even just subtle hints of such might move some executives to show willingness to be more flexible with the whole thing.

(10-16-2019 07:43 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(10-16-2019 07:10 PM)First Mate Wrote:  

(10-14-2019 04:50 PM)Square Knight Wrote:  Another Aresco talking point from the Memphis newspaper article...

https://amp.commercialappeal.com/amp/3958082002

For Aresco, maintaining the conference championship game fits with his vision of the AAC becoming a Power Six conference and seeking an automatic bid to a New Year’s Six bowl game. He believes this season, in which Memphis is one of three AAC teams currently ranked in the national polls, is proof as to why it's more prudent to remain at 11 schools moving forward.

“If we have six or seven teams that we think are just as good or better than anybody in the other (Group of Five) conferences and we might not get to New Year’s Day because somebody else has a slightly better record than our teams because they’re beating each other, that’s a perfect example of what I’m talking about," Aresco said, "that we really deserve that contract bowl game because we’re a really strong conference."

This is another fairness issue AAC fans need to hammer away at. The ACC may have a team not even in the Top 25 receiving an auto bid to the Orange Bowl (assuming Clemson goes to the playoffs). Meanwhile, the AAC probably has at least five teams as good or better than whatever ACC team will play in the Orange Bowl.

The situation gives us the perfect opportunity to continue to hammer away at the many biases in college football.

He’s right. That scenario would be total BS

Very true.

It's interesting to note that Aresco's statement was very carefully phrased, like there was a subtle suggestion that the law may turn out to favor the AAC, given the AAC's performance.

No amount of grumbling is going to force a change in the situation, unless there is a nationwide tide of opinion. However, there could be a way to use legal means to facilitate the AAC's case. Not an antitrust case, mind you, but even just subtle hints of such might move some executives to show willingness to be more flexible with the whole thing.

This is what was nice about the BCS. There was an objective formula by which a conference could become an AQ conference. The MWC damn near pulled it off and might very well had they not lost Utah and then TCU.