(05-02-2013 10:41 PM)UofLgrad07 Wrote:  

(05-02-2013 08:28 PM)mikeinsec127 Wrote:  Pinstripe going with the ACC will prove to be a huge mistake.

Disagree for two reasons.
#1. From a practical standpoint, the ACC can offer three teams that are at or less than a 6 hour drive from NYC (Pitt, BC, Cuse) and one partial member that would draw significant interest there (Notre Dame). That looks pretty good compared to the bowl's current Big 12 tie-in (WVU is ~6 hours from NYC and the next closest schools is Iowa St at over 17 hours away). I don't disagree about the B12. I think a better match would be BIG vs AAC. Like I said, I believe that most ACC schools would travel poorly to this game. ND would sell out, but I question if it would want to take this bowl played in a small baseball stadium when it can be selling out Metlife.
#2. Sometimes you have to consider what the bowl partners (i.e. conferences) want. For example, let's say the bowl execs are interested in getting the Big 10 (Penn St, Maryland, Rutgers). Is the Big Ten going to be more interested in playing the ACC (P5 conference) or AAC (Go5 conference)? What if the ACC said it was interested in the bowl, but didn't want to play an AAC team? You probably have it right there. My guess is the ACC is interested in the Pinstripe as a way to get into the NY market and the Yankees are interested in the ACC because of school proximity.
The AAC could offer a solid regional line-up with UConn, Temple, and Navy. However, when you factor in what the conference partners might want (e.g. play another P5 conference team) and the perception issues (e.g. think about how bowls treated the Big East after the 2004 raid), then it might be safer in their opinion to go with the ACC.

(05-02-2013 08:28 PM)mikeinsec127 Wrote:  BC & pitt are notorious for lack of fan support at bowls and I can't see any of the southern schools bringing big crowds to NYC in Dec

This same issue would also be true on the AAC. Do you expect Houston, SMU, UCF, USF, Memphis, Tulsa, or Tulane to send a large contingent of fans to NYC in the winter?No, I think that if the AAC had the Pinestripe, you could guarantee that UConn, Temple, Navy, ECU and probably Cincy would be the regulars. I'm basing this on the assumption that the AAC following the old BE example of letting its bowl partners pick which team it wants.

Edit: Before anyone takes this post the wrong way, I'm not slamming the AAC, saying it is a bad conference, or implying that its teams sucking/are worthless/etc. I'm simply stating why I think the AAC might have a difficult time keeping the Pinstripe tie-in (perception and the demands of the other conference partner might be too much to overcome).

(05-03-2013 05:54 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Sounds like Aresco is about to have another failure, and then I bet he'll try to pretend like it was either a success or no one could have done better.

(05-03-2013 07:27 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  If the AAC's bowl lineup is worse than the MWC's then Aresco failed again. Of course since he's done nothing but fail I should expect more failure from him.

Do you have hotkeys that generate these posts?

Aresco is getting out maneuvered. No coherent message, uninspired sales pitch, no clear conference objectives, no creativity. . .Aresco will never captain this conference beyond year one, if that.

His ability to get anything done was dead the day Boise State, San Diego State, Notre Dame ,Rutgers, and Louisville announced they were leaving, coupled with the loss of the C7 (DePaul, Marquette, Providence, St. Johns, Seton Hall, Villanova and Georgetown). Man that was a Hell of inventory loss in football and basketball both, And this happened just after the loss of West Virginia, Pitt and Cuse. What could anybody expect him to do with 3 teams left that were merged with Temple and a good part of CUSA. I mean no disrespect but, come 2014, your hope will rest on these teams in these sports :

Basketball
1. UConn
2. Memphis
3. Cincinnati
4. Temple
5. Sleepers: Houston, Central Florida and South Florida.

Football
1. Cincinnati
2. Central Florida
3. South Florida
4. UConn
5. Sleepers: East Carolina, Houston, Navy and Tulsa.
Cincinnati and UConn are going to be the Flagships of this conference early on.
The first 4 teams that I listed in each sport are going to have perforn at there best levels ever!

(05-03-2013 07:17 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 07:52 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 06:28 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(05-02-2013 09:06 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(05-02-2013 07:49 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  That's simply not true. The Liberty Bowl is a perfect example. The Las Vegas Bowl is another. What I can gurantee you is if we sit on our hands we will end up with all non AQ opponents.

It doesn't matter what "we" (and I use that term very loosely) do. Bowls contract with who they WANT, period. We're going to take what we can get basically. Bowl obsession is ridiculous anyway, as most amount to nothing more than a money trap. The only thing "we" need to really focus on is getting the Go5 access slot and getting ONE quality tie-in for our champ.

Yep. We may be able to keep the Liberty Bowl and a couple of others, but it will be b/c they want to do it, not b/c we do. And to assume Aresco isn't trying, or needs to work harder, is beyond ridiculous. None of us have a clue how that goes behind closed doors. Never will know, so to praise or blame him for a bowl outcome is uninformed.

We don't need to know what goes on behind closed doors, the way you evaluate a CEO is on results, and results are visible to all of us out in the open.
So far, Aresco's results in all areas have been pathetic.

I have to agree with that. Its obviously not fair to compare Arescos results to those of a Swofford or Delany. Those guys are playing much stronger hands. However, Thompson and Banowsky are actually playing similar or argualbly weaker hands---Thompson appears to be working on a nice OOC/Bowl deal with the Pac-12 and Banowsky has already locked up his top bowl for the CUSA champ. Meanwhile, our public focus is on which small basketball arena we should use for a one and done contract for the tourney.

Now, perhaps more is going on behind the scenes on the bowl front (lets hope so)---but its been my experience over the last 12 months that when it appears we are getting out maneuvered---its been because we actually ARE being out manuevered. There has been no "secret" behind the scenes planning that suddenly swoops in to save the day. I believe the "Big East" name fiasco would be the most recent example of what Im talking about.

Wish we had the old rating system so i could give you +3 for this post.

Replace the Pinstripe Bowl with the Military Bowl for the Northeast teams and ECU.

AAC doesn't have the Gator now so no loss there.

Problem solve for this thread and these two bowls.

(05-03-2013 08:15 AM)NBPirate Wrote:  The Russell will be our only saving grace. We HAVE to salvage one of the Pinstripe, Belk, or Russell for it to even be worth it

Alas, I feel that all three of those are already lost.

(05-04-2013 10:43 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 08:15 AM)NBPirate Wrote:  The Russell will be our only saving grace. We HAVE to salvage one of the Pinstripe, Belk, or Russell for it to even be worth it

Alas, I feel that all three of those are already lost.

Its definitely possible we lose all 3. If we do I think it would open an opportunity for us. If we lose all three, I'd like to see us make a hard run at the ACC slot in the Sun Bowl. I think that could end up being a nice bowl for us against a #3-6 Pac-12 pick.

(05-04-2013 12:12 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-04-2013 10:43 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 08:15 AM)NBPirate Wrote:  The Russell will be our only saving grace. We HAVE to salvage one of the Pinstripe, Belk, or Russell for it to even be worth it

Alas, I feel that all three of those are already lost.

Its definitely possible we lose all 3. If we do I think it would open an opportunity for us. If we lose all three, I'd like to see us make a hard run at the ACC slot in the Sun Bowl. I think that could end up being a nice bowl for us against a #3-6 Pac-12 pick.

Great catch with the Liberty and the potential Championship Play Off spot every year. Three potential high paying bowls with decent dates as a core to go with the Beef O'Brady, Military, BBVA, New Orleans, and Armed Forces bowls, as well as a shot at the Poinsettia and Kraft Fight Hunger bowls on the west coast with Navy's current ties to those bowls.

(05-02-2013 10:41 PM)UofLgrad07 Wrote:  

(05-02-2013 08:28 PM)mikeinsec127 Wrote:  Pinstripe going with the ACC will prove to be a huge mistake.

Disagree for two reasons.

#1. From a practical standpoint, the ACC can offer three teams that are at or less than a 6 hour drive from NYC (Pitt, BC, Cuse) and one partial member that would draw significant interest there (Notre Dame). That looks pretty good compared to the bowl's current Big 12 tie-in (WVU is ~6 hours from NYC and the next closest schools is Iowa St at over 17 hours away).

#2. Sometimes you have to consider what the bowl partners (i.e. conferences) want. For example, let's say the bowl execs are interested in getting the Big 10 (Penn St, Maryland, Rutgers). Is the Big Ten going to be more interested in playing the ACC (P5 conference) or AAC (Go5 conference)? What if the ACC said it was interested in the bowl, but didn't want to play an AAC team?

The AAC could offer a solid regional line-up with UConn, Temple, and Navy. However, when you factor in what the conference partners might want (e.g. play another P5 conference team) and the perception issues (e.g. think about how bowls treated the Big East after the 2004 raid), then it might be safer in their opinion to go with the ACC.

(05-02-2013 08:28 PM)mikeinsec127 Wrote:  BC & pitt are notorious for lack of fan support at bowls and I can't see any of the southern schools bringing big crowds to NYC in Dec

This same issue would also be true on the AAC. Do you expect Houston, SMU, UCF, USF, Memphis, Tulsa, or Tulane to send a large contingent of fans to NYC in the winter?

Edit: Before anyone takes this post the wrong way, I'm not slamming the AAC, saying it is a bad conference, or implying that its teams sucking/are worthless/etc. I'm simply stating why I think the AAC might have a difficult time keeping the Pinstripe tie-in (perception and the demands of the other conference partner might be too much to overcome).

UConn and Temple will travel better to the Pinstripe than Pitt and BC. Cuse will outdraw them all.

(05-04-2013 01:25 AM)UHCougar Wrote:  Aresco is getting out maneuvered. No coherent message, uninspired sales pitch, no clear conference objectives, no creativity. . .Aresco will never captain this conference beyond year one, if that.

The ACC is and for now should be seen as superior to the AAC. He isn't getting out maneuvered, He simply does not have the same inventory to sell.

Until the top 20 to 24 bowl/playoff spots are accounted for the AAC won't even get a look. If you have 1000 college football fans make up a top 30 list of programs, (not teams this year, but programs.) I doubt any AAC team makes that list. Cincy would likely be the only one even close. and I doubt they are very close either.

(05-04-2013 06:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 07:17 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 07:52 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 06:28 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(05-02-2013 09:06 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  It doesn't matter what "we" (and I use that term very loosely) do. Bowls contract with who they WANT, period. We're going to take what we can get basically. Bowl obsession is ridiculous anyway, as most amount to nothing more than a money trap. The only thing "we" need to really focus on is getting the Go5 access slot and getting ONE quality tie-in for our champ.

Yep. We may be able to keep the Liberty Bowl and a couple of others, but it will be b/c they want to do it, not b/c we do. And to assume Aresco isn't trying, or needs to work harder, is beyond ridiculous. None of us have a clue how that goes behind closed doors. Never will know, so to praise or blame him for a bowl outcome is uninformed.

We don't need to know what goes on behind closed doors, the way you evaluate a CEO is on results, and results are visible to all of us out in the open.
So far, Aresco's results in all areas have been pathetic.

I have to agree with that. Its obviously not fair to compare Arescos results to those of a Swofford or Delany. Those guys are playing much stronger hands. However, Thompson and Banowsky are actually playing similar or argualbly weaker hands---Thompson appears to be working on a nice OOC/Bowl deal with the Pac-12 and Banowsky has already locked up his top bowl for the CUSA champ. Meanwhile, our public focus is on which small basketball arena we should use for a one and done contract for the tourney.

Now, perhaps more is going on behind the scenes on the bowl front (lets hope so)---but its been my experience over the last 12 months that when it appears we are getting out maneuvered---its been because we actually ARE being out manuevered. There has been no "secret" behind the scenes planning that suddenly swoops in to save the day. I believe the "Big East" name fiasco would be the most recent example of what Im talking about.

Wish we had the old rating system so i could give you +3 for this post.

Agreed on rating posts thing...it was an overreaction. I like to rate posts...it is also good to click on someone's name and see what they got points for in the past. I found lots of pure comedic gold doing that.

(05-02-2013 06:51 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(05-02-2013 06:15 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(05-02-2013 01:30 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  As one UC fan, I am so relieved that we're not in the ACC. Really.

Umm ok...enjoy the Beef O'Brady Bowl...at least St. Pete>>Jacksonville.

Shouldn't matter for 'Cuse because you'll be slotted for NYC, Charlotte, or maybe Nashville. No way the Orange ever get to sniff the Gator. Just like the old days.

If they finish with 10-11 wins they'll get a Gator Bowl. We'll have to wait and see if the Gator Bowl becomes the #1 Bowl of the league outside of the Championship Bowls. BYW, if we never got a sniff of the Gator Bowl? Why did they get the Gator Bowl twice before? How many Gator Bowls did Cincy get?

(05-03-2013 09:30 PM)mikeinsec127 Wrote:  

(05-02-2013 10:41 PM)UofLgrad07 Wrote:  

(05-02-2013 08:28 PM)mikeinsec127 Wrote:  Pinstripe going with the ACC will prove to be a huge mistake.

Disagree for two reasons.
#1. From a practical standpoint, the ACC can offer three teams that are at or less than a 6 hour drive from NYC (Pitt, BC, Cuse) and one partial member that would draw significant interest there (Notre Dame). That looks pretty good compared to the bowl's current Big 12 tie-in (WVU is ~6 hours from NYC and the next closest schools is Iowa St at over 17 hours away). I don't disagree about the B12. I think a better match would be BIG vs AAC. Like I said, I believe that most ACC schools would travel poorly to this game. ND would sell out, but I question if it would want to take this bowl played in a small baseball stadium when it can be selling out Metlife.
#2. Sometimes you have to consider what the bowl partners (i.e. conferences) want. For example, let's say the bowl execs are interested in getting the Big 10 (Penn St, Maryland, Rutgers). Is the Big Ten going to be more interested in playing the ACC (P5 conference) or AAC (Go5 conference)? What if the ACC said it was interested in the bowl, but didn't want to play an AAC team? You probably have it right there. My guess is the ACC is interested in the Pinstripe as a way to get into the NY market and the Yankees are interested in the ACC because of school proximity.
The AAC could offer a solid regional line-up with UConn, Temple, and Navy. However, when you factor in what the conference partners might want (e.g. play another P5 conference team) and the perception issues (e.g. think about how bowls treated the Big East after the 2004 raid), then it might be safer in their opinion to go with the ACC.

(05-02-2013 08:28 PM)mikeinsec127 Wrote:  BC & pitt are notorious for lack of fan support at bowls and I can't see any of the southern schools bringing big crowds to NYC in Dec

This same issue would also be true on the AAC. Do you expect Houston, SMU, UCF, USF, Memphis, Tulsa, or Tulane to send a large contingent of fans to NYC in the winter?No, I think that if the AAC had the Pinestripe, you could guarantee that UConn, Temple, Navy, ECU and probably Cincy would be the regulars. I'm basing this on the assumption that the AAC following the old BE example of letting its bowl partners pick which team it wants.

Edit: Before anyone takes this post the wrong way, I'm not slamming the AAC, saying it is a bad conference, or implying that its teams sucking/are worthless/etc. I'm simply stating why I think the AAC might have a difficult time keeping the Pinstripe tie-in (perception and the demands of the other conference partner might be too much to overcome).

So basically it isn't a mistake (for the Pinstripe to take the ACC)? sigh........