(06-18-2013 10:26 AM)CatMom Wrote:  How much of an economic impact did/does the Alamo Bowl bring? To say the city would not entertain a second Bowl unless it was UTSA/CUSA centric is shortsighted

If there is an attempt for a second SA bowl, the organizers would be foolish to spurn CUSA for the SBC or the AAC. CUSA has a team within the city that has been pulling 30,000 only several years into its existence; it also has 3 other teams in Texas and one more in Louisiana. The SBC, on the other hand, has one Texas team and two LA teams. The AAC is a bit better than the SBC in this regard with two Texas teams, one team in OK, and one LA team.

The most logical match-up for a second SA bowl would be CUSA vs AAC based on the number of schools nearby. Both conferences have teams that are close enough to travel but a bit too far to pull a day trip, and if UTSA makes it to the bowl game, there would be a high likely hood of a sellout.

Not insane. Assuming CUSA is their #1 priority (which it should be) it doesn't exclude other options should they present themselves

I do openly wonder about a second bowl in one city though... Would that even happen?

Ever heard of the Sugar Bowl and the New Orleans Bowl?

(06-18-2013 12:52 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  I do openly wonder about a second bowl in one city though... Would that even happen?

Sure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_college_bowl_games

DFW - Cotton, Heart of Dallas, Armed Forces
Orlando- Russell Athletics Bowl and Capital One Bowl
San Diego - Poinsettia and Holiday Bowl
Tampa/St Pete - Beef O Brady and Outback Bowl
Phoenix - Buffalo Wild Wings (former Insight) and Fiesta Bowl
NOLA - New Orleans and Sugar

(06-18-2013 11:52 AM)CatMom Wrote:  Not insane. Assuming CUSA is their #1 priority (which it should be) it doesn't exclude other options should they present themselves

You can make book on UTSA and CUSA being important players in any additional bowl in San Antonio. A new bowl in San Antonio would most probably feature CUSA vs MWC or AAC if not an AQ conference.

What about Mexico City? American football is very popular there. It's cheap and you are assured a sellout.

A second bowl game in SA would more than Likely put the big 12 #4 or #5 team vs a C-USA #2 or #3 team.

(06-18-2013 06:57 PM)Runner Wrote:  A second bowl game in SA would more than Likely put the big 12 #4 or #5 team vs a C-USA #2 or #3 team.

That would be nice!

(06-18-2013 06:57 PM)Runner Wrote:  A second bowl game in SA would more than Likely put the big 12 #4 or #5 team vs a C-USA #2 or #3 team.

The B12 already has 7 Bowl tie-ins starting in 2014; the Alamo Bowl belonging to the #2 team.... plus a playoff birth, if eligible. They aren't going to send any more to SA. B12/CUSA ain't happening.

(06-18-2013 06:57 PM)Runner Wrote:  A second bowl game in SA would more than Likely put the big 12 #4 or #5 team vs a C-USA #2 or #3 team.

I seriously doubt theres any chance of the kind of matchup you describe. The Big-12 isn't going to send its #4 or #5 team to play a CUSA also ran. Right now the Big-12 #4 plays the Big-10 #4. The Big 12 #5 plays the Pac-12 #3. The one thing that has been made very clear during this bowl negotiation cycle is that no power conference is dropping bowl games against the Pac-12 #3 or the B1G #4 to play ANY CUSA team (or any other non-AQ team for that manner).

A second game in San Antonio would be a low paying bottom tier bowl pitting Non-AQ mid-tier teams. It would probably be one of the more desirable bottom tier bowls simply due to its location.

(06-18-2013 10:26 AM)CatMom Wrote:  How much of an economic impact did/does the Alamo Bowl bring? To say the city would not entertain a second Bowl unless it was UTSA/CUSA centric is shortsighted

You're grabbin' for straws on this one CatMom.

(06-18-2013 08:29 PM)MG61 Wrote:  

(06-18-2013 10:26 AM)CatMom Wrote:  How much of an economic impact did/does the Alamo Bowl bring? To say the city would not entertain a second Bowl unless it was UTSA/CUSA centric is shortsighted

You're grabbin' for straws on this one CatMom.

If you don't understand the post, don't reply to it. Oh, and read the follow-up posts. Others got the drift. Don't misinterpret my intent.

As I stated (in my follow-up post): They would want that first and foremost but it would be foolhardy to turn one down if that was not the offer.