(08-10-2013 06:35 AM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  I think people are fretting too much over what is really at best the 7-11 or 8-12(when cap one) slots.
plus
the payouts are still tbd
some of the opponents still tbd
in 6 yrs, how many times will acc even have 11-12 eligible?

In order for the ACC to have 12 bowl-eligible teams, that means that most teams must have at least 2, 3, or more losses. I think I'd rather have 4 or 5 teams with 1 or 2 losses and (unfortunately) that means some teams won't have 6 wins

(08-09-2013 11:11 AM)gocards#1 Wrote:  

(08-08-2013 10:48 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(08-08-2013 01:44 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  It will literally be the ACC's #8-11 type of teams playing in these games, no? I would hope the AAC's top 3 teams could be competitive with the ACC's lower half schools.

I'm more concerned about the ACC's 8-11 team being competitive with the AAC's 1-3 team. If you've looked at the AAC bowl lineup, they don't have any bowls better then the Military bowl and will put there champion up against whichever bowl has the highest profile opponent. Those top 3 teams in most years will be pretty good.

I tend to agree. The ACC's representative in the lower bowl won't get much out of playing in a poorly attended mid December bowl, while the AAC's representative will treat it as their Super Bowl and claim their superiority over the ACC if they win. The ACC gets nothing out of this.

Did you watch the Pitt vs. SMU game in the Compass Bowl a few years back? Pitt looked like it couldn't wait to get out while SMU played like it was the biggest game in the history of their program (which it likely was). There were less than 30k in attendance and it had the lowest TV rating of any bowl game that year.

I hate seeing these matchups where a 6-6 team from the ACC plays a 10-2 team from the AAC or MAC or whatever. The AAC fans have a massive collective inferiority complex and claim their conference is on par with the ACC (which is hysterical by the way) and they think that beating the ACC in a crappy bowl game proves their superiority. Why humor them? I'd much rather see a 7-5 SEC or Big 12 team on the schedule than ECU or SMU or UCF or Temple or Tulsa or UConn, wouldn't you? At least most power 5 teams travel fairly well so it won't look so putrid on TV.

Yes it does. It sends bowl eligible teams to bowls. That's the whole point.

It seems to me some in here have an inferiority complex towards the AAC. I don't get it.

Nobody is going to care if a 10-2 AAC team ranked #17 in the country beats a 6-6 ACC team that barely made a bowl. If anything, the AAC is the one that has everything to lose. If they lose to weak ACC teams it makes their crappy conference look even crappier.

(08-09-2013 11:11 AM)gocards#1 Wrote:  I tend to agree. The ACC's representative in the lower bowl won't get much out of playing in a poorly attended mid December bowl, while the AAC's representative will treat it as their Super Bowl and claim their superiority over the ACC if they win. The ACC gets nothing out of this.

You know that is what Florida said about the Sugar Bowl.

(08-10-2013 02:40 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(08-09-2013 11:11 AM)gocards#1 Wrote:  

(08-08-2013 10:48 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(08-08-2013 01:44 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  It will literally be the ACC's #8-11 type of teams playing in these games, no? I would hope the AAC's top 3 teams could be competitive with the ACC's lower half schools.

I'm more concerned about the ACC's 8-11 team being competitive with the AAC's 1-3 team. If you've looked at the AAC bowl lineup, they don't have any bowls better then the Military bowl and will put there champion up against whichever bowl has the highest profile opponent. Those top 3 teams in most years will be pretty good.

I tend to agree. The ACC's representative in the lower bowl won't get much out of playing in a poorly attended mid December bowl, while the AAC's representative will treat it as their Super Bowl and claim their superiority over the ACC if they win. The ACC gets nothing out of this.

Did you watch the Pitt vs. SMU game in the Compass Bowl a few years back? Pitt looked like it couldn't wait to get out while SMU played like it was the biggest game in the history of their program (which it likely was). There were less than 30k in attendance and it had the lowest TV rating of any bowl game that year.

I hate seeing these matchups where a 6-6 team from the ACC plays a 10-2 team from the AAC or MAC or whatever. The AAC fans have a massive collective inferiority complex and claim their conference is on par with the ACC (which is hysterical by the way) and they think that beating the ACC in a crappy bowl game proves their superiority. Why humor them? I'd much rather see a 7-5 SEC or Big 12 team on the schedule than ECU or SMU or UCF or Temple or Tulsa or UConn, wouldn't you? At least most power 5 teams travel fairly well so it won't look so putrid on TV.

Yes it does. It sends bowl eligible teams to bowls. That's the whole point.

It seems to me some in here have an inferiority complex towards the AAC. I don't get it.

Nobody is going to care if a 10-2 AAC team ranked #17 in the country beats a 6-6 ACC team that barely made a bowl. If anything, the AAC is the one that has everything to lose. If they lose to weak ACC teams it makes their crappy conference look even crappier.

Spot on!

(08-10-2013 01:43 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-10-2013 06:35 AM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  I think people are fretting too much over what is really at best the 7-11 or 8-12(when cap one) slots.
plus
the payouts are still tbd
some of the opponents still tbd
in 6 yrs, how many times will acc even have 11-12 eligible?

In order for the ACC to have 12 bowl-eligible teams, that means that most teams must have at least 2, 3, or more losses. I think I'd rather have 4 or 5 teams with 1 or 2 losses and (unfortunately) that means some teams won't have 6 wins

or acc teams will have to do well out of conference getting at least 3 wins out of conference

(08-17-2013 07:18 PM)Chris02M Wrote:  

(08-10-2013 01:43 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-10-2013 06:35 AM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  I think people are fretting too much over what is really at best the 7-11 or 8-12(when cap one) slots.
plus
the payouts are still tbd
some of the opponents still tbd
in 6 yrs, how many times will acc even have 11-12 eligible?

In order for the ACC to have 12 bowl-eligible teams, that means that most teams must have at least 2, 3, or more losses. I think I'd rather have 4 or 5 teams with 1 or 2 losses and (unfortunately) that means some teams won't have 6 wins

or acc teams will have to do well out of conference getting at least 3 wins out of conference

Well, if you get 3 non-conference wins, you still need 3 conference wins - which means those 3 ACC teams must lose. Now, multiply that by 12 [bowl teams].

in most years including notre dame id expect 11 bowl eligible teams

So will FSU get more bowl money than the rest of the ACC for being better than the rest of the ACC?

(Props to VT for being the ACC's best the for ~5ish years after they entered the conference.)

bowl money distribution still tbd

(08-19-2013 09:09 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  So will FSU get more bowl money than the rest of the ACC for being better than the rest of the ACC?

(Props to VT for being the ACC's best the for ~5ish years after they entered the conference.)

That is exactly what they are discussing, but exact formula still TBD.
(a windfall for VT, maybe...)