(10-15-2013 12:05 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-15-2013 11:48 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(10-15-2013 11:16 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-15-2013 11:06 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(10-15-2013 08:06 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Given that bowl situation, Army might need to reconsider conference membership at this point. The MAC, CUSA, and AAC would all be viable alternatives.

As for the Christmas Bowl and LCPB, I think those puppies are dead. That said, I thought the maximum number of new bowls would be 3 based on FBS going from 120 schools to an expected 130. We already have Detroit, Bahamas, Montgomery, Boca, and Miami. If the LCPB ceases operations, then the net gain is 4. Also, the end of double hosting the NCG also eliminates a former bowl slot. So really, its a net gain of 3. That's seems marginally viable. Leaving the LCPB in operation and adding the XMas Bowl bumps the net gain to 5---I just don't know how you support 5 more bowls with just 10 more teams---but who knows?

You keep bringing that up (for months now, lol), but I don't think the number of bowls is as rigid as you do. I imagine if they have a year where a bowl can't get two teams, the NCAA will do a one-year waiver.

The TV networks will put pressure on them, if it becomes necessary, year to year. The NCAA already considered and decided against 5-7 teams, but there is nothing to say they couldn't do it for a bowl or two, as necessary.

yeah, I know (lol...and I haven't been right). I bring it up because a if we are getting into that territory where we regularly sign waivers for 5-7 teams, wheres the benefit of signing bowl agreements with bottom tier bowls? If they are getting into signing waivers, then just sit tight. If your team is 6-6 your getting a bowl.

btw--there are some limits to how many primary ties a conference can sign based upon past performance. So at some point, bowls are capped at reasonably balanced finite number. In the past, the NCAA has erred on the side of caution, maybe they don't care that much anymore...after all, bowl creation has been largely deregulated by the NCAA and turned over to the conferences.

You've always been hung up by how many conferences can sign how many bowl ties, and by how many bowls and teams exist.

But you finally hit on the real answer at the end of your post above. The NCAA is not really regulating bowls any more. That is being driven by the TV networks, and especially ESPN.

It is no coincidence that all 5 new bowls are reportedly owned by ESPN. As you or someone pointed out yesterday, ESPN's motivation and objectives are different than traditional bowls. They are not trying to sell tickets or fill up hotel rooms, or even necessarily make a profit. Otherwise, they would never agree to a bowl in the Bahamas, or consider one in Europe or Dubai. They are strictly interested in program content.

It's sort of like fans worrying about whether their basketball coach has enough scholarships available, but somehow, they always make room, like Calipari at UK his first season, pushing out 5 players. That's extreme, but highlights that where there is a will in these types of situations, there is always a way.

Given the way things seem to be heading, you may be right. Whats the worst that can happen? Since these are largely just TV games, maybe they just go dark for a year if there are not enough teams. Its not like the world would end if new no-history bowl #41 doesn't get played in any specific year.

(10-15-2013 12:37 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(10-15-2013 12:05 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-15-2013 11:48 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(10-15-2013 11:16 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-15-2013 11:06 AM)TripleA Wrote:  You keep bringing that up (for months now, lol), but I don't think the number of bowls is as rigid as you do. I imagine if they have a year where a bowl can't get two teams, the NCAA will do a one-year waiver.

The TV networks will put pressure on them, if it becomes necessary, year to year. The NCAA already considered and decided against 5-7 teams, but there is nothing to say they couldn't do it for a bowl or two, as necessary.

yeah, I know (lol...and I haven't been right). I bring it up because a if we are getting into that territory where we regularly sign waivers for 5-7 teams, wheres the benefit of signing bowl agreements with bottom tier bowls? If they are getting into signing waivers, then just sit tight. If your team is 6-6 your getting a bowl.

btw--there are some limits to how many primary ties a conference can sign based upon past performance. So at some point, bowls are capped at reasonably balanced finite number. In the past, the NCAA has erred on the side of caution, maybe they don't care that much anymore...after all, bowl creation has been largely deregulated by the NCAA and turned over to the conferences.

You've always been hung up by how many conferences can sign how many bowl ties, and by how many bowls and teams exist.

But you finally hit on the real answer at the end of your post above. The NCAA is not really regulating bowls any more. That is being driven by the TV networks, and especially ESPN.

It is no coincidence that all 5 new bowls are reportedly owned by ESPN. As you or someone pointed out yesterday, ESPN's motivation and objectives are different than traditional bowls. They are not trying to sell tickets or fill up hotel rooms, or even necessarily make a profit. Otherwise, they would never agree to a bowl in the Bahamas, or consider one in Europe or Dubai. They are strictly interested in program content.

It's sort of like fans worrying about whether their basketball coach has enough scholarships available, but somehow, they always make room, like Calipari at UK his first season, pushing out 5 players. That's extreme, but highlights that where there is a will in these types of situations, there is always a way.

Given the way things seem to be heading, you may be right. Whats the worst that can happen? Since these are largely just TV games, maybe they just go dark for a year if there are not enough teams. Its not like the world would end if new no-history bowl #41 doesn't get played in any specific year.

ESPN will press for a waiver first, rather than let them go dark.