(03-12-2015 10:15 AM)Crump1 Wrote:  

(03-12-2015 09:44 AM)bullitt_60 Wrote:  I don't understand the vitriol on the AAC forum. Their commissioner has done an excellent job getting bowl tie-ins and ensuring every eligible team goes to a bowl game. I think that's fantastic, but evidently I'm wrong??

The arrogance is expected. They are all P5 if you didn't know. We can't compete with SMU, Tulane, Tulsa, Memphis, ECU, Houston etc. on the field... except that we have been doing just that.

No one on that board claims we are P5, not even the trolls.

Any bowl at all isn't a luxury for us. Bowls are a given, which, to be perfectly honest, is a new concept for the Sun Belt. Upgrading our image (which every member institution is working aggressively for) is helped by getting more attractive bowls, with more eyeballs. A better image is goal #1 in the AAC. This bowl doesn't aid that endeavour. Though, if the AAC owns this bowl too (like the Miami Beach Bowl) it might be useful down the road. It seems that owning bowl games is like having extra cards in a game of poker. It helped us line up BYU in the Miami bowl last year (in exchange for one of our bowl slots with C-USA)

So, you guys want to get married so badly that you are not interested in having a good time?

(03-12-2015 09:44 AM)bullitt_60 Wrote:  I don't understand the vitriol on the AAC forum. Their commissioner has done an excellent job getting bowl tie-ins and ensuring every eligible team goes to a bowl game. I think that's fantastic, but evidently I'm wrong??

You can make a good argument we have too many bowls. This will be our 9th tie in for 12 teams (10th tie in, in years we get access), so I think the prevailing thought is why, unless we are going to use this as a bargaining chip to get a better opponent in Miami Beach Bowl. Most want to get more "P5" opponents in bowls, and this doesn't necessarily help that. It is what it is, and lower bowl for a couple 6-6 teams, and in time most will probably come to accept that.

Good Lord.

(03-12-2015 11:08 AM)Crump1 Wrote:  So, you guys want to get married so badly that you are not interested in having a good time?

A pre-christmas bowl game in a flyover state isn't my idea of a good time.

(03-12-2015 11:11 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(03-12-2015 09:44 AM)bullitt_60 Wrote:  I don't understand the vitriol on the AAC forum. Their commissioner has done an excellent job getting bowl tie-ins and ensuring every eligible team goes to a bowl game. I think that's fantastic, but evidently I'm wrong??

You can make a good argument we have too many bowls. This will be our 9th tie in for 12 teams (10th tie in, in years we get access), so I think the prevailing thought is why, unless we are going to use this as a bargaining chip to get a better opponent in Miami Beach Bowl. Most want to get more "P5" opponents in bowls, and this doesn't necessarily help that. It is what it is, and lower bowl for a couple 6-6 teams, and in time most will probably come to accept that.

Coming from the 2014 Third Ranked G5 FB conference.

(03-12-2015 12:06 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(03-12-2015 11:11 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(03-12-2015 09:44 AM)bullitt_60 Wrote:  I don't understand the vitriol on the AAC forum. Their commissioner has done an excellent job getting bowl tie-ins and ensuring every eligible team goes to a bowl game. I think that's fantastic, but evidently I'm wrong??

You can make a good argument we have too many bowls. This will be our 9th tie in for 12 teams (10th tie in, in years we get access), so I think the prevailing thought is why, unless we are going to use this as a bargaining chip to get a better opponent in Miami Beach Bowl. Most want to get more "P5" opponents in bowls, and this doesn't necessarily help that. It is what it is, and lower bowl for a couple 6-6 teams, and in time most will probably come to accept that.

Coming from the 2014 Third Ranked G5 FB conference.

Cool. Sample Size of 1. Need I remind you that C-USA was dead last the year before, and the AAC (regardless of automatic tie in, because UCF would have won the at large slot anyway) won their "access" bowl and the conference finished #1, even after removing Louisville and Rutgers. So, Averaging out as the #2 conference in 2 years is better than averaging as less than 3 in the same span.

I can see where some of these fans whose schools were once in a league with teams that are now in P5 conferences would have a hard time dealing with being left out. Just look at some of the Cajun fans in our conference who are mad that they're in a conference with so many former FCS teams. At the end of the day though, the G5 conferences have to take care of each other because the P5 sure isn't going to help us out. These new bowls ensure eligible G5 teams won't be sitting at home which is the most important thing.

Sounds like a pipe dream to me. Not optimistic this bowl will start anytime soon, if ever.

(03-12-2015 10:48 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(03-12-2015 10:15 AM)Crump1 Wrote:  

(03-12-2015 09:44 AM)bullitt_60 Wrote:  I don't understand the vitriol on the AAC forum. Their commissioner has done an excellent job getting bowl tie-ins and ensuring every eligible team goes to a bowl game. I think that's fantastic, but evidently I'm wrong??

The arrogance is expected. They are all P5 if you didn't know. We can't compete with SMU, Tulane, Tulsa, Memphis, ECU, Houston etc. on the field... except that we have been doing just that.

No one on that board claims we are P5, not even the trolls.

Any bowl at all isn't a luxury for us. Bowls are a given, which, to be perfectly honest, is a new concept for the Sun Belt. Upgrading our image (which every member institution is working aggressively for) is helped by getting more attractive bowls, with more eyeballs. A better image is goal #1 in the AAC. This bowl doesn't aid that endeavour. Though, if the AAC owns this bowl too (like the Miami Beach Bowl) it might be useful down the road. It seems that owning bowl games is like having extra cards in a game of poker. It helped us line up BYU in the Miami bowl last year (in exchange for one of our bowl slots with C-USA)

The difference is that the Sun Belt fans that post on this site know there place in the bowl pecking order where as the AAC fans have to come to terms with the fact that they are in the same boat when it comes to bowl game against power conference members. The facts are the best bowl matchup that the AAC could line up against power conference school is 7,8,or 9, and not against a 3-4 power confernce team like which is being brought up on the AAC message board.

(03-12-2015 12:15 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(03-12-2015 12:06 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(03-12-2015 11:11 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(03-12-2015 09:44 AM)bullitt_60 Wrote:  I don't understand the vitriol on the AAC forum. Their commissioner has done an excellent job getting bowl tie-ins and ensuring every eligible team goes to a bowl game. I think that's fantastic, but evidently I'm wrong??

You can make a good argument we have too many bowls. This will be our 9th tie in for 12 teams (10th tie in, in years we get access), so I think the prevailing thought is why, unless we are going to use this as a bargaining chip to get a better opponent in Miami Beach Bowl. Most want to get more "P5" opponents in bowls, and this doesn't necessarily help that. It is what it is, and lower bowl for a couple 6-6 teams, and in time most will probably come to accept that.

Coming from the 2014 Third Ranked G5 FB conference.

Cool. Sample Size of 1. Need I remind you that C-USA was dead last the year before, and the AAC (regardless of automatic tie in, because UCF would have won the at large slot anyway) won their "access" bowl and the conference finished #1, even after removing Louisville and Rutgers. So, Averaging out as the #2 conference in 2 years is better than averaging as less than 3 in the same span.

I agree the sample size is one. This is the first year for the G5 and CFP, sorry 2013 doesn't count that was the last year of the BCS. Even now the AAC has a possibility of sending only two teams if Temple does not beat Memphis or Tulsa does not beat SMU. The 2014-15 has been a PR nightmare as the conference has yelled it belong with the Big Boys and have come up far short this season. If AAC repeats in next season, they will be marked as another G5 conference trying to catch the MWC. The dreams of good TV contract will go up in smoke. Once the Big East money runs out, the AAC will be as far behind as the other G5 in the money arms race.

(03-12-2015 11:51 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(03-12-2015 11:08 AM)Crump1 Wrote:  So, you guys want to get married so badly that you are not interested in having a good time?

A pre-christmas bowl game in a flyover state isn't my idea of a good time.

Way to squash the arrogance joke I made earlier. No idea where you are but people who use the term "flyover state" can generally take a leap from my perspective. I would rather have a bowl tie in Shreveport than Miami or LA.

(03-12-2015 12:33 PM)ValleyBoy Wrote:  

(03-12-2015 10:48 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(03-12-2015 10:15 AM)Crump1 Wrote:  

(03-12-2015 09:44 AM)bullitt_60 Wrote:  I don't understand the vitriol on the AAC forum. Their commissioner has done an excellent job getting bowl tie-ins and ensuring every eligible team goes to a bowl game. I think that's fantastic, but evidently I'm wrong??

The arrogance is expected. They are all P5 if you didn't know. We can't compete with SMU, Tulane, Tulsa, Memphis, ECU, Houston etc. on the field... except that we have been doing just that.

No one on that board claims we are P5, not even the trolls.

Any bowl at all isn't a luxury for us. Bowls are a given, which, to be perfectly honest, is a new concept for the Sun Belt. Upgrading our image (which every member institution is working aggressively for) is helped by getting more attractive bowls, with more eyeballs. A better image is goal #1 in the AAC. This bowl doesn't aid that endeavour. Though, if the AAC owns this bowl too (like the Miami Beach Bowl) it might be useful down the road. It seems that owning bowl games is like having extra cards in a game of poker. It helped us line up BYU in the Miami bowl last year (in exchange for one of our bowl slots with C-USA)

The difference is that the Sun Belt fans that post on this site know there place in the bowl pecking order where as the AAC fans have to come to terms with the fact that they are in the same boat when it comes to bowl game against power conference members. The facts are the best bowl matchup that the AAC could line up against power conference school is 7,8,or 9, and not against a 3-4 power confernce team like which is being brought up on the AAC message board.

I think you may be misunderstanding the posts over there. That's basically the difference between where we are now and where we want to be in 5yrs after the next round of bowl negotiations. Its just the next short term bowl goal---just like the Sunbelt likely has a goal of increasing the number of bowl slots next time around. Not sure why the idea of another conference having an expectation of improving its position over time is upsetting. Its a fairly common theme among posters of most every conference message board.

AC, you are a very reasonable poster on the AAC side and I actually stated that is what the AAC needs to do. However, some people are just dismissing this LR option on the AAC boards very arrogantly. Right now, they only way a conference can get a new bowl is to play it where ever one is created this current cycle. In a way, I almost would love to see the MWC jump on this bowl and have CUSA & MAC as backups. Then see what happens if an AAC team had to stay home because they believed this bowl was beneath them.

(03-12-2015 02:52 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  AC, you are a very reasonable poster on the AAC side and I actually stated that is what the AAC needs to do. However, some people are just dismissing this LR option on the AAC boards very arrogantly. Right now, they only way a conference can get a new bowl is to play it where ever one is created this current cycle. In a way, I almost would love to see the MWC jump on this bowl and have CUSA & MAC as backups. Then see what happens if an AAC team had to stay home because they believed this bowl was beneath them.

Exactly. We are mid-cycle in the bowl game. The only bowl ties available are new bowls (like the Cure and LRB). Everything else is spoken for. The LRB is fine and will serve its purpose for the next 5 years in the AAC line up. Hopefully we swap our LRB slot for NOLA in the next bowl cycle. I thought we should have jumped on that in first place.

(03-12-2015 02:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-12-2015 12:33 PM)ValleyBoy Wrote:  

(03-12-2015 10:48 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(03-12-2015 10:15 AM)Crump1 Wrote:  

(03-12-2015 09:44 AM)bullitt_60 Wrote:  I don't understand the vitriol on the AAC forum. Their commissioner has done an excellent job getting bowl tie-ins and ensuring every eligible team goes to a bowl game. I think that's fantastic, but evidently I'm wrong??

The arrogance is expected. They are all P5 if you didn't know. We can't compete with SMU, Tulane, Tulsa, Memphis, ECU, Houston etc. on the field... except that we have been doing just that.

No one on that board claims we are P5, not even the trolls.

Any bowl at all isn't a luxury for us. Bowls are a given, which, to be perfectly honest, is a new concept for the Sun Belt. Upgrading our image (which every member institution is working aggressively for) is helped by getting more attractive bowls, with more eyeballs. A better image is goal #1 in the AAC. This bowl doesn't aid that endeavour. Though, if the AAC owns this bowl too (like the Miami Beach Bowl) it might be useful down the road. It seems that owning bowl games is like having extra cards in a game of poker. It helped us line up BYU in the Miami bowl last year (in exchange for one of our bowl slots with C-USA)

The difference is that the Sun Belt fans that post on this site know there place in the bowl pecking order where as the AAC fans have to come to terms with the fact that they are in the same boat when it comes to bowl game against power conference members. The facts are the best bowl matchup that the AAC could line up against power conference school is 7,8,or 9, and not against a 3-4 power confernce team like which is being brought up on the AAC message board.

I think you may be misunderstanding the posts over there. That's basically the difference between where we are now and where we want to be in 5yrs after the next round of bowl negotiations. Its just the next short term bowl goal---just like the Sunbelt likely has a goal of increasing the number of bowl slots next time around. Not sure why the idea of another conference having an expectation of improving its position over time is upsetting. Its a fairly common theme among posters of most every conference message board.

The two issues are totally unrelated and that is where the unwarranted arrogance comes into play. Adding a bowl that is within the footprint of your conference against a peer conference to give you another slot when you need it does not preclude the AAC or SBC from also pursuing deals with P5 conferences. These deals are not lifetime deals and conferences routinely cannot fill all of their slots.

The attitude of the majority of people on the AAC board is clearly that they think they deserve a big time bowl and anything else is a waste of their time. I would not want a bowl game in the Bahamas for my program but would be thrilled to have it as an option versus not having enough slots. Ask La. Tech or Texas State what it is like to win 7 or more and have no place to go.

(03-12-2015 03:47 PM)Crump1 Wrote:  

(03-12-2015 02:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-12-2015 12:33 PM)ValleyBoy Wrote:  

(03-12-2015 10:48 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(03-12-2015 10:15 AM)Crump1 Wrote:  The arrogance is expected. They are all P5 if you didn't know. We can't compete with SMU, Tulane, Tulsa, Memphis, ECU, Houston etc. on the field... except that we have been doing just that.

No one on that board claims we are P5, not even the trolls.

Any bowl at all isn't a luxury for us. Bowls are a given, which, to be perfectly honest, is a new concept for the Sun Belt. Upgrading our image (which every member institution is working aggressively for) is helped by getting more attractive bowls, with more eyeballs. A better image is goal #1 in the AAC. This bowl doesn't aid that endeavour. Though, if the AAC owns this bowl too (like the Miami Beach Bowl) it might be useful down the road. It seems that owning bowl games is like having extra cards in a game of poker. It helped us line up BYU in the Miami bowl last year (in exchange for one of our bowl slots with C-USA)

The difference is that the Sun Belt fans that post on this site know there place in the bowl pecking order where as the AAC fans have to come to terms with the fact that they are in the same boat when it comes to bowl game against power conference members. The facts are the best bowl matchup that the AAC could line up against power conference school is 7,8,or 9, and not against a 3-4 power confernce team like which is being brought up on the AAC message board.

I think you may be misunderstanding the posts over there. That's basically the difference between where we are now and where we want to be in 5yrs after the next round of bowl negotiations. Its just the next short term bowl goal---just like the Sunbelt likely has a goal of increasing the number of bowl slots next time around. Not sure why the idea of another conference having an expectation of improving its position over time is upsetting. Its a fairly common theme among posters of most every conference message board.

The two issues are totally unrelated and that is where the unwarranted arrogance comes into play. Adding a bowl that is within the footprint of your conference against a peer conference to give you another slot when you need it does not preclude the AAC or SBC from also pursuing deals with P5 conferences. These deals are not lifetime deals and conferences routinely cannot fill all of their slots.

The attitude of the majority of people on the AAC board is clearly that they think they deserve a big time bowl and anything else is a waste of their time. I would not want a bowl game in the Bahamas for my program but would be thrilled to have it as an option versus not having enough slots. Ask La. Tech or Texas State what it is like to win 7 or more and have no place to go.

They do---and they probably wont get it. As I mentioned before in this thread, if a G5 conference wants a big time bowl, it will have to pay for it. That goes for the AAC. Since the creation of the Miami Bowl Ive been advocating that the AAC set aside the "performance" portion of thier share of the CFP money to create a Miami Bowl Fund. Their "performance" portion of the CFP money would amount to 600K to 3 million a year (varies by performance---this year as the 3rd conference they would get about 1.8 million). In 5 years when the next bowl cycle occurs, the fund would likely have around 10 million dollars to upgrade the payout in order to obtain a high selection from a power conference. If the bowl is profitable, then it costs the AAC nothing (in fact, it probably makes them money as ticket sales, sponsorship rights, and media rights will be worth more).

My guess is they wont put their money where their mouth is. Until we are willing to invest in ourselves, its unlikely anyone else will.

Valid ideas but that is a red herring. What does that have to do with this potential bowl? Nothing. Establishing this bowl doesn't impact the ability to implement a plan like yours at all.

(03-12-2015 04:34 PM)Crump1 Wrote:  Valid ideas but that is a red herring. What does that have to do with this potential bowl? Nothing. Establishing this bowl doesn't impact the ability to implement a plan like yours at all.

lol....I never said it did. In fact, I never said there was anything wrong with the LRB (just the opposite).

If the bowl is not being met favorably on the AAC board its probably because an additional bowl doesnt mean as much as it does on this board.

In 2014-2015, we just had 5 slots. However, over the next 5 years, the AAC has 7 to 8 bowl slots each year (plus 2 backup slots). Adding the LRB means we have 8-9 slots each year. So, the AAC is not like a starving man in the desert desperate for a any slot they can get. It was already unlikely any AAC team who gets to 6 wins would be left out. In the Sunbelt---there were just 3 slots. That extra slot is a HUGE deal and almost certainly saves a team from sitting at home on an annual basis. Its a far different mind set.

That said, I suspect fans of Temple (who got left out last year), are generally quite supportive of the extra bowl slot.

(03-11-2015 01:20 PM)southernwolf Wrote:  

(03-11-2015 09:48 AM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  

(03-11-2015 09:43 AM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  

(03-11-2015 09:40 AM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  Well take this for what it's worth... We are 2 hours from New Orleans and have a very large alumni base in new orleans. We flood the city for 3 days and fill plenty of rooms. We hold the 4 top attended NOLA bowls by a wide margin

I just looked at the Cajuns and NOLA bowl differently as NOLA is a destination town.
It makes sense that when traveling there, you book your hotels to stay the night.

People travel to NOLA during normal times for vacations. I don't hear of folks traveling to Little Rock for vacations.

Well unless little Rock is a dry county and stAte fans don't enjoy adult beverages and football... There are plenty of reasons to stay in little rock. We have grown up with new orleans... We go all the time, it's nearly as novel to us as it is to others.

The people in Jonesboro & Craighead county voted 16,000 to 9,000 in the November statewide election to stay Dry. I think it's pretty bad.

Duggars make the difference?