Nobody watches any bowls except a handful of them. So really doesn't matter

(07-16-2019 11:03 AM)pesik Wrote:  something i find interesting is how greedy we sound....and how the normally rationale people are the ones being irradic and just being mad for no reason

we have the same good bowls as the last cycle...we didnt get worse.... - we dont have rotation system...we have a selection system...all things considered i think is the better system...it looks like we have no commitment to stick within most of our bowl and have 8 bowl opponents to chose the best opponent from

it noted that rotation in the armed forces bowl...why wouldnt the announcement ignore the rest was a rotation?

in this system, if the acc cant fill its bowls ..we can send teams to the new mexico bowl vs an elite MWC team etc...

and the part about greed: if the p5 has enough bowl teams (big if) we could have 6 p5 opponents based on the year..
---the mwc currently has none now (maybe lands 1 pac 12)...the mac has 1..c-usa has 1 every other year..sunbelt has none


and the independence bowl vs the pac 12 is still being settled

Had we stayed even I doubt you would see the complaints.

We took a step back, maybe two. We did so while not improving the opportunity for fans to attend the game that is suppose to be a reward for a good season (a bowl game).

We didn't help our teams with bowl opponents, travel, or tradition.

We didn't help our fans with desirable locations, regional trips, attractive opponents, attractive bowls.

We didn't help our reputation or progress towards being a p6, we lost a bowl in our home city at least part time (ACC vs SEC after xmas game, AAC vs g5 in games before), turned down a bowl vs a p5 to be in the myrtle/new Mexico g5 semi-play off game.

Not sure how any of this is a positive unless we are getting 15-20m more a year in bowl money (1-2m a team) and even then the better bowls and reputation would be worth more to the schools.

The only person who won here was ESPN who can now ship our best teams off to Hawaii and New Mexico to play g5 opponents and then point at support and who we are playing as arguements for why we don't belong. We will be lucky to end up with two p5 opponents a year if we get they NY6 and can look forward to a Myrtle Beach/New Mexico/Hawaii bowl for a ranked team who gets beat/upset in our championship game. While listening to ESPN talking head saying "well yeah they have a good record but look at where they play, too bad they didn't get x p5 team for a bowl could have been a great match up, doubt the game would have been close but they're fun to watch play."

(07-16-2019 10:48 AM)pesik Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 10:21 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 10:15 AM)pesik Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 10:08 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Quick Lanes was offered to us.

do you have any proove??
link please

aresco just 1 hour ago said the sole intention of this bowl lineup was to add as many p5 as possible the idea that we turned down a bowl with a p5 opponent isnt something we'd do and defines all part of logic

Aresco stated that it was offered to us in a radio interview but we had to turn it down because we were “full”. It was discussed a month ago or so in another thread.

okay i just did a bunch of digging in this forum..and this was the equivalent of the whisper game.. we were never offered the quick loans bowl

it started with this link:
https://watchstadium.com/news/college-fo...6-03-2019/

--it said that quick loans was coming open and we were the potential opponent...we got excited and thought we should land it
--and few threads later, a few people stated we will land it (based off themselves and wanting it)
-- a few threads/month later, mcmurphy posted a link of our likely bowl line up ... someone posted "we turned down the quick loans bowl for this"
-- everyone started quoting "we passed on quick loans"

there is no source on google or this forum where aresco says we turned down the quick loanes bowl...there is no source we were ever going to get it for sure, there are tweets from Mcmurphy that imply the mac was always the target

There is a lot of overreacting to what is likely speculation, or even misinformation, on the internet.

Aresco is no fool. If this is what we got for a lineup, I would suggest there isn't a damn thing anyone could do to improvement. We are not going to be told the calls that were made, the offers that were made, the deals we tried... But I am confident we did everything possible. This is the arena we are playing in... we get scraps after the P5 are done feasting. Period. It's the bowls fault (or ESPN pushing) that they bought into the nonsense that a 6-6 ACC team is going to draw better than a 10-2 AAC team. Bowls drank the kool aid.

Expectations for the TV $$ were realistic. Expectations for bowls were not realistic.

And no I'm not happy about it... but I honestly did not expect much improvement in bowls. As I keep saying, bowls are a zero sum game. TV $$$ is not.

In the current bowl cycle the AAC has effectively had two guaranteed bowls vs P5, Birmingham and Military. The conference has actually played more P5s (two) in the Independence via secondary agreements this cycle than in the Gasparilla (one and the ACC’s sole appearance). The ACC might as well not have had an agreement with the Gasparilla given their lack of appearing in the game.

In the next cycle the AAC still has two primary P5 games, Military and Boston . The devil is going to be in the details of how teams are selected for the games against P5s in the bowl pool. If the AAC can get two of those P5 games annually and perhaps the occasional third game the conference will have slightly improved its bowl lineup. In addition it would mean that the AAC isn’t as dependent on P5 conferences failing to fill their contracts to get P5 matchups.

The AAC isn’t P5 and will always be fighting over table scraps when it comes to bowl contracts. There is nothing that Aresco or anyone else can do to change that fact.

(07-16-2019 10:48 AM)pesik Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 10:21 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 10:15 AM)pesik Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 10:08 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Quick Lanes was offered to us.

do you have any proove??
link please

aresco just 1 hour ago said the sole intention of this bowl lineup was to add as many p5 as possible the idea that we turned down a bowl with a p5 opponent isnt something we'd do and defines all part of logic

Aresco stated that it was offered to us in a radio interview but we had to turn it down because we were “full”. It was discussed a month ago or so in another thread.

okay i just did a bunch of digging in this forum..and this was the equivalent of the whisper game.. we were never offered the quick loans bowl

it started with this link:
https://watchstadium.com/news/college-fo...6-03-2019/

--it said that quick loans was coming open and we were the potential opponent...we got excited and thought we should land it
--and few threads later, a few people stated we will land it (based off themselves and wanting it)
-- a few threads/month later, mcmurphy posted a link of our likely bowl line up ... someone posted "we turned down the quick loans bowl for this"
-- everyone started quoting "we passed on quick loans"

there is no source on google or this forum where aresco says we turned down the quick loanes bowl...there is no source we were ever going to get it for sure, there are tweets from Mcmurphy that imply the mac was always the target

That’s not the source. Aresco was the source.

(07-16-2019 09:48 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 09:19 AM)pesik Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 09:13 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 08:56 AM)pesik Wrote:  omg "its a worse bowl line up"

*looks* ..its the exact same lineup with 1 p5 addition...

Only if you don’t know the difference between an annual tie and a rotating tie or the difference between an in footprint bowl and an out of footprint bowl.

we have 1 rotating tie-in and we had it in the last cycle....

explain why its worse..because its undeniably better....

you can say its not vastly improved, but how is it worse?

Birmingham was a full tie to a P5 bowl

St Pete was a full tie to a bowl with a partial P5 tie.

Military was a full tie to a P5 bowl

None of our P5 bowls were out of footprint.

We had only one G5 vs G5 out of footprint bowl—a partial Hawaii tie.

We now have 2 out of footprint g5 vs g5 bowls. I’m surprised we didn’t just grab the potato bowl while we were at it,

In addition to how it’s worse—it’s amazing the low hanging fruit we missed. We whiffed on NOLA (New Mexico we want—but not NOLA—really?). We blew a lay up for an annual game vs the Big10. We kept the lowest paying bowl in FBS. Blew an easy layup on the “in footprint” I-bowl. Those were three incredibly easy wide open opportunities for incremental (even significant) improvement. Very disappointing. For 1.8 million a year—it’s borderline incompetent. A potted plant could have landed the same line up,

AC,
You are right, Arseco FUBAR this big time.
1. Gave up Birmingham SEC for 2nd ACC game. Still will likely be ACC 6-6 team. MINUS
2. ACC did fill the partial tie-in once in the five years. B12 has never filled the Dallas/Ft Worth Slot. MINUS
3. IMHO, it is highly doubtful AAC will appear in both Gasparilla and Birmingham. If ESPN can do ACC vs SEC match-up, I believe that will take precedence every time. MINUS
4. Hawaii could possibly be the PAC 12 eight bowl slot which could Plus or MWC/BYU then a MINUS

Also, it seems the Memphis backup is gone with this announcement.

(07-16-2019 12:01 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 10:48 AM)pesik Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 10:21 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 10:15 AM)pesik Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 10:08 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Quick Lanes was offered to us.

do you have any proove??
link please

aresco just 1 hour ago said the sole intention of this bowl lineup was to add as many p5 as possible the idea that we turned down a bowl with a p5 opponent isnt something we'd do and defines all part of logic

Aresco stated that it was offered to us in a radio interview but we had to turn it down because we were “full”. It was discussed a month ago or so in another thread.

okay i just did a bunch of digging in this forum..and this was the equivalent of the whisper game.. we were never offered the quick loans bowl

it started with this link:
https://watchstadium.com/news/college-fo...6-03-2019/

--it said that quick loans was coming open and we were the potential opponent...we got excited and thought we should land it
--and few threads later, a few people stated we will land it (based off themselves and wanting it)
-- a few threads/month later, mcmurphy posted a link of our likely bowl line up ... someone posted "we turned down the quick loans bowl for this"
-- everyone started quoting "we passed on quick loans"

there is no source on google or this forum where aresco says we turned down the quick loanes bowl...there is no source we were ever going to get it for sure, there are tweets from Mcmurphy that imply the mac was always the target

That’s not the source. Aresco was the source.

can anyone post a link?
ive search twitter, this forum, google for every combination of quick lane, detriot bowl, mike aresco , and aac , american..

there is nothing other than us wanting it..

literally nothing... i did find a bunch of stuff about how the mac was likely to get it..and that it was only 24 hours after Mcmurphy said aac to the Detroit bowl was possibility did the mac announce they had already signed

aresco in his press conference literally 1 hour ago, said the biggest priotity in signing bowl deals was getting "p6 opponents"
we would never turn down a bowl deal with the big 10...unless they required unrealistic stipulations

(07-16-2019 10:48 AM)pesik Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 10:21 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 10:15 AM)pesik Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 10:08 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Quick Lanes was offered to us.

do you have any proove??
link please

aresco just 1 hour ago said the sole intention of this bowl lineup was to add as many p5 as possible the idea that we turned down a bowl with a p5 opponent isnt something we'd do and defines all part of logic

Aresco stated that it was offered to us in a radio interview but we had to turn it down because we were “full”. It was discussed a month ago or so in another thread.

okay i just did a bunch of digging in this forum..and this was the equivalent of the whisper game.. we were never offered the quick loans bowl

it started with this link:
https://watchstadium.com/news/college-fo...6-03-2019/

--it said that quick loans was coming open and we were the potential opponent...we got excited and thought we should land it
--and few threads later, a few people stated we will land it (based off themselves and wanting it)
-- a few threads/month later, mcmurphy posted a link of our likely bowl line up ... someone posted "we turned down the quick loans bowl for this"
-- everyone started quoting "we passed on quick loans"

there is no source on google or this forum where aresco says we turned down the quick loanes bowl...there is no source we were ever going to get it for sure, there are tweets from Mcmurphy that imply the mac was always the target

Wolo and Stats interview with Mike Aresco from May 23rd. Here is the MW thread on it with the major points summarized.

https://www.mwcboard.com/index.php?/topi.../#comments

LB backup has been secured.

Quote:Ehrhart added that the game would continue its partnership with the American Athletic Conference as well, which came into play when the University of Memphis played Iowa State in 2017.

"In today's day and age … you just about have to have a Power 5 (conference)," he said. "ESPN requires the Power 5 conferences whether we like it or not. … But we'll continue our relationship with the American if we ever have an opportunity to reach in (and select an AAC team)."

https://dailymemphian.com/section/sports...rough-2025

(07-16-2019 08:47 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 07:58 AM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  So, we didn't get the Independence Bowl? I thought that was a lock...

I'd say it is still in the works. IIRC, I don't think any conference has announced formally they are aligned with it. I bet the AAC has a play still to be announced. Aresco had to announce the known for the annual meetings.

I like the idea of a bowl game between the #2 and #3 power rated G5 schools annually in the Indy Bowl. The #1 team goes to the NY6 and these two battle it out with a good post XMas TV slot.

You would, I'ts right up your alley... Already bored with ACC?

(07-16-2019 10:50 AM)mlb Wrote:  What I find funny is that we can't get a bowl in New Orleans or Memphis... and people blame this on Aresco. That shows that the schools have little to no power in their home market when it comes to ties to those organizers. A Tulane fan shouldn't be complaining about the bowl lineup when the bowl in your back yard doesn't want anything to do with your school.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Southern Miss has the NO market more than Tulane. The NO Bowl wants Southern Miss every year. Tulane was a bad add for the American.

(07-16-2019 11:45 AM)Foreverandever Wrote:  Had we stayed even I doubt you would see the complaints.

We took a step back, maybe two. We did so while not improving the opportunity for fans to attend the game that is suppose to be a reward for a good season (a bowl game).

We didn't help our teams with bowl opponents, travel, or tradition.

We didn't help our fans with desirable locations, regional trips, attractive opponents, attractive bowls.

We didn't help our reputation or progress towards being a p6, we lost a bowl in our home city at least part time (ACC vs SEC after xmas game, AAC vs g5 in games before), turned down a bowl vs a p5 to be in the myrtle/new Mexico g5 semi-play off game.

Not sure how any of this is a positive unless we are getting 15-20m more a year in bowl money (1-2m a team) and even then the better bowls and reputation would be worth more to the schools.

The only person who won here was ESPN who can now ship our best teams off to Hawaii and New Mexico to play g5 opponents and then point at support and who we are playing as arguements for why we don't belong. We will be lucky to end up with two p5 opponents a year if we get they NY6 and can look forward to a Myrtle Beach/New Mexico/Hawaii bowl for a ranked team who gets beat/upset in our championship game. While listening to ESPN talking head saying "well yeah they have a good record but look at where they play, too bad they didn't get x p5 team for a bowl could have been a great match up, doubt the game would have been close but they're fun to watch play."

'We didn't help our teams with bowl opponents"---- wee have a selection system where we chose the best opponents from a selection

"desirable location" -- hawaii, dallas/forthworth x2, tampa, boca raton, orlando, mrythle beach

"regional locations"-- we have 12 bowls: only hawaii, new mexico and boston arent regional...and boston almost certainly started negotiations when uconn was still a member years ago

9 of the 12 are very regional--- 75% of our bowls are regional....hawaii isnt every year.. we have the option to not play in new mexico

"turned down a p5 bowl" - mostly a rumor a this point..and any inclining of truth likely has some very big context...we are desprate for p5 bowls, to think we would pass 1 up is silly

noted we are getting more bowl money

(07-16-2019 12:06 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 09:48 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 09:19 AM)pesik Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 09:13 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 08:56 AM)pesik Wrote:  omg "its a worse bowl line up"

*looks* ..its the exact same lineup with 1 p5 addition...

Only if you don’t know the difference between an annual tie and a rotating tie or the difference between an in footprint bowl and an out of footprint bowl.

we have 1 rotating tie-in and we had it in the last cycle....

explain why its worse..because its undeniably better....

you can say its not vastly improved, but how is it worse?

Birmingham was a full tie to a P5 bowl

St Pete was a full tie to a bowl with a partial P5 tie.

Military was a full tie to a P5 bowl

None of our P5 bowls were out of footprint.

We had only one G5 vs G5 out of footprint bowl—a partial Hawaii tie.

We now have 2 out of footprint g5 vs g5 bowls. I’m surprised we didn’t just grab the potato bowl while we were at it,

In addition to how it’s worse—it’s amazing the low hanging fruit we missed. We whiffed on NOLA (New Mexico we want—but not NOLA—really?). We blew a lay up for an annual game vs the Big10. We kept the lowest paying bowl in FBS. Blew an easy layup on the “in footprint” I-bowl. Those were three incredibly easy wide open opportunities for incremental (even significant) improvement. Very disappointing. For 1.8 million a year—it’s borderline incompetent. A potted plant could have landed the same line up,

AC,
You are right, Arseco FUBAR this big time.
1. Gave up Birmingham SEC for 2nd ACC game. Still will likely be ACC 6-6 team. MINUS
2. ACC did fill the partial tie-in once in the five years. B12 has never filled the Dallas/Ft Worth Slot. MINUS
3. IMHO, it is highly doubtful AAC will appear in both Gasparilla and Birmingham. If ESPN can do ACC vs SEC match-up, I believe that will take precedence every time. MINUS
4. Hawaii could possibly be the PAC 12 eight bowl slot which could Plus or MWC/BYU then a MINUS

Also, it seems the Memphis backup is gone with this announcement.

With regard to the Hawaii Bowl—keep in mind—-if Hawaii is bowl eligible they are in. That was the entire reason the bowl exists. So if the Pac12 #8 is directly tied to the bowl—-it would be as Hawaii’s opponent. If Hawaii isn’t eligible—another MW team steps in. In other words, I don’t think there is any way for the AAC to expect to tie itself to a regular game vs the Pac12 in Hawaii.

(07-16-2019 10:50 AM)mlb Wrote:  What I find funny is that we can't get a bowl in New Orleans or Memphis... and people blame this on Aresco. That shows that the schools have little to no power in their home market when it comes to ties to those organizers. A Tulane fan shouldn't be complaining about the bowl lineup when the bowl in your back yard doesn't want anything to do with your school.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

New Orleans Bowl had 55k when it was Louisiana vs Tulane. Cure Bowl had 15ish with the same teams.

Location matters.

*** DOES MONEY MATTER? ***

For everyone who roots for staying at 11 to make more money by splitting UConn's slice of the pie, This $hitty bowl lineup... it pays more money than previous bowl lineup.

(07-16-2019 12:13 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Wolo and Stats interview with Mike Aresco from May 23rd. Here is the MW thread on it with the major points summarized.

https://www.mwcboard.com/index.php?/topi.../#comments

it said they had interest it doesnt say we turned them down..mcmurphy already confirmed they had interest..its also confirmed they had interest in the mac

without being in the negotiation rooms, we wont know who turned who down and what they were asking for... they might have been asking for our conference champ vs rutgers (level of team in that bowl) etc...or some money split..or guaranteed participation ... we might have been full but we would have moved things around for a favorable p5 bowl

lol also i wanted to say this earlier but i wasnt sure, but reading that confirmed it for me...i vaguely remembered that the ncaa limited conferences on bowls based on performance...but didnt want to say it and be wrong

thats why us and the acc are doing this..we both have on our official bowl announcements that we will take x number of bowls from lot of y number of bowls

we arent in a rotation or pool system.....we are hacking the system and creating a back door for us to have multiple bowl bids beyond our limit

(07-16-2019 12:38 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 12:13 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Wolo and Stats interview with Mike Aresco from May 23rd. Here is the MW thread on it with the major points summarized.

https://www.mwcboard.com/index.php?/topi.../#comments

it said they had interest it doesnt say we turned them down..mcmurphy already confirmed they had interest..its also confirmed they had interest in the mac

without being in the negotiation rooms, we wont know who turned who down and what they were asking for... they might have been asking for our conference champ vs rutgers (level of team in that bowl) etc...or some money split..or guaranteed participation ... we might have been full but we would have moved things around for a favorable p5 bowl

lol also i wanted to say this earlier but i wasnt sure, but reading that confirmed it for me...i vaguely remembered that the ncaa limited conferences on bowls based on performance...but didnt want to say it and be wrong

thats why us and the acc are doing this..we both have on our official bowl announcements that we will take x number of bowls from lot of y number of bowls

we arent in a rotation or pool system.....we are hacking the system and creating a back door for us to have multiple bowl bids beyond our limit

In the interview he flat out says we couldn’t do it because we were “full”. Again, at first blush I am very negative toward the new lineup—but I’m perfectly willing to say if we have full selection control, it could indeed turn out to be an improvement.

Here's how I see it...


$$$ and National eye balls wise for the representing program and AAC is either the NY6 or bust... Granted that's what we all want any ways, right.

Sure other AAC programs with 6-6, 7-5, 8-4, 9-3 records will still go to these crappy bowls but these bowls will only be for further self tuneups for a crack at the bigger bowl the following season plus it beats going home and nothing to show for.

(07-16-2019 12:06 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 09:48 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 09:19 AM)pesik Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 09:13 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 08:56 AM)pesik Wrote:  omg "its a worse bowl line up"

*looks* ..its the exact same lineup with 1 p5 addition...

Only if you don’t know the difference between an annual tie and a rotating tie or the difference between an in footprint bowl and an out of footprint bowl.

we have 1 rotating tie-in and we had it in the last cycle....

explain why its worse..because its undeniably better....

you can say its not vastly improved, but how is it worse?

Birmingham was a full tie to a P5 bowl

St Pete was a full tie to a bowl with a partial P5 tie.

Military was a full tie to a P5 bowl

None of our P5 bowls were out of footprint.

We had only one G5 vs G5 out of footprint bowl—a partial Hawaii tie.

We now have 2 out of footprint g5 vs g5 bowls. I’m surprised we didn’t just grab the potato bowl while we were at it,

In addition to how it’s worse—it’s amazing the low hanging fruit we missed. We whiffed on NOLA (New Mexico we want—but not NOLA—really?). We blew a lay up for an annual game vs the Big10. We kept the lowest paying bowl in FBS. Blew an easy layup on the “in footprint” I-bowl. Those were three incredibly easy wide open opportunities for incremental (even significant) improvement. Very disappointing. For 1.8 million a year—it’s borderline incompetent. A potted plant could have landed the same line up,

AC,
You are right, Arseco FUBAR this big time.
1. Gave up Birmingham SEC for 2nd ACC game. Still will likely be ACC 6-6 team. MINUS
2. ACC did fill the partial tie-in once in the five years. B12 has never filled the Dallas/Ft Worth Slot. MINUS
3. IMHO, it is highly doubtful AAC will appear in both Gasparilla and Birmingham. If ESPN can do ACC vs SEC match-up, I believe that will take precedence every time. MINUS
4. Hawaii could possibly be the PAC 12 eight bowl slot which could Plus or MWC/BYU then a MINUS

Also, it seems the Memphis backup is gone with this announcement.

#3 is status quo. The AAC isn’t playing P5 teams in the Gasparilla in the current bowl cycle.

The next ACC agreement is to place one team in one of Birmingham, Gasparilla or First Responders. The SEC theoretically will fill Birmingham and Gasparilla and the ACC is getting a team in ONE game not both. The AAC could , again assuming the SEC fills both games, end up in Birmingham in addition to its two guaranteed P5 bowl games. As I said in a previous post, the devil is going to be in the details of how P5 - G5 matchups are allocated for the G5 bowl pool members.

(07-16-2019 12:30 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 12:06 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 09:48 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 09:19 AM)pesik Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 09:13 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Only if you don’t know the difference between an annual tie and a rotating tie or the difference between an in footprint bowl and an out of footprint bowl.

we have 1 rotating tie-in and we had it in the last cycle....

explain why its worse..because its undeniably better....

you can say its not vastly improved, but how is it worse?

Birmingham was a full tie to a P5 bowl

St Pete was a full tie to a bowl with a partial P5 tie.

Military was a full tie to a P5 bowl

None of our P5 bowls were out of footprint.

We had only one G5 vs G5 out of footprint bowl—a partial Hawaii tie.

We now have 2 out of footprint g5 vs g5 bowls. I’m surprised we didn’t just grab the potato bowl while we were at it,

In addition to how it’s worse—it’s amazing the low hanging fruit we missed. We whiffed on NOLA (New Mexico we want—but not NOLA—really?). We blew a lay up for an annual game vs the Big10. We kept the lowest paying bowl in FBS. Blew an easy layup on the “in footprint” I-bowl. Those were three incredibly easy wide open opportunities for incremental (even significant) improvement. Very disappointing. For 1.8 million a year—it’s borderline incompetent. A potted plant could have landed the same line up,

AC,
You are right, Arseco FUBAR this big time.
1. Gave up Birmingham SEC for 2nd ACC game. Still will likely be ACC 6-6 team. MINUS
2. ACC did fill the partial tie-in once in the five years. B12 has never filled the Dallas/Ft Worth Slot. MINUS
3. IMHO, it is highly doubtful AAC will appear in both Gasparilla and Birmingham. If ESPN can do ACC vs SEC match-up, I believe that will take precedence every time. MINUS
4. Hawaii could possibly be the PAC 12 eight bowl slot which could Plus or MWC/BYU then a MINUS

Also, it seems the Memphis backup is gone with this announcement.

With regard to the Hawaii Bowl—keep in mind—-if Hawaii is bowl eligible they are in. That was the entire reason the bowl exists. So if the Pac12 #8 is directly tied to the bowl—-it would be as Hawaii’s opponent. If Hawaii isn’t eligible—another MW team steps in. In other words, I don’t think there is any way for the AAC to expect to tie itself to a regular game vs the Pac12 in Hawaii.

Apparently to this June article https://www.commercialappeal.com/story/s...325245001/ AAC still has Memphis backup, just surprised it was not in the announcement.