(12-03-2018 08:38 PM)toddjnsn Wrote:  

Quote:When? When was it "aimed to be"? Nobody ever said the MAC or SBC had a contractual tie in with the [Frisco] bowl.

First, I saw too many projections of a MAC team going to it. CFN didn't have it listed as such; claimed it was an at-large. SO I checked:

Wiki's Frisco Page:

Quote:Initial planning had been to have teams from The American face a Sun Belt opponent in 2017 and 2019, and face a MAC opponent in 2018.

Wiki is just "somebody thought this", it's not an original source.

I asked for the source that specified the nature of the agreement as a tie in. Of course people had the MAC going to it, it is one of the MAC's primary bowls this year. But if they were claiming it was a primary bowl because of a tie in, that would be false. The bowl association site lists the tie ins ... if the MAC appeared in the bowl contracts lodged with the association, it would have been listed there.

Some lazy writers assume it had to be listed there to be a primary agreement, but that is obviously false if the contract leaves either or both side at-large.

You never gave evidence for your view strong enough to contradict a direct claim from the MAC late in the college football season that they had a direct agreement.

Note that I had been writing that a bit carefully, because it was in the Weekly Football Release that I happened to look at ... but going to the MAC site and looking at their weekly football releases, they all give the same list of bowl partners. So either, the MAC "didn't get the memo" about the MAC's bowl partners, or an online Wiki didn't get the memo.

It would be obvious to anyone who is not simply doggedly insisting that they were wrong despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, it was the Wiki and people relying on that Wiki who "didn't get the memo".