Am I crazy or has there been absolutley zero talk or an official announcement in any way about the Cure Bowl being added in Orlando next year? Maybe it hasn't officially been approved by the NCAA yet? But according to their website it will be a C-USA vs. Sun Belt match-up.

Cure Bowl

(12-23-2009 01:33 AM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  Am I crazy or has there been absolutley zero talk or an official announcement in any way about the Cure Bowl being added in Orlando next year? Maybe it hasn't officially been approved by the NCAA yet? But according to their website it will be a C-USA vs. Sun Belt match-up.

Cure Bowl

Dug a little deeper and this is what I found

Proposed name of Bowl Game:

Cure Bowl Presented by TBD
Founded: May 28, 2008
Title Sponsor: TBD
2010 Game: Cure Bowl Presented by TBD, December 2010, pending NCAA approval in April 2010
Kickoff: December 18, 2010. 1pm Eastern Standard Time ( Tentative )
Stadium: Bright House Network Stadium, University of Central Florida
Playing Surface: Natural Grass
2009 Pairing: Conference USA (Tentative) vs. Sunbelt Conference (Tentative)

can we have three bowls? i thought we had the right to hold two...the NO and the GMAC...?

Cure Bowl was incurable and is dead.

New NCAA rules provide you can only sign as many primary deals without another league backing up as you have averaged 7 win teams over the past four years. Two is the most we can sign without someone agreeing to be our back-up.

Maybe a MAC team?

Lord knows they need another bowl for sure.

Note: The above was sarcasm, should you not understand the meaning of it try wikipedia.

(12-23-2009 01:38 AM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(12-23-2009 01:33 AM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  Am I crazy or has there been absolutley zero talk or an official announcement in any way about the Cure Bowl being added in Orlando next year? Maybe it hasn't officially been approved by the NCAA yet? But according to their website it will be a C-USA vs. Sun Belt match-up.

Cure Bowl

Dug a little deeper and this is what I found

Proposed name of Bowl Game:

Cure Bowl Presented by TBD
Founded: May 28, 2008
Title Sponsor: TBD
2010 Game: Cure Bowl Presented by TBD, December 2010, pending NCAA approval in April 2010
Kickoff: December 18, 2010. 1pm Eastern Standard Time ( Tentative )
Stadium: Bright House Network Stadium, University of Central Florida
Playing Surface: Natural Grass
2009 Pairing: Conference USA (Tentative) vs. Sunbelt Conference (Tentative)

Link?

(12-23-2009 01:43 PM)Tallgrass Wrote:  

(12-23-2009 01:38 AM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(12-23-2009 01:33 AM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  Am I crazy or has there been absolutley zero talk or an official announcement in any way about the Cure Bowl being added in Orlando next year? Maybe it hasn't officially been approved by the NCAA yet? But according to their website it will be a C-USA vs. Sun Belt match-up.

Cure Bowl

Dug a little deeper and this is what I found

Proposed name of Bowl Game:

Cure Bowl Presented by TBD
Founded: May 28, 2008
Title Sponsor: TBD
2010 Game: Cure Bowl Presented by TBD, December 2010, pending NCAA approval in April 2010
Kickoff: December 18, 2010. 1pm Eastern Standard Time ( Tentative )
Stadium: Bright House Network Stadium, University of Central Florida
Playing Surface: Natural Grass
2009 Pairing: Conference USA (Tentative) vs. Sunbelt Conference (Tentative)

Link?

That was from the official website. http://curebowl.com/be-part-of-the-game.html

(12-23-2009 10:30 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Cure Bowl was incurable and is dead.

(12-23-2009 10:30 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  New NCAA rules provide you can only sign as many primary deals without another league backing up as you have averaged 7 win teams over the past four years. Two is the most we can sign without someone agreeing to be our back-up.

oh well, surprisingly I'm OK with the two bowls we have. I've wanted the GMAC Bowl since Troy entered the Belt. i'm content for the next three seasons, after that we have to progress or die.

(12-26-2009 08:47 AM)Burn the Horse Wrote:  

(12-23-2009 10:30 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  New NCAA rules provide you can only sign as many primary deals without another league backing up as you have averaged 7 win teams over the past four years. Two is the most we can sign without someone agreeing to be our back-up.

oh well, surprisingly I'm OK with the two bowls we have. I've wanted the GMAC Bowl since Troy entered the Belt. i'm content for the next three seasons, after that we have to progress or die.

We need at least three bowl games... we've been stuck with one for far too long and we had four bowl eligible teams three of the past four seasons, including this year and last. If the MAC and the WAC can send teams to three bowls, so should we. No questions asked. This conference needs to start making more money or else the conference realignment that will most likely happen in the near future will devastate this conference.

(12-26-2009 03:00 PM)Joel Wrote:  

(12-26-2009 08:47 AM)Burn the Horse Wrote:  

(12-23-2009 10:30 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  New NCAA rules provide you can only sign as many primary deals without another league backing up as you have averaged 7 win teams over the past four years. Two is the most we can sign without someone agreeing to be our back-up.

oh well, surprisingly I'm OK with the two bowls we have. I've wanted the GMAC Bowl since Troy entered the Belt. i'm content for the next three seasons, after that we have to progress or die.

We need at least three bowl games... we've been stuck with one for far too long and we had four bowl eligible teams three of the past four seasons, including this year and last. If the MAC and the WAC can send teams to three bowls, so should we. No questions asked. This conference needs to start making more money or else the conference realignment that will most likely happen in the near future will devastate this conference.

We do need a third bowl, but I feel we are fine for at least two seasons with two bowl guarantees. Before we can talk about getting a third guarantee, I feel it would be best to consistently have a third team finish with 7 or mroe wins. I do agree that we need to bring in more money to the conference. The level of bowls that we are debating will not do that, as ticket sales may not be that great and expenses will be high. We need to find other ways to bring in money. In my opinion, both the SBC and its member schools need to enter into agreements with a marketing firm. We have to do a better job at marketing our league, schools and players. We are years behind the other leagues in this effort. Next, the league needs to place every institution on a time table (roughly 5 years) to make significant facility improvements (such as the addition of field turf, the addition of video scoreboards, and the addition of field houses or similar structures as a part of their stadium that come with luxury suites). In addition, the league needs to promulgate a rule that no member school can schedule more than 2 teams from an AQ conference in a season, and no more than 5 AQ teams over a three year period. We must work to improve our prestige and preception. The best way we can truly do this is by playing and beating schools from the MAC, CUSA and the WAC. What I would urge is to do something that is done in college basketball. I would work with either CUSA or the MAC on a memorandum of understanding wherein we would agree, starting 2011, to do a football challenge. We would pick a week in September of each year and have each SBC team play a team from the selected conference. The games can start with a nationally televised game on either Tuesday or Wednesday, and then end with games on Saturday, with one of the games being televised as well.

This is some examples of how we are going to increase those things that we have to increase to improve the SBC.

(12-26-2009 03:50 PM)bluephi1914 Wrote:  

(12-26-2009 03:00 PM)Joel Wrote:  

(12-26-2009 08:47 AM)Burn the Horse Wrote:  

(12-23-2009 10:30 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  New NCAA rules provide you can only sign as many primary deals without another league backing up as you have averaged 7 win teams over the past four years. Two is the most we can sign without someone agreeing to be our back-up.

oh well, surprisingly I'm OK with the two bowls we have. I've wanted the GMAC Bowl since Troy entered the Belt. i'm content for the next three seasons, after that we have to progress or die.

We need at least three bowl games... we've been stuck with one for far too long and we had four bowl eligible teams three of the past four seasons, including this year and last. If the MAC and the WAC can send teams to three bowls, so should we. No questions asked. This conference needs to start making more money or else the conference realignment that will most likely happen in the near future will devastate this conference.

We do need a third bowl, but I feel we are fine for at least two seasons with two bowl guarantees. Before we can talk about getting a third guarantee, I feel it would be best to consistently have a third team finish with 7 or mroe wins. I do agree that we need to bring in more money to the conference. The level of bowls that we are debating will not do that, as ticket sales may not be that great and expenses will be high. We need to find other ways to bring in money. In my opinion, both the SBC and its member schools need to enter into agreements with a marketing firm. We have to do a better job at marketing our league, schools and players. We are years behind the other leagues in this effort. Next, the league needs to place every institution on a time table (roughly 5 years) to make significant facility improvements (such as the addition of field turf, the addition of video scoreboards, and the addition of field houses or similar structures as a part of their stadium that come with luxury suites). In addition, the league needs to promulgate a rule that no member school can schedule more than 2 teams from an AQ conference in a season, and no more than 5 AQ teams over a three year period. We must work to improve our prestige and preception. The best way we can truly do this is by playing and beating schools from the MAC, CUSA and the WAC. What I would urge is to do something that is done in college basketball. I would work with either CUSA or the MAC on a memorandum of understanding wherein we would agree, starting 2011, to do a football challenge. We would pick a week in September of each year and have each SBC team play a team from the selected conference. The games can start with a nationally televised game on either Tuesday or Wednesday, and then end with games on Saturday, with one of the games being televised as well.

This is some examples of how we are going to increase those things that we have to increase to improve the SBC.

I agree with almost everything you said, especially the SBC/MAC challenge (I've been advocating this for years!). The only thing I disagree with you on is the stipulations on playing AQ teams, and even then, I'm not too far off from your line of thinking. I agree that we need to stop playing as many of these money games as we are, but I think that the "2 AQs per year, 5 over 3" is too broad of a definition. It should be "no more than 2 AQ Money games WITHOUT a return visit per year, and 5 AQ money games WITHOUT a return visit every 2 years". The difference is that, if a school is lucky enough to schedule a home and home or a 2 for 1 style deal with AQ members, they should not be penalized, they should be allowed to follow through with that, like the deal the Cajuns have against K-state and Oklahoma State, or the deal that MT had with Mississippi State, those games shouldn't count against them, in fact they should be encouraged, as the probability of pulling off an upset is much more likely at home (I doubt the Cajuns would have beat K-State in Kansas) and we need those style wins to boost the image of the conference. As for everything else stated, you are 150% on the money in my opinion.

(12-27-2009 03:57 AM)Tuffguy21 Wrote:  

(12-26-2009 03:50 PM)bluephi1914 Wrote:  

(12-26-2009 03:00 PM)Joel Wrote:  

(12-26-2009 08:47 AM)Burn the Horse Wrote:  

(12-23-2009 10:30 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  New NCAA rules provide you can only sign as many primary deals without another league backing up as you have averaged 7 win teams over the past four years. Two is the most we can sign without someone agreeing to be our back-up.

oh well, surprisingly I'm OK with the two bowls we have. I've wanted the GMAC Bowl since Troy entered the Belt. i'm content for the next three seasons, after that we have to progress or die.

We need at least three bowl games... we've been stuck with one for far too long and we had four bowl eligible teams three of the past four seasons, including this year and last. If the MAC and the WAC can send teams to three bowls, so should we. No questions asked. This conference needs to start making more money or else the conference realignment that will most likely happen in the near future will devastate this conference.

We do need a third bowl, but I feel we are fine for at least two seasons with two bowl guarantees. Before we can talk about getting a third guarantee, I feel it would be best to consistently have a third team finish with 7 or mroe wins. I do agree that we need to bring in more money to the conference. The level of bowls that we are debating will not do that, as ticket sales may not be that great and expenses will be high. We need to find other ways to bring in money. In my opinion, both the SBC and its member schools need to enter into agreements with a marketing firm. We have to do a better job at marketing our league, schools and players. We are years behind the other leagues in this effort. Next, the league needs to place every institution on a time table (roughly 5 years) to make significant facility improvements (such as the addition of field turf, the addition of video scoreboards, and the addition of field houses or similar structures as a part of their stadium that come with luxury suites). In addition, the league needs to promulgate a rule that no member school can schedule more than 2 teams from an AQ conference in a season, and no more than 5 AQ teams over a three year period. We must work to improve our prestige and preception. The best way we can truly do this is by playing and beating schools from the MAC, CUSA and the WAC. What I would urge is to do something that is done in college basketball. I would work with either CUSA or the MAC on a memorandum of understanding wherein we would agree, starting 2011, to do a football challenge. We would pick a week in September of each year and have each SBC team play a team from the selected conference. The games can start with a nationally televised game on either Tuesday or Wednesday, and then end with games on Saturday, with one of the games being televised as well.

This is some examples of how we are going to increase those things that we have to increase to improve the SBC.

I agree with almost everything you said, especially the SBC/MAC challenge (I've been advocating this for years!). The only thing I disagree with you on is the stipulations on playing AQ teams, and even then, I'm not too far off from your line of thinking. I agree that we need to stop playing as many of these money games as we are, but I think that the "2 AQs per year, 5 over 3" is too broad of a definition. It should be "no more than 2 AQ Money games WITHOUT a return visit per year, and 5 AQ money games WITHOUT a return visit every 2 years". The difference is that, if a school is lucky enough to schedule a home and home or a 2 for 1 style deal with AQ members, they should not be penalized, they should be allowed to follow through with that, like the deal the Cajuns have against K-state and Oklahoma State, or the deal that MT had with Mississippi State, those games shouldn't count against them, in fact they should be encouraged, as the probability of pulling off an upset is much more likely at home (I doubt the Cajuns would have beat K-State in Kansas) and we need those style wins to boost the image of the conference. As for everything else stated, you are 150% on the money in my opinion.

I can go along with that.

Bowls are a financial drain.

If you want more money, win more non-conference football games and move up the BCS non-AQ distribution chain and win more non-conference basketball games and move up the RPI and get more teams in the tournament.

Ironically doing those things increases your television value.

Until we win more non-conference football games we can't sign more guaranteed bowl deals and even if we could, we couldn't afford them until we are making more from the NCAA Tournament and the BCS.

just get to seven wins and you are going to get a bowl anyway. 6-6 is not going to be an attractive reason to add a third sunbelt tie in and very seldom do you get more than two doing that anyway.

(12-29-2009 07:13 PM)theATLDawg Wrote:  just get to seven wins and you are going to get a bowl anyway. 6-6 is not going to be an attractive reason to add a third sunbelt tie in and very seldom do you get more than two doing that anyway.

The rolling 4-yr average dictates the number of bowls, so wishing and wanting doesn't dictate the number of tie-ins...won't be long before we get there...

SBC adds the GMAC as a primary in 2011...that's 2...

I thought that we would be adding the GMAC for next season? Is the bowl waiting to see how the attendance is with Troy in it? Also, a money game is not a money game if it is a home and home (or even a 2 for 1). The conference would be dumb to adopt a rule that could prohibit having more auto bid schools at home. The games that we have won against those auto bid conferences have been at home (Minnesota, KSU, Okie State, Baylor, etc..) Some of those contracts were 1 for 1's and some were 2 for 1's. The whole point is to get more home games. Just make the rule that all SBC schools must play 6 games at home and no more than 1 against an FCS. We already have 4 conference games at home every year and 4 away. That leaves 4 games to schedule out. 2 at home and 2 away. Simple enough.

I would expect an announcement of the deal after the teams arrive in Mobile and the press starts showing up to cover the game.