ARTICLE
http://www.idahostatesman.com/2010/12/17...tting.html

Armed Forces Bowl should go to the WAC, as at least one of Louisiana Tech, New Mexico State, UTSA, or Texas State should be bowl eligible starting in 2013.

(12-18-2010 10:17 AM)chargeradio Wrote:  Armed Forces Bowl should go to the WAC, as at least one of Louisiana Tech, New Mexico State, UTSA, or Texas State should be bowl eligible starting in 2013.

Why would a bowl based in TCU's home stadium run by a committee of TCU alums want that?

(12-18-2010 10:17 AM)chargeradio Wrote:  Armed Forces Bowl should go to the WAC, as at least one of Louisiana Tech, New Mexico State, UTSA, or Texas State should be bowl eligible starting in 2013.

Of those 4 schools, only one (La Tech) has been to a bowl game in the last 30 something years. One has never played a down of football. One has been a bottom feeder FCS school that averages about 10K in attendance. 2 of the four will probably not make it to FBS level because they will not be able to meet the minimum home game requirements. None will be a member of a recognized conference - essentially making them independent.

(12-18-2010 10:17 AM)chargeradio Wrote:  Armed Forces Bowl should go to the WAC, as at least one of Louisiana Tech, New Mexico State, UTSA, or Texas State should be bowl eligible starting in 2013.

That would be the death of the bowl.:odie:

(12-18-2010 06:36 PM)MG61 Wrote:  

(12-18-2010 10:17 AM)chargeradio Wrote:  Armed Forces Bowl should go to the WAC, as at least one of Louisiana Tech, New Mexico State, UTSA, or Texas State should be bowl eligible starting in 2013.

That would be the death of the bowl.:odie:

Yea, because our crowds of 48,000 and 41,000 at the Independence Bowl would bankrupt them.

(12-18-2010 08:06 PM)dchi72 Wrote:  

(12-18-2010 06:36 PM)MG61 Wrote:  

(12-18-2010 10:17 AM)chargeradio Wrote:  Armed Forces Bowl should go to the WAC, as at least one of Louisiana Tech, New Mexico State, UTSA, or Texas State should be bowl eligible starting in 2013.

That would be the death of the bowl.:odie:

Yea, because our crowds of 48,000 and 41,000 at the Independence Bowl would bankrupt them.

Im still trying to Figure out how Tech can get 41,000 to the Independence Bowl, but less then 15K to watch Mississippi State at home...

(12-18-2010 08:06 PM)dchi72 Wrote:  

(12-18-2010 06:36 PM)MG61 Wrote:  

(12-18-2010 10:17 AM)chargeradio Wrote:  Armed Forces Bowl should go to the WAC, as at least one of Louisiana Tech, New Mexico State, UTSA, or Texas State should be bowl eligible starting in 2013.

That would be the death of the bowl.:odie:

Yea, because our crowds of 48,000 and 41,000 at the Independence Bowl would bankrupt them.

Tech would not draw flys to the Armed Forces Bowl. It ain't in Shreveport where you can claim that anyone who attends is from Tech even though the city supports the bowl no matter who is playing.:odie:

(12-19-2010 03:48 PM)MG61 Wrote:  

(12-18-2010 08:06 PM)dchi72 Wrote:  

(12-18-2010 06:36 PM)MG61 Wrote:  

(12-18-2010 10:17 AM)chargeradio Wrote:  Armed Forces Bowl should go to the WAC, as at least one of Louisiana Tech, New Mexico State, UTSA, or Texas State should be bowl eligible starting in 2013.

That would be the death of the bowl.:odie:

Yea, because our crowds of 48,000 and 41,000 at the Independence Bowl would bankrupt them.

Tech would not draw flys to the Armed Forces Bowl. It ain't in Shreveport where you can claim that anyone who attends is from Tech even though the city supports the bowl no matter who is playing.:odie:

----------------------

Sheveport merchants and businesses buy the tickets in blocks and give them away. They even stuff them in grocery bags at the stores.

The Hawaii Bowl isn't fretting anymore. It will join the Mountain West in 2012 when Hawaii departs. But much more is under the surface of this one than just a bowl move. We are talking about assets being combined between CUSA and the Mountain West (a merger, if you will) in order to position those two leagues in the BC$ perhaps with greater power and authority than its other three non-AQ counterparts from the WAC, MAC, and Sun Belt.


http://www.staradvertiser.com/sports/spo...games.html

(12-22-2010 05:25 PM)TennesseeBoyintheRockies Wrote:  The Hawaii Bowl isn't fretting anymore. It will join the Mountain West in 2012 when Hawaii departs. But much more is under the surface of this one than just a bowl move. We are talking about assets being combined between CUSA and the Mountain West (a merger, if you will) in order to position those two leagues in the BC$ perhaps with greater power and authority than its other three non-AQ counterparts from the WAC, MAC, and Sun Belt.


http://www.staradvertiser.com/sports/spo...games.html

Oh snap. I hope the Sun Belt and MAC are getting together and building an alliance.

(12-22-2010 06:02 PM)BlueRaiderFan. Wrote:  

(12-22-2010 05:25 PM)TennesseeBoyintheRockies Wrote:  The Hawaii Bowl isn't fretting anymore. It will join the Mountain West in 2012 when Hawaii departs. But much more is under the surface of this one than just a bowl move. We are talking about assets being combined between CUSA and the Mountain West (a merger, if you will) in order to position those two leagues in the BC$ perhaps with greater power and authority than its other three non-AQ counterparts from the WAC, MAC, and Sun Belt.


http://www.staradvertiser.com/sports/spo...games.html

Oh snap. I hope the Sun Belt and MAC are getting together and building an alliance.

Sisters of the Poor ?

(12-22-2010 06:02 PM)BlueRaiderFan. Wrote:  

(12-22-2010 05:25 PM)TennesseeBoyintheRockies Wrote:  The Hawaii Bowl isn't fretting anymore. It will join the Mountain West in 2012 when Hawaii departs. But much more is under the surface of this one than just a bowl move. We are talking about assets being combined between CUSA and the Mountain West (a merger, if you will) in order to position those two leagues in the BC$ perhaps with greater power and authority than its other three non-AQ counterparts from the WAC, MAC, and Sun Belt.


http://www.staradvertiser.com/sports/spo...games.html

Oh snap. I hope the Sun Belt and MAC are getting together and building an alliance.

Without a strong TV contract (as with CUSA) and a strong BC$ national title contender (as with the Mountain West's Boise State) would such an alliance make a difference? I sense sarcasm in your post. Maybe it's the "oh snap" that makes it seem that way. I guess at this point in time, everything with college football is becoming a circus that leaves us all baffled and perhaps chuckling a little.

(12-22-2010 06:12 PM)TennesseeBoyintheRockies Wrote:  

(12-22-2010 06:02 PM)BlueRaiderFan. Wrote:  

(12-22-2010 05:25 PM)TennesseeBoyintheRockies Wrote:  The Hawaii Bowl isn't fretting anymore. It will join the Mountain West in 2012 when Hawaii departs. But much more is under the surface of this one than just a bowl move. We are talking about assets being combined between CUSA and the Mountain West (a merger, if you will) in order to position those two leagues in the BC$ perhaps with greater power and authority than its other three non-AQ counterparts from the WAC, MAC, and Sun Belt.


http://www.staradvertiser.com/sports/spo...games.html

Oh snap. I hope the Sun Belt and MAC are getting together and building an alliance.

Without a strong TV contract (as with CUSA) and a strong BC$ national title contender (as with the Mountain West's Boise State) would such an alliance make a difference? I sense sarcasm in your post. Maybe it's the "oh snap" that makes it seem that way. I guess at this point in time, everything with college football is becoming a circus that leaves us all baffled and perhaps chuckling a little.

Ever notice that none of the articles on the alliance of of CUSA and MWC to produce a team for the BCS never explains BCS needs to change its rules to allow this, nor the NCAA needs to change its rules to all this, nor gives any reason at all for the BCS conferences to except this. It will just "happen."

(12-22-2010 06:17 PM)VideoGreenEagle Wrote:  Ever notice that none of the articles on the alliance of of CUSA and MWC to produce a team for the BCS never explains BCS needs to change its rules to allow this, nor the NCAA needs to change its rules to all this, nor gives any reason at all for the BCS conferences to except this. It will just "happen."

Bingo. It's not about changing rules or getting votes against the BC$. It's about positioning. That's what I think the Mountain West and CUSA are doing with the developments of a merger. Of course, there's no way I can prove this for the reasons you just stated. There's nothing in an article that is direct in its explanation of the merger. Why would these two leagues merge at all?

(12-22-2010 06:12 PM)TennesseeBoyintheRockies Wrote:  

(12-22-2010 06:02 PM)BlueRaiderFan. Wrote:  

(12-22-2010 05:25 PM)TennesseeBoyintheRockies Wrote:  The Hawaii Bowl isn't fretting anymore. It will join the Mountain West in 2012 when Hawaii departs. But much more is under the surface of this one than just a bowl move. We are talking about assets being combined between CUSA and the Mountain West (a merger, if you will) in order to position those two leagues in the BC$ perhaps with greater power and authority than its other three non-AQ counterparts from the WAC, MAC, and Sun Belt.


http://www.staradvertiser.com/sports/spo...games.html

Oh snap. I hope the Sun Belt and MAC are getting together and building an alliance.

Without a strong TV contract (as with CUSA) and a strong BC$ national title contender (as with the Mountain West's Boise State) would such an alliance make a difference? I sense sarcasm in your post. Maybe it's the "oh snap" that makes it seem that way. I guess at this point in time, everything with college football is becoming a circus that leaves us all baffled and perhaps chuckling a little.

No sarcasm...I believe it's possible and it makes complete sense in this environment.

Here's the deal.

Unless they combine into one league with two divisions and everyone in each division plays each other, the "play-in" game can't be played under the conference championship rule, it requires 2 divisions and everyone within the division playing each other. Two divisions of 11 would mean 10 conference games.

They could have a MWC vs. CUSA game after the two leagues crown champions but unless the game is created under a new rule, MWC and CUSA would have to play only 11 regular season games and play the "play-in" game as a regular season game.

Raise your hand if you think Sun Belt, MAC, or WAC will vote to give CUSA-MWC a break. Then list the AQ leagues that will vote in favor of it. Also make a list of the bowls and TV networks wanting the deal.

There is merit to joint bowl deals if you are doing a mini-BCS to give bowls selection flexibility but with only two leagues, not that attractive.

Combining TV contracts only make sense if you are dealing with someone without a lot of inventory (not ESPN).

(12-23-2010 10:52 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Here's the deal.

Unless they combine into one league with two divisions and everyone in each division plays each other, the "play-in" game can't be played under the conference championship rule, it requires 2 divisions and everyone within the division playing each other. Two divisions of 11 would mean 10 conference games.

They could have a MWC vs. CUSA game after the two leagues crown champions but unless the game is created under a new rule, MWC and CUSA would have to play only 11 regular season games and play the "play-in" game as a regular season game.

Raise your hand if you think Sun Belt, MAC, or WAC will vote to give CUSA-MWC a break. Then list the AQ leagues that will vote in favor of it. Also make a list of the bowls and TV networks wanting the deal.

There is merit to joint bowl deals if you are doing a mini-BCS to give bowls selection flexibility but with only two leagues, not that attractive.

Combining TV contracts only make sense if you are dealing with someone without a lot of inventory (not ESPN).

Interesting. ArkStFan, is there any way for the Mountain West and CUSA to gain larger BC$ shares within their alliance for the successes of the Mountain West teams that typically make the BC$ bowls? If so, could that hurt the BC$ revenue granted across all the non-AQ leagues with larger shares going to the Mountain West and their partner?

Another question I have: Do you think a merger between the Mountain West and CUSA makes it much more difficult for a MAC, WAC, or Sun Belt team to make it into a BC$ bowl or to be able to market itself in years where they may go undefeated for a BC$ bowl?

(12-23-2010 12:16 PM)TennesseeBoyintheRockies Wrote:  

(12-23-2010 10:52 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Here's the deal.

Unless they combine into one league with two divisions and everyone in each division plays each other, the "play-in" game can't be played under the conference championship rule, it requires 2 divisions and everyone within the division playing each other. Two divisions of 11 would mean 10 conference games.

They could have a MWC vs. CUSA game after the two leagues crown champions but unless the game is created under a new rule, MWC and CUSA would have to play only 11 regular season games and play the "play-in" game as a regular season game.

Raise your hand if you think Sun Belt, MAC, or WAC will vote to give CUSA-MWC a break. Then list the AQ leagues that will vote in favor of it. Also make a list of the bowls and TV networks wanting the deal.

There is merit to joint bowl deals if you are doing a mini-BCS to give bowls selection flexibility but with only two leagues, not that attractive.

Combining TV contracts only make sense if you are dealing with someone without a lot of inventory (not ESPN).

Interesting. ArkStFan, is there any way for the Mountain West and CUSA to gain larger BC$ shares within their alliance for the successes of the Mountain West teams that typically make the BC$ bowls? If so, could that hurt the BC$ revenue granted across all the non-AQ leagues with larger shares going to the Mountain West and their partner?

Another question I have: Do you think a merger between the Mountain West and CUSA makes it much more difficult for a MAC, WAC, or Sun Belt team to make it into a BC$ bowl or to be able to market itself in years where they may go undefeated for a BC$ bowl?

On a per team basis? No. As it stands right now, if they share equally, combining would cause CUSA to gain BCS dollars and MWC to lose such dollars.

The BCS policy has been for the non-AQ to work out revenue sharing of the guaranteed 9% amongst themselves. A combined CUSA-MWC would have but one vote (if they combined, two if it is not a full merger) and I don't believe Sun Belt, MAC, WAC would agree to take less to suit those two. If the two don't like it, they have the same option MWC had last time. Refuse to join and get nothing from the deal. I will make a substantial wager that the BCS games and TV aren't cutting their payment if they aren't involved. That realization is why MWC went ahead and signed last time.