FAU moving to CUSA...
It didn't register when I saw them moving to CUSA in ALL SPORTS but they were an affiliate member of the MAC in Men's Soccer this past season. This should help our the teams travel budgets slightly. Also they were not very good the past season (don't know history) but that may help our conference SOS in our quest to get 2 bids.

WAC is dead...
#6 MWC team will now play a MAC team in the Potato bowl in 2013. While it was great for us to be match up up vs the WAC #1 with a ranked Utah St the game vs a MWC team will have a better perception with Boise St, SD St in the conference. It is unlikely that one of our teams play Boise St in Boise but looking at the conference this bowl just got a lot better for us.

I feel like playing MWC #6 will not have a better perception. Their perception isn't good enough (yet).

(01-30-2013 10:42 AM)HuskieJohn Wrote:  FAU moving to CUSA...
It didn't register when I saw them moving to CUSA in ALL SPORTS but they were an affiliate member of the MAC in Men's Soccer this past season. This should help our the teams travel budgets slightly. Also they were not very good the past season (don't know history) but that may help our conference SOS in our quest to get 2 bids.

WAC is dead...
#6 MWC team will now play a MAC team in the Potato bowl in 2013. While it was great for us to be match up up vs the WAC #1 with a ranked Utah St the game vs a MWC team will have a better perception with Boise St, SD St in the conference. It is unlikely that one of our teams play Boise St in Boise but looking at the conference this bowl just got a lot better for us.

We're playing the #6 MWC team and that's a step up for the MAC? Sorry, don't see it that way. There will no doubt be years when the MWC can't fill their slot. Then what do we get? A backup Sun Belt team? More than likely there will be an agreement for Idaho to fill if they finish 6-6, if they're still FBS in the future.

With respect to FAU, does this mean they will have to be replaced? I know there is a minimum number of teams that are required for a conference to sponsor a sport, and I worry the MAC may go below that number when FAU bolts. Sorry, but I don't know the actual minimum number (6?).

The MWC getting the Potato Bowl bid is good for us as far as winning goes, not as great for our overall image. Really though, we'll take any bowl bid we can get our hands on, so hopefully we can snag a fourth one soon, even if it isn't much a bowl at all.

(01-30-2013 10:48 AM)huskiebob Wrote:  

(01-30-2013 10:42 AM)HuskieJohn Wrote:  FAU moving to CUSA...
It didn't register when I saw them moving to CUSA in ALL SPORTS but they were an affiliate member of the MAC in Men's Soccer this past season. This should help our the teams travel budgets slightly. Also they were not very good the past season (don't know history) but that may help our conference SOS in our quest to get 2 bids.

WAC is dead...
#6 MWC team will now play a MAC team in the Potato bowl in 2013. While it was great for us to be match up up vs the WAC #1 with a ranked Utah St the game vs a MWC team will have a better perception with Boise St, SD St in the conference. It is unlikely that one of our teams play Boise St in Boise but looking at the conference this bowl just got a lot better for us.

We're playing the #6 MWC team and that's a step up for the MAC? Sorry, don't see it that way. There will no doubt be years when the MWC can't fill their slot. Then what do we get? A backup Sun Belt team? More than likely there will be an agreement for Idaho to fill if they finish 6-6, if they're still FBS in the future.

Would you rather the MAC play the #1 WAC team out of Idaho, NM St and 6 other former FCS teams?

Here is the 2013 MWC...Boise St, San Diego St, Fresno St, Nevada, Air Force, Utah St, Wyoming, San Jose St, Colorado St, UNLV, New Mexico & Hawaii (obviously never going to this bowl)

(01-30-2013 11:00 AM)IULurker Wrote:  With respect to FAU, does this mean they will have to be replaced? I know there is a minimum number of teams that are required for a conference to sponsor a sport, and I worry the MAC may go below that number when FAU bolts. Sorry, but I don't know the actual minimum number (6?).

Doubt it. We just added West Virginia this past year and there are no divisions.

(01-30-2013 10:46 AM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote:  I feel like playing MWC #6 will not have a better perception. Their perception isn't good enough (yet).

Its about the same as the BE once Rutgers and Louisville leave.

(01-30-2013 12:15 PM)HuskieJohn Wrote:  

(01-30-2013 10:48 AM)huskiebob Wrote:  

(01-30-2013 10:42 AM)HuskieJohn Wrote:  FAU moving to CUSA...
It didn't register when I saw them moving to CUSA in ALL SPORTS but they were an affiliate member of the MAC in Men's Soccer this past season. This should help our the teams travel budgets slightly. Also they were not very good the past season (don't know history) but that may help our conference SOS in our quest to get 2 bids.

WAC is dead...
#6 MWC team will now play a MAC team in the Potato bowl in 2013. While it was great for us to be match up up vs the WAC #1 with a ranked Utah St the game vs a MWC team will have a better perception with Boise St, SD St in the conference. It is unlikely that one of our teams play Boise St in Boise but looking at the conference this bowl just got a lot better for us.

We're playing the #6 MWC team and that's a step up for the MAC? Sorry, don't see it that way. There will no doubt be years when the MWC can't fill their slot. Then what do we get? A backup Sun Belt team? More than likely there will be an agreement for Idaho to fill if they finish 6-6, if they're still FBS in the future.

Would you rather the MAC play the #1 WAC team out of Idaho, NM St and 6 other former FCS teams?

Here is the 2013 MWC...Boise St, San Diego St, Fresno St, Nevada, Air Force, Utah St, Wyoming, San Jose St, Colorado St, UNLV, New Mexico & Hawaii (obviously never going to this bowl)

Your question is irrelevant; the WAC doesn't exist. The fact that the Potato Bowl is the #6 bowl slot for the MWC shows what low regard they have for it and the MAC.

(01-30-2013 12:31 PM)huskiebob Wrote:  

(01-30-2013 12:15 PM)HuskieJohn Wrote:  

(01-30-2013 10:48 AM)huskiebob Wrote:  

(01-30-2013 10:42 AM)HuskieJohn Wrote:  FAU moving to CUSA...
It didn't register when I saw them moving to CUSA in ALL SPORTS but they were an affiliate member of the MAC in Men's Soccer this past season. This should help our the teams travel budgets slightly. Also they were not very good the past season (don't know history) but that may help our conference SOS in our quest to get 2 bids.

WAC is dead...
#6 MWC team will now play a MAC team in the Potato bowl in 2013. While it was great for us to be match up up vs the WAC #1 with a ranked Utah St the game vs a MWC team will have a better perception with Boise St, SD St in the conference. It is unlikely that one of our teams play Boise St in Boise but looking at the conference this bowl just got a lot better for us.

We're playing the #6 MWC team and that's a step up for the MAC? Sorry, don't see it that way. There will no doubt be years when the MWC can't fill their slot. Then what do we get? A backup Sun Belt team? More than likely there will be an agreement for Idaho to fill if they finish 6-6, if they're still FBS in the future.

Would you rather the MAC play the #1 WAC team out of Idaho, NM St and 6 other former FCS teams?

Here is the 2013 MWC...Boise St, San Diego St, Fresno St, Nevada, Air Force, Utah St, Wyoming, San Jose St, Colorado St, UNLV, New Mexico & Hawaii (obviously never going to this bowl)

Your question is irrelevant; the WAC doesn't exist. The fact that the Potato Bowl is the #6 bowl slot for the MWC shows what low regard they have for it and the MAC.

Its not like the Potato bowl was the #1 WAC team for many years...or even 2 years.

This game did not take as much of a hit as the GoDaddy bowl which now matches the MAC team vs a very weak Sun Belt conference. The outside perception will be lower and lower for that bowl every year. Which is unfortunate for such a great bowl.

(01-30-2013 12:59 PM)HuskieJohn Wrote:  

(01-30-2013 12:31 PM)huskiebob Wrote:  

(01-30-2013 12:15 PM)HuskieJohn Wrote:  

(01-30-2013 10:48 AM)huskiebob Wrote:  

(01-30-2013 10:42 AM)HuskieJohn Wrote:  

Its not like the Potato bowl was the #1 WAC team for many years...or even 2 years.

This game did not take as much of a hit as the GoDaddy bowl which now matches the MAC team vs a very weak Sun Belt conference. The outside perception will be lower and lower for that bowl every year. Which is unfortunate for such a great bowl.

Good point on the GoDaddy. They either send their conference champ or #2 their so it is important we continue to matchup favorably. We don't really need to be losing to Sun Belt teams with regularity. I would be in favor of sending our #3 or worse there if other matchups against other conferences that were more favorable.

Is is possible we get a bowl going with CUSA again? Or they take back the GoDaddy from the Sun Belt? CUSA has a lot of teams now and with some of their teams leaving bowls are presumably going with them. We should try to limit our Sun Belt exposure as much as possible as that league is fading out with all the changes. We need to be angling for more MWC / BE matchups to differentiate us within the G5.

(01-30-2013 01:43 PM)HuskieTap22 Wrote:  Good point on the GoDaddy. They either send their conference champ or #2 their so it is important we continue to matchup favorably. We don't really need to be losing to Sun Belt teams with regularity. I would be in favor of sending our #3 or worse there if other matchups against other conferences that were more favorable.

Is is possible we get a bowl going with CUSA again? Or they take back the GoDaddy from the Sun Belt? CUSA has a lot of teams now and with some of their teams leaving bowls are presumably going with them. We should try to limit our Sun Belt exposure as much as possible as that league is fading out with all the changes. We need to be angling for more MWC / BE matchups to differentiate us within the G5.

Fortunately the MAC resigned thru 2017 for the GoDaddy bowl. However so did the Sun Belt and when Tulsa or So Miss get taken to the BE and CUSA needs one more team the Sun Belt will lose one more FBS team and will have to back fill with a FCS team.

(01-30-2013 12:31 PM)huskiebob Wrote:  

(01-30-2013 12:15 PM)HuskieJohn Wrote:  

(01-30-2013 10:48 AM)huskiebob Wrote:  

(01-30-2013 10:42 AM)HuskieJohn Wrote:  FAU moving to CUSA...
It didn't register when I saw them moving to CUSA in ALL SPORTS but they were an affiliate member of the MAC in Men's Soccer this past season. This should help our the teams travel budgets slightly. Also they were not very good the past season (don't know history) but that may help our conference SOS in our quest to get 2 bids.

WAC is dead...
#6 MWC team will now play a MAC team in the Potato bowl in 2013. While it was great for us to be match up up vs the WAC #1 with a ranked Utah St the game vs a MWC team will have a better perception with Boise St, SD St in the conference. It is unlikely that one of our teams play Boise St in Boise but looking at the conference this bowl just got a lot better for us.

We're playing the #6 MWC team and that's a step up for the MAC? Sorry, don't see it that way. There will no doubt be years when the MWC can't fill their slot. Then what do we get? A backup Sun Belt team? More than likely there will be an agreement for Idaho to fill if they finish 6-6, if they're still FBS in the future.

Would you rather the MAC play the #1 WAC team out of Idaho, NM St and 6 other former FCS teams?

Here is the 2013 MWC...Boise St, San Diego St, Fresno St, Nevada, Air Force, Utah St, Wyoming, San Jose St, Colorado St, UNLV, New Mexico & Hawaii (obviously never going to this bowl)

Your question is irrelevant; the WAC doesn't exist. The fact that the Potato Bowl is the #6 bowl slot for the MWC shows what low regard they have for it and the MAC.

Yea, #6 from the Mountain West, that's weak. Do they think they're the Big 12?

(01-30-2013 02:01 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-30-2013 12:31 PM)huskiebob Wrote:  

(01-30-2013 12:15 PM)HuskieJohn Wrote:  

(01-30-2013 10:48 AM)huskiebob Wrote:  

(01-30-2013 10:42 AM)HuskieJohn Wrote:  FAU moving to CUSA...
It didn't register when I saw them moving to CUSA in ALL SPORTS but they were an affiliate member of the MAC in Men's Soccer this past season. This should help our the teams travel budgets slightly. Also they were not very good the past season (don't know history) but that may help our conference SOS in our quest to get 2 bids.

WAC is dead...
#6 MWC team will now play a MAC team in the Potato bowl in 2013. While it was great for us to be match up up vs the WAC #1 with a ranked Utah St the game vs a MWC team will have a better perception with Boise St, SD St in the conference. It is unlikely that one of our teams play Boise St in Boise but looking at the conference this bowl just got a lot better for us.

We're playing the #6 MWC team and that's a step up for the MAC? Sorry, don't see it that way. There will no doubt be years when the MWC can't fill their slot. Then what do we get? A backup Sun Belt team? More than likely there will be an agreement for Idaho to fill if they finish 6-6, if they're still FBS in the future.

Would you rather the MAC play the #1 WAC team out of Idaho, NM St and 6 other former FCS teams?

Here is the 2013 MWC...Boise St, San Diego St, Fresno St, Nevada, Air Force, Utah St, Wyoming, San Jose St, Colorado St, UNLV, New Mexico & Hawaii (obviously never going to this bowl)

Your question is irrelevant; the WAC doesn't exist. The fact that the Potato Bowl is the #6 bowl slot for the MWC shows what low regard they have for it and the MAC.

Yea, #6 from the Mountain West, that's weak. Do they think they're the Big 12?

They could very well lose a bowl after next year so it could be #5.

Keep in mind when the bowl organizers say MWC is the host conference they essentially mean Boise State who will be playing there in any season under 10 wins..I still say that is a solid for the MAC.

However there is a big wild card factor as to how bowls will be structured going forward. They may operate as more of an at-large pool beyond the power conferce tie-ins.

If this is the case it would benefit the MAC because a trump card over CUSA or SBC teams would be overall win-loss record in a true free for all situation.

(01-30-2013 04:47 PM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  Keep in mind when the bowl organizers say MWC is the host conference they essentially mean Boise State who will be playing there in any season under 10 wins..I still say that is a solid for the MAC.

However there is a big wild card factor as to how bowls will be structured going forward. They may operate as more of an at-large pool beyond the power conferce tie-ins.

If this is the case it would benefit the MAC because a trump card over CUSA or SBC teams would be overall win-loss record in a true free for all situation.

?? How do you figure?

(01-30-2013 04:47 PM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  Keep in mind when the bowl organizers say MWC is the host conference they essentially mean Boise State who will be playing there in any season under 10 wins..I still say that is a solid for the MAC.

However there is a big wild card factor as to how bowls will be structured going forward. They may operate as more of an at-large pool beyond the power conferce tie-ins.

If this is the case it would benefit the MAC because a trump card over CUSA or SBC teams would be overall win-loss record in a true free for all situation.

So, you are thinking that most bowls will just wing it instead of making agreements with conferences? Sounds as if that would be hard to work, but give them more free range.

RE: MWC #6

That may not sound like a marque team and it isn't but what will we send?

We will send #3, presumably.

Now would MWC #4 be a more desirable match up? Sure.

However, 'at the end of the day' it might be better for MAC #3 to beat MWC #6 (or #5 or whatever) than lose to WAC #1 as was the case this past bowl season.

P.S., do remember that we have 3 bowls locked up and that is a good foundation for building a bowl foundation.

I just thought about this - if Hawaii is bowl eligible (and if they don't win the MWC and/or make an Access Bowl), they automatically go to the Hawaii Bowl (which gets the 5th pick, otherwise). So this could give the Potato Bowl the #5 team if Hawaii is bowl eligible and has only 7 wins (they need 7 wins to be bowl eligible since they can play 13 regular season games).

(01-31-2013 11:22 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  

(01-30-2013 04:47 PM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  Keep in mind when the bowl organizers say MWC is the host conference they essentially mean Boise State who will be playing there in any season under 10 wins..I still say that is a solid for the MAC.

However there is a big wild card factor as to how bowls will be structured going forward. They may operate as more of an at-large pool beyond the power conferce tie-ins.

If this is the case it would benefit the MAC because a trump card over CUSA or SBC teams would be overall win-loss record in a true free for all situation.

So, you are thinking that most bowls will just wing it instead of making agreements with conferences? Sounds as if that would be hard to work, but give them more free range.

I don't know if I'm necessarily believe that will be the future but the B1G is pushing to shake things up with a 6 year bowl cycle and partnering with other conferences for a more national set of games.

I wonder if the MAC, MWC and CUSA could perhaps work together to resources for better bowl match ups. I know in the past it has been mostly the MWC and CUSA working together against the MAC and SBC but now the enemy is the Big East.

If a strong MWC/CUSA/MAC bowl and scheduling alliance could rival the Big East. Once Duke/UNC punch a ticket to the SEC sending UConn/UC to the ACC the remaining Big East schools then would be carved up between the MWC/CUSA/MAC.