(04-26-2013 02:27 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-26-2013 09:16 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(04-25-2013 08:34 PM)billings Wrote:  There is always a MWC team in the bowl. One year they get a PAC opponent and the next year a BIG 12 opponent. NO clue who they alternate with but just might be the VEGAS bowl giving the MWC two very nice matchups

Yes, so one year the PAC have it in their bowl lineup, the next year not. The first year the Big12 does not have it in their bowl lineup, the second year it does. So there has to be a second bowl out there that sits in those spots in the PAC and Big12 lineups when the MWC bowl in Los Angeles is not in their lineup.

It could be one of the other MWC bowls ... that is, effectively the MWC agree to one bowl with the Pac-12 and one with the Big12, but for the benefit of variety in the bowl cities (fewer tickets are sold if a team has recently gone to that same city for a bowl), they swap opposing conferences between the two.

The bowl in Albuquerque is an obvious candidate to also have a MWC team every year and alternate between Pac and B12 teams on the other side.

I doubt the PAC12 or B12 would be interested in a bowl in New Mexico Bowl on Dec 21 unless the payout is substantially increased.

(04-26-2013 03:36 PM)UpStreamRedTeam Wrote:  

(04-26-2013 02:27 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-26-2013 09:16 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(04-25-2013 08:34 PM)billings Wrote:  There is always a MWC team in the bowl. One year they get a PAC opponent and the next year a BIG 12 opponent. NO clue who they alternate with but just might be the VEGAS bowl giving the MWC two very nice matchups

Yes, so one year the PAC have it in their bowl lineup, the next year not. The first year the Big12 does not have it in their bowl lineup, the second year it does. So there has to be a second bowl out there that sits in those spots in the PAC and Big12 lineups when the MWC bowl in Los Angeles is not in their lineup.

It could be one of the other MWC bowls ... that is, effectively the MWC agree to one bowl with the Pac-12 and one with the Big12, but for the benefit of variety in the bowl cities (fewer tickets are sold if a team has recently gone to that same city for a bowl), they swap opposing conferences between the two.

The bowl in Albuquerque is an obvious candidate to also have a MWC team every year and alternate between Pac and B12 teams on the other side.

I doubt the PAC12 or B12 would be interested in a bowl in New Mexico Bowl on Dec 21 unless the payout is substantially increased.

The Pac-12 is already in that game. Arizona beat Nevada in the 2012 game. The payout was only $750,000 last year, but they're only getting the eighth choice from the Pac-12.

(04-26-2013 03:10 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-26-2013 02:38 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-26-2013 02:27 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-26-2013 09:16 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(04-25-2013 08:34 PM)billings Wrote:  There is always a MWC team in the bowl. One year they get a PAC opponent and the next year a BIG 12 opponent. NO clue who they alternate with but just might be the VEGAS bowl giving the MWC two very nice matchups

Yes, so one year the PAC have it in their bowl lineup, the next year not. The first year the Big12 does not have it in their bowl lineup, the second year it does. So there has to be a second bowl out there that sits in those spots in the PAC and Big12 lineups when the MWC bowl in Los Angeles is not in their lineup.

It could be one of the other MWC bowls ... that is, effectively the MWC agree to one bowl with the Pac-12 and one with the Big12, but for the benefit of variety in the bowl cities (fewer tickets are sold if a team has recently gone to that same city for a bowl), they swap opposing conferences between the two.

The bowl in Albuquerque is an obvious candidate to also have a MWC team every year and alternate between Pac and B12 teams on the other side.

I was thinking an AAC bowl in the east might make a better pairing. That way, the Big-12 and Pac-12 reps would travel east one year and west the next to completely different bowl destinations.

I don't know. Fans will travel long distances for major bowls, but I think the minor bowls are best suited for teams that are either within driving distance or a short plane flight. It's hard to expect fans to lay out the cash for a cross-country trip between Christmas and New Year's to support a 6-6 or 7-5 team. Maybe it would work for the bowl in Fort Worth.

Exactly. If the plan is to have the Big10 involved it needs to have a closer eastern destination to rotate to.

(04-26-2013 03:43 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-26-2013 03:36 PM)UpStreamRedTeam Wrote:  

(04-26-2013 02:27 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-26-2013 09:16 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(04-25-2013 08:34 PM)billings Wrote:  There is always a MWC team in the bowl. One year they get a PAC opponent and the next year a BIG 12 opponent. NO clue who they alternate with but just might be the VEGAS bowl giving the MWC two very nice matchups

Yes, so one year the PAC have it in their bowl lineup, the next year not. The first year the Big12 does not have it in their bowl lineup, the second year it does. So there has to be a second bowl out there that sits in those spots in the PAC and Big12 lineups when the MWC bowl in Los Angeles is not in their lineup.

It could be one of the other MWC bowls ... that is, effectively the MWC agree to one bowl with the Pac-12 and one with the Big12, but for the benefit of variety in the bowl cities (fewer tickets are sold if a team has recently gone to that same city for a bowl), they swap opposing conferences between the two.

The bowl in Albuquerque is an obvious candidate to also have a MWC team every year and alternate between Pac and B12 teams on the other side.

I doubt the PAC12 or B12 would be interested in a bowl in New Mexico Bowl on Dec 21 unless the payout is substantially increased.

The Pac-12 is already in that game. Arizona beat Nevada in the 2012 game. The payout was only $750,000 last year, but they're only getting the eighth choice from the Pac-12.

I stand corrected.

(04-26-2013 02:45 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Just want to point out again, the Christmas Bowl with the MWC vs PAC/Big 12 in rotation is just a proposal from the Christmas Bowl. They don't even seem to have the MWC on board.

Surely if they can get the MWC on board, the Pac-12 and Big12 will climb over each other to sign on the dotted line.

Ahem.

This would be a great move in advance of a new NFL stadium in LA. Start the bowl now at the Coliseum, then shift to the NFL stadium when constructed.

(04-25-2013 07:09 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(04-25-2013 06:59 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  So how many bowls get added with FBS soon to be at 129 if not 130 teams? We could easily see 80 bowl eligible teams some years.

I'd like to see the bowl eligibility raised to 7 wins. Probably not a popular opinion, but other than the premier bowls, the remainder of the CFB bowl system is meaningless.

I have never seen a single UCF fan say beating 6-6 Georgia was meaningless.

(04-26-2013 03:43 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-26-2013 03:36 PM)UpStreamRedTeam Wrote:  

(04-26-2013 02:27 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-26-2013 09:16 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  ... It could be one of the other MWC bowls ... that is, effectively the MWC agree to one bowl with the Pac-12 and one with the Big12, but for the benefit of variety in the bowl cities (fewer tickets are sold if a team has recently gone to that same city for a bowl), they swap opposing conferences between the two.

The bowl in Albuquerque is an obvious candidate to also have a MWC team every year and alternate between Pac and B12 teams on the other side.

I doubt the PAC12 or B12 would be interested in a bowl in New Mexico Bowl on Dec 21 unless the payout is substantially increased.

The Pac-12 is already in that game. Arizona beat Nevada in the 2012 game. The payout was only $750,000 last year, but they're only getting the eighth choice from the Pac-12.

Aha, that's it, then. The Christmas Bowl would be angling to line up a slot with the Big12, and alternate Big 12 and Pac-12 opponents with the New Mexico Bowl.

Its harder to sell tickets the more recently you've been to the same bowl, so they might be hoping to use the alternation between Albuquerque and LA to trade up the Pac-12 slot.

(04-27-2013 12:12 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(04-25-2013 07:09 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(04-25-2013 06:59 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  So how many bowls get added with FBS soon to be at 129 if not 130 teams? We could easily see 80 bowl eligible teams some years.

I'd like to see the bowl eligibility raised to 7 wins. Probably not a popular opinion, but other than the premier bowls, the remainder of the CFB bowl system is meaningless.

I have never seen a single UCF fan say beating 6-6 Georgia was meaningless.

Yup. Beating AQ teams is the only way for a non-AQ conference to build a reputation that can allow it to become more respected by the general public and among potential recruits.

(04-27-2013 12:34 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-27-2013 12:12 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(04-25-2013 07:09 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(04-25-2013 06:59 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  So how many bowls get added with FBS soon to be at 129 if not 130 teams? We could easily see 80 bowl eligible teams some years.

I'd like to see the bowl eligibility raised to 7 wins. Probably not a popular opinion, but other than the premier bowls, the remainder of the CFB bowl system is meaningless.

I have never seen a single UCF fan say beating 6-6 Georgia was meaningless.

Yup. Beating AQ teams is the only way for a non-AQ conference to build a reputation that can allow it to become more respected by the general public and among potential recruits.

Not a 6-6 team though. Only exception is if the non-AQ team was also 6-6 or 7-5. Having a 10-2 non-AQ team beating a 6-6 AQ means nothing and no perception is gained because you beat a lowly #8 conference team. Tulsa has never gain any perception gain from beating 6-6 Big 12 teams.

(04-27-2013 06:11 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Not a 6-6 team though. Only exception is if the non-AQ team was also 6-6 or 7-5. Having a 10-2 non-AQ team beating a 6-6 AQ means nothing and no perception is gained because you beat a lowly #8 conference team. Tulsa has never gain any perception gain from beating 6-6 Big 12 teams.

Depend on whether they are marquee teams or not. Beat a 6-6 Georgia Tech, and ten years from now you beat a 6-6 team. Beat a 6-6 Georgia, and ten years from now you beat Georgia.

(04-27-2013 06:11 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(04-27-2013 12:34 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-27-2013 12:12 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(04-25-2013 07:09 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(04-25-2013 06:59 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  So how many bowls get added with FBS soon to be at 129 if not 130 teams? We could easily see 80 bowl eligible teams some years.

I'd like to see the bowl eligibility raised to 7 wins. Probably not a popular opinion, but other than the premier bowls, the remainder of the CFB bowl system is meaningless.

I have never seen a single UCF fan say beating 6-6 Georgia was meaningless.

Yup. Beating AQ teams is the only way for a non-AQ conference to build a reputation that can allow it to become more respected by the general public and among potential recruits.

Not a 6-6 team though. Only exception is if the non-AQ team was also 6-6 or 7-5. Having a 10-2 non-AQ team beating a 6-6 AQ means nothing and no perception is gained because you beat a lowly #8 conference team. Tulsa has never gain any perception gain from beating 6-6 Big 12 teams.

Doesnt matter. You still beat an AQ team. What doesn't matter one single bit is beating a non-AQ. Think about it. You play a full conference schedule of non-Aqs. If beating nonAQs meant anything the AAC, CUSA, MAC, Sunbelt, and MW wouldn't be in the situation that they are in. Bottom line, your record against the AQs is all that matters.

(04-27-2013 12:12 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(04-25-2013 07:09 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(04-25-2013 06:59 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  So how many bowls get added with FBS soon to be at 129 if not 130 teams? We could easily see 80 bowl eligible teams some years.

I'd like to see the bowl eligibility raised to 7 wins. Probably not a popular opinion, but other than the premier bowls, the remainder of the CFB bowl system is meaningless.

I have never seen a single UCF fan say beating 6-6 Georgia was meaningless.

Is that supposed to negate my opinion because I'm a UCF fan? That game only showed that UCF had earned their way to that Liberty Bowl, and Georgia didn't. I'm just saying there are too many meaningless bowls with 6 win teams because we're now a society that rewards mediocrity. I'm guessing you're the kid who cherished your 8th place science fair project blue ribbon. And before you say I'm dismissing UCF's accomplishment, I'll just say they earned their spot that year,by winning 10 games and their conference championship. Georgia didn't, which reinforces my point. UCF deserved a better opponent for that game.

(04-27-2013 08:55 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(04-27-2013 12:12 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(04-25-2013 07:09 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(04-25-2013 06:59 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  So how many bowls get added with FBS soon to be at 129 if not 130 teams? We could easily see 80 bowl eligible teams some years.

I'd like to see the bowl eligibility raised to 7 wins. Probably not a popular opinion, but other than the premier bowls, the remainder of the CFB bowl system is meaningless.

I have never seen a single UCF fan say beating 6-6 Georgia was meaningless.

Is that supposed to negate my opinion because I'm a UCF fan? That game only showed that UCF had earned their way to that Liberty Bowl, and Georgia didn't. I'm just saying there are too many meaningless bowls with 6 win teams because we're now a society that rewards mediocrity. I'm guessing you're the kid who cherished your 8th place science fair project blue ribbon. And before you say I'm dismissing UCF's accomplishment, I'll just say they earned their spot that year,by winning 10 games and their conference championship. Georgia didn't, which reinforces my point. UCF deserved a better opponent for that game.

No it goes to show you that a 6-6 SEC that easily could not have even been bowl eligible can go head to head with the better non AQ teams.

Records do not always tell the whole story.

(04-28-2013 12:19 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(04-27-2013 08:55 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(04-27-2013 12:12 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(04-25-2013 07:09 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(04-25-2013 06:59 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  So how many bowls get added with FBS soon to be at 129 if not 130 teams? We could easily see 80 bowl eligible teams some years.

I'd like to see the bowl eligibility raised to 7 wins. Probably not a popular opinion, but other than the premier bowls, the remainder of the CFB bowl system is meaningless.

I have never seen a single UCF fan say beating 6-6 Georgia was meaningless.

Is that supposed to negate my opinion because I'm a UCF fan? That game only showed that UCF had earned their way to that Liberty Bowl, and Georgia didn't. I'm just saying there are too many meaningless bowls with 6 win teams because we're now a society that rewards mediocrity. I'm guessing you're the kid who cherished your 8th place science fair project blue ribbon. And before you say I'm dismissing UCF's accomplishment, I'll just say they earned their spot that year,by winning 10 games and their conference championship. Georgia didn't, which reinforces my point. UCF deserved a better opponent for that game.

No it goes to show you that a 6-6 SEC that easily could not have even been bowl eligible can go head to head with the better non AQ teams.

Records do not always tell the whole story.

Not if the nonAq beats the crap out of the AQ.

(04-25-2013 07:09 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(04-25-2013 06:59 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  So how many bowls get added with FBS soon to be at 129 if not 130 teams? We could easily see 80 bowl eligible teams some years.

I'd like to see the bowl eligibility raised to 7 wins. Probably not a popular opinion, but other than the premier bowls, the remainder of the CFB bowl system is meaningless.

Hell just raise it to 9 wins if in gang of 5 and 8 if big 5. The others don't matter anyways. lets get real if you are not in the 4 play off game it is meaningless.

Personally I never understand the desire to kill bowl games, If you don't want to watch them don't. No on is twisting your arm. If your school is a gang of member killing games is pure stupidity. The big 5 wont lose games only the gang will.

I don't understand why people say there is a such thing as a pointless football game either. When the season ends I would rather watch the GMAC bowl then watch a pointless holiday rerun.

(04-28-2013 12:19 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(04-27-2013 08:55 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(04-27-2013 12:12 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(04-25-2013 07:09 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(04-25-2013 06:59 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  So how many bowls get added with FBS soon to be at 129 if not 130 teams? We could easily see 80 bowl eligible teams some years.

I'd like to see the bowl eligibility raised to 7 wins. Probably not a popular opinion, but other than the premier bowls, the remainder of the CFB bowl system is meaningless.

I have never seen a single UCF fan say beating 6-6 Georgia was meaningless.

Is that supposed to negate my opinion because I'm a UCF fan? That game only showed that UCF had earned their way to that Liberty Bowl, and Georgia didn't. I'm just saying there are too many meaningless bowls with 6 win teams because we're now a society that rewards mediocrity. I'm guessing you're the kid who cherished your 8th place science fair project blue ribbon. And before you say I'm dismissing UCF's accomplishment, I'll just say they earned their spot that year,by winning 10 games and their conference championship. Georgia didn't, which reinforces my point. UCF deserved a better opponent for that game.

No it goes to show you that a 6-6 SEC that easily could not have even been bowl eligible can go head to head with the better non AQ teams.

Records do not always tell the whole story.

It actually tells very little. Georgia played very well the 2nd 1/2 of season. Had key injuries early and lost games they should not have. I think they won 3 of their last 4 coming in against SEC schools. were 6-5 going into the bowl game. No doubt they were not real excited over the bowl

Listen guys, it's just an opinion. I'm not saying I'm right. I'm just saying how I feel about watered down college football, all for the sake of TV dollars. I just remember in the 1980s and 90s that the college bowls and holiday season were awesome because it was about fans as much as it was about school pride.

Today there are schools that are D-1 that will never stand a chance at BCS bowls or national championships, but were awesome FCS programs. To be honest I love watching the FCS playoffs because its still purely about college athletics and crowning a true national champion.

BCS is a perversion of CFB, and should be more inclusive with this upcoming playoff system, but instead it's about rich fat cats and "elite" schools that feel they're just better people than these up and coming schools. Its elitism, and a disgrace to CFB.

That's really what I was trying to say in my original post. If we can't get rid of the cancerous greed that's in CFB today, maybe we can at least keep the quality of the post season by raising the requirements.

(04-28-2013 11:13 AM)Knightsweat Wrote:  Listen guys, it's just an opinion. I'm not saying I'm right. I'm just saying how I feel about watered down college football, all for the sake of TV dollars. I just remember in the 1980s and 90s that the college bowls and holiday season were awesome because it was about fans as much as it was about school pride.

Today there are schools that are D-1 that will never stand a chance at BCS bowls or national championships, but were awesome FCS programs. To be honest I love watching the FCS playoffs because its still purely about college athletics and crowning a true national champion.

BCS is a perversion of CFB, and should be more inclusive with this upcoming playoff system, but instead it's about rich fat cats and "elite" schools that feel they're just better people than these up and coming schools. Its elitism, and a disgrace to CFB.

That's really what I was trying to say in my original post. If we can't get rid of the cancerous greed that's in CFB today, maybe we can at least keep the quality of the post season by raising the requirements.

Overall, I tend to be generally against any kind of government intervention into free market policies. However, on occasions, it makes sense and government is the only ones who are capable of doing it. For instance, some level of environmental regulation is needed. Some level of labor regulation (no child labor for instance) is needed. Sure, there an argument of how far it should go, but I think few believe that absolutely no regulation is best.

College football is one of those places where a little government regulation probably is needed. The intent of college sports was never to be a big money enterprise. It was intended to be a friendly, honorable, competition among academic institutions. It was meant to represent the higher ideas of sportmanship and amatuer athletics. Instead, it has become big business. At the very least, the simple basis of a fair playoff where each of the FBS league champion gets to make the playoffs makes a huge difference. If they get creamed on the field---so be it. True sportmanship only guarantees equality of opportunity--not equality of outcome.