I saw that on one of these boards but I also heard doubt that Detroit-based Little Caesars would sponsor a bowl outside of Detroit. I don't know why that would matter, personally. I would like Indy, Nashville or St. Louis.

(05-27-2013 03:41 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-27-2013 02:53 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-27-2013 02:07 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-26-2013 07:55 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The far western location that insulates the Mountain West from most of the poaching issues also provides protection to its bowl line up. It's looking like the Mountain West will have the best line up of bowls by far of the G5.

Every MWC bowl game but one is played in a home stadium of a MWC team. The one that isn't is the Armed Forces Bowl, played in TCU's stadium, and TCU was in the MWC when that bowl game was started.

The AAC could take the same approach.

The AAC is creating a bowl---but that's not really the problem. There will be a couple of other bowls created I suspect. The issue is far more the lack of P5 opponents and the poor quality of the remaining bowls. Im sure we will end up with at least 4 or 5 bowls. Unfortunately, the way it's shaping up, most of what will likely remain will be your basic pre-Christmas garbage bowls.

It is what it is. I think our tv contract will offer some very nice exposure, but our bowl situation could end up being pretty dismal. Like I said, in the AAC it may end up being pretty much BCS or bust. There should be some decent P5 slots that open up each year due to the selection committee filling the access bowls and playoffs. Hopefully there will be a way some AAC teams to slip into those slots.

That won't be much different from the MWC bowl lineup. Look at the list in the other thread. If that turns out to be correct, the two bowls where a MWC team plays a Pac team will get the sixth and eighth choices of Pac teams. The other MWC bowls have a MAC opponent, a CUSA opponent, and a rotating Army/Navy/BYU opponent.

Well so far the AAC doesn't have anything close to the PAC #6, hell they don't even have anything as good as the PAC #8 yet.

(05-28-2013 12:07 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(05-27-2013 03:41 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-27-2013 02:53 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-27-2013 02:07 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-26-2013 07:55 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The far western location that insulates the Mountain West from most of the poaching issues also provides protection to its bowl line up. It's looking like the Mountain West will have the best line up of bowls by far of the G5.

Every MWC bowl game but one is played in a home stadium of a MWC team. The one that isn't is the Armed Forces Bowl, played in TCU's stadium, and TCU was in the MWC when that bowl game was started.

The AAC could take the same approach.

The AAC is creating a bowl---but that's not really the problem. There will be a couple of other bowls created I suspect. The issue is far more the lack of P5 opponents and the poor quality of the remaining bowls. Im sure we will end up with at least 4 or 5 bowls. Unfortunately, the way it's shaping up, most of what will likely remain will be your basic pre-Christmas garbage bowls.

It is what it is. I think our tv contract will offer some very nice exposure, but our bowl situation could end up being pretty dismal. Like I said, in the AAC it may end up being pretty much BCS or bust. There should be some decent P5 slots that open up each year due to the selection committee filling the access bowls and playoffs. Hopefully there will be a way some AAC teams to slip into those slots.

That won't be much different from the MWC bowl lineup. Look at the list in the other thread. If that turns out to be correct, the two bowls where a MWC team plays a Pac team will get the sixth and eighth choices of Pac teams. The other MWC bowls have a MAC opponent, a CUSA opponent, and a rotating Army/Navy/BYU opponent.

Well so far the AAC doesn't have anything close to the PAC #6, hell they don't even have anything as good as the PAC #8 yet.

If its true we are waiting to see what bowls the power conferences will sign with before we start signing bowls, then the math suggests we wont have anything close to the Pac-12 #6 or #8. Assuming the P-5 go first, and we alrady know the B1G has committed to the Heart of Dallas and the Pac-12 is likley to send a #6 to Las Vegas, the absolute best the AAC looks like they might get is an ACC #8/9 in the Military Bowl (if the AAC even stays--they could go to Detroit instead). The next highest options would be a MAC #1 (assuming the Detroit Bowl with the B-10 and ACC becomes a reality, otherwise, the MAC #1 wont be available), CUSA #2, or Sunbelt #1. Mathematically, thats the highest selections that would be left on the board based upon what we already know or can reasonably project.

Its very possible, the AAC bowl situation will consist of a possible BCS slot or bust. Its not like you wont get to go to bowl if you miss the BCS, you just will likley be pre-Chirstmas junk bowl vs a mid/low non-AQ selection the fans wont really care about. It is what it is. Unless Aresco has a last minute surprise waiting, the season will be pretty much over for any AAC school suffering a second loss. The P-5 are now finalizing thier decisions---some have already submitted the final selections for approval. If Aresco doesnt have an Aresco Bowl P-5 committment now, it aint coming.

(05-28-2013 12:15 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-28-2013 12:07 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(05-27-2013 03:41 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-27-2013 02:53 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-27-2013 02:07 AM)Wedge Wrote:  Every MWC bowl game but one is played in a home stadium of a MWC team. The one that isn't is the Armed Forces Bowl, played in TCU's stadium, and TCU was in the MWC when that bowl game was started.

The AAC could take the same approach.

The AAC is creating a bowl---but that's not really the problem. There will be a couple of other bowls created I suspect. The issue is far more the lack of P5 opponents and the poor quality of the remaining bowls. Im sure we will end up with at least 4 or 5 bowls. Unfortunately, the way it's shaping up, most of what will likely remain will be your basic pre-Christmas garbage bowls.

It is what it is. I think our tv contract will offer some very nice exposure, but our bowl situation could end up being pretty dismal. Like I said, in the AAC it may end up being pretty much BCS or bust. There should be some decent P5 slots that open up each year due to the selection committee filling the access bowls and playoffs. Hopefully there will be a way some AAC teams to slip into those slots.

That won't be much different from the MWC bowl lineup. Look at the list in the other thread. If that turns out to be correct, the two bowls where a MWC team plays a Pac team will get the sixth and eighth choices of Pac teams. The other MWC bowls have a MAC opponent, a CUSA opponent, and a rotating Army/Navy/BYU opponent.

Well so far the AAC doesn't have anything close to the PAC #6, hell they don't even have anything as good as the PAC #8 yet.

If its true we are waiting to see what bowls the power conferences will sign with before we start signing bowls, then the math suggests we wont have anything close to the Pac-12 #6 or #8. Assuming the P-5 go first, and we alrady know the B1G has committed to the Heart of Dallas and the Pac-12 is likley to send a #6 to Las Vegas, the absolute best the AAC could manage is a MAC #1 (assuming the Detroit Bowl with the B-10 and ACC becomes a reality, otherwise, the MAC #1 wont be available), CUSA #2, or Sunbelt #1. Mathematically, thats all that would be left on the board based upon what we already know or can reasonably project.

If the math is what it is, then there may be some more truth to the rumor of having a top AAC vs top MWC bowl. If the PAC isn't budging on a #6 selection for the LV, then I hope that the MWC is looking for a better opponent for the #1 team available.

(05-28-2013 12:25 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(05-28-2013 12:15 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-28-2013 12:07 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(05-27-2013 03:41 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-27-2013 02:53 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The AAC is creating a bowl---but that's not really the problem. There will be a couple of other bowls created I suspect. The issue is far more the lack of P5 opponents and the poor quality of the remaining bowls. Im sure we will end up with at least 4 or 5 bowls. Unfortunately, the way it's shaping up, most of what will likely remain will be your basic pre-Christmas garbage bowls.

It is what it is. I think our tv contract will offer some very nice exposure, but our bowl situation could end up being pretty dismal. Like I said, in the AAC it may end up being pretty much BCS or bust. There should be some decent P5 slots that open up each year due to the selection committee filling the access bowls and playoffs. Hopefully there will be a way some AAC teams to slip into those slots.

That won't be much different from the MWC bowl lineup. Look at the list in the other thread. If that turns out to be correct, the two bowls where a MWC team plays a Pac team will get the sixth and eighth choices of Pac teams. The other MWC bowls have a MAC opponent, a CUSA opponent, and a rotating Army/Navy/BYU opponent.

Well so far the AAC doesn't have anything close to the PAC #6, hell they don't even have anything as good as the PAC #8 yet.

If its true we are waiting to see what bowls the power conferences will sign with before we start signing bowls, then the math suggests we wont have anything close to the Pac-12 #6 or #8. Assuming the P-5 go first, and we alrady know the B1G has committed to the Heart of Dallas and the Pac-12 is likley to send a #6 to Las Vegas, the absolute best the AAC could manage is a MAC #1 (assuming the Detroit Bowl with the B-10 and ACC becomes a reality, otherwise, the MAC #1 wont be available), CUSA #2, or Sunbelt #1. Mathematically, thats all that would be left on the board based upon what we already know or can reasonably project.

If the math is what it is, then there may be some more truth to the rumor of having a top AAC vs top MWC bowl. If the PAC isn't budging on a #6 selection for the LV, then I hope that the MWC is looking for a better opponent for the #1 team available.

If the best we can truely do is an ACC #8/9 in the Military as our #1 bowl---then yes, meeting the MW #1 somewhere is looking pretty good to me. Send AAC #2 to the Military Bowl.

(05-28-2013 12:35 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-28-2013 12:25 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(05-28-2013 12:15 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-28-2013 12:07 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(05-27-2013 03:41 AM)Wedge Wrote:  That won't be much different from the MWC bowl lineup. Look at the list in the other thread. If that turns out to be correct, the two bowls where a MWC team plays a Pac team will get the sixth and eighth choices of Pac teams. The other MWC bowls have a MAC opponent, a CUSA opponent, and a rotating Army/Navy/BYU opponent.

Well so far the AAC doesn't have anything close to the PAC #6, hell they don't even have anything as good as the PAC #8 yet.

If its true we are waiting to see what bowls the power conferences will sign with before we start signing bowls, then the math suggests we wont have anything close to the Pac-12 #6 or #8. Assuming the P-5 go first, and we alrady know the B1G has committed to the Heart of Dallas and the Pac-12 is likley to send a #6 to Las Vegas, the absolute best the AAC could manage is a MAC #1 (assuming the Detroit Bowl with the B-10 and ACC becomes a reality, otherwise, the MAC #1 wont be available), CUSA #2, or Sunbelt #1. Mathematically, thats all that would be left on the board based upon what we already know or can reasonably project.

If the math is what it is, then there may be some more truth to the rumor of having a top AAC vs top MWC bowl. If the PAC isn't budging on a #6 selection for the LV, then I hope that the MWC is looking for a better opponent for the #1 team available.

If the best we can truely do is an ACC #8/9 in the Military as our #1 bowl---then yes, meeting the MW #1 somewhere is looking pretty good to me. Send AAC #2 to the Military Bowl.

The problem is I bet the majority of MWC presidents, AD's, and fans probably view playing the PAC #6 in Vegas more favorably than playing the AAC #1 or #2 (depending on who gets the access bowl) in Miami or Houston or wherever you'd put it. Put the shoe on the other foot if the AAC had a bowl against the B12, ACC, B1G, or SEC #6 we'd likely rather send our champ to that game than the MWC #1 or 2.

(05-28-2013 12:35 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  If the best we can truely do is an ACC #8/9 in the Military as our #1 bowl---then yes, meeting the MW #1 somewhere is looking pretty good to me. Send AAC #2 to the Military Bowl.

There might be a little bit of "creativity" there--instead of a pure #1/#2, the Military gets the Eastern Division champion, or Navy once-in-a-while, and say the Armed Forces Bowl gets (usually) the Western Division champ, playing probably the loser of the MWC title game. Of course, the AAC champ will be in the Access Bowl once in a while, too.

I think the MWC #1 (or #2 if Boise is in the Access Bowl) goes to the Las Vegas Bowl.

(05-28-2013 12:43 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(05-28-2013 12:35 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-28-2013 12:25 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(05-28-2013 12:15 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-28-2013 12:07 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Well so far the AAC doesn't have anything close to the PAC #6, hell they don't even have anything as good as the PAC #8 yet.

If its true we are waiting to see what bowls the power conferences will sign with before we start signing bowls, then the math suggests we wont have anything close to the Pac-12 #6 or #8. Assuming the P-5 go first, and we alrady know the B1G has committed to the Heart of Dallas and the Pac-12 is likley to send a #6 to Las Vegas, the absolute best the AAC could manage is a MAC #1 (assuming the Detroit Bowl with the B-10 and ACC becomes a reality, otherwise, the MAC #1 wont be available), CUSA #2, or Sunbelt #1. Mathematically, thats all that would be left on the board based upon what we already know or can reasonably project.

If the math is what it is, then there may be some more truth to the rumor of having a top AAC vs top MWC bowl. If the PAC isn't budging on a #6 selection for the LV, then I hope that the MWC is looking for a better opponent for the #1 team available.

If the best we can truely do is an ACC #8/9 in the Military as our #1 bowl---then yes, meeting the MW #1 somewhere is looking pretty good to me. Send AAC #2 to the Military Bowl.

The problem is I bet the majority of MWC presidents, AD's, and fans probably view playing the PAC #6 in Vegas more favorably than playing the AAC #1 or #2 (depending on who gets the access bowl) in Miami or Houston or wherever you'd put it. Put the shoe on the other foot if the AAC had a bowl against the B12, ACC, B1G, or SEC #6 we'd likely rather send our champ to that game than the MWC #1 or 2.

I think you could be right, but I think the fan perception changes when they get to play a Top 30 team than a 6-6 PAC team ranked #75. It is getting old for the MW fans to keep playing unmotivated PAC teams.

My theory FWIW is that with new bowl rules adopted, which require only that two leagues agree to play it, that life is going to get dicey for some of the existing bowl committees.

If you aren't a bowl that has a large established ticket base (ie. the Sugar who isn't even accepting wait list applications because the wait list is so long), you better keep your operating expenses down for things not related to entertaining the players and the families of the coaches.

If you don't have a built in strong revenue stream and you are relying on the teams selling tickets and the TV dollars it is going to make a lot of sense for leagues to walk away from you and start their own bowl.

(05-28-2013 01:14 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  My theory FWIW is that with new bowl rules adopted, which require only that two leagues agree to play it, that life is going to get dicey for some of the existing bowl committees.

If you aren't a bowl that has a large established ticket base (ie. the Sugar who isn't even accepting wait list applications because the wait list is so long), you better keep your operating expenses down for things not related to entertaining the players and the families of the coaches.

If you don't have a built in strong revenue stream and you are relying on the teams selling tickets and the TV dollars it is going to make a lot of sense for leagues to walk away from you and start their own bowl.

Thats a good point. If they are not very efficient--I could se teams walking away. The flip side of that is that ESPN owns most of these bottom of the barrel bowls, so they have more leverage than the typical bowl committee. However, it appears they are not exactly doing the AAC any bowl favors, so theres not much to lose by leaving thier bowl and starting a conference owned bowl.

(05-28-2013 01:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-28-2013 01:14 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  My theory FWIW is that with new bowl rules adopted, which require only that two leagues agree to play it, that life is going to get dicey for some of the existing bowl committees.

If you aren't a bowl that has a large established ticket base (ie. the Sugar who isn't even accepting wait list applications because the wait list is so long), you better keep your operating expenses down for things not related to entertaining the players and the families of the coaches.

If you don't have a built in strong revenue stream and you are relying on the teams selling tickets and the TV dollars it is going to make a lot of sense for leagues to walk away from you and start their own bowl.

Thats a good point. If they are not very efficient--I could se teams walking away. The flip side of that is that ESPN owns most of these bottom of the barrel bowls, so they have more leverage than the typical bowl committee. However, it appears they are not exactly doing the AAC any bowl favors, so theres not much to lose by leaving thier bowl and starting a conference owned bowl.

I found it funny to hear some AAC fans thinking that all of a sudden after signing with ESPN they were going to start being helpful to the league. That's not going to happen. They aren't going to really market or help the league out with bowls or anything else. They just managed to get some pretty high level basketball and improved mid week filler for relative peanuts and will treat it as such.

(05-28-2013 12:35 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  If the best we can truely do is an ACC #8/9 in the Military as our #1 bowl---then yes, meeting the MW #1 somewhere is looking pretty good to me. Send AAC #2 to the Military Bowl.

Actually, after reading how much involvement the Naval Academy Athletic Association has and has had with the bowl organizers, I wonder if the Military Bowl at Annapolis is going to end up sort of like the Hawaii Bowl, with Navy as the default pick.

(05-28-2013 01:41 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-28-2013 12:35 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  If the best we can truely do is an ACC #8/9 in the Military as our #1 bowl---then yes, meeting the MW #1 somewhere is looking pretty good to me. Send AAC #2 to the Military Bowl.

Actually, after reading how much involvement the Naval Academy Athletic Association has and has had with the bowl organizers, I wonder if the Military Bowl at Annapolis is going to end up sort of like the Hawaii Bowl, with Navy as the default pick.

I kinda doubt that. Yeah they would be the best draw in that game, but unlike the Hawaii Bowl there are several other AAC teams that would draw extremely well in that game besides Navy. ECU brought over 15k to that game 3 years ago and that was with a really horrible 6-6 football team that didn't deserve a bowl game. Temple would draw relatively well there, as would Cincy and UCONN.

(05-28-2013 12:43 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(05-28-2013 12:35 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-28-2013 12:25 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(05-28-2013 12:15 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-28-2013 12:07 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Well so far the AAC doesn't have anything close to the PAC #6, hell they don't even have anything as good as the PAC #8 yet.

If its true we are waiting to see what bowls the power conferences will sign with before we start signing bowls, then the math suggests we wont have anything close to the Pac-12 #6 or #8. Assuming the P-5 go first, and we alrady know the B1G has committed to the Heart of Dallas and the Pac-12 is likley to send a #6 to Las Vegas, the absolute best the AAC could manage is a MAC #1 (assuming the Detroit Bowl with the B-10 and ACC becomes a reality, otherwise, the MAC #1 wont be available), CUSA #2, or Sunbelt #1. Mathematically, thats all that would be left on the board based upon what we already know or can reasonably project.

If the math is what it is, then there may be some more truth to the rumor of having a top AAC vs top MWC bowl. If the PAC isn't budging on a #6 selection for the LV, then I hope that the MWC is looking for a better opponent for the #1 team available.

If the best we can truely do is an ACC #8/9 in the Military as our #1 bowl---then yes, meeting the MW #1 somewhere is looking pretty good to me. Send AAC #2 to the Military Bowl.

The problem is I bet the majority of MWC presidents, AD's, and fans probably view playing the PAC #6 in Vegas more favorably than playing the AAC #1 or #2 (depending on who gets the access bowl) in Miami or Houston or wherever you'd put it. Put the shoe on the other foot if the AAC had a bowl against the B12, ACC, B1G, or SEC #6 we'd likely rather send our champ to that game than the MWC #1 or 2.

It might be that's what the MWC prefers, but for sure they'll prefer Vegas, whomever the opponent, to Miami or Houston. Vegas and San Diego are the MWC's best bowl sites because they have both close proximity and attractiveness as a destination.

(05-28-2013 04:18 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-28-2013 12:43 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(05-28-2013 12:35 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-28-2013 12:25 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(05-28-2013 12:15 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  If its true we are waiting to see what bowls the power conferences will sign with before we start signing bowls, then the math suggests we wont have anything close to the Pac-12 #6 or #8. Assuming the P-5 go first, and we alrady know the B1G has committed to the Heart of Dallas and the Pac-12 is likley to send a #6 to Las Vegas, the absolute best the AAC could manage is a MAC #1 (assuming the Detroit Bowl with the B-10 and ACC becomes a reality, otherwise, the MAC #1 wont be available), CUSA #2, or Sunbelt #1. Mathematically, thats all that would be left on the board based upon what we already know or can reasonably project.

If the math is what it is, then there may be some more truth to the rumor of having a top AAC vs top MWC bowl. If the PAC isn't budging on a #6 selection for the LV, then I hope that the MWC is looking for a better opponent for the #1 team available.

If the best we can truely do is an ACC #8/9 in the Military as our #1 bowl---then yes, meeting the MW #1 somewhere is looking pretty good to me. Send AAC #2 to the Military Bowl.

The problem is I bet the majority of MWC presidents, AD's, and fans probably view playing the PAC #6 in Vegas more favorably than playing the AAC #1 or #2 (depending on who gets the access bowl) in Miami or Houston or wherever you'd put it. Put the shoe on the other foot if the AAC had a bowl against the B12, ACC, B1G, or SEC #6 we'd likely rather send our champ to that game than the MWC #1 or 2.

It might be that's what the MWC prefers, but for sure they'll prefer Vegas, whomever the opponent, to Miami or Houston. Vegas and San Diego are the MWC's best bowl sites because they have both close proximity and attractiveness as a destination.

If it were me, and we had the SEC #6 in a nice location that's near to most of our teams, I doubt I'd trade that for a MW #1 in a baseball stadium nearly 2000 miles away. That's a fairly tough sell. Especially since they have a far better#1 game than we likely will end up with, why give up that recruiting advantage? Nope, it's probably pull off a similar value game, or fall well behind the MW bowl line up. I doubt they bail us out. The only way I see that occurring is if the Pac12 seriously demotes the LV Bowl in it it's line up. If they were only getting a 7-8 pick, the MW might opt to play us (since thier best game and our best game would be about the same). That said, I don't think the LV Bowl drops below the 6th pick.

Military Bowl with AAC has a little different scenario than Hawaii Bowl has with MWC, the number of schools within driving distance. :)

(05-28-2013 04:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-28-2013 04:18 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-28-2013 12:43 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(05-28-2013 12:35 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-28-2013 12:25 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  If the math is what it is, then there may be some more truth to the rumor of having a top AAC vs top MWC bowl. If the PAC isn't budging on a #6 selection for the LV, then I hope that the MWC is looking for a better opponent for the #1 team available.

If the best we can truely do is an ACC #8/9 in the Military as our #1 bowl---then yes, meeting the MW #1 somewhere is looking pretty good to me. Send AAC #2 to the Military Bowl.

The problem is I bet the majority of MWC presidents, AD's, and fans probably view playing the PAC #6 in Vegas more favorably than playing the AAC #1 or #2 (depending on who gets the access bowl) in Miami or Houston or wherever you'd put it. Put the shoe on the other foot if the AAC had a bowl against the B12, ACC, B1G, or SEC #6 we'd likely rather send our champ to that game than the MWC #1 or 2.

It might be that's what the MWC prefers, but for sure they'll prefer Vegas, whomever the opponent, to Miami or Houston. Vegas and San Diego are the MWC's best bowl sites because they have both close proximity and attractiveness as a destination.

If it were me, and we had the SEC #6 in a nice location that's near to most of our teams, I doubt I'd trade that for a MW #1 in a baseball stadium nearly 2000 miles away. That's a fairly tough sell. Especially since they have a far better#1 game than we likely will end up with, why give up that recruiting advantage? Nope, it's probably pull off a similar value game, or fall well behind the MW bowl line up. I doubt they bail us out. The only way I see that occurring is if the Pac12 seriously demotes the LV Bowl in it it's line up. If they were only getting a 7-8 pick, the MW might opt to play us (since thier best game and our best game would be about the same). That said, I don't think the LV Bowl drops below the 6th pick.

Pac-12 orders bowl choice based on how much money the Pac gets from the bowl. It does seem unlikely that Vegas would allow itself to be outbid by enough bowls to drop below 6th choice.

(05-28-2013 05:46 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-28-2013 04:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-28-2013 04:18 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-28-2013 12:43 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(05-28-2013 12:35 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  If the best we can truely do is an ACC #8/9 in the Military as our #1 bowl---then yes, meeting the MW #1 somewhere is looking pretty good to me. Send AAC #2 to the Military Bowl.

The problem is I bet the majority of MWC presidents, AD's, and fans probably view playing the PAC #6 in Vegas more favorably than playing the AAC #1 or #2 (depending on who gets the access bowl) in Miami or Houston or wherever you'd put it. Put the shoe on the other foot if the AAC had a bowl against the B12, ACC, B1G, or SEC #6 we'd likely rather send our champ to that game than the MWC #1 or 2.

It might be that's what the MWC prefers, but for sure they'll prefer Vegas, whomever the opponent, to Miami or Houston. Vegas and San Diego are the MWC's best bowl sites because they have both close proximity and attractiveness as a destination.

If it were me, and we had the SEC #6 in a nice location that's near to most of our teams, I doubt I'd trade that for a MW #1 in a baseball stadium nearly 2000 miles away. That's a fairly tough sell. Especially since they have a far better#1 game than we likely will end up with, why give up that recruiting advantage? Nope, it's probably pull off a similar value game, or fall well behind the MW bowl line up. I doubt they bail us out. The only way I see that occurring is if the Pac12 seriously demotes the LV Bowl in it it's line up. If they were only getting a 7-8 pick, the MW might opt to play us (since thier best game and our best game would be about the same). That said, I don't think the LV Bowl drops below the 6th pick.

Pac-12 orders bowl choice based on how much money the Pac gets from the bowl. It does seem unlikely that Vegas would allow itself to be outbid by enough bowls to drop below 6th choice.

I can't remember who or where, but I thought the PAC said they were going for "matchups that made sense", i.e. if they're sending a team to play a #15 Boise, send a top-20 ranked team to Vegas and send the 6-6 Arizona to play a 6-6 power conference opponent in the Sun Bowl or Kraft Fight Hunger or whatever.

We're seeing a lot of things that indicate that the previous system, where a conference's bowls lined up in numerical order and made their picks, is going out the window, and the conferences are going to play a much bigger role in deciding who goes where.

(05-28-2013 06:24 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-28-2013 05:46 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-28-2013 04:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-28-2013 04:18 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-28-2013 12:43 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  The problem is I bet the majority of MWC presidents, AD's, and fans probably view playing the PAC #6 in Vegas more favorably than playing the AAC #1 or #2 (depending on who gets the access bowl) in Miami or Houston or wherever you'd put it. Put the shoe on the other foot if the AAC had a bowl against the B12, ACC, B1G, or SEC #6 we'd likely rather send our champ to that game than the MWC #1 or 2.

It might be that's what the MWC prefers, but for sure they'll prefer Vegas, whomever the opponent, to Miami or Houston. Vegas and San Diego are the MWC's best bowl sites because they have both close proximity and attractiveness as a destination.

If it were me, and we had the SEC #6 in a nice location that's near to most of our teams, I doubt I'd trade that for a MW #1 in a baseball stadium nearly 2000 miles away. That's a fairly tough sell. Especially since they have a far better#1 game than we likely will end up with, why give up that recruiting advantage? Nope, it's probably pull off a similar value game, or fall well behind the MW bowl line up. I doubt they bail us out. The only way I see that occurring is if the Pac12 seriously demotes the LV Bowl in it it's line up. If they were only getting a 7-8 pick, the MW might opt to play us (since thier best game and our best game would be about the same). That said, I don't think the LV Bowl drops below the 6th pick.

Pac-12 orders bowl choice based on how much money the Pac gets from the bowl. It does seem unlikely that Vegas would allow itself to be outbid by enough bowls to drop below 6th choice.

I can't remember who or where, but I thought the PAC said they were going for "matchups that made sense", i.e. if they're sending a team to play a #15 Boise, send a top-20 ranked team to Vegas and send the 6-6 Arizona to play a 6-6 power conference opponent in the Sun Bowl or Kraft Fight Hunger or whatever.

We're seeing a lot of things that indicate that the previous system, where a conference's bowls lined up in numerical order and made their picks, is going out the window, and the conferences are going to play a much bigger role in deciding who goes where.

... and bully for that, as the old system produced some ridiculous outcomes, like Pitt playing in the BBVA bowl three times in four years. Or something like that.

(05-28-2013 06:34 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-28-2013 06:24 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  We're seeing a lot of things that indicate that the previous system, where a conference's bowls lined up in numerical order and made their picks, is going out the window, and the conferences are going to play a much bigger role in deciding who goes where.

... and bully for that, as the old system produced some ridiculous outcomes, like Pitt playing in the BBVA bowl three times in four years. Or something like that.

Things like that are part of the reason the conferences are taking more control. Once the SEC and Big 12 laid down the law to the Sugar Bowl, the rest have to pretty much take what the power conferences are offering if they want to stay in the power-conference-bowl business.