(12-08-2016 04:21 PM)AtlantaJag Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 04:13 PM)CajunAmos Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 03:49 PM)AtlantaJag Wrote:  I'm not sure why Tom's proposal is being shouted down so vociferously. It would put the conference's best teams in the most visible bowls every year and that should benefit the conference as a whole (if those teams pull their weight). Non-SBC college football fans/viewers are much more likely to form their impressions from the on-the-field performances of the teams and not if there are a couple of thousand extra spectators in the stands

Yep, I agree. It's in the conferences best interest to have their top finished team play the #6 team in CUSA (who was rated lower than the SBC) instead of the #2 team from the MAC (rated higher than the SBC). Makes perfect sense to me. I agree, and I'm ready to head to Orlando.

For football fans that love in the south, a win over USM means a lot more than a win over a MAC team, whether or not the reality is the MAC team is better. It's the old perception versus reality thing. SDSU is a better team than Mississippi State, but it's the USA over MSU win that most people remember.

Except when conferences are ranked at the end of the season and you get money based on where the conference finishes. There is no perception about the payout we receive as a conference the higher we finish. If we make smart financial decisions now then maybe one day soon we won't have to worry about the financial consequence of making bad decisions like other conferences can that have been around forever and have money coming in from everywhere...we don't.

(12-08-2016 04:28 PM)geauxcajuns Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 04:23 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 04:13 PM)CajunAmos Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 03:49 PM)AtlantaJag Wrote:  I'm not sure why Tom's proposal is being shouted down so vociferously. It would put the conference's best teams in the most visible bowls every year and that should benefit the conference as a whole (if those teams pull their weight). Non-SBC college football fans/viewers are much more likely to form their impressions from the on-the-field performances of the teams and not if there are a couple of thousand extra spectators in the stands

Yep, I agree. It's in the conferences best interest to have their top finished team play the #6 team in CUSA (who was rated lower than the SBC) instead of the #2 team from the MAC (rated higher than the SBC). Makes perfect sense to me. I agree, and I'm ready to head to Orlando.

Is it great to have our conference champion play a full on ROAD game, in a barely televised game...

By they way, had you headed to Orlando, few would be complaining. The top three teams would have their top bowl berths....and representing the conference in the highest profile (most televised) games. As it should be.

And I, who understands why we are in Tucson THIS year, would not complain at all.

Problem solved!

Tom did, he is allergic to the sun and doesn't like the cold.
Who determined that the New Orleans Bowl was the top bowl?

(12-08-2016 03:52 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Nobody is even commenting on it

The Texas State poster wants to debate the 2014 Camellia Bowl, the La Tech poster probably followed me from elsewhere, and the ULL people...just don't want to EARN their top 3 bowl on the field.

Tom, you are now just doing this to be difficult.

I have repeatedly stated that I am using 2014 as an example to how you didn't see a problem until you were "forced" to go to Arizona.

We beat stAte that year, had the same conference record, and had the same overall record. They went bowling, we didn't. Yet, "Yeah, that sucks. Oh well, that's how bowls work though, and when you get your shot, you'll need to prove your worth. I have faith in you guys" was the standard response. Which I actually believe!

But now that you are going to Arizona... You are trying to claim you are championing the conference, when the reality is... it's your own sour grapes.

So, continue lying about your motives, but please... stop lying about me. You're better than that.

(12-08-2016 04:29 PM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 04:21 PM)AtlantaJag Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 04:13 PM)CajunAmos Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 03:49 PM)AtlantaJag Wrote:  I'm not sure why Tom's proposal is being shouted down so vociferously. It would put the conference's best teams in the most visible bowls every year and that should benefit the conference as a whole (if those teams pull their weight). Non-SBC college football fans/viewers are much more likely to form their impressions from the on-the-field performances of the teams and not if there are a couple of thousand extra spectators in the stands

Yep, I agree. It's in the conferences best interest to have their top finished team play the #6 team in CUSA (who was rated lower than the SBC) instead of the #2 team from the MAC (rated higher than the SBC). Makes perfect sense to me. I agree, and I'm ready to head to Orlando.

For football fans that love in the south, a win over USM means a lot more than a win over a MAC team, whether or not the reality is the MAC team is better. It's the old perception versus reality thing. SDSU is a better team than Mississippi State, but it's the USA over MSU win that most people remember.

Except when conferences are ranked at the end of the season and you get money based on where the conference finishes. There is no perception about the payout we receive as a conference the higher we finish. If we make smart financial decisions now then maybe one day soon we won't have to worry about the financial consequence of making bad decisions like other conferences can that have been around forever and have money coming in from everywhere...we don't.

Thanks for the 1 OOC FBS win in 3 years. So I'm wondering why ULL feels entitled to a top 3 bowl based upon that.

(12-08-2016 04:32 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 03:52 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Nobody is even commenting on it

The Texas State poster wants to debate the 2014 Camellia Bowl, the La Tech poster probably followed me from elsewhere, and the ULL people...just don't want to EARN their top 3 bowl on the field.

Tom, you are now just doing this to be difficult.

I have repeatedly stated that I am using 2014 as an example to how you didn't see a problem until you were "forced" to go to Arizona.

We beat stAte that year, had the same conference record, and had the same overall record. They went bowling, we didn't. Yet, "Yeah, that sucks. Oh well, that's how bowls work though, and when you get your shot, you'll need to prove your worth. I have faith in you guys" was the standard response. Which I actually believe!

But now that you are going to Arizona... You are trying to claim you are championing the conference, when the reality is... it's your own sour grapes.

So, continue lying about your motives, but please... stop lying about me. You're better than that.

Then why would I propose a metric that would put us in precisely the exact same place as we ended up now?

(12-08-2016 04:28 PM)geauxcajuns Wrote:  Who determined that the New Orleans Bowl was the top bowl?

Apparently, the metric to determine top bowl in the Sun Belt is proximity to Bourbon street.

(12-08-2016 04:37 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 04:32 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 03:52 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Nobody is even commenting on it

The Texas State poster wants to debate the 2014 Camellia Bowl, the La Tech poster probably followed me from elsewhere, and the ULL people...just don't want to EARN their top 3 bowl on the field.

Tom, you are now just doing this to be difficult.

I have repeatedly stated that I am using 2014 as an example to how you didn't see a problem until you were "forced" to go to Arizona.

We beat stAte that year, had the same conference record, and had the same overall record. They went bowling, we didn't. Yet, "Yeah, that sucks. Oh well, that's how bowls work though, and when you get your shot, you'll need to prove your worth. I have faith in you guys" was the standard response. Which I actually believe!

But now that you are going to Arizona... You are trying to claim you are championing the conference, when the reality is... it's your own sour grapes.

So, continue lying about your motives, but please... stop lying about me. You're better than that.

Then why would I propose a metric that would put us in precisely the exact same place as we ended up now?

Because you are like the neighbor that called the cable company

(12-08-2016 04:30 PM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 04:28 PM)geauxcajuns Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 04:23 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 04:13 PM)CajunAmos Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 03:49 PM)AtlantaJag Wrote:  I'm not sure why Tom's proposal is being shouted down so vociferously. It would put the conference's best teams in the most visible bowls every year and that should benefit the conference as a whole (if those teams pull their weight). Non-SBC college football fans/viewers are much more likely to form their impressions from the on-the-field performances of the teams and not if there are a couple of thousand extra spectators in the stands

Yep, I agree. It's in the conferences best interest to have their top finished team play the #6 team in CUSA (who was rated lower than the SBC) instead of the #2 team from the MAC (rated higher than the SBC). Makes perfect sense to me. I agree, and I'm ready to head to Orlando.

Is it great to have our conference champion play a full on ROAD game, in a barely televised game...

By they way, had you headed to Orlando, few would be complaining. The top three teams would have their top bowl berths....and representing the conference in the highest profile (most televised) games. As it should be.

And I, who understands why we are in Tucson THIS year, would not complain at all.

Problem solved!

Tom did, he is allergic to the sun and doesn't like the cold.
Who determined that the New Orleans Bowl was the top bowl?

LOL. Anyone really want to have their bowl game on CBSSN? I didn't think so. Or the internet only? I didn't think so either.

Look its clear that the ESPN bowls are better games. Lets stop pretending they aren't. The top 3 teams should go to them.

(12-08-2016 04:36 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 04:29 PM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 04:21 PM)AtlantaJag Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 04:13 PM)CajunAmos Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 03:49 PM)AtlantaJag Wrote:  I'm not sure why Tom's proposal is being shouted down so vociferously. It would put the conference's best teams in the most visible bowls every year and that should benefit the conference as a whole (if those teams pull their weight). Non-SBC college football fans/viewers are much more likely to form their impressions from the on-the-field performances of the teams and not if there are a couple of thousand extra spectators in the stands

Yep, I agree. It's in the conferences best interest to have their top finished team play the #6 team in CUSA (who was rated lower than the SBC) instead of the #2 team from the MAC (rated higher than the SBC). Makes perfect sense to me. I agree, and I'm ready to head to Orlando.

For football fans that love in the south, a win over USM means a lot more than a win over a MAC team, whether or not the reality is the MAC team is better. It's the old perception versus reality thing. SDSU is a better team than Mississippi State, but it's the USA over MSU win that most people remember.

Except when conferences are ranked at the end of the season and you get money based on where the conference finishes. There is no perception about the payout we receive as a conference the higher we finish. If we make smart financial decisions now then maybe one day soon we won't have to worry about the financial consequence of making bad decisions like other conferences can that have been around forever and have money coming in from everywhere...we don't.

Thanks for the 1 OOC FBS win in 3 years. So I'm wondering why ULL feels entitled to a top 3 bowl based upon that.

You really are selectively obtuse. MONEY DRIVES THE BOWLS. PERIOD

(12-08-2016 04:39 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 04:30 PM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 04:28 PM)geauxcajuns Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 04:23 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 04:13 PM)CajunAmos Wrote:  Yep, I agree. It's in the conferences best interest to have their top finished team play the #6 team in CUSA (who was rated lower than the SBC) instead of the #2 team from the MAC (rated higher than the SBC). Makes perfect sense to me. I agree, and I'm ready to head to Orlando.

Is it great to have our conference champion play a full on ROAD game, in a barely televised game...

By they way, had you headed to Orlando, few would be complaining. The top three teams would have their top bowl berths....and representing the conference in the highest profile (most televised) games. As it should be.

And I, who understands why we are in Tucson THIS year, would not complain at all.

Problem solved!

Tom did, he is allergic to the sun and doesn't like the cold.
Who determined that the New Orleans Bowl was the top bowl?

LOL. Anyone really want to have their bowl game on CBSSN? I didn't think so. Or the internet only? I didn't think so either.

Look its clear that the ESPN bowls are better games. Lets stop pretending they aren't. The top 3 teams should go to them.

Then get them all on ESPN..,oh that would take work right?

(12-08-2016 04:38 PM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 04:37 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 04:32 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 03:52 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Nobody is even commenting on it

The Texas State poster wants to debate the 2014 Camellia Bowl, the La Tech poster probably followed me from elsewhere, and the ULL people...just don't want to EARN their top 3 bowl on the field.

Tom, you are now just doing this to be difficult.

I have repeatedly stated that I am using 2014 as an example to how you didn't see a problem until you were "forced" to go to Arizona.

We beat stAte that year, had the same conference record, and had the same overall record. They went bowling, we didn't. Yet, "Yeah, that sucks. Oh well, that's how bowls work though, and when you get your shot, you'll need to prove your worth. I have faith in you guys" was the standard response. Which I actually believe!

But now that you are going to Arizona... You are trying to claim you are championing the conference, when the reality is... it's your own sour grapes.

So, continue lying about your motives, but please... stop lying about me. You're better than that.

Then why would I propose a metric that would put us in precisely the exact same place as we ended up now?

Because you are like the neighbor that called the cable company

If you had one of only 5 lines available for cable, you didn't pay for that line (e.g earn it with wins) and your stealing of the cable was preventing me from paying for it....I'd call.

If ULL had some special deal that didn't cost another team anything, I wouldn't care. Fine. But in this case, ULL's hogging of that line, without earning it (through on the field effort), takes 1 of 5 cable connections away from people would like to earn it. Regardless of what they do.

Again, the Belt has 5 connections. 3 have ESPN. 1 is internet only. If one team isn't paying for that connection and is keeping another person from paying for that connection, then there's a problem. And the cost to everyone else isn't marginal.

(12-08-2016 04:36 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 04:29 PM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 04:21 PM)AtlantaJag Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 04:13 PM)CajunAmos Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 03:49 PM)AtlantaJag Wrote:  I'm not sure why Tom's proposal is being shouted down so vociferously. It would put the conference's best teams in the most visible bowls every year and that should benefit the conference as a whole (if those teams pull their weight). Non-SBC college football fans/viewers are much more likely to form their impressions from the on-the-field performances of the teams and not if there are a couple of thousand extra spectators in the stands

Yep, I agree. It's in the conferences best interest to have their top finished team play the #6 team in CUSA (who was rated lower than the SBC) instead of the #2 team from the MAC (rated higher than the SBC). Makes perfect sense to me. I agree, and I'm ready to head to Orlando.

For football fans that love in the south, a win over USM means a lot more than a win over a MAC team, whether or not the reality is the MAC team is better. It's the old perception versus reality thing. SDSU is a better team than Mississippi State, but it's the USA over MSU win that most people remember.

Except when conferences are ranked at the end of the season and you get money based on where the conference finishes. There is no perception about the payout we receive as a conference the higher we finish. If we make smart financial decisions now then maybe one day soon we won't have to worry about the financial consequence of making bad decisions like other conferences can that have been around forever and have money coming in from everywhere...we don't.

Thanks for the 1 OOC FBS win in 3 years. So I'm wondering why ULL feels entitled to a top 3 bowl based upon that.

We felt compelled to accept the invite that was given to us, tell your AD to turn yours down next time if you don't like it

(12-08-2016 04:37 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 04:28 PM)geauxcajuns Wrote:  Who determined that the New Orleans Bowl was the top bowl?

Apparently, the metric to determine top bowl in the Sun Belt is proximity to Bourbon street.

Number of households with a cable TV package that have the network carrying the game

(12-08-2016 04:43 PM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 04:36 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 04:29 PM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 04:21 PM)AtlantaJag Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 04:13 PM)CajunAmos Wrote:  Yep, I agree. It's in the conferences best interest to have their top finished team play the #6 team in CUSA (who was rated lower than the SBC) instead of the #2 team from the MAC (rated higher than the SBC). Makes perfect sense to me. I agree, and I'm ready to head to Orlando.

For football fans that love in the south, a win over USM means a lot more than a win over a MAC team, whether or not the reality is the MAC team is better. It's the old perception versus reality thing. SDSU is a better team than Mississippi State, but it's the USA over MSU win that most people remember.

Except when conferences are ranked at the end of the season and you get money based on where the conference finishes. There is no perception about the payout we receive as a conference the higher we finish. If we make smart financial decisions now then maybe one day soon we won't have to worry about the financial consequence of making bad decisions like other conferences can that have been around forever and have money coming in from everywhere...we don't.

Thanks for the 1 OOC FBS win in 3 years. So I'm wondering why ULL feels entitled to a top 3 bowl based upon that.

We felt compelled to accept the invite that was given to us, tell your AD to turn yours down next time if you don't like it

LOL. "Given" is the operative word here.

(12-08-2016 04:42 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 04:38 PM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 04:37 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 04:32 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 03:52 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Nobody is even commenting on it

The Texas State poster wants to debate the 2014 Camellia Bowl, the La Tech poster probably followed me from elsewhere, and the ULL people...just don't want to EARN their top 3 bowl on the field.

Tom, you are now just doing this to be difficult.

I have repeatedly stated that I am using 2014 as an example to how you didn't see a problem until you were "forced" to go to Arizona.

We beat stAte that year, had the same conference record, and had the same overall record. They went bowling, we didn't. Yet, "Yeah, that sucks. Oh well, that's how bowls work though, and when you get your shot, you'll need to prove your worth. I have faith in you guys" was the standard response. Which I actually believe!

But now that you are going to Arizona... You are trying to claim you are championing the conference, when the reality is... it's your own sour grapes.

So, continue lying about your motives, but please... stop lying about me. You're better than that.

Then why would I propose a metric that would put us in precisely the exact same place as we ended up now?

Because you are like the neighbor that called the cable company

If you had one of only 5 lines available for cable, you didn't pay for that line (e.g earn it with wins) and your stealing of the cable was preventing me from paying for it....I'd call.

If ULL had some special deal that didn't cost another team anything, I wouldn't care. Fine. But in this case, ULL's hogging of that line, without earning it (through on the field effort), takes 1 of 5 cable connections away from people would like to earn it. Regardless of what they do.

Again, the Belt has 5 connections. 3 have ESPN. 1 is internet only. If one team isn't paying for that connection and is keeping another person from paying for that connection, then there's a problem. And the cost to everyone else isn't marginal.

We paid for our connection tom, the problem is having a bowl game on the internet, not us in Nola, i don't know how dense you have to be to not understand that.

(12-08-2016 04:44 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 04:43 PM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 04:36 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 04:29 PM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 04:21 PM)AtlantaJag Wrote:  For football fans that love in the south, a win over USM means a lot more than a win over a MAC team, whether or not the reality is the MAC team is better. It's the old perception versus reality thing. SDSU is a better team than Mississippi State, but it's the USA over MSU win that most people remember.

Except when conferences are ranked at the end of the season and you get money based on where the conference finishes. There is no perception about the payout we receive as a conference the higher we finish. If we make smart financial decisions now then maybe one day soon we won't have to worry about the financial consequence of making bad decisions like other conferences can that have been around forever and have money coming in from everywhere...we don't.

Thanks for the 1 OOC FBS win in 3 years. So I'm wondering why ULL feels entitled to a top 3 bowl based upon that.

We felt compelled to accept the invite that was given to us, tell your AD to turn yours down next time if you don't like it

LOL. "Given" is the operative word here.

Yeah tom, invites are given...offered, welcome to the English language

I'm going to wrap this up. Almost over my cold.

Here's the recap

1) The conference co-champions were originally picked FIFTH and either third or fourth
2) The ESPN Bowls are clearly superior to the CBSSN bowl and the Internet Bowl
3) The last qualifying (and theoretically weakest) bowl team drew the highest rated (per Real Time RPI) team. How does this help our chances as a conference, to gain on other conferences? Sure USA could win it, but its not the optimal position to put the conference in, if one is arguing for matchups.
4) The team in one of the three prominent bowls won fewer games than 4 of the teams placed after them
5) The highest attended conference game was not hosted by the team picked first
6) The team picked first has won one FBS OOC game since December 2013.
7) There appears to be a problem where teams cannot earn their way into certain bowls, regardless of record
8) The bowl in contention DOES accept restrictions as to who gets picked by the other bowl partner. And if they left the Belt, they'd end up with an almost certain guarantee of a lower attending team than any Sun Belt team.
9) This situation could get a lot worse for many of our members, if USA builds an OCS and becomes the landlord for the DG Bowl
10) This situation could cause teams, who would otherwise be happy, to look for the exits.

---

Im simply proposing we fix the system. Reward the teams that play the best by putting them in our best bowls. And by best, I'm arguing that since the games are about exposure, then exposure should be the criteria upon which we judge the bowls.

I have proposed that the top 3 bowls go into a tier. Finish in the top 3, and you're allowed to be guaranteed a bowl game on a top ESPN Platform. If a team chooses to pick a bowl outside that top 3, that's their choice, but not the bowls. Rotate who picks first. That mitigates blocking by certain bowls. If a bowl won't take our top 3 teams, then what are they doing as a tie in the first place.

(12-08-2016 05:00 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  I'm going to wrap this up. Almost over my cold.

Here's the recap

1) The conference co-champions were originally picked FIFTH and either third or fourth
2) The ESPN Bowls are clearly superior to the CBSSN bowl and the Internet Bowl
3) The last qualifying (and theoretically weakest) bowl team drew the highest rated (per Real Time RPI) team
4) The team in one of the three prominent bowls won fewer games than 4 of the teams placed after them
5) The highest attended conference game was not hosted by the team picked first
6) The team picked first has won one FBS OOC game since December 2013.
7) There appears to be a problem where teams cannot earn their way into certain bowls, regardless of record
8) The bowl in contention DOES accept restrictions as to who gets picked by the other bowl partner. And if they left the Belt, they'd end up with an almost certain guarantee of a lower attending team than any Sun Belt team.
9) This situation could get a lot worse for many of our members, if USA builds an OCS and becomes the landlord for the DG Bowl
10) This situation could cause teams, who would otherwise be happy, to look for the exits.

---

Im simply proposing we fix the system. Reward the teams that play the best by putting them in our best bowls. And by best, I'm arguing that since the games are about exposure, then exposure should be the criteria upon which we judge the bowls.

I have proposed that the top 3 bowls go into a tier. Finish in the top 3, and you're allowed to be guaranteed a bowl game on a top ESPN Platform. If a team chooses to pick a bowl outside that top 3, that's their choice, but not the bowls. Rotate who picks first. That mitigates blocking by certain bowls. If a bowl won't take our top 3 teams, then what are they doing as a tie in the first place.

And the other bowls will agree to be labeled as the shittier bowls why exactly?

(12-08-2016 05:08 PM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 05:00 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  I'm going to wrap this up. Almost over my cold.

Here's the recap

1) The conference co-champions were originally picked FIFTH and either third or fourth
2) The ESPN Bowls are clearly superior to the CBSSN bowl and the Internet Bowl
3) The last qualifying (and theoretically weakest) bowl team drew the highest rated (per Real Time RPI) team
4) The team in one of the three prominent bowls won fewer games than 4 of the teams placed after them
5) The highest attended conference game was not hosted by the team picked first
6) The team picked first has won one FBS OOC game since December 2013.
7) There appears to be a problem where teams cannot earn their way into certain bowls, regardless of record
8) The bowl in contention DOES accept restrictions as to who gets picked by the other bowl partner. And if they left the Belt, they'd end up with an almost certain guarantee of a lower attending team than any Sun Belt team.
9) This situation could get a lot worse for many of our members, if USA builds an OCS and becomes the landlord for the DG Bowl
10) This situation could cause teams, who would otherwise be happy, to look for the exits.

---

Im simply proposing we fix the system. Reward the teams that play the best by putting them in our best bowls. And by best, I'm arguing that since the games are about exposure, then exposure should be the criteria upon which we judge the bowls.

I have proposed that the top 3 bowls go into a tier. Finish in the top 3, and you're allowed to be guaranteed a bowl game on a top ESPN Platform. If a team chooses to pick a bowl outside that top 3, that's their choice, but not the bowls. Rotate who picks first. That mitigates blocking by certain bowls. If a bowl won't take our top 3 teams, then what are they doing as a tie in the first place.

And the other bowls will agree to be labeled as the shittier bowls why exactly?

They are sh*ttier bowls and they know it. Tell them we will assign tier status based upon TV coverage. Potential households and average rating of the platform used to broadcast. If they'd like a higher pick, they can up their TV deal. The Cure accepts tiers from the AAC. They'll take one from us. The Arizona will be picked last...every year. And they're not going anywhere either.

If it was just about matching up with the best team....that would be Tucson, where Air Force has the highest RPI of any SBC bowl opponent. Anyone really want that bowl over any other bowl? Didn't think so.

Lets not pretend its about matchup....its about exposure.

(12-08-2016 05:14 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 05:08 PM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 05:00 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  I'm going to wrap this up. Almost over my cold.

Here's the recap

1) The conference co-champions were originally picked FIFTH and either third or fourth
2) The ESPN Bowls are clearly superior to the CBSSN bowl and the Internet Bowl
3) The last qualifying (and theoretically weakest) bowl team drew the highest rated (per Real Time RPI) team
4) The team in one of the three prominent bowls won fewer games than 4 of the teams placed after them
5) The highest attended conference game was not hosted by the team picked first
6) The team picked first has won one FBS OOC game since December 2013.
7) There appears to be a problem where teams cannot earn their way into certain bowls, regardless of record
8) The bowl in contention DOES accept restrictions as to who gets picked by the other bowl partner. And if they left the Belt, they'd end up with an almost certain guarantee of a lower attending team than any Sun Belt team.
9) This situation could get a lot worse for many of our members, if USA builds an OCS and becomes the landlord for the DG Bowl
10) This situation could cause teams, who would otherwise be happy, to look for the exits.

---

Im simply proposing we fix the system. Reward the teams that play the best by putting them in our best bowls. And by best, I'm arguing that since the games are about exposure, then exposure should be the criteria upon which we judge the bowls.

I have proposed that the top 3 bowls go into a tier. Finish in the top 3, and you're allowed to be guaranteed a bowl game on a top ESPN Platform. If a team chooses to pick a bowl outside that top 3, that's their choice, but not the bowls. Rotate who picks first. That mitigates blocking by certain bowls. If a bowl won't take our top 3 teams, then what are they doing as a tie in the first place.

And the other bowls will agree to be labeled as the shittier bowls why exactly?

They are sh*ttier bowls and they know it. Tell them we will assign tier status based upon TV coverage. Potential households and average rating of the platform used to broadcast. If they'd like a higher pick, they can up their TV deal. The Cure accepts tiers from the AAC. They'll take one from us. The Arizona will be picked last...every year. And they're not going anywhere either.

If it was just about matching up with the best team....that would be Tucson, where Air Force has the highest RPI of any SBC bowl opponent. Anyone really want that bowl over any other bowl? Didn't think so.

Lets not pretend its about matchup....its about exposure.

Oh...kinda like if you want to go to a better bowl you need to do better? Hypocrite.