(06-22-2018 02:52 PM)Big Frog II Wrote:  Why would you move a bowl out of TCU's new stadium sponsored by a Fort Worth company to a 90,000 seat stadium in Dallas in a bad part of town? Our city has done a nice job of supporting this bowl. Dallas is ambivalent towards the Heart of Dallas Bowl even to the point of cutting off funding.

Agree. We had a great time in Fort Worth when Rice played Air Force in the Armed Forces Bowl.

(06-22-2018 08:07 AM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  

(06-21-2018 07:23 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  Bluebonnet should replace Poinsettia

Bluebonnet has been effectively replaced by the Texas Bowl. Houston will not get a second.

Maybe not, but we deserve a second bowl. It could be held at either BBVA Compass Stadium or our new digs.

We don't need to choose which one dies, the sponsors, and especially ESPN (which ones they don't purchase rights to) will do that for us.

(06-22-2018 09:55 AM)esayem Wrote:  Also, the Peach Bowl needs to update their logo. The T-1000 Peach is not appetizing at all; makes me think Chic-fi-la wants nothing to do with the fruit.

Chick-Fil-A makes an excellent peach shake but they serve it six months before/after the Peach Bowl. Not sure what that means if anything but there you go.

(06-22-2018 10:12 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 09:55 AM)esayem Wrote:  Also, the Peach Bowl needs to update their logo. The T-1000 Peach is not appetizing at all; makes me think Chic-fi-la wants nothing to do with the fruit.

Chick-Fil-A makes an excellent peach shake but they serve it six months before/after the Peach Bowl. Not sure what that means if anything but there you go.

Yeah that’s true. A “Peach Bowl” cobbler-style dessert just seems long overdue haha.

A second mid- December bowl in San Antonio is where I would go. C-USA Vs AAC (SunBelt as backup)

(06-22-2018 02:52 PM)Big Frog II Wrote:  Why would you move a bowl out of TCU's new stadium sponsored by a Fort Worth company to a 90,000 seat stadium in Dallas in a bad part of town? Our city has done a nice job of supporting this bowl. Dallas is ambivalent towards the Heart of Dallas Bowl even to the point of cutting off funding.

Maybe TCU has some kind of chip on shoulder aversion to being regarded as part of the broader Dallas area, but i doubt that "Fort Worth" company does. They probably want to access the whole DFW market.

(06-23-2018 06:25 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  A second mid- December bowl in San Antonio is where I would go. C-USA Vs AAC (SunBelt as backup)

Tex, I agree that San Antone is a wonderful place to visit, especially in winter, but do you think there would be much local support for a minor G5 bowl there, except when UTSA could be involved?

(06-23-2018 07:09 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 02:52 PM)Big Frog II Wrote:  Why would you move a bowl out of TCU's new stadium sponsored by a Fort Worth company to a 90,000 seat stadium in Dallas in a bad part of town? Our city has done a nice job of supporting this bowl. Dallas is ambivalent towards the Heart of Dallas Bowl even to the point of cutting off funding.

Maybe TCU has some kind of chip on shoulder aversion to being regarded as part of the broader Dallas area, but i doubt that "Fort Worth" company does. They probably want to access the whole DFW market.

We're talking Lockheed Martin here, a defense industry contractor.

The Bowls that would be in danger are the ones without two stable commitments league wise. My guess is the bowls that would have trouble are the ones that take bottom rung P5 teams, especially considering how often those bowls switch up.

(06-23-2018 10:50 AM)ESE84 Wrote:  

(06-23-2018 07:09 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 02:52 PM)Big Frog II Wrote:  Why would you move a bowl out of TCU's new stadium sponsored by a Fort Worth company to a 90,000 seat stadium in Dallas in a bad part of town? Our city has done a nice job of supporting this bowl. Dallas is ambivalent towards the Heart of Dallas Bowl even to the point of cutting off funding.

Maybe TCU has some kind of chip on shoulder aversion to being regarded as part of the broader Dallas area, but i doubt that "Fort Worth" company does. They probably want to access the whole DFW market.

We're talking Lockheed Martin here, a defense industry contractor.

So then they care even less about their HQ city.

(06-23-2018 04:14 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  The Bowls that would be in danger are the ones without two stable commitments league wise. My guess is the bowls that would have trouble are the ones that take bottom rung P5 teams, especially considering how often those bowls switch up.

Don't you think G5's will always say yes to align a bowl with a P5's 10th or 11th place team?

Think about backyard bowls like the Detroit one for the MAC. Even if they are facing the MWC #6 team its at least on their home turf for a support advantage and travel cost savings.

(06-23-2018 07:12 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-23-2018 06:25 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  A second mid- December bowl in San Antonio is where I would go. C-USA Vs AAC (SunBelt as backup)

Tex, I agree that San Antone is a wonderful place to visit, especially in winter, but do you think there would be much local support for a minor G5 bowl there, except when UTSA could be involved?

The locals support the Alamo Bowl. I could see the local community sending 5-10,000 neutrals. Don't forget they would hand out freebies to the local military bases.

Truthfully a G5 Bowl is a success if you get 15-20k in the stands. Just sell tickets in the lower levels.

Also, remember it could be a nice landing spot for Houston, SMU, Rice, UNT, UTEP...some of those schools could send more than 5,000 fans.

(06-23-2018 04:47 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(06-23-2018 04:14 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  The Bowls that would be in danger are the ones without two stable commitments league wise. My guess is the bowls that would have trouble are the ones that take bottom rung P5 teams, especially considering how often those bowls switch up.

Don't you think G5's will always say yes to align a bowl with a P5's 10th or 11th place team?

Think about backyard bowls like the Detroit one for the MAC. Even if they are facing the MWC #6 team its at least on their home turf for a support advantage and travel cost savings.

Seems to work for the AAC.

(06-23-2018 04:47 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(06-23-2018 04:14 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  The Bowls that would be in danger are the ones without two stable commitments league wise. My guess is the bowls that would have trouble are the ones that take bottom rung P5 teams, especially considering how often those bowls switch up.

Don't you think G5's will always say yes to align a bowl with a P5's 10th or 11th place team?

Think about backyard bowls like the Detroit one for the MAC. Even if they are facing the MWC #6 team its at least on their home turf for a support advantage and travel cost savings.

The AAC would rather play 5 bowls against P5 #8's than 5 bowls vs G5 champs or runner ups. Its just a better fit for the narrative the conference is attempting to establish...and I think the fans of AAC schools prefer that option.

(06-23-2018 08:36 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-23-2018 04:47 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(06-23-2018 04:14 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  The Bowls that would be in danger are the ones without two stable commitments league wise. My guess is the bowls that would have trouble are the ones that take bottom rung P5 teams, especially considering how often those bowls switch up.

Don't you think G5's will always say yes to align a bowl with a P5's 10th or 11th place team?

Think about backyard bowls like the Detroit one for the MAC. Even if they are facing the MWC #6 team its at least on their home turf for a support advantage and travel cost savings.

The AAC would rather play 5 bowls against P5 #8's than 5 bowls vs G5 champs or runner ups. Its just a better fit for the narrative the conference is attempting to establish...and I think the fans of AAC schools prefer that option.

No question. And FWIW, that's true of the other G5 conferences as well. No G5 wants to play other G5 in bowls, they all want to play P5. You settle for other G5 when you have to.

(06-23-2018 05:12 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(06-23-2018 07:12 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-23-2018 06:25 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  A second mid- December bowl in San Antonio is where I would go. C-USA Vs AAC (SunBelt as backup)

Tex, I agree that San Antone is a wonderful place to visit, especially in winter, but do you think there would be much local support for a minor G5 bowl there, except when UTSA could be involved?

The locals support the Alamo Bowl. I could see the local community sending 5-10,000 neutrals. Don't forget they would hand out freebies to the local military bases.

Truthfully a G5 Bowl is a success if you get 15-20k in the stands. Just sell tickets in the lower levels.

Also, remember it could be a nice landing spot for Houston, SMU, Rice, UNT, UTEP...some of those schools could send more than 5,000 fans.

Don't forget Texas St.

https://mobile.twitter.com/markanderson6...5767126016


Does seem like we'll lose the Pac tie in.  Bet they move the second game after Christmas for the Pac tie vs the other P5 school.

This could be the 3rd new bowl?

Quote:Then there is the question of whether to play two games.

“It depends on if there is an appetite in the market for an additional game,” Saccenti said. “We’re a destination city. The Golden Knights have changed the narrative of how we support a local sports franchise. The Raiders will continue to change that.

“If we went to two, the Mountain West would almost certainly be part of that, at least one (game).”

Still think we’ll see Super PAC’s dip their toes into this bowl cycle to get ahead of the 2020 election. San Francisco will be LGBT Bowl, South Carolina will be Confederate Memorial Bowl, maybe NRA Bowl in Little Rock and Greenpeace Bowl in Seattle.

(06-24-2018 06:48 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-23-2018 08:36 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-23-2018 04:47 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(06-23-2018 04:14 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  The Bowls that would be in danger are the ones without two stable commitments league wise. My guess is the bowls that would have trouble are the ones that take bottom rung P5 teams, especially considering how often those bowls switch up.

Don't you think G5's will always say yes to align a bowl with a P5's 10th or 11th place team?

Think about backyard bowls like the Detroit one for the MAC. Even if they are facing the MWC #6 team its at least on their home turf for a support advantage and travel cost savings.

The AAC would rather play 5 bowls against P5 #8's than 5 bowls vs G5 champs or runner ups. Its just a better fit for the narrative the conference is attempting to establish...and I think the fans of AAC schools prefer that option.

No question. And FWIW, that's true of the other G5 conferences as well. No G5 wants to play other G5 in bowls, they all want to play P5. You settle for other G5 when you have to.

That is not what I said.

I said that the P5 will have no problem finding a suitor for a #10 or #11 place bowl team from the G5.

If that game is in the backyard of the G5 and the P5 can't fill then they have the option of playing of G5 in their backyard which is better than playing the G5 across the continent and paying the travel cost.

This doesn't mean the G5 doesn't want to play other G5 its just that it makes sense to sign the last place P5 bowls in good backyard venues over traveling out of the footprint.