Looks like no Miami...

Yay. We made it. AND EMU did! Double Yay.

(12-02-2018 03:43 PM)toddjnsn Wrote:  Yay. We made it. AND EMU did! Double Yay.

Exactly. A win-win.

I was getting nervous there. Glad to be going anywhere especially considering how we were playing in the second half of the season. Not a great location but a quasi-P5 opponent.

Good luck to all MAC bowlers!

NIU fans will love coming to Boca. Plenty
of non stop flights into FLL.

Well as soon as EMU got the bowl, I figured we were toast. Why?

Who else is there? They're not going to skip Army or BYU. We'd get a nod over Wyoming by default, but we'd be riding off of at-large bids being open to the MAC to give us room somewhere.

Looks like Southern Miss (6-5) is going to be left out. The only other way would be a 6-6 P5 sitting home due to a coach firing or something.

I figured they'd take Southern Miss over EMU/WMU. Even though it's 6W, it's still over .500.

The matchup between a 9-3 Troy (SBC East co-champ) versus a 10-3 Buffalo (MAC East champ) will be one of the better G5 bowl matchups in the country.

Looking forward to it.

(12-02-2018 03:36 PM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote:  Looks like no Miami...

So of all those projections we've seen in recent weeks, which one was the most accurate? Just wondering who to trust in future years.

Quote:When? When was it "aimed to be"? Nobody ever said the MAC or SBC had a contractual tie in with the [Frisco] bowl.

First, I saw too many projections of a MAC team going to it. CFN didn't have it listed as such; claimed it was an at-large. SO I checked:

Wiki's Frisco Page:

Quote:Initial planning had been to have teams from The American face a Sun Belt opponent in 2017 and 2019, and face a MAC opponent in 2018.

And, I already showed you the beat-up MAC page LISTING the Frisco bowl. Notice that MAC page URL? It's embedded in a directory of "2017", even though it's the Current page listing the 2018-19 bowls. It claims it has a tie-in, which it doesn't. Doesn't mean we couldn't be called up into it because they changed it to an at-large -- but it wasn't up to speed on the MAC site.

Also, an ESPN Article earlier this year before college football season, directly said the MAC had a direct secondary tie-in to it. So yeah, people were saying that and not getting up to speed. That's all my point was.

Quote:

Quote:BUT, Good call on the secondary tie-in -- Boca Raton -- which CFN didn't pick up in their layout.

Tell me you are NOT contradicting multiple official announcements from the MAC based on what the CFN says. They don't have the clout to ask to see the contracts or to talk to someone who has.

I think you're misreading what I write. Take it easy. I said good call on the Boca Raton. THAT ONE, yes, the MAC has a secondary tie-in to (not Frisco despite others not getting the memo). CFN didn't pick up on that one, and that's what I was pointing out.

(12-03-2018 07:23 PM)TheWoodenNickle Wrote:  So of all those projections we've seen in recent weeks, which one was the most accurate? Just wondering who to trust in future years.

Brett McMurphy changed his projection to have NIU v UAB in Boca at about 10am, before anybody else. Turns out ESPN had first pick and used it to select NIU as an at large for that slot. He had to have gotten a tip.

Wasn’t perfect but pretty good. His other MAC projections:

Camellia Bowl – Dec. 15 Eastern Michigan vs. Georgia Southern
Bahamas Bowl – Dec. 21 FIU vs. Toledo
Idaho Potato Bowl – Dec. 21 Ohio vs. BYU**
Dollar General Bowl – Dec. 22 Buffalo vs. Troy
Quick Lane Bowl – Dec. 26 Boston College vs. Western Michigan**

(12-03-2018 07:23 PM)TheWoodenNickle Wrote:  So of all those projections we've seen in recent weeks, which one was the most accurate? Just wondering who to trust in future years.

I would argue none.

(12-03-2018 08:38 PM)toddjnsn Wrote:  

Quote:When? When was it "aimed to be"? Nobody ever said the MAC or SBC had a contractual tie in with the [Frisco] bowl.

First, I saw too many projections of a MAC team going to it. CFN didn't have it listed as such; claimed it was an at-large. SO I checked:

Wiki's Frisco Page:

Quote:Initial planning had been to have teams from The American face a Sun Belt opponent in 2017 and 2019, and face a MAC opponent in 2018.

Wiki is just "somebody thought this", it's not an original source.

I asked for the source that specified the nature of the agreement as a tie in. Of course people had the MAC going to it, it is one of the MAC's primary bowls this year. But if they were claiming it was a primary bowl because of a tie in, that would be false. The bowl association site lists the tie ins ... if the MAC appeared in the bowl contracts lodged with the association, it would have been listed there.

Some lazy writers assume it had to be listed there to be a primary agreement, but that is obviously false if the contract leaves either or both side at-large.

You never gave evidence for your view strong enough to contradict a direct claim from the MAC late in the college football season that they had a direct agreement.

Note that I had been writing that a bit carefully, because it was in the Weekly Football Release that I happened to look at ... but going to the MAC site and looking at their weekly football releases, they all give the same list of bowl partners. So either, the MAC "didn't get the memo" about the MAC's bowl partners, or an online Wiki didn't get the memo.

It would be obvious to anyone who is not simply doggedly insisting that they were wrong despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, it was the Wiki and people relying on that Wiki who "didn't get the memo".