... will meet the PAC in both starting next year.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...son-lineup

(06-23-2013 07:25 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  ... will meet the PAC in both starting next year.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...son-lineup

So pretty much as expected. I think the only part of the country where the Big Ten will have weaker tie-ins than before is Texas.

Anyway - good news! I live only a few miles away from the new 49ers stadium so I'll probably go to the Kraft bowl most years for the hell of it even if Michigan's not there (and hopefully won't be since Kraft will probably get 6th or 7th pick)

JMO, as far as Total Bowl Tie-Ins going forward the best from Top to Bottom in the Contract Leagues/P5 are the following:

1. SEC
2. B1G
3a. ACC
3b. Big XII
5. Pac 12

Isn't that 7 ties for the Pac-12? Rose, Alamo, Kraft Fight Hunger, Holiday, Sun, Buffalo Wild Wings, and Las Vegas. I'm guessing the LA Christmas Bowl is out of luck on landing the #7 Pac-12 selection (unless the Pac-12 is cutting the Las Vegas Bowl). I suppose the Pac-12 could be looking at 7 non-BCS bowl ties....

(06-23-2013 07:36 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Isn't that 7 ties for the Pac-12? Rose, Alamo, Kraft Fight Hunger, Holiday, Sun, Buffalo Wild Wings, and Las Vegas. I'm guessing the LA Christmas Bowl is out of luck on landing the #7 Pac-12 selection (unless the Pac-12 is cutting the Las Vegas Bowl). I suppose the Pac-12 could be looking at 7 non-BCS bowl ties....

They won't cut the Las Vegas Bowl for a start up bowl. California people love driving up to Vegas from LA for a few days of gambling and relaxation. Sounds like a good opportunity for a low end AAC option rotating the Poinsettia bowl with BYU.

(06-23-2013 08:08 PM)panite Wrote:  

(06-23-2013 07:36 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Isn't that 7 ties for the Pac-12? Rose, Alamo, Kraft Fight Hunger, Holiday, Sun, Buffalo Wild Wings, and Las Vegas. I'm guessing the LA Christmas Bowl is out of luck on landing the #7 Pac-12 selection (unless the Pac-12 is cutting the Las Vegas Bowl). I suppose the Pac-12 could be looking at 7 non-BCS bowl ties....

They won't cut the Las Vegas Bowl for a start up bowl. California people love driving up to Vegas from LA for a few days of gambling and relaxation. Sounds like a good opportunity for a low end AAC option rotating the Poinsettia bowl with BYU.

Depends on the PAC team, ASU didn't bring a large crowd...not sure how many Washington brought last year.

It seems that the Las Vegas will be the lowest bowl with a Pac#7. If they get into the playoff then the Las Vegas is #8. The PAC may not even get a bowl elgible team at #7. So much for a decent P5 bowl tie for the MWC. Time work harder on that bowl with the AAC #1/#2.

(06-23-2013 09:10 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(06-23-2013 08:08 PM)panite Wrote:  

(06-23-2013 07:36 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Isn't that 7 ties for the Pac-12? Rose, Alamo, Kraft Fight Hunger, Holiday, Sun, Buffalo Wild Wings, and Las Vegas. I'm guessing the LA Christmas Bowl is out of luck on landing the #7 Pac-12 selection (unless the Pac-12 is cutting the Las Vegas Bowl). I suppose the Pac-12 could be looking at 7 non-BCS bowl ties....

They won't cut the Las Vegas Bowl for a start up bowl. California people love driving up to Vegas from LA for a few days of gambling and relaxation. Sounds like a good opportunity for a low end AAC option rotating the Poinsettia bowl with BYU.

Depends on the PAC team, ASU didn't bring a large crowd...not sure how many Washington brought last year.

It seems that the Las Vegas will be the lowest bowl with a Pac#7. If they get into the playoff then the Las Vegas is #8. The PAC may not even get a bowl elgible team at #7. Not good for MWC.

The way it is look'n...it might be in the best interest if the AAC-MWC to get some Bowl Tie-Ins...the "Freeze out" with the P5 & the GoF is now glaring...@ least get some separation from the MAC, Sunbelt & C-USA...

(06-23-2013 07:36 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Isn't that 7 ties for the Pac-12? Rose, Alamo, Kraft Fight Hunger, Holiday, Sun, Buffalo Wild Wings, and Las Vegas. I'm guessing the LA Christmas Bowl is out of luck on landing the #7 Pac-12 selection (unless the Pac-12 is cutting the Las Vegas Bowl). I suppose the Pac-12 could be looking at 7 non-BCS bowl ties....

It will be the Rose/playoff plus 7 more bowls, if the Pac keeps the tie with the New Mexico Bowl in addition to the ones that you list.

I'd be more supportive of a bowl matching the AAC and MWC champions if the access bowl slot weren't available. But it is, and will likely be awarded to the AAC or MWC champion in most years. When the MWC doesn't land the access bowl spot, I don't see a bowl matching the MWC champion against the AAC's second-place team as being much more interesting for fans or drawing better TV ratings than a game against the Pac-12's seventh-place team.

Moreover it's important for the MWC to send its champion to a convenient and attractive location for fans of MWC schools. Las Vegas meets those criteria. A location further east that would be acceptable to the AAC probably would not.

(06-23-2013 07:35 PM)Maize Wrote:  JMO, as far as Total Bowl Tie-Ins going forward the best from Top to Bottom in the Contract Leagues/P5 are the following:

1. SEC
2. B1G
3a. ACC
3b. Big XII
5. Pac 12

The Big 12 has better top to bottom ties than the ACC, because of the Sugar tie.

Other than that, you are correct, and the rank-order is the same as during the BCS era.

(06-23-2013 07:31 PM)woomba Wrote:  

(06-23-2013 07:25 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  ... will meet the PAC in both starting next year.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...son-lineup

So pretty much as expected. I think the only part of the country where the Big Ten will have weaker tie-ins than before is Texas.

The Big Ten has a great bowl lineup. It's the most geographically diverse set of bowls and will ensure strong B1G exposure in the three major bowl states - Florida, Texas, and California. Great job by Delaney.

(06-23-2013 10:29 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  I'd be more supportive of a bowl matching the AAC and MWC champions if the access bowl slot weren't available. But it is, and will likely be awarded to the AAC or MWC champion in most years. When the MWC doesn't land the access bowl spot, I don't see a bowl matching the MWC champion against the AAC's second-place team as being much more interesting for fans or drawing better TV ratings than a game against the Pac-12's seventh-place team.

Moreover it's important for the MWC to send its champion to a convenient and attractive location for fans of MWC schools. Las Vegas meets those criteria. A location further east that would be acceptable to the AAC probably would not.

I understand that argument and have made it multiple times before. However, my thinking has changed over the last few months for several reasons.

1) It appears that neither the AAC or the MW are going to get much of a P5 opponent. We each actually elevate ourselves a bit, and buy ourselves a little self respect, by sending the second highest available team (rather than our champ) to face off against a low end P5 selection.

2). Yes, most of the time the MW or AAC will win the non-AQ BCS slot, which will mean the MW or AAC champs wont meet each other all that often. However, the same can be said of the Rose Bowl, Orange Bowl, and Sugar Bowl. The playoffs will eliminate multiple champs from those games as well. Heck, rather than being champ vs champ, the Sugar Bowl could easily end up being the Big-12 #2 vs the SEC #3. So in the new playoff era, a MW #2 vs an AAC #1 isn't all that bad.

3). Yes, the location for such a bowl could be an issue. While I agree, a nearby location is nice, I doubt the MW would turn down the Gator Bowl because it's too far. Almost every MW Bowl is in the far west, i suspect the fan base could handle having one bowl thats out of the foot print. Maybe the site could even alternate between Vegas and Miami---so it's not always out of the footprint. Or maybe the site could be centrally located like the current Armed Forces Bowl in Ft Worth (the MW travels there now). Perhaps the Little Ceasers Bowl could move to San Antonio and fill the need for a central location in a fun town. I think something acceptable could be worked out.

I'm not a G5 conference fan...but as a CFB fan in general, I'd much rather watch #20 Hawaii (12-1) vs. #24 Marshall (11-2) than #20 Hawaii (12-1) vs. UR Arizona State (7-5) or #24 Marshall (11-2) vs. UR Wake Forest (6-6).

That's what these bowl agreements have done to the G5 conferences. Equated their best teams with the mediocre teams of the P5 conferences.

(06-24-2013 12:48 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-23-2013 10:29 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  I'd be more supportive of a bowl matching the AAC and MWC champions if the access bowl slot weren't available. But it is, and will likely be awarded to the AAC or MWC champion in most years. When the MWC doesn't land the access bowl spot, I don't see a bowl matching the MWC champion against the AAC's second-place team as being much more interesting for fans or drawing better TV ratings than a game against the Pac-12's seventh-place team.

Moreover it's important for the MWC to send its champion to a convenient and attractive location for fans of MWC schools. Las Vegas meets those criteria. A location further east that would be acceptable to the AAC probably would not.

I understand that argument and have made it multiple times before. However, my thinking has changed over the last few months for several reasons.

1) It appears that neither the AAC or the MW are going to get much of a P5 opponent. We each actually elevate ourselves a bit, and buy ourselves a little self respect, by sending the second highest available team (rather than our champ) to face off against a low end P5 selection.

2). Yes, most of the time the MW or AAC will win the non-AQ BCS slot, which will mean the MW or AAC champs wont meet each other all that often. However, the same can be said of the Rose Bowl, Orange Bowl, and Sugar Bowl. The playoffs will eliminate multiple champs from those games as well. Heck,rather being champ vs champ, the Sugar Bowl could easily end up being the Big-12 #2 vs the SEC #3. So in the new playoff era, a MW #2 vs an AAC #1 isn't all that bad.

3). Yes, the location for such a bowl could be an issue. While I agree, a nearby location is nice, I doubt the MW would turn down the Gator Bowl because it's too far. Almost every MW Bowl is in the far west, i suspect the fan base could handle having one bowl thats out of the foot print. Maybe the site could even alternate between Vegas and Miami---so it's not always out of the footprint. Or maybe the site could be centrally located like the current Armed Forces Bowl in Ft Worth (the MW travels there now). Perhaps the Little Ceasers Bowl could move to San Antonio and fill the need for a central location in a fun town. I think something acceptable could be worked out.

If the location alternated between Vegas and an eastern venue I think that would make the concept more appealing. That idea was also suggested on the MWC board.

I have to admit, I've wavered back and forth on this issue. Both the MWC and AAC are in tough positions. If we settle for matching our champions against mediocre P5 teams then we're playing down. If we match our champions against each other, or against other top Go5 teams, we reinforce the perception that we aren't competitive with the P5 and run the risk of being further marginalized by ESPN and the rest of the national media. It's a no-win situation.

The powers that be aren't going to care what conference the G5 representative is in so long as the W-L record is impressive. Thinking the MWC and AAC have the inside track is rather delusional. There isn't much in the way of evidence to support it. Only two current MWC teams have been to a BCS bowl, and neither was in the conference when they did it. Currently, the only AAC teams from the playoff era lineup who have been to a BCS bowl are Connecticut and Cincinnati...as AQers.

None of the G5 conferences are different from any other according to the P5 world view. The most likely system is that 12-0 gets in over 11-1 every time.

(06-24-2013 03:01 AM)Freshy Wrote:  The powers that be aren't going to care what conference the G5 representative is in so long as the W-L record is impressive. Thinking the MWC and AAC have the inside track is rather delusional. There isn't much in the way of evidence to support it. Only two current MWC teams have been to a BCS bowl, and neither was in the conference when they did it. Currently, the only AAC teams from the playoff era lineup who have been to a BCS bowl are Connecticut and Cincinnati...as AQers.

None of the G5 conferences are different from any other according to the P5 world view. The most likely system is that 12-0 gets in over 11-1 every time.

Most likely yes I agree, but where the perception will come into play is if you had multiple teams with the same record. Lets say you had Fresno, UCF, Marshall, Arkansas State, and Toledo all with 11-1 records (I'm just picking random schools and leaving out Boise as I think they'd likely win all ties on name alone). Unless one of the 5 had a pretty outstanding OOC win the bid would likely go to the champ of whatever league is viewed to be stronger by the committee.

Left over bowls for G5 looking worse by the day.

(06-23-2013 10:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-23-2013 07:35 PM)Maize Wrote:  JMO, as far as Total Bowl Tie-Ins going forward the best from Top to Bottom in the Contract Leagues/P5 are the following:

1. SEC
2. B1G
3a. ACC
3b. Big XII
5. Pac 12

The Big 12 has better top to bottom ties than the ACC, because of the Sugar tie.

Other than that, you are correct, and the rank-order is the same as during the BCS era.

Total...the difference is the Sugar Bowl is the #2/3 SEC School vs the Orange Bowl with the #3/4 SEC/#2 B1G or Notre Dame...they are virtally tied especially going down the list and when the Sun Bowl is your #6 that is a overall strong lineup.

If you go by Tiers it something like this

Tier 1
SEC/B1G

Tier 2
ACC/Big XII

Tier 3
Pac 12

Group of Five totally screwed...

(06-24-2013 03:01 AM)Freshy Wrote:  The powers that be aren't going to care what conference the G5 representative is in so long as the W-L record is impressive. Thinking the MWC and AAC have the inside track is rather delusional. There isn't much in the way of evidence to support it. Only two current MWC teams have been to a BCS bowl, and neither was in the conference when they did it. Currently, the only AAC teams from the playoff era lineup who have been to a BCS bowl are Connecticut and Cincinnati...as AQers.

None of the G5 conferences are different from any other according to the P5 world view. The most likely system is that 12-0 gets in over 11-1 every time.

Thats old school BCS thinking. It may take a few years under the new selection committee system to see what the best route to a BCS Bowl is for a non-AQ. We have been told that SOS will be a much more important factor than it has been in the past.

So, a 12-0 CUSA team that didn't play a single team ranked better than 80, might not get the nod vs a 11-1 or even a 10-2 Boise who lost two close games vs Michigan and Georgia. Or perhaps that 12-0 team from CUSA gets the nod over that fictional Boise team every time ---we just won't know until we actually see this system in action for a few years. If the conference commissioners are to be believed, then the SOS will matter much more than in the past--I guess we begin to see what's really important in 2014....

(06-24-2013 08:21 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  Left over bowls for G5 looking worse by the day.

No they look just as bad as they always looked. For months now the AAC bowl picture comes down to find a way to get the Liberty Bowl or it's all complete crap. The LA bowl talk doesn't sound bad, and maybe something in Miami could have some kind of set up like that where you maybe get BYU part time and the MWC part time and maybe some P5 conference part time, but that's about as good as that game could hope for even if it actually happens.