(06-07-2018 09:20 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  The bowls generate their revenue from TV viewers not from the gate. That’s why there are repeated matchups that pair schools with worst-possible travel situations when the model shows it is better for the viewer numbers. ESPN would play them all on temporary soundstages in Bristol if they could.

I do not think a Washington State Vs an SEC school would generate viewers. Boise State seems to do better in viewership than some P5 schools in the PAC 12 or other conferences. Would conferences want to invite G% schools that would generate money from viewerships? That could trigger the next realignment to get better matchups for viewerships.

(06-07-2018 06:33 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 06:13 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 05:36 PM)solohawks Wrote:  Unless they get an ACC pr SEC school in the 9-3 or 10-2 range that is going to be a tough sell for travel right around Christmas.

MWC just fits the Las Vegas bowl

I agree, MWC fits the Vegas Bowl.

But the bowl may feel otherwise. I sense a hint of desperation in the MWC press release. I bet the LV is trying to set up a PAC/Big 12 matchup.

Agree. That said--this could be a major over reaction by all. The Pac-12 was typically sending a 6 or 7 win lower end bowl qualifier to Vegas. It may be that the Pac-12 will be sending a better team to the nice new stadium in Vegas, and that same 6/7 win Pac12 team might be playing the MW champ in the Arizona Bowl after Christmas. If thats the way it plays out, its not really a disaster for the MW at all. Given the geography of the situation--it may very well play out that way.

If that happens, I agree it wouldn't be a disaster for the MWC, but it would still be a demotion, as the Arizona Bowl has lesser stature then the current Las Vegas bowl, and will presumably have even less than a newfangled NFL stadium LV bowl. Also, if the PAC starts sending a better team to an upgraded LV bowl, that could push down the rest of its bowl roster and mean that the team it sends to the Arizona bowl will be a rung lower than the team it currently sends to the LV bowl.

That Arizona Bowl is really at about the bottom of all the west coast bowls. It's about at the same level as the Bahamas bowl in the east.

Last year, the Las Vegas Bowl payout was $2.8 million and it was televised on ABC. The Arizona Bowl payout was $228,000 and it was televised on CBSSN. That's a pretty steep difference.

I thought this snippet from the San Diego paper was intriguing and hinted there could be quite a bit of bowl shuffling on the way in the next few weeks....

Saccenti said bowl executives across the nation are waiting for the NCAA Football Oversight Committee to release a report that will address conference tie-ins. The report, originally scheduled for release in April, is expected to be come out by July 1.

“They’re going to rule on the (four-year) historical averages on how many bowl games a conference can have contracts with,” Saccenti said. “So there might be some conferences that have to have less bowl games than they’re affiliated with and some conferences may have more bowl games that they’re affiliated with.”

“The dominoes are going to fall very quickly once that report comes out. And I expect that report to be out in the next few weeks. … Once that happens, everybody is going to get free reign to try to strike some deals. It’s going to go fast and furious. We’re all having conversations right now, but nobody can do anything right now.”


http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/spor...story.html

This is why its been so slow to hear any bowl news.

If I am a G5 conference I wouldn't want more than 5 bowl games. There is plenty of quantity what we need is quality.

It would not be a bad move for the PAC or ACC to play the AAC #1/#2 in a higher bowl game like the Sun or Gator simply because of the strong chance that AAC team will be ranked.

Poinsettia MWC #1 vs. MAC #1
Independence CUSA #1 vs. SBC #1

Mid tier after Christmas bowl games. If any of those conferences CFP the AAC could put its #2 team as a fill in.

Champs should not be stuck playing 7-5 teams.

(06-07-2018 07:49 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 04:31 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 03:35 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 02:39 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 02:22 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  The Big Ten should go hard for the Alamo Bowl and Citrus Bowl slots and then play a bowl game in Inglewood, preferably the Holiday Bowl. Drop the Outback Bowl and the Taxslayer Bowl. Too many Florida bowls already. Just the Orange and Citrus would do. I would move the Detroit bowl to Indianapolis.

The order should be like this:

1. CFP
2. Rose
3. Citrus/Orange
4. Alamo
5. Holiday
6. Music City
7. Pinstripe
8. Foster Farms
9. Quick Lane

I'm not sure the B1G would see "too many Florida bowls" as a problem.

Agreed - too many Florida Bowls isn't a problem at all for the Big Ten. The Outback Bowl is a GREAT bowl slot: guaranteed New Year's Day game against a high-level SEC team in a stadium deemed good enough for Super Bowls and National Championship Games and a location that is a natural draw for wintering Northerners. There's NFW that the Big Ten would give up that slot, especially with it losing the Citrus Bowl slot when it goes to the Orange Bowl. Central Florida is critical for the Big Ten. While the Alamo Bowl is excellent and I'd support it coming back to the Big Ten lineup, it really ought to come at the expense of the Holiday Bowl or Foster Farms Bowl. 3 bowls in California is actually much more of an issue than 3 or even 4 bowls in Florida for the Big Ten. Swapping 1 or 2 of those California bowls (the Rose Bowl is obviously the sacrosanct one) out for the Alamo, Las Vegas and/or Cactus (as Phoenix is a massive draw for Big Ten people) would honestly make more sense than changing out any of the Florida-based bowls.

I'm fine with dropping either Foster Farms and/or Holiday (unless either of them moves to the Inglewood stadium). The problem with the Outback/Citrus/Taxslayer is games conflicting with each other or on the same day. Plus I just can't get up for the 11 am start after watching the New Year's fireworks. At the very least I don't see the Taxslayer serving any purpose. Jacksonville is not as tourist-friendly as San Antonio, Las Vegas, San Diego or Orlando.

Gator I have thought would be a nice place for the AAC Champ.

The OBE needed ND as bait to get the Gator and Sun Bowl openings otherwise neither bowl would talk the conference. ND had to be in play at least once every bowl cycle for each bowl during the cycle to get those bowl bids back then. Back then the bowls had a shot at Miami, VT, and L'Ville too. Doubt that the AAC has a chance at these bowls going forward, especially the Gator Bowl with its P5 attitude. The people running that bowl love the ND, ACC, B-10, SEC rotation the bowl currently has.

(06-08-2018 07:27 AM)panite Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 07:49 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 04:31 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 03:35 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 02:39 PM)ken d Wrote:  I'm not sure the B1G would see "too many Florida bowls" as a problem.

Agreed - too many Florida Bowls isn't a problem at all for the Big Ten. The Outback Bowl is a GREAT bowl slot: guaranteed New Year's Day game against a high-level SEC team in a stadium deemed good enough for Super Bowls and National Championship Games and a location that is a natural draw for wintering Northerners. There's NFW that the Big Ten would give up that slot, especially with it losing the Citrus Bowl slot when it goes to the Orange Bowl. Central Florida is critical for the Big Ten. While the Alamo Bowl is excellent and I'd support it coming back to the Big Ten lineup, it really ought to come at the expense of the Holiday Bowl or Foster Farms Bowl. 3 bowls in California is actually much more of an issue than 3 or even 4 bowls in Florida for the Big Ten. Swapping 1 or 2 of those California bowls (the Rose Bowl is obviously the sacrosanct one) out for the Alamo, Las Vegas and/or Cactus (as Phoenix is a massive draw for Big Ten people) would honestly make more sense than changing out any of the Florida-based bowls.

I'm fine with dropping either Foster Farms and/or Holiday (unless either of them moves to the Inglewood stadium). The problem with the Outback/Citrus/Taxslayer is games conflicting with each other or on the same day. Plus I just can't get up for the 11 am start after watching the New Year's fireworks. At the very least I don't see the Taxslayer serving any purpose. Jacksonville is not as tourist-friendly as San Antonio, Las Vegas, San Diego or Orlando.

Gator I have thought would be a nice place for the AAC Champ.

The OBE needed ND as bait to get the Gator and Sun Bowl openings otherwise neither bowl would talk the conference. ND had to be in play at least once every bowl cycle for each bowl during the cycle to get those bowl bids back then. Back then the bowls had a shot at Miami, VT, and L'Ville too. Doubt that the AAC has a chance at these bowls going forward, especially the Gator Bowl with its P5 attitude. The people running that bowl love the ND, ACC, B-10, SEC rotation the bowl currently has.

Yup—the AAC’s best chance at bowls of that caliber is getting included in a bowl pool with several P5’s so it’s a situation where there are several bowls and conferences involved. The AAC champ would rotate around to different bowls vs different P5’s so no one bowl or P5 was committed to the AAC every year.

(06-08-2018 06:54 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Champs should not be stuck playing 7-5 teams.

From what I've observed, most fans simply don't look at it that way. The fans of a G5 champ get more out of playing a 7-5 P5 team than they do from playing another G5 champ. That's reflected in the payouts where any bowl with a P5 team involved (no matter how mediocre) is worth more than G5 bowls. It goes the other direction, too - a 7-5 P5 team would rather play another 7-5 or 6-6 P5 team than a G5 champ and it's not because they're scared, but simply that playing a G5 team (no matter how good) does absolutely nothing to drive interest for them.

(06-07-2018 05:28 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Well, in a way it sucks, but the AZ bowl isn't bad for the MW champ. It's after Christmas and I'm sure they'll have to up the payout also. Maybe the CUSA champ vs MW champ will arise out of this. Sure would be better than #7 Pac school.

Great reviews of how the AZ bowl treats the teams.

If the AZ Bowl becomes the major bowl for the MWC, if they lose the Las Vegas Bowl, they can build on it the way they did after losing the Poinsettia and Holiday Bowls. They can contract BYU as an opponent to help build the monetary pay out and both the MWC and BYU who needs bowl access as an independent, would be playing in their footprint after Christmas close to NYE where their fan base would follow their respective teams with potentially good spectator turn out.

(06-08-2018 08:03 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-08-2018 07:27 AM)panite Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 07:49 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 04:31 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 03:35 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Agreed - too many Florida Bowls isn't a problem at all for the Big Ten. The Outback Bowl is a GREAT bowl slot: guaranteed New Year's Day game against a high-level SEC team in a stadium deemed good enough for Super Bowls and National Championship Games and a location that is a natural draw for wintering Northerners. There's NFW that the Big Ten would give up that slot, especially with it losing the Citrus Bowl slot when it goes to the Orange Bowl. Central Florida is critical for the Big Ten. While the Alamo Bowl is excellent and I'd support it coming back to the Big Ten lineup, it really ought to come at the expense of the Holiday Bowl or Foster Farms Bowl. 3 bowls in California is actually much more of an issue than 3 or even 4 bowls in Florida for the Big Ten. Swapping 1 or 2 of those California bowls (the Rose Bowl is obviously the sacrosanct one) out for the Alamo, Las Vegas and/or Cactus (as Phoenix is a massive draw for Big Ten people) would honestly make more sense than changing out any of the Florida-based bowls.

I'm fine with dropping either Foster Farms and/or Holiday (unless either of them moves to the Inglewood stadium). The problem with the Outback/Citrus/Taxslayer is games conflicting with each other or on the same day. Plus I just can't get up for the 11 am start after watching the New Year's fireworks. At the very least I don't see the Taxslayer serving any purpose. Jacksonville is not as tourist-friendly as San Antonio, Las Vegas, San Diego or Orlando.

Gator I have thought would be a nice place for the AAC Champ.

The OBE needed ND as bait to get the Gator and Sun Bowl openings otherwise neither bowl would talk the conference. ND had to be in play at least once every bowl cycle for each bowl during the cycle to get those bowl bids back then. Back then the bowls had a shot at Miami, VT, and L'Ville too. Doubt that the AAC has a chance at these bowls going forward, especially the Gator Bowl with its P5 attitude. The people running that bowl love the ND, ACC, B-10, SEC rotation the bowl currently has.

Yup—the AAC’s best chance at bowls of that caliber is getting included in a bowl pool with several P5’s so it’s a situation where there are several bowls and conferences involved. The AAC champ would rotate around to different bowls vs different P5’s so no one bowl or P5 was committed to the AAC every year.

Another reason for Aresco's P6 campaign to be successful in separating the AAC from the other G4 conferences. Even if the AAC is never totally excepted in the P5 monopoly / fraternity, the AAC becomes a "tweener" conference between the P5's and the G4's with a substantial TV contract increase and bowls with the P5 conferences. The AAC becomes the OBE with good bowls, OOC football scheduling opportunities with P5 schools, great basketball, and fatter TV contracts than the G4 conferences behind them.

(06-08-2018 12:54 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 06:33 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 06:13 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 05:36 PM)solohawks Wrote:  Unless they get an ACC pr SEC school in the 9-3 or 10-2 range that is going to be a tough sell for travel right around Christmas.

MWC just fits the Las Vegas bowl

I agree, MWC fits the Vegas Bowl.

But the bowl may feel otherwise. I sense a hint of desperation in the MWC press release. I bet the LV is trying to set up a PAC/Big 12 matchup.

Agree. That said--this could be a major over reaction by all. The Pac-12 was typically sending a 6 or 7 win lower end bowl qualifier to Vegas. It may be that the Pac-12 will be sending a better team to the nice new stadium in Vegas, and that same 6/7 win Pac12 team might be playing the MW champ in the Arizona Bowl after Christmas. If thats the way it plays out, its not really a disaster for the MW at all. Given the geography of the situation--it may very well play out that way.

If that happens, I agree it wouldn't be a disaster for the MWC, but it would still be a demotion, as the Arizona Bowl has lesser stature then the current Las Vegas bowl, and will presumably have even less than a newfangled NFL stadium LV bowl. Also, if the PAC starts sending a better team to an upgraded LV bowl, that could push down the rest of its bowl roster and mean that the team it sends to the Arizona bowl will be a rung lower than the team it currently sends to the LV bowl.

That Arizona Bowl is really at about the bottom of all the west coast bowls. It's about at the same level as the Bahamas bowl in the east.

Last year, the Las Vegas Bowl payout was $2.8 million and it was televised on ABC. The Arizona Bowl payout was $228,000 and it was televised on CBSSN. That's a pretty steep difference.

No it wouldn't BE a disaster for the Mountain West, it would be a KILLER blow to it and the other G5 leagues. The P5 could and can cut ties with the G5 at the bowl level.

(06-08-2018 06:54 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  This is why its been so slow to hear any bowl news.

If I am a G5 conference I wouldn't want more than 5 bowl games. There is plenty of quantity what we need is quality.

It would not be a bad move for the PAC or ACC to play the AAC #1/#2 in a higher bowl game like the Sun or Gator simply because of the strong chance that AAC team will be ranked.

Poinsettia MWC #1 vs. MAC #1
Independence CUSA #1 vs. SBC #1

Mid tier after Christmas bowl games. If any of those conferences CFP the AAC could put its #2 team as a fill in.

Champs should not be stuck playing 7-5 teams.

Given the difficulty finding teams willing to go west unless faced with no choice and the difficulty getting games set up in the Midwest, a MAC/MWC deal makes a load of sense.

(06-08-2018 03:07 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I thought this snippet from the San Diego paper was intriguing and hinted there could be quite a bit of bowl shuffling on the way in the next few weeks....

Saccenti said bowl executives across the nation are waiting for the NCAA Football Oversight Committee to release a report that will address conference tie-ins. The report, originally scheduled for release in April, is expected to be come out by July 1.

“They’re going to rule on the (four-year) historical averages on how many bowl games a conference can have contracts with,” Saccenti said. “So there might be some conferences that have to have less bowl games than they’re affiliated with and some conferences may have more bowl games that they’re affiliated with.”

“The dominoes are going to fall very quickly once that report comes out. And I expect that report to be out in the next few weeks. … Once that happens, everybody is going to get free reign to try to strike some deals. It’s going to go fast and furious. We’re all having conversations right now, but nobody can do anything right now.”


http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/spor...story.html

I wouldn't expect any significant changes to come from this report. Five conferences have more eligible teams on average than they have tie-ins. But three of those are P5 conferences, which historically will take 6 of the 7 NY6 slots not tied to a conference. The ACC has two extra, and the SEC and PAC have one each.

G5 Conferences which appear short on tie-ins are the MWC (2, assuming they don't lose the Vegas Bowl) and MAC (1). So the MWC will no doubt be ALLOWED to have more. But that doesn't mean they'll be able to find more.

If any P5 conference might have to relinquish tie-ins, it is probably the Big Ten. They have averaged 9 eligible teams, and also 3 NY6 berths. So, on average they have had 6 eligible teams available for non-NY6 bowls, and they have 8 tie-ins with such bowls. The most likely candidates for reduction would seem to be: Dallas (CUSA), Detroit (ACC), Santa Clara (PAC) and San Diego (PAC). Maybe there's some relief there for the MWC, but I wouldn't count on it.

I could see the following changes. The Las Vegas Bowl drops the MWC for the SEC. The SEC in turn gives up its spot in the Birmingham Bowl (vs AAC). The B1G gives up the Heart of Dallas Bowl (vs CUSA), which then arranges a match between the #1's of the MWC and AAC. The B1G also gives up its slot in the Quick Lane Bowl, which goes to the MAC. CUSA slides into the Birmingham slot against the AAC.

(06-08-2018 08:09 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-08-2018 06:54 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Champs should not be stuck playing 7-5 teams.

From what I've observed, most fans simply don't look at it that way. The fans of a G5 champ get more out of playing a 7-5 P5 team than they do from playing another G5 champ.

That's a good point - the fans of the G5 champ would rather play a 7-5 Iowa or Tennessee in a bowl game than a 10-2 Sun Belt champ Troy in a bowl game.

The G5 is keeping itself down, in that respect.

(06-08-2018 09:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-08-2018 08:09 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-08-2018 06:54 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Champs should not be stuck playing 7-5 teams.

From what I've observed, most fans simply don't look at it that way. The fans of a G5 champ get more out of playing a 7-5 P5 team than they do from playing another G5 champ.

That's a good point - the fans of the G5 champ would rather play a 7-5 Iowa or Tennessee in a bowl game than a 10-2 Sun Belt champ Troy in a bowl game.

The G5 is keeping itself down, in that respect.

Made this point repeatedly.

P5 has nothing like the "performance pool" for CFP or before that BCS revenue.
When a consultant argued for an "eat what you kill" combined TV package that would cover all of G5 and then allocate funds based on appearances, it never got off the ground.
The vaunted "Alliance" started out involving WAC, who then suddenly discovered there were meetings happening and they weren't getting the invites and then collapses the second CUSA gets wobbly and could have potentially been saved from adding so many schools had the Alliance moved forward.
Oh and let's not forget that when the current bowl cycle contracts came out there was to be this big semi-complicated system to move teams around among various games over the six years to improve match-ups and it collapsed almost as soon as it was signed.
The G5s operate on the crab pot or king of the hill system and cooperate less than the P5.

(06-08-2018 09:30 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-08-2018 03:07 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I thought this snippet from the San Diego paper was intriguing and hinted there could be quite a bit of bowl shuffling on the way in the next few weeks....

Saccenti said bowl executives across the nation are waiting for the NCAA Football Oversight Committee to release a report that will address conference tie-ins. The report, originally scheduled for release in April, is expected to be come out by July 1.

“They’re going to rule on the (four-year) historical averages on how many bowl games a conference can have contracts with,” Saccenti said. “So there might be some conferences that have to have less bowl games than they’re affiliated with and some conferences may have more bowl games that they’re affiliated with.”

“The dominoes are going to fall very quickly once that report comes out. And I expect that report to be out in the next few weeks. … Once that happens, everybody is going to get free reign to try to strike some deals. It’s going to go fast and furious. We’re all having conversations right now, but nobody can do anything right now.”


http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/spor...story.html

I wouldn't expect any significant changes to come from this report. Five conferences have more eligible teams on average than they have tie-ins. But three of those are P5 conferences, which historically will take 6 of the 7 NY6 slots not tied to a conference. The ACC has two extra, and the SEC and PAC have one each.

G5 Conferences which appear short on tie-ins are the MWC (2, assuming they don't lose the Vegas Bowl) and MAC (1). So the MWC will no doubt be ALLOWED to have more. But that doesn't mean they'll be able to find more.

If any P5 conference might have to relinquish tie-ins, it is probably the Big Ten. They have averaged 9 eligible teams, and also 3 NY6 berths. So, on average they have had 6 eligible teams available for non-NY6 bowls, and they have 8 tie-ins with such bowls. The most likely candidates for reduction would seem to be: Dallas (CUSA), Detroit (ACC), Santa Clara (PAC) and San Diego (PAC). Maybe there's some relief there for the MWC, but I wouldn't count on it.

I could see the following changes. The Las Vegas Bowl drops the MWC for the SEC. The SEC in turn gives up its spot in the Birmingham Bowl (vs AAC). The B1G gives up the Heart of Dallas Bowl (vs CUSA), which then arranges a match between the #1's of the MWC and AAC. The B1G also gives up its slot in the Quick Lane Bowl, which goes to the MAC. CUSA slides into the Birmingham slot against the AAC.

Those conferences that are short will find new ties because the bowls losing ties have to have ties to 2 conferences to stay certified. One conference I think will lose ties is the AAC. I think they only filled all thier ties one year out of the last 4.

(06-08-2018 10:19 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-08-2018 09:30 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-08-2018 03:07 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I thought this snippet from the San Diego paper was intriguing and hinted there could be quite a bit of bowl shuffling on the way in the next few weeks....

Saccenti said bowl executives across the nation are waiting for the NCAA Football Oversight Committee to release a report that will address conference tie-ins. The report, originally scheduled for release in April, is expected to be come out by July 1.

“They’re going to rule on the (four-year) historical averages on how many bowl games a conference can have contracts with,” Saccenti said. “So there might be some conferences that have to have less bowl games than they’re affiliated with and some conferences may have more bowl games that they’re affiliated with.”

“The dominoes are going to fall very quickly once that report comes out. And I expect that report to be out in the next few weeks. … Once that happens, everybody is going to get free reign to try to strike some deals. It’s going to go fast and furious. We’re all having conversations right now, but nobody can do anything right now.”


http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/spor...story.html

I wouldn't expect any significant changes to come from this report. Five conferences have more eligible teams on average than they have tie-ins. But three of those are P5 conferences, which historically will take 6 of the 7 NY6 slots not tied to a conference. The ACC has two extra, and the SEC and PAC have one each.

G5 Conferences which appear short on tie-ins are the MWC (2, assuming they don't lose the Vegas Bowl) and MAC (1). So the MWC will no doubt be ALLOWED to have more. But that doesn't mean they'll be able to find more.

If any P5 conference might have to relinquish tie-ins, it is probably the Big Ten. They have averaged 9 eligible teams, and also 3 NY6 berths. So, on average they have had 6 eligible teams available for non-NY6 bowls, and they have 8 tie-ins with such bowls. The most likely candidates for reduction would seem to be: Dallas (CUSA), Detroit (ACC), Santa Clara (PAC) and San Diego (PAC). Maybe there's some relief there for the MWC, but I wouldn't count on it.

I could see the following changes. The Las Vegas Bowl drops the MWC for the SEC. The SEC in turn gives up its spot in the Birmingham Bowl (vs AAC). The B1G gives up the Heart of Dallas Bowl (vs CUSA), which then arranges a match between the #1's of the MWC and AAC. The B1G also gives up its slot in the Quick Lane Bowl, which goes to the MAC. CUSA slides into the Birmingham slot against the AAC.

Those conferences that are short will find new ties because the bowls losing ties have to have ties to 2 conferences to stay certified. One conference I think will lose ties is the AAC. I think they only filled all thier ties one year out of the last 4.

Not sure the NCAA wants to be in the position of penalizing a conference because its teams qualified for an Access bowl 2 years out of 4.

(06-08-2018 11:43 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-08-2018 10:19 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-08-2018 09:30 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-08-2018 03:07 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I thought this snippet from the San Diego paper was intriguing and hinted there could be quite a bit of bowl shuffling on the way in the next few weeks....

Saccenti said bowl executives across the nation are waiting for the NCAA Football Oversight Committee to release a report that will address conference tie-ins. The report, originally scheduled for release in April, is expected to be come out by July 1.

“They’re going to rule on the (four-year) historical averages on how many bowl games a conference can have contracts with,” Saccenti said. “So there might be some conferences that have to have less bowl games than they’re affiliated with and some conferences may have more bowl games that they’re affiliated with.”

“The dominoes are going to fall very quickly once that report comes out. And I expect that report to be out in the next few weeks. … Once that happens, everybody is going to get free reign to try to strike some deals. It’s going to go fast and furious. We’re all having conversations right now, but nobody can do anything right now.”


http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/spor...story.html

I wouldn't expect any significant changes to come from this report. Five conferences have more eligible teams on average than they have tie-ins. But three of those are P5 conferences, which historically will take 6 of the 7 NY6 slots not tied to a conference. The ACC has two extra, and the SEC and PAC have one each.

G5 Conferences which appear short on tie-ins are the MWC (2, assuming they don't lose the Vegas Bowl) and MAC (1). So the MWC will no doubt be ALLOWED to have more. But that doesn't mean they'll be able to find more.

If any P5 conference might have to relinquish tie-ins, it is probably the Big Ten. They have averaged 9 eligible teams, and also 3 NY6 berths. So, on average they have had 6 eligible teams available for non-NY6 bowls, and they have 8 tie-ins with such bowls. The most likely candidates for reduction would seem to be: Dallas (CUSA), Detroit (ACC), Santa Clara (PAC) and San Diego (PAC). Maybe there's some relief there for the MWC, but I wouldn't count on it.

I could see the following changes. The Las Vegas Bowl drops the MWC for the SEC. The SEC in turn gives up its spot in the Birmingham Bowl (vs AAC). The B1G gives up the Heart of Dallas Bowl (vs CUSA), which then arranges a match between the #1's of the MWC and AAC. The B1G also gives up its slot in the Quick Lane Bowl, which goes to the MAC. CUSA slides into the Birmingham slot against the AAC.

Those conferences that are short will find new ties because the bowls losing ties have to have ties to 2 conferences to stay certified. One conference I think will lose ties is the AAC. I think they only filled all thier ties one year out of the last 4.

Not sure the NCAA wants to be in the position of penalizing a conference because its teams qualified for an Access bowl 2 years out of 4.

Agreed - the NCAA is going to look at overall bowl eligible teams for a league, which is a much different metric than whether such league has filled its bowl tie-ins in the past. A league that doesn't fill in a bowl tie-in because it has one or more bowl eligible teams receiving access bowl slots or CFP berths certainly shouldn't be penalized because those slots aren't guaranteed and highly variable from year-to-year. If a league has averaged 9 bowl eligible teams per year, then it should be able to sign 9 bowl tie-ins (regardless of whether some of those bowl eligible teams move up to a playoff/access bowl slot).

(06-08-2018 11:52 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-08-2018 11:43 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-08-2018 10:19 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-08-2018 09:30 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-08-2018 03:07 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I thought this snippet from the San Diego paper was intriguing and hinted there could be quite a bit of bowl shuffling on the way in the next few weeks....

Saccenti said bowl executives across the nation are waiting for the NCAA Football Oversight Committee to release a report that will address conference tie-ins. The report, originally scheduled for release in April, is expected to be come out by July 1.

“They’re going to rule on the (four-year) historical averages on how many bowl games a conference can have contracts with,” Saccenti said. “So there might be some conferences that have to have less bowl games than they’re affiliated with and some conferences may have more bowl games that they’re affiliated with.”

“The dominoes are going to fall very quickly once that report comes out. And I expect that report to be out in the next few weeks. … Once that happens, everybody is going to get free reign to try to strike some deals. It’s going to go fast and furious. We’re all having conversations right now, but nobody can do anything right now.”


http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/spor...story.html

I wouldn't expect any significant changes to come from this report. Five conferences have more eligible teams on average than they have tie-ins. But three of those are P5 conferences, which historically will take 6 of the 7 NY6 slots not tied to a conference. The ACC has two extra, and the SEC and PAC have one each.

G5 Conferences which appear short on tie-ins are the MWC (2, assuming they don't lose the Vegas Bowl) and MAC (1). So the MWC will no doubt be ALLOWED to have more. But that doesn't mean they'll be able to find more.

If any P5 conference might have to relinquish tie-ins, it is probably the Big Ten. They have averaged 9 eligible teams, and also 3 NY6 berths. So, on average they have had 6 eligible teams available for non-NY6 bowls, and they have 8 tie-ins with such bowls. The most likely candidates for reduction would seem to be: Dallas (CUSA), Detroit (ACC), Santa Clara (PAC) and San Diego (PAC). Maybe there's some relief there for the MWC, but I wouldn't count on it.

I could see the following changes. The Las Vegas Bowl drops the MWC for the SEC. The SEC in turn gives up its spot in the Birmingham Bowl (vs AAC). The B1G gives up the Heart of Dallas Bowl (vs CUSA), which then arranges a match between the #1's of the MWC and AAC. The B1G also gives up its slot in the Quick Lane Bowl, which goes to the MAC. CUSA slides into the Birmingham slot against the AAC.

Those conferences that are short will find new ties because the bowls losing ties have to have ties to 2 conferences to stay certified. One conference I think will lose ties is the AAC. I think they only filled all thier ties one year out of the last 4.

Not sure the NCAA wants to be in the position of penalizing a conference because its teams qualified for an Access bowl 2 years out of 4.

Agreed - the NCAA is going to look at overall bowl eligible teams for a league, which is a much different metric than whether such league has filled its bowl tie-ins in the past. A league that doesn't fill in a bowl tie-in because it has one or more bowl eligible teams receiving access bowl slots or CFP berths certainly shouldn't be penalized because those slots aren't guaranteed and highly variable from year-to-year. If a league has averaged 9 bowl eligible teams per year, then it should be able to sign 9 bowl tie-ins (regardless of whether some of those bowl eligible teams move up to a playoff/access bowl slot).

There has to be a "handicap" applied at some point in the system. Last four years we've averaged 80 bowl eligible teams.

Even if we discard the independents, that is 78 bowl ties that can be entered.

Four teams will get slotted to CFP. Four get slotted to NY6 games at-large. So that it is 86 or 43 bowls even though the average is only 40 bowls will be filled.

The logical outcome is to subtract one slot contract from each P5. Even if it is a magically balanced year there will be a P5 that doesn't have a slot to cover its teams but will be able to slide over to another P5 slot.

The problem with how it is working now is if say Liberty or Texas comes up short and there is no P5 available to cover, what normally happens is you are likely to get a really bad game. You might not be able to get CUSA or Sun Belt 1 or 2 to fill, you have to dip down to 5 or 6 and get a clunker of a barely bowl eligible P5 vs barely eligible G5.

(06-08-2018 11:52 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-08-2018 11:43 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-08-2018 10:19 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-08-2018 09:30 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-08-2018 03:07 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I thought this snippet from the San Diego paper was intriguing and hinted there could be quite a bit of bowl shuffling on the way in the next few weeks....

Saccenti said bowl executives across the nation are waiting for the NCAA Football Oversight Committee to release a report that will address conference tie-ins. The report, originally scheduled for release in April, is expected to be come out by July 1.

“They’re going to rule on the (four-year) historical averages on how many bowl games a conference can have contracts with,” Saccenti said. “So there might be some conferences that have to have less bowl games than they’re affiliated with and some conferences may have more bowl games that they’re affiliated with.”

“The dominoes are going to fall very quickly once that report comes out. And I expect that report to be out in the next few weeks. … Once that happens, everybody is going to get free reign to try to strike some deals. It’s going to go fast and furious. We’re all having conversations right now, but nobody can do anything right now.”


http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/spor...story.html

I wouldn't expect any significant changes to come from this report. Five conferences have more eligible teams on average than they have tie-ins. But three of those are P5 conferences, which historically will take 6 of the 7 NY6 slots not tied to a conference. The ACC has two extra, and the SEC and PAC have one each.

G5 Conferences which appear short on tie-ins are the MWC (2, assuming they don't lose the Vegas Bowl) and MAC (1). So the MWC will no doubt be ALLOWED to have more. But that doesn't mean they'll be able to find more.

If any P5 conference might have to relinquish tie-ins, it is probably the Big Ten. They have averaged 9 eligible teams, and also 3 NY6 berths. So, on average they have had 6 eligible teams available for non-NY6 bowls, and they have 8 tie-ins with such bowls. The most likely candidates for reduction would seem to be: Dallas (CUSA), Detroit (ACC), Santa Clara (PAC) and San Diego (PAC). Maybe there's some relief there for the MWC, but I wouldn't count on it.

I could see the following changes. The Las Vegas Bowl drops the MWC for the SEC. The SEC in turn gives up its spot in the Birmingham Bowl (vs AAC). The B1G gives up the Heart of Dallas Bowl (vs CUSA), which then arranges a match between the #1's of the MWC and AAC. The B1G also gives up its slot in the Quick Lane Bowl, which goes to the MAC. CUSA slides into the Birmingham slot against the AAC.

Those conferences that are short will find new ties because the bowls losing ties have to have ties to 2 conferences to stay certified. One conference I think will lose ties is the AAC. I think they only filled all thier ties one year out of the last 4.

Not sure the NCAA wants to be in the position of penalizing a conference because its teams qualified for an Access bowl 2 years out of 4.

Agreed - the NCAA is going to look at overall bowl eligible teams for a league, which is a much different metric than whether such league has filled its bowl tie-ins in the past. A league that doesn't fill in a bowl tie-in because it has one or more bowl eligible teams receiving access bowl slots or CFP berths certainly shouldn't be penalized because those slots aren't guaranteed and highly variable from year-to-year. If a league has averaged 9 bowl eligible teams per year, then it should be able to sign 9 bowl tie-ins (regardless of whether some of those bowl eligible teams move up to a playoff/access bowl slot).

But whats the real "penalty"? The only conferences this would lose ties due to being in the CFP are power conferences. The average number of qualified bowl teams over the last 4 years is actually LESS than it takes to fill all the bowls. A qualified 6-6 P5 team is never going to be left out. I think we all know how the bowl selection committees work. I dont think there is really going to be any significant penalty to pay (perhaps none at all). The reality is those conferences will continue to place teams in the CFP at about the same rate going forward---so the effect is going to be zero (and even when these conferences come up a tie short becasue they have 6-6 team without a place to go---we know that 6-6 P5 will be picked before any other similar G5).

(06-08-2018 12:23 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-08-2018 11:52 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-08-2018 11:43 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-08-2018 10:19 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-08-2018 09:30 AM)ken d Wrote:  I wouldn't expect any significant changes to come from this report. Five conferences have more eligible teams on average than they have tie-ins. But three of those are P5 conferences, which historically will take 6 of the 7 NY6 slots not tied to a conference. The ACC has two extra, and the SEC and PAC have one each.

G5 Conferences which appear short on tie-ins are the MWC (2, assuming they don't lose the Vegas Bowl) and MAC (1). So the MWC will no doubt be ALLOWED to have more. But that doesn't mean they'll be able to find more.

If any P5 conference might have to relinquish tie-ins, it is probably the Big Ten. They have averaged 9 eligible teams, and also 3 NY6 berths. So, on average they have had 6 eligible teams available for non-NY6 bowls, and they have 8 tie-ins with such bowls. The most likely candidates for reduction would seem to be: Dallas (CUSA), Detroit (ACC), Santa Clara (PAC) and San Diego (PAC). Maybe there's some relief there for the MWC, but I wouldn't count on it.

I could see the following changes. The Las Vegas Bowl drops the MWC for the SEC. The SEC in turn gives up its spot in the Birmingham Bowl (vs AAC). The B1G gives up the Heart of Dallas Bowl (vs CUSA), which then arranges a match between the #1's of the MWC and AAC. The B1G also gives up its slot in the Quick Lane Bowl, which goes to the MAC. CUSA slides into the Birmingham slot against the AAC.

Those conferences that are short will find new ties because the bowls losing ties have to have ties to 2 conferences to stay certified. One conference I think will lose ties is the AAC. I think they only filled all thier ties one year out of the last 4.

Not sure the NCAA wants to be in the position of penalizing a conference because its teams qualified for an Access bowl 2 years out of 4.

Agreed - the NCAA is going to look at overall bowl eligible teams for a league, which is a much different metric than whether such league has filled its bowl tie-ins in the past. A league that doesn't fill in a bowl tie-in because it has one or more bowl eligible teams receiving access bowl slots or CFP berths certainly shouldn't be penalized because those slots aren't guaranteed and highly variable from year-to-year. If a league has averaged 9 bowl eligible teams per year, then it should be able to sign 9 bowl tie-ins (regardless of whether some of those bowl eligible teams move up to a playoff/access bowl slot).

But whats the real "penalty"? The only conferences this would lose ties due to being in the CFP are power conferences. The average number of qualified bowl teams over the last 4 years is actually LESS than it takes to fill all the bowls. A qualified 6-6 P5 team is never going to be left out. I think we all know how the bowl selection committees work. I dont think there is really going to be any significant penalty to pay (perhaps none at all). The reality is those conferences will continue to place teams in the CFP at about the same rate going forward---so the effect is going to be zero (and even when these conferences come up a tie short becasue they have 6-6 team without a place to go---we know that 6-6 P5 will be picked before any other similar G5).

You answered your own question: we do not live on a planet where we can realistically believe that the NCAA would take an action that would only negatively impact the power conferences (however slight it might be).

At the same time, the difference between a 99% practical likelihood and a 100% contractual guarantee is MASSIVE. The main point of having power in college athletics is the leverage to have 100%, unequivocal, unambiguous, locked-down *contractual* guarantees that leave absolutely *nothing* to chance. A 99% chance actually *isn't* (and shouldn't be) good enough when you have a ability to demand and receive a 100% guarantee. The P5 conferences have the leverage to demand such guarantees and the bowls and TV networks *want* to have such guarantees in order to raise their own leverage in the marketplace regarding sponsorships, media rights, ticket packages, etc. The free market *wants* the current situation - no one is being forced to do anything against their will.

That extra 1% guarantee is *exactly* why every school wants to be in a P5 conference because leaving anything up to chance is precisely what you don't need to worry about in a P5 conference.