(06-21-2018 03:07 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  How does this bowl limit work. Let's say Conference X is limited to 8 bowls. Now, let's say over the 6 year bowl agreements, Conference X has 8 bowls in year 1, 9 in year 2, 9 in year 3, 7 in year 4, 8 in year 5, and 9 year six. So their average amount of bowls is 8.33 per year, rounded down to 8. They also have 2 backups. Would that be allowed?

Does Conference X have to be under 8 bowls EVERY year?
Is it the average amount of bowls over the 6 year bowl cycle?
If so, can the average be slightly above 8 but rounded to 8?, or
does the average amount of bowls have to be under 8 over the bowl cycle?
Do backup agreements count as part of the 8, for conference X?

And finally, with these new bowl limits, I would assume there is not guarantee a conference is going to have that many bowls anyway. Let's say Conference X's bowl limit is 8, and they can only find 6 bowls that want to contract with them. That could happen, correct?

They're limiting the number of conference bowl tie-ins, not appearances.

(06-21-2018 03:25 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(06-21-2018 03:07 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  How does this bowl limit work. Let's say Conference X is limited to 8 bowls. Now, let's say over the 6 year bowl agreements, Conference X has 8 bowls in year 1, 9 in year 2, 9 in year 3, 7 in year 4, 8 in year 5, and 9 year six. So their average amount of bowls is 8.33 per year, rounded down to 8. They also have 2 backups. Would that be allowed?

Does Conference X have to be under 8 bowls EVERY year?
Is it the average amount of bowls over the 6 year bowl cycle?
If so, can the average be slightly above 8 but rounded to 8?, or
does the average amount of bowls have to be under 8 over the bowl cycle?
Do backup agreements count as part of the 8, for conference X?

And finally, with these new bowl limits, I would assume there is not guarantee a conference is going to have that many bowls anyway. Let's say Conference X's bowl limit is 8, and they can only find 6 bowls that want to contract with them. That could happen, correct?

They're limiting the number of conference bowl tie-ins, not appearances.

You didn't answer the question. At all.

I get what the limit of bowl tie ins is. Is that average tie ins per year, or is it a limit every year. If you don't know, just say so, that's ok. Maybe no one really knows yet.

(06-21-2018 03:16 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-21-2018 03:07 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  How does this bowl limit work. Let's say Conference X is limited to 8 bowls. Now, let's say over the 6 year bowl agreements, Conference X has 8 bowls in year 1, 9 in year 2, 9 in year 3, 7 in year 4, 8 in year 5, and 9 year six. So their average amount of bowls is 8.33 per year, rounded down to 8. They also have 2 backups. Would that be allowed?

Does Conference X have to be under 8 bowls EVERY year?
Is it the average amount of bowls over the 6 year bowl cycle?
If so, can the average be slightly above 8 but rounded to 8?, or
does the average amount of bowls have to be under 8 over the bowl cycle?
Do backup agreements count as part of the 8, for conference X?

And finally, with these new bowl limits, I would assume there is not guarantee a conference is going to have that many bowls anyway. Let's say Conference X's bowl limit is 8, and they can only find 6 bowls that want to contract with them. That could happen, correct?

I dont think so. Just basing it on the numbers it would seem for there to be 43 bowls, every one of these bowls would have to each sign with 2 conferences just to be certified. Since a conference can only sign a limited number of agreements---the bowls will have to sign with these other conferences (in order to be certified) or cease to exist. So, it may be a case of some bowls essentially getting "stuck" with a conference they dont really want because they need the tie to get certified.

Yes, but I read today that 43 number is a max, but not guaranteed. Some may go out of business, but only 3 new ones will be added...even if say, 4 go away.

(06-21-2018 03:56 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(06-21-2018 03:25 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(06-21-2018 03:07 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  How does this bowl limit work. Let's say Conference X is limited to 8 bowls. Now, let's say over the 6 year bowl agreements, Conference X has 8 bowls in year 1, 9 in year 2, 9 in year 3, 7 in year 4, 8 in year 5, and 9 year six. So their average amount of bowls is 8.33 per year, rounded down to 8. They also have 2 backups. Would that be allowed?

Does Conference X have to be under 8 bowls EVERY year?
Is it the average amount of bowls over the 6 year bowl cycle?
If so, can the average be slightly above 8 but rounded to 8?, or
does the average amount of bowls have to be under 8 over the bowl cycle?
Do backup agreements count as part of the 8, for conference X?

And finally, with these new bowl limits, I would assume there is not guarantee a conference is going to have that many bowls anyway. Let's say Conference X's bowl limit is 8, and they can only find 6 bowls that want to contract with them. That could happen, correct?

They're limiting the number of conference bowl tie-ins, not appearances.

You didn't answer the question. At all.

I get what the limit of bowl tie ins is. Is that average tie ins per year, or is it a limit every year. If you don't know, just say so, that's ok. Maybe no one really knows yet.

I don't know about whether it can be an average or not. I assume it's intended to be a yearly limit. It just seemed to me from your wording that you weren't clear on what exactly was being limited.

(06-21-2018 04:07 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(06-21-2018 03:56 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(06-21-2018 03:25 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(06-21-2018 03:07 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  How does this bowl limit work. Let's say Conference X is limited to 8 bowls. Now, let's say over the 6 year bowl agreements, Conference X has 8 bowls in year 1, 9 in year 2, 9 in year 3, 7 in year 4, 8 in year 5, and 9 year six. So their average amount of bowls is 8.33 per year, rounded down to 8. They also have 2 backups. Would that be allowed?

Does Conference X have to be under 8 bowls EVERY year?
Is it the average amount of bowls over the 6 year bowl cycle?
If so, can the average be slightly above 8 but rounded to 8?, or
does the average amount of bowls have to be under 8 over the bowl cycle?
Do backup agreements count as part of the 8, for conference X?

And finally, with these new bowl limits, I would assume there is not guarantee a conference is going to have that many bowls anyway. Let's say Conference X's bowl limit is 8, and they can only find 6 bowls that want to contract with them. That could happen, correct?

They're limiting the number of conference bowl tie-ins, not appearances.

You didn't answer the question. At all.

I get what the limit of bowl tie ins is. Is that average tie ins per year, or is it a limit every year. If you don't know, just say so, that's ok. Maybe no one really knows yet.

I don't know about whether it can be an average or not. I assume it's intended to be a yearly limit. It just seemed to me from your wording that you weren't clear on what exactly was being limited.

Ok maybe I wasn’t clear.

(06-21-2018 03:22 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-21-2018 03:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-21-2018 12:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-16-2018 08:10 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-16-2018 07:09 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  Instead of playing the AAC in a couple of matchups?

I am just saying as much as the AAC wants P5 opponents, the ACC may want all P5 match ups. Why does that seem surprising or upsetting? If the P12 and B12 rather play the ACC, why would the ACC stay in the Military and St. Pete with lower payments? Just smart business.

IMO, the ACC wants a presence in the DC - Baltimore area, so it will surprise me if they leave the Military Bowl any time soon. It will have to be a substantially better situation for them to leave.

I'd go further. I think the ACC wants to stay largely in footprint for the lower end bowls (which because of overlapping P5 footprints---does not necessarily preclude a lower level P5 vs P5 bout). However, this preference (which is held by most P5's) alng with the far flung footprint of the AAC---should help the AAC to possibly land some of the increasing rare P5 vs G5 bowl slots.

To me, Annapolis is former ACC territory, they lost it when Maryland left. But, they still have an emotional attachment to that area, and plenty of UVA, VT, and even Pitt graduates end up migrating to the greater DC area. Plus, even many Maryland fans still have long historical connections to the ACC, it still casts a shadow there.

So i think the ACC wants to wave the flag in Annapolis as a way of maintaining a quasi- toehold in that extremely lucrative market.

What I'm not sure about is if there's a rising concern over bowl economics. The ACC is a largely southern conference, so naturally it doesn't have to wander far afield for most of its bowls. Also, with big CFP and TV money rolling in, bowl expenses aren't felt as onerous as they once were.

I get the sense that the ACC would like 1/3 of its lower tier bowls to be in the NE, 2/3 in the South - to mirror the composition of the conference. That means that some years you may have Southern ACC teams playing in the NE and Northern teams playing in the South - but by and large I think the goal is as many drivable bowls as possible.

(06-23-2018 06:12 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(06-21-2018 03:22 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-21-2018 03:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-21-2018 12:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-16-2018 08:10 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I am just saying as much as the AAC wants P5 opponents, the ACC may want all P5 match ups. Why does that seem surprising or upsetting? If the P12 and B12 rather play the ACC, why would the ACC stay in the Military and St. Pete with lower payments? Just smart business.

IMO, the ACC wants a presence in the DC - Baltimore area, so it will surprise me if they leave the Military Bowl any time soon. It will have to be a substantially better situation for them to leave.

I'd go further. I think the ACC wants to stay largely in footprint for the lower end bowls (which because of overlapping P5 footprints---does not necessarily preclude a lower level P5 vs P5 bout). However, this preference (which is held by most P5's) alng with the far flung footprint of the AAC---should help the AAC to possibly land some of the increasing rare P5 vs G5 bowl slots.

To me, Annapolis is former ACC territory, they lost it when Maryland left. But, they still have an emotional attachment to that area, and plenty of UVA, VT, and even Pitt graduates end up migrating to the greater DC area. Plus, even many Maryland fans still have long historical connections to the ACC, it still casts a shadow there.

So i think the ACC wants to wave the flag in Annapolis as a way of maintaining a quasi- toehold in that extremely lucrative market.

What I'm not sure about is if there's a rising concern over bowl economics. The ACC is a largely southern conference, so naturally it doesn't have to wander far afield for most of its bowls. Also, with big CFP and TV money rolling in, bowl expenses aren't felt as onerous as they once were.

I get the sense that the ACC would like 1/3 of its lower tier bowls to be in the NE, 2/3 in the South - to mirror the composition of the conference. That means that some years you may have Southern ACC teams playing in the NE and Northern teams playing in the South - but by and large I think the goal is as many drivable bowls as possible.

Well, IIRC the only current ACC bowls that don't fit that profile would be the Detroit Bowl and the Sun Bowl.

I think it would be foolish to give up the Sun Bowl. That's a brand-name New Year's Eve bowl, on CBS*, and is a chance to wave the conference flag out west vs the PAC. I loved when the Big East had that bowl. Plus, it has strong local support so pressure to sell tickets isn't as great.

And the Detroit Bowl is a B1G matchup, and the ACC doesn''t have a lot of those, and is exposure in a densely populated B1G territory.. So IMO dropping this isn't a slam dunk move either.

Really, I think the current ACC bowl lineup is a good one, the best the ACC has ever had. It was a neat negotiating coup for the ACC to worm its way into the lucrative Citrus Bowl rotation when the B1G is in the Orange Bowl. That 'secondary' tie-in has already produced two ACC appearances in the Citrus Bowl so far (I know one of those was Notre Dame, but the ACC still got the $4.5m check).

Sure, if there's a chance to improve it, do so, but if i was an ACC fan I wouldn't regard our bowl lineup as a problem that needs fixing.


* Fun fact: the CBS - Sun Bowl deal is the oldest continuous national TV arrangement in college athletics. This year is the 50th anniversary of the Sun Bowl airing on CBS.

(06-23-2018 06:12 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(06-21-2018 03:22 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-21-2018 03:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-21-2018 12:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-16-2018 08:10 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I am just saying as much as the AAC wants P5 opponents, the ACC may want all P5 match ups. Why does that seem surprising or upsetting? If the P12 and B12 rather play the ACC, why would the ACC stay in the Military and St. Pete with lower payments? Just smart business.

IMO, the ACC wants a presence in the DC - Baltimore area, so it will surprise me if they leave the Military Bowl any time soon. It will have to be a substantially better situation for them to leave.

I'd go further. I think the ACC wants to stay largely in footprint for the lower end bowls (which because of overlapping P5 footprints---does not necessarily preclude a lower level P5 vs P5 bout). However, this preference (which is held by most P5's) alng with the far flung footprint of the AAC---should help the AAC to possibly land some of the increasing rare P5 vs G5 bowl slots.

To me, Annapolis is former ACC territory, they lost it when Maryland left. But, they still have an emotional attachment to that area, and plenty of UVA, VT, and even Pitt graduates end up migrating to the greater DC area. Plus, even many Maryland fans still have long historical connections to the ACC, it still casts a shadow there.

So i think the ACC wants to wave the flag in Annapolis as a way of maintaining a quasi- toehold in that extremely lucrative market.

What I'm not sure about is if there's a rising concern over bowl economics. The ACC is a largely southern conference, so naturally it doesn't have to wander far afield for most of its bowls. Also, with big CFP and TV money rolling in, bowl expenses aren't felt as onerous as they once were.

I get the sense that the ACC would like 1/3 of its lower tier bowls to be in the NE, 2/3 in the South - to mirror the composition of the conference. That means that some years you may have Southern ACC teams playing in the NE and Northern teams playing in the South - but by and large I think the goal is as many drivable bowls as possible.

I think having 2 northeastern bowls is plenty. The conference really only has 3 northeastern teams:Pitt, 'Cuse, and BC, and usually at least 1 is ineligible to go bowling. The Pinstripe should typically take the best of these 3 or a 6-6/7-5 Notre Dame team since that's a place with a strong Irish alumni presence.

The bowl in Annapolis is a nice landing spot if there is a second northeastern school eligible as well as a handy place to stick UVA.

(06-23-2018 07:31 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-23-2018 06:12 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(06-21-2018 03:22 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-21-2018 03:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-21-2018 12:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  IMO, the ACC wants a presence in the DC - Baltimore area, so it will surprise me if they leave the Military Bowl any time soon. It will have to be a substantially better situation for them to leave.

I'd go further. I think the ACC wants to stay largely in footprint for the lower end bowls (which because of overlapping P5 footprints---does not necessarily preclude a lower level P5 vs P5 bout). However, this preference (which is held by most P5's) alng with the far flung footprint of the AAC---should help the AAC to possibly land some of the increasing rare P5 vs G5 bowl slots.

To me, Annapolis is former ACC territory, they lost it when Maryland left. But, they still have an emotional attachment to that area, and plenty of UVA, VT, and even Pitt graduates end up migrating to the greater DC area. Plus, even many Maryland fans still have long historical connections to the ACC, it still casts a shadow there.

So i think the ACC wants to wave the flag in Annapolis as a way of maintaining a quasi- toehold in that extremely lucrative market.

What I'm not sure about is if there's a rising concern over bowl economics. The ACC is a largely southern conference, so naturally it doesn't have to wander far afield for most of its bowls. Also, with big CFP and TV money rolling in, bowl expenses aren't felt as onerous as they once were.

I get the sense that the ACC would like 1/3 of its lower tier bowls to be in the NE, 2/3 in the South - to mirror the composition of the conference. That means that some years you may have Southern ACC teams playing in the NE and Northern teams playing in the South - but by and large I think the goal is as many drivable bowls as possible.

Well, IIRC the only current ACC bowls that don't fit that profile would be the Detroit Bowl and the Sun Bowl.

I think it would be foolish to give up the Sun Bowl. That's a brand-name New Year's Eve bowl, on CBS*, and is a chance to wave the conference flag out west vs the PAC. I loved when the Big East had that bowl. Plus, it has strong local support so pressure to sell tickets isn't as great.

And the Detroit Bowl is a B1G matchup, and the ACC doesn''t have a lot of those, and is exposure in a densely populated B1G territory.. So IMO dropping this isn't a slam dunk move either.

Really, I think the current ACC bowl lineup is a good one, the best the ACC has ever had. It was a neat negotiating coup for the ACC to worm its way into the lucrative Citrus Bowl rotation when the B1G is in the Orange Bowl. That 'secondary' tie-in has already produced two ACC appearances in the Citrus Bowl so far (I know one of those was Notre Dame, but the ACC still got the $4.5m check).

Sure, if there's a chance to improve it, do so, but if i was an ACC fan I wouldn't regard our bowl lineup as a problem that needs fixing.


* Fun fact: the CBS - Sun Bowl deal is the oldest continuous national TV arrangement in college athletics. This year is the 50th anniversary of the Sun Bowl airing on CBS.

The ACC may keep the Sun---but its never made much sense for the ACC or the Sun in my opinion. The Sun needs to be a Pac12-Big12 or Pac12-SEC matchup.

ACC plays in the Sun to have a P12 vs ACC match-up. In addition, the game being played on CBS OTA which I think is a bonus. I don't think the ACC would mind getting a second matchup like that with San Fran and the game being on FOX. Probably send the same amount of people that currently go to Shreveport.

(06-23-2018 07:31 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-23-2018 06:12 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(06-21-2018 03:22 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-21-2018 03:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-21-2018 12:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  IMO, the ACC wants a presence in the DC - Baltimore area, so it will surprise me if they leave the Military Bowl any time soon. It will have to be a substantially better situation for them to leave.

I'd go further. I think the ACC wants to stay largely in footprint for the lower end bowls (which because of overlapping P5 footprints---does not necessarily preclude a lower level P5 vs P5 bout). However, this preference (which is held by most P5's) alng with the far flung footprint of the AAC---should help the AAC to possibly land some of the increasing rare P5 vs G5 bowl slots.

To me, Annapolis is former ACC territory, they lost it when Maryland left. But, they still have an emotional attachment to that area, and plenty of UVA, VT, and even Pitt graduates end up migrating to the greater DC area. Plus, even many Maryland fans still have long historical connections to the ACC, it still casts a shadow there.

So i think the ACC wants to wave the flag in Annapolis as a way of maintaining a quasi- toehold in that extremely lucrative market.

What I'm not sure about is if there's a rising concern over bowl economics. The ACC is a largely southern conference, so naturally it doesn't have to wander far afield for most of its bowls. Also, with big CFP and TV money rolling in, bowl expenses aren't felt as onerous as they once were.

I get the sense that the ACC would like 1/3 of its lower tier bowls to be in the NE, 2/3 in the South - to mirror the composition of the conference. That means that some years you may have Southern ACC teams playing in the NE and Northern teams playing in the South - but by and large I think the goal is as many drivable bowls as possible.

Well, IIRC the only current ACC bowls that don't fit that profile would be the Detroit Bowl and the Sun Bowl.

I think it would be foolish to give up the Sun Bowl. That's a brand-name New Year's Eve bowl, on CBS*, and is a chance to wave the conference flag out west vs the PAC. I loved when the Big East had that bowl. Plus, it has strong local support so pressure to sell tickets isn't as great.

And the Detroit Bowl is a B1G matchup, and the ACC doesn''t have a lot of those, and is exposure in a densely populated B1G territory.. So IMO dropping this isn't a slam dunk move either.

Really, I think the current ACC bowl lineup is a good one, the best the ACC has ever had. It was a neat negotiating coup for the ACC to worm its way into the lucrative Citrus Bowl rotation when the B1G is in the Orange Bowl. That 'secondary' tie-in has already produced two ACC appearances in the Citrus Bowl so far (I know one of those was Notre Dame, but the ACC still got the $4.5m check).

Sure, if there's a chance to improve it, do so, but if i was an ACC fan I wouldn't regard our bowl lineup as a problem that needs fixing.


* Fun fact: the CBS - Sun Bowl deal is the oldest continuous national TV arrangement in college athletics. This year is the 50th anniversary of the Sun Bowl airing on CBS.

The best thing about the Citrus Bowl is that it is the only bowl on NYD that is shown on OTA network.
The bad thing for cord cutter college fans is that it is the only bowl game on OTA on Jan 1.
Have to wonder if this next bowl cycle will produced another bowl or two to be on Jan 1 via OTA TV. There certainly is enough room for it and I think they would do quite well even if competing against the ESPN bowls.

Preview 2018 Bowl Projections & College Football Playoff Picks
https://collegefootballnews.com/2018/07/...eview-2018

(06-23-2018 12:40 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-23-2018 07:31 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-23-2018 06:12 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(06-21-2018 03:22 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-21-2018 03:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I'd go further. I think the ACC wants to stay largely in footprint for the lower end bowls (which because of overlapping P5 footprints---does not necessarily preclude a lower level P5 vs P5 bout). However, this preference (which is held by most P5's) alng with the far flung footprint of the AAC---should help the AAC to possibly land some of the increasing rare P5 vs G5 bowl slots.

To me, Annapolis is former ACC territory, they lost it when Maryland left. But, they still have an emotional attachment to that area, and plenty of UVA, VT, and even Pitt graduates end up migrating to the greater DC area. Plus, even many Maryland fans still have long historical connections to the ACC, it still casts a shadow there.

So i think the ACC wants to wave the flag in Annapolis as a way of maintaining a quasi- toehold in that extremely lucrative market.

What I'm not sure about is if there's a rising concern over bowl economics. The ACC is a largely southern conference, so naturally it doesn't have to wander far afield for most of its bowls. Also, with big CFP and TV money rolling in, bowl expenses aren't felt as onerous as they once were.

I get the sense that the ACC would like 1/3 of its lower tier bowls to be in the NE, 2/3 in the South - to mirror the composition of the conference. That means that some years you may have Southern ACC teams playing in the NE and Northern teams playing in the South - but by and large I think the goal is as many drivable bowls as possible.

Well, IIRC the only current ACC bowls that don't fit that profile would be the Detroit Bowl and the Sun Bowl.

I think it would be foolish to give up the Sun Bowl. That's a brand-name New Year's Eve bowl, on CBS*, and is a chance to wave the conference flag out west vs the PAC. I loved when the Big East had that bowl. Plus, it has strong local support so pressure to sell tickets isn't as great.

And the Detroit Bowl is a B1G matchup, and the ACC doesn''t have a lot of those, and is exposure in a densely populated B1G territory.. So IMO dropping this isn't a slam dunk move either.

Really, I think the current ACC bowl lineup is a good one, the best the ACC has ever had. It was a neat negotiating coup for the ACC to worm its way into the lucrative Citrus Bowl rotation when the B1G is in the Orange Bowl. That 'secondary' tie-in has already produced two ACC appearances in the Citrus Bowl so far (I know one of those was Notre Dame, but the ACC still got the $4.5m check).

Sure, if there's a chance to improve it, do so, but if i was an ACC fan I wouldn't regard our bowl lineup as a problem that needs fixing.


* Fun fact: the CBS - Sun Bowl deal is the oldest continuous national TV arrangement in college athletics. This year is the 50th anniversary of the Sun Bowl airing on CBS.

The ACC may keep the Sun---but its never made much sense for the ACC or the Sun in my opinion. The Sun needs to be a Pac12-Big12 or Pac12-SEC matchup.

Attendance for the sun Bowl has been slipping since the ACC became the tie in. Several schools including NC State last year complained about going out west. The ACC is looking at the bowl in Chicago. The PAC 12 selection will move lower as well with the new Vegas bowl. The ACC does like the Detroit bowl match up and want to make most bowls easy to access for fans and alumni. Most bowls want attendance up because it's about local impact on the economy. We will seem some moving around. The big 10 has already pulled out of Foster Farms for example.

(06-23-2018 12:40 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-23-2018 07:31 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-23-2018 06:12 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(06-21-2018 03:22 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-21-2018 03:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I'd go further. I think the ACC wants to stay largely in footprint for the lower end bowls (which because of overlapping P5 footprints---does not necessarily preclude a lower level P5 vs P5 bout). However, this preference (which is held by most P5's) alng with the far flung footprint of the AAC---should help the AAC to possibly land some of the increasing rare P5 vs G5 bowl slots.

To me, Annapolis is former ACC territory, they lost it when Maryland left. But, they still have an emotional attachment to that area, and plenty of UVA, VT, and even Pitt graduates end up migrating to the greater DC area. Plus, even many Maryland fans still have long historical connections to the ACC, it still casts a shadow there.

So i think the ACC wants to wave the flag in Annapolis as a way of maintaining a quasi- toehold in that extremely lucrative market.

What I'm not sure about is if there's a rising concern over bowl economics. The ACC is a largely southern conference, so naturally it doesn't have to wander far afield for most of its bowls. Also, with big CFP and TV money rolling in, bowl expenses aren't felt as onerous as they once were.

I get the sense that the ACC would like 1/3 of its lower tier bowls to be in the NE, 2/3 in the South - to mirror the composition of the conference. That means that some years you may have Southern ACC teams playing in the NE and Northern teams playing in the South - but by and large I think the goal is as many drivable bowls as possible.

Well, IIRC the only current ACC bowls that don't fit that profile would be the Detroit Bowl and the Sun Bowl.

I think it would be foolish to give up the Sun Bowl. That's a brand-name New Year's Eve bowl, on CBS*, and is a chance to wave the conference flag out west vs the PAC. I loved when the Big East had that bowl. Plus, it has strong local support so pressure to sell tickets isn't as great.

And the Detroit Bowl is a B1G matchup, and the ACC doesn''t have a lot of those, and is exposure in a densely populated B1G territory.. So IMO dropping this isn't a slam dunk move either.

Really, I think the current ACC bowl lineup is a good one, the best the ACC has ever had. It was a neat negotiating coup for the ACC to worm its way into the lucrative Citrus Bowl rotation when the B1G is in the Orange Bowl. That 'secondary' tie-in has already produced two ACC appearances in the Citrus Bowl so far (I know one of those was Notre Dame, but the ACC still got the $4.5m check).

Sure, if there's a chance to improve it, do so, but if i was an ACC fan I wouldn't regard our bowl lineup as a problem that needs fixing.


* Fun fact: the CBS - Sun Bowl deal is the oldest continuous national TV arrangement in college athletics. This year is the 50th anniversary of the Sun Bowl airing on CBS.

The ACC may keep the Sun---but its never made much sense for the ACC or the Sun in my opinion. The Sun needs to be a Pac12-Big12 or Pac12-SEC matchup.

The Sun Bowl will hang onto the ACC as long as possible now that ND is part of their bowl package. The only reason the BE had a shot at part of this bowl was the hope that the Sun had a shot at ND once or twice during the bowl contract cycle every time it came to renegotiate the new contracts.

(07-03-2018 07:19 AM)SC-KNIGHT Wrote:  

(06-23-2018 12:40 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-23-2018 07:31 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-23-2018 06:12 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(06-21-2018 03:22 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  To me, Annapolis is former ACC territory, they lost it when Maryland left. But, they still have an emotional attachment to that area, and plenty of UVA, VT, and even Pitt graduates end up migrating to the greater DC area. Plus, even many Maryland fans still have long historical connections to the ACC, it still casts a shadow there.

So i think the ACC wants to wave the flag in Annapolis as a way of maintaining a quasi- toehold in that extremely lucrative market.

What I'm not sure about is if there's a rising concern over bowl economics. The ACC is a largely southern conference, so naturally it doesn't have to wander far afield for most of its bowls. Also, with big CFP and TV money rolling in, bowl expenses aren't felt as onerous as they once were.

I get the sense that the ACC would like 1/3 of its lower tier bowls to be in the NE, 2/3 in the South - to mirror the composition of the conference. That means that some years you may have Southern ACC teams playing in the NE and Northern teams playing in the South - but by and large I think the goal is as many drivable bowls as possible.

Well, IIRC the only current ACC bowls that don't fit that profile would be the Detroit Bowl and the Sun Bowl.

I think it would be foolish to give up the Sun Bowl. That's a brand-name New Year's Eve bowl, on CBS*, and is a chance to wave the conference flag out west vs the PAC. I loved when the Big East had that bowl. Plus, it has strong local support so pressure to sell tickets isn't as great.

And the Detroit Bowl is a B1G matchup, and the ACC doesn''t have a lot of those, and is exposure in a densely populated B1G territory.. So IMO dropping this isn't a slam dunk move either.

Really, I think the current ACC bowl lineup is a good one, the best the ACC has ever had. It was a neat negotiating coup for the ACC to worm its way into the lucrative Citrus Bowl rotation when the B1G is in the Orange Bowl. That 'secondary' tie-in has already produced two ACC appearances in the Citrus Bowl so far (I know one of those was Notre Dame, but the ACC still got the $4.5m check).

Sure, if there's a chance to improve it, do so, but if i was an ACC fan I wouldn't regard our bowl lineup as a problem that needs fixing.


* Fun fact: the CBS - Sun Bowl deal is the oldest continuous national TV arrangement in college athletics. This year is the 50th anniversary of the Sun Bowl airing on CBS.

The ACC may keep the Sun---but its never made much sense for the ACC or the Sun in my opinion. The Sun needs to be a Pac12-Big12 or Pac12-SEC matchup.

The Sun Bowl will hang onto the ACC as long as possible now that ND is part of their bowl package. The only reason the BE had a shot at part of this bowl was the hope that the Sun had a shot at ND once or twice during the bowl contract cycle every time it came to renegotiate the new contracts.

I'd love to see the SEC get the Sun Bowl but they probably have no interest in doing so.

Personally, I love the Sun Bowl, it's a fantastic bowl.

(07-03-2018 07:19 AM)SC-KNIGHT Wrote:  

(06-23-2018 12:40 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-23-2018 07:31 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-23-2018 06:12 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(06-21-2018 03:22 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  To me, Annapolis is former ACC territory, they lost it when Maryland left. But, they still have an emotional attachment to that area, and plenty of UVA, VT, and even Pitt graduates end up migrating to the greater DC area. Plus, even many Maryland fans still have long historical connections to the ACC, it still casts a shadow there.

So i think the ACC wants to wave the flag in Annapolis as a way of maintaining a quasi- toehold in that extremely lucrative market.

What I'm not sure about is if there's a rising concern over bowl economics. The ACC is a largely southern conference, so naturally it doesn't have to wander far afield for most of its bowls. Also, with big CFP and TV money rolling in, bowl expenses aren't felt as onerous as they once were.

I get the sense that the ACC would like 1/3 of its lower tier bowls to be in the NE, 2/3 in the South - to mirror the composition of the conference. That means that some years you may have Southern ACC teams playing in the NE and Northern teams playing in the South - but by and large I think the goal is as many drivable bowls as possible.

Well, IIRC the only current ACC bowls that don't fit that profile would be the Detroit Bowl and the Sun Bowl.

I think it would be foolish to give up the Sun Bowl. That's a brand-name New Year's Eve bowl, on CBS*, and is a chance to wave the conference flag out west vs the PAC. I loved when the Big East had that bowl. Plus, it has strong local support so pressure to sell tickets isn't as great.

And the Detroit Bowl is a B1G matchup, and the ACC doesn''t have a lot of those, and is exposure in a densely populated B1G territory.. So IMO dropping this isn't a slam dunk move either.

Really, I think the current ACC bowl lineup is a good one, the best the ACC has ever had. It was a neat negotiating coup for the ACC to worm its way into the lucrative Citrus Bowl rotation when the B1G is in the Orange Bowl. That 'secondary' tie-in has already produced two ACC appearances in the Citrus Bowl so far (I know one of those was Notre Dame, but the ACC still got the $4.5m check).

Sure, if there's a chance to improve it, do so, but if i was an ACC fan I wouldn't regard our bowl lineup as a problem that needs fixing.


* Fun fact: the CBS - Sun Bowl deal is the oldest continuous national TV arrangement in college athletics. This year is the 50th anniversary of the Sun Bowl airing on CBS.

The ACC may keep the Sun---but its never made much sense for the ACC or the Sun in my opinion. The Sun needs to be a Pac12-Big12 or Pac12-SEC matchup.

The Sun Bowl will hang onto the ACC as long as possible now that ND is part of their bowl package. The only reason the BE had a shot at part of this bowl was the hope that the Sun had a shot at ND once or twice during the bowl contract cycle every time it came to renegotiate the new contracts.

It’s not really up to the Sun Bowl if the ACC decides to go elsewhere. That’s said, as an observer with no dog in the hunt, the problem with the current Sun Bowl ties is there is no local tie. The Big12 would be a more natural partner. The Pac12 vs Big12 would be good. The Pac12 vs SEC would be ok if Aggie was in the game. The ACC vs Pac12 is basically 2 out of footprint conferences. Maybe ACC vs Big12 if the Sun really likes the idea of Notre Dame.

(07-03-2018 08:35 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  It’s not really up to the Sun Bowl if the ACC decides to go elsewhere. That’s said, as an observer with no dog in the hunt, the problem with the current Sun Bowl ties is there is no local tie. The Big12 would be a more natural partner. The Pac12 vs Big12 would be good. The Pac12 vs SEC would be ok if Aggie was in the game. The ACC vs Pac12 is basically 2 out of footprint conferences. Maybe ACC vs Big12 if the Sun really likes the idea of Notre Dame.

Historically, the Sun Bowl has drawn around 49,000 or 50,000 fans. That's because it has very strong local support. El Paso takes pride in the bowl and the locals show up no matter who the teams are, which is important because as we know, El Paso isn't close to anywhere, LOL.

But that has slipped in recent years. The past three years, attendance has been around 40,000. Can't really blame the ACC because ACC teams have been playing in it since 2010, and the first five years the attendance was within its historical average.

So something has caused the bowl to lose that attendance, maybe it's general to college football.

(07-03-2018 11:59 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-03-2018 08:35 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  It’s not really up to the Sun Bowl if the ACC decides to go elsewhere. That’s said, as an observer with no dog in the hunt, the problem with the current Sun Bowl ties is there is no local tie. The Big12 would be a more natural partner. The Pac12 vs Big12 would be good. The Pac12 vs SEC would be ok if Aggie was in the game. The ACC vs Pac12 is basically 2 out of footprint conferences. Maybe ACC vs Big12 if the Sun really likes the idea of Notre Dame.

Historically, the Sun Bowl has drawn around 49,000 or 50,000 fans. That's because it has very strong local support. El Paso takes pride in the bowl and the locals show up no matter who the teams are, which is important because as we know, El Paso isn't close to anywhere, LOL.

But that has slipped in recent years. The past three years, attendance has been around 40,000. Can't really blame the ACC because ACC teams have been playing in it since 2010, and the first five years the attendance was within its historical average.

So something has caused the bowl to lose that attendance, maybe it's general to college football.

Maybe the bowl is getting lower selections? Seems like I remember the Alamo Bowl bumping its payout to attract the Sun's superior selection.

(07-03-2018 11:59 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-03-2018 08:35 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  It’s not really up to the Sun Bowl if the ACC decides to go elsewhere. That’s said, as an observer with no dog in the hunt, the problem with the current Sun Bowl ties is there is no local tie. The Big12 would be a more natural partner. The Pac12 vs Big12 would be good. The Pac12 vs SEC would be ok if Aggie was in the game. The ACC vs Pac12 is basically 2 out of footprint conferences. Maybe ACC vs Big12 if the Sun really likes the idea of Notre Dame.

Historically, the Sun Bowl has drawn around 49,000 or 50,000 fans. That's because it has very strong local support. El Paso takes pride in the bowl and the locals show up no matter who the teams are, which is important because as we know, El Paso isn't close to anywhere, LOL.

But that has slipped in recent years. The past three years, attendance has been around 40,000. Can't really blame the ACC because ACC teams have been playing in it since 2010, and the first five years the attendance was within its historical average.

So something has caused the bowl to lose that attendance, maybe it's general to college football.

Its easier and cheaper to stay home and watch the game on HD TV. Food consumption and beer consumption is cheaper too, plus parking in your driveway is cheaper than stadium parking.

(07-03-2018 12:13 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-03-2018 11:59 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-03-2018 08:35 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  It’s not really up to the Sun Bowl if the ACC decides to go elsewhere. That’s said, as an observer with no dog in the hunt, the problem with the current Sun Bowl ties is there is no local tie. The Big12 would be a more natural partner. The Pac12 vs Big12 would be good. The Pac12 vs SEC would be ok if Aggie was in the game. The ACC vs Pac12 is basically 2 out of footprint conferences. Maybe ACC vs Big12 if the Sun really likes the idea of Notre Dame.

Historically, the Sun Bowl has drawn around 49,000 or 50,000 fans. That's because it has very strong local support. El Paso takes pride in the bowl and the locals show up no matter who the teams are, which is important because as we know, El Paso isn't close to anywhere, LOL.

But that has slipped in recent years. The past three years, attendance has been around 40,000. Can't really blame the ACC because ACC teams have been playing in it since 2010, and the first five years the attendance was within its historical average.

So something has caused the bowl to lose that attendance, maybe it's general to college football.

Maybe the bowl is getting lower selections? Seems like I remember the Alamo Bowl bumping its payout to attract the Sun's superior selection.

If I recall correctly from the beginning of the bowl cycle we are now in, the Sun is the PAC #5 bowl where it was #4 before. It could be playing a role.