• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Bowl Watch 2011

DeacDaddy said:
The Clemson team that was so helped by the refs in getting there? Yuck. Then again VT was helped too. I don't want Shreveport but I don't want a Clemson championship either.
Click to expand...

I know. It's gross, but Charlotte or Nashville would be all but sewn up if we sneak two teams into the BCS.
 
HeavyPetter said:
Shreveport pays $300,000 more per team than the Military Bowl. To a certain extent, this rule protects them and allows them to get a better team with better TV exposure in most cases.

The fact is that we do want the rule's protection. We don't want to set a precedent of doing an end rougn on the rules so that the big football schools and the bowls can put pressure on the ACC and us when they don't like the way the bowl scenarios are playing out.

And I don't even understand the argument for why the ACC would allow the rule to be broken anyway. Don't you think that the Military Bowl would rather have UNC-CH than Wake anyway? Chapel Hill is closer to DC and they have a bigger following and will get them some ratings. They're happy that they fell into their laps.

And there's no way that UNC-CH would rather have Shreveport. Actually, no one in the ACC wants Shreveport, including the ACC. It's a break-even financial deal at best and there's no way anyone is going to the game. The bowl flat out sucks. I'll also point out that UNC recruits pretty well in Virginia and ought to like the idea of a bowl game in that area, even though they're in the market for a new coach.
Click to expand...

Clearly we're talking about two different things. You're talking about why we should and would use the rule to protect us. I don't dispute that.

But it doesnt sound like you dispute my point either -- that just because there's a rule, it doesnt prohibit all interested parties from getting together and figuring out something they can all live with that would require the rule to be waived. I'm not saying it will happen this way; I was simply responding to folks who said that this type thing was impossible because of the rule.
 
I hope it's impossible because of the rule because long term (or maybe even just next year) it provides an avenue for us to get fucked. All interested parties includes the entire ACC and its bowl partners. And like I said before, I doubt UNC is going to say that they can live with being shipped to Shreveport.
 
The DC thing is not going to happen. Doesn't really make sense for anyone other than the Independence Bowl.

Again, the sooner you all embrace this:

5310671737_303dec7665.jpg


The happier you'll be.
 
MagicDeac said:
Clearly we're talking about two different things. You're talking about why we should and would use the rule to protect us. I don't dispute that.

But it doesnt sound like you dispute my point either -- that just because there's a rule, it doesnt prohibit all interested parties from getting together and figuring out something they can all live with that would require the rule to be waived. I'm not saying it will happen this way; I was simply responding to folks who said that this type thing was impossible because of the rule.
Click to expand...

It is possible to get around the rule - but your point is only valid if all parties are in the same boat. Military bowl has to be creaming themselves for getting UNC - you think they want Wake again? And while DC would be better for us to get to the game, $300,000 is a lot of money to pass up to get an additional thousand or so people to the game.

It would take a lot of work to get around the rule - and almost completely unlikely to be done with the worst two bowl tie-ins.
 
Don't we all share the revenue? So what does it matter who pays more if it all goes into the giant ACC pot?
 
/\ /\ /\ Ugh. How did Shreveport get an ACC bowl game? Shouldn't this be a C-USA bowl, or the 9th SEC bowl?
 
Deacfreak07 said:
Shreveport has to be dirt cheap in terms of accommodations.
Click to expand...

Agreed...that's the only positive I can think of for the I bowl. Commercial flights seem to be expensive, but I assume we'll be flying charter, so that only affects fans who don't pay enough $$ to Wake to catch a ride on the charter flight.
 
Deacfreak07 said:
2/13ths go to the participating team IiRC
Click to expand...

So ~$23000 (1*13*300000).

I don't know the expense of a charter flight versus buses (I assume they would do buses), but the difference has got to be close to that to transport the team + band. And with the Military Bowl the team and band at least have a chance at spending Christmas with their families.

If it was an either or proposition it would be an easy decision. Unfortunately, that isn't the case.
 
HeavyPetter said:
It's going to take more than that for the ACC to get two teams in the BCS. I think we need a Houston loss to So Miss in the CUSA championship game as well. Even in that case I'm not sure the ACC gets two, as they'll still probably be ranked too high in the BCS poll to pass over.
Click to expand...

If they do lose, there's still a 50/50 chance TCU (currently #18) would move into the top 16, which would give them the non-AQ bowl bid instead. As long as a conference champ from a non-BCS league is in the top 16 and ranked ahead of at least one of the BCS conference champs (BE), they have an auto bid. If Houston wins, that's a bid, if they lose, it's far from a given that a non-AQ gets one.

Under the scenario of Houston losing and TSU finishing outside the top 16, here's the rundown of the four at-large bids (assuming LSU beats Georgia, and Alabama remains ahead of OkSt in BCS):
1. Alabama
2. Stanford (locked into an at-large as long as they remain in the top 4 of the BCS, likely to Fiesta)
3. Big 12 at-large. Oklahoma/Oklahoma St/Kansas St. This will likely be the loser of the OSU/OU game this weekend. On the off chance Oklahoma fell to 15th with a bad loss (currently 10th), this could be Kansas State, although they'd be measured against other available options.
4. Here it gets interesting. The loser of the Big Ten CG is likely to fall out of the top 14 with the two teams at 13 and 15 respectively. Michigan is currently at 16. If neither the CG loser or Michigan cracks the top 14, the Big Ten will only have 1 bid. The only options for the at-large would be Boise St (likely #5 under this scenario) and VT. I think VT has a legitimate chance in that scenario.

That's asking a lot though, starting with Houston losing, so I'd call the scenario extremely unlikely.
 
If a bowl is a reward for a "successful" season, then why do I feel as if we are being punished?
 
Haros said:
If they do lose, there's still a 50/50 chance TCU (currently #18) would move into the top 16, which would give them the non-AQ bowl bid instead. As long as a conference champ from a non-BCS league is in the top 16 and ranked ahead of at least one of the BCS conference champs (BE), they have an auto bid. If Houston wins, that's a bid, if they lose, it's far from a given that a non-AQ gets one.

Under the scenario of Houston losing and TSU finishing outside the top 16, here's the rundown of the four at-large bids (assuming LSU beats Georgia, and Alabama remains ahead of OkSt in BCS):
1. Alabama
2. Stanford (locked into an at-large as long as they remain in the top 4 of the BCS, likely to Fiesta)
3. Big 12 at-large. Oklahoma/Oklahoma St/Kansas St. This will likely be the loser of the OSU/OU game this weekend. On the off chance Oklahoma fell to 15th with a bad loss (currently 10th), this could be Kansas State, although they'd be measured against other available options.
4. Here it gets interesting. The loser of the Big Ten CG is likely to fall out of the top 14 with the two teams at 13 and 15 respectively. Michigan is currently at 16. If neither the CG loser or Michigan cracks the top 14, the Big Ten will only have 1 bid. The only options for the at-large would be Boise St (likely #5 under this scenario) and VT. I think VT has a legitimate chance in that scenario.

That's asking a lot though, starting with Houston losing, so I'd call the scenario extremely unlikely.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I considered all of that as I had the BCS rules open as I was typing. Obviously, Boise State is almost 100% out as they will almost certainly not win the MWC. Therefore, I don't think there's any chance of them going to a BCS game. I think the Sugar would pick Houston rather than BSU, to virtually assure a sellout. I was going to mention TCU (#18), but I just don't think they're likely to climb up to #16, especially since Clemson (#20) would likely jump them if they win the ACCCG.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned, is how far Georgia might fall if they lose to LSU. They're #14 right now. Arkansas dropped five spots from #3 after losing to LSU last week, but Georgia might not drop that hard if they show up better than Arkansas did and if voters don't see the need to punish the #14 team for a loss as much as the #3 team.
 
york1313 said:
If a bowl is a reward for a "successful" season, then why do I feel as if we are being punished?
Click to expand...

When you read posts that this, it makes you feel good about how far our football program has come, seriously not being critical. In 1992, we went to the Indy Bowl after not bowling for 13 years and were estatic. 18 years later we're complaining about it. Thank you Jim Grobe and company!
 
HeavyPetter said:
How successful is a 6-6 season?
Click to expand...

Depends on how we define success. Successful as compared to last season, absolutely. Successful in terms of having more sucesses during the season, than failures, no. :noidea:
 
Shreveport is a barely a bowl destination which is fitting for teams who barely made a bowl.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top