Bowl Situation

[Guest]

Couple thoughts:

Louisville will beat either WVU, us, or Rutgers. They are still a dangerous team. Remember they beat Cincinatti and only lost to Rutgers on that ridiculous fair catch play that Tranghese apologized to Uconn for.

Is it true that the bowl selections are not based on conference standings?

Yes. That is correct.  The BCS "representative" has a process, the rest are based on a "selection order" -- the Gator/Sun, the Meineke Car Care Bowl, and then the PapaJohns and International Bowl work out their selections with the Conference.  The only caveat is that the Gator/Sun can not take Team A if Team B is available and has two overall wins or more than Team A.

If so then, Louisville's travel contingent will make them a shoe in for a bowl game should they win one more.

I think that because of the publicity we've earned this year we are more attractive to bowls as a team that will garner local interest over say a Uconn or Cinnci.

I've heard in the past that the travel and border situation with the international bowl makes it a financial loss for us if we ever get selected.

I do not want to play UCF in the PJ bowl. Based on how the two teams are playing now it could be a disaster on a neutral field. If we win that game by 20 points it probably hurts us because they are "closing the gap."

In my opinion, the absolute best case scenario would be vs. FSU in the Meineke Bowl. We could save the entire season in that one game and it would be a blast.

Jim, what would have to happen for us to play FSU in Charlotte? Thanks.

Mince, it would take significant efforts.  The Champs, Meineke, and Music City bowls all work with the ACC to bring a team that makes sense for their location.  The ACC would work to put FSU in the Champs Sports bowl in Orlando rather than have them travel all the way to Carolina.

A bowl game situated in Charlotte, North Carolina will never want to take two teams from the state of Florida... especially since FSU will probably be 6-6 and there will be geographically closer ACC teams with better records available (GA Tech, UVa, Clemson, etc).

Basically, FSU and Miami both have to be available for the Champs, and the other ACC teams need to be two-wins behind the Seminoles and Canes (basically, they would all need to be 6-6).  Then Miami could go to the Champs and FSU could go to Charlotte.

Put it this way... I have a better chance of dating Jenn Sterger.    ;D    ;D

[GarySJ]

Gary - The NCAA changed the rules after 2002 to require all contracts be in place before the season starts.  There won't be any deals late in the game.

NCAA rules have never been an obstacle to conferences, bowl games, and ESPN getting what they want. They've changed the rules during the season before, and they can do it again. At a minimum, I expect a major overhaul to these rules after this season is done. If long-suffering programs like Vanderbilt and Indiana get passed over while automatic invitations go to Memphis and Ball State, there's going to be a lot of caterwauling.

[Guest]

Gary - The NCAA changed the rules after 2002 to require all contracts be in place before the season starts.  There won't be any deals late in the game.

NCAA rules have never been an obstacle to conferences, bowl games, and ESPN getting what they want. They've changed the rules during the season before, and they can do it again. At a minimum, I expect a major overhaul to these rules after this season is done. If long-suffering programs like Vanderbilt and Indiana get passed over while automatic invitations go to Memphis and Ball State, there's going to be a lot of caterwauling.

Well, there is a new penalty that never existed before...

From the 2007-2008 handbook:

Penalties for Failure to Comply With Requirements

If the management of a licensed game fails to comply with Bylaw 30.9, the requirement for an audited financial report for the immediate past game, or the NCAA’s approved policies and procedures, the subcommittee has the option to withhold licensing for the postseason bowl game for one year or fine it a percentage of its gross receipts, not to exceed 50 percent, from the contest involved in the noncompliance, with the amount to be determined by it and approved by the Division I Championships/Competition Cabinet.

[GarySJ]

or fine it a percentage of its gross receipts, not to exceed 50 percent

Considering who some of these bowl games are obligated to take, and who the alternatives are, that fine might actually be worth paying. Mississippi State or Vanderbilt, making its first bowl trip in years, could probably produce twice as much revenue for the PJC bowl as UTEP or Tulsa.

As for de-licensing the game, pfft. The NCAA wouldn't dare. They wouldn't de-license a game that was trying to extort $2 million from USF.

[Guest]

or fine it a percentage of its gross receipts, not to exceed 50 percent

Considering who some of these bowl games are obligated to take, and who the alternatives are, that fine might actually be worth paying. Mississippi State or Vanderbilt, making its first bowl trip in years, could probably produce twice as much revenue for the PJC bowl as UTEP or Tulsa.

As for de-licensing the game, pfft. The NCAA wouldn't dare. They wouldn't de-license a game that was trying to extort $2 million from USF.

Except they did de-license the Seattle Bowl the very next year... but that was before this rule was in effect.

[GarySJ]

Except they did de-license the Seattle Bowl the very next year

Only because it went out of business. Bowl games go under all the time. The Seattle game was having financial problems which is why they tried to extort the $2 million out of us. But there is no precedent for NCAA punitive de-licensing of bowl games, and I don't think they'd start now.

[Joe]

Gary it cannot happen as the MAC is tied in for any non BE/CUSA availability.

You're using wishful thinking on any bowl game killing their contract for a better matchup.

The NCAA will punish them severly.

[Guest]

Except they did de-license the Seattle Bowl the very next year

Only because it went out of business. Bowl games go under all the time. The Seattle game was having financial problems which is why they tried to extort the $2 million out of us. But there is no precedent for NCAA punitive de-licensing of bowl games, and I don't think they'd start now.

The Seattle Bowl couldn't meet the terms of the licensing by getting a letter of credit... which is why it went out of business.

But there is no precedent because the NCAA never had the authority until 2003, and no bowl has done anything since the threat of sanctions was put in place.  This is also why so many of the "lower" bowls have agreements with more than one conference.

I agree with JoeB here, Gary, just because USF and a few other teams were screwed in 2002 doesn't mean it can happen again.

[GarySJ]

Gary it cannot happen as the MAC is tied in for any non BE/CUSA availability.

Is that how it works? The tie-in was always listed as "Big East/MAC", but the MAC's role in the game was never specified.

You're using wishful thinking on any bowl game killing their contract for a better matchup.

I may be. But it's happened before. I remember Texas A&M trying to pressure the GMAC Bowl into inviting them. The GMAC Bowl, to its credit, said it would honor its contracts. But other bowl presidents are not so honorable. And if the NCAA has established punitive measures, this season will probably be the impetus to the bowls finding a new way to deal with them. ESPN and the orange-jacket bowl dorks are not going to like being forced to take 6-6 C-USA teams. Having personally railed at the unfairness of bowl games in the past, I'm glad the NCAA has taken some steps to ensure a more level playing field. But as usual, the NCAA's cure is worse than the disease. What we need is a return to at-large games

BTW, there's a small possibility C-USA will not have six 6-win teams. Houston, Tulsa, UCF, ECU, and USM will all get there, but Memphis or UTEP (both of whom suck) need to win 2 of 3. This could create an opening in a C-USA bowl game. So it's not completely wishful thinking.

[Guest]

BTW, there's a small possibility C-USA will not have six 6-win teams. Houston, Tulsa, UCF, ECU, and USM will all get there, but Memphis or UTEP (both of whom suck) need to win 2 of 3. This could create an opening in a C-USA bowl game. So it's not completely wishful thinking.

True.  Memphis, tho, plays both Marshall and SMU (a combined 2-15, 1-8), so I think The Tigers will make it.  UTEP's road is a bit more of a challenge, so you are probably right about the Miners.

That being said, the most likely open bowl slots will be in the BCS conferences who get two teams in a BCS bowl - most likely the PAC 10 and maybe the Big 12.

But open slots will not be re-contracted at the last minute as you might imagine, or as happened in 2002.