Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest Cowboy Junky

Deseret News on new proposed bowl...

Recommended Posts

I would be all for an additional bowl game for our conference. That can only be a benefit. However, Utah in December can be pretty miserable so I'd hate to see BYU play in this bowl game often. I'd prefer to travel to Vegas or San Diego. But then again, playing in the Rocky Mtn Bowl in SLC would be fun every once in awhile. We could sell that whole place out. Anyways, I would vote "yes" for this new bowl proposal. It would also be fun to watch other teams in our conference play in this bowl. I'd come watch the Pokes duke it out with some WAC team. Actually I'd love to see Wyoming play in this bowl game. Weather wise, they'd be right at home, and they would bring a ton of fans from Wyoming with em.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The last thing the NCAA needs is more bowl games. It's not even an accomplishment to go bowling anymore. It used to mean that you were good if you went bowling. Now it means you suck if you don't.

If all it takes to motivate you is a pretty picture and a catchy phrase ,you probably have a very easy job. The kind that robots will be doing soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can you not think it is a good idea? I dont care if it is vs the sun belt and pays 350,000. yes there are too many bowls..the BCS one are the only ones that people care about anyway. Might get a 6-6 Colorado team. Nothing but good things can happen. with 5 bowls no team from mwc will sit and watch with a winning record.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Screw this. We don't need any more Toilet Bowls.

Lets work on getting the Sun Bowl instead.

Agreed. We need bigger bowls in warmer locations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Cowboy Junky

How can you not think it is a good idea? I dont care if it is vs the sun belt and pays 350,000. yes there are too many bowls..the BCS one are the only ones that people care about anyway. Might get a 6-6 Colorado team. Nothing but good things can happen. with 5 bowls no team from mwc will sit and watch with a winning record.

I could care less if the system is getting saturated, too many bowls, minimum payout, bad weather, yada, yada, yada...

The reality is, MWC teams have been left out of bowl games two out of the last three years and we've had to work like hell to try to get our teams in bowl games outside of our bowl arrangement. Bowls are good for the teams attending them. They're good for the cities hosting them. They're good for recruiting. They give younger players a chance to develop. They give an additional month of practice time. They result in more exposure for the league.

I don't care how you look at it, the MWC needs to send all of it's bowl eligible teams to bowl games. SLC will support a bowl game in December. It's a no brainer, especially if they can get a decent pay-out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ragtimeJOE

I would be much more excited if they were working on our top end and not our bottom end. Sure it is good to send all of our eligible teams to bowls, but the real problem for us is quality not quantity. This only helps on the quantity front (I already commented on opponent in another thread).

We need to get our #1 (assuming no bcs) in a warm location on a good date, against a good opponent, and out from under espn. We need the same thing for our #2 and #3. After that, I'm all for filling voids with "toilet bowls". I'm not against this (just the opponent), but I'm also not that excited about it. Or at least not as excited as if they announced something to remedy the quality end of things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Cowboy Junky

I would be much more excited if they were working on our top end and not our bottom end. Sure it is good to send all of our eligible teams to bowls, but the real problem for us is quality not quantity. This only helps on the quantity front (I already commented on opponent in another thread).

We need to get our #1 (assuming no bcs) in a warm location on a good date, against a good opponent, and out from under espn. We need the same thing for our #2 and #3. After that, I'm all for filling voids with "toilet bowls". I'm not against this (just the opponent), but I'm also not that excited about it. Or at least not as excited as if they announced something to remedy the quality end of things.

You can't fix the top end bowls until their contracts expire, so we might as well fix the problems we can fix right now. I applaud the commissioner on the formation of the New Mexico bowl and the Rocky MTN bowl, with the caveat that he better get us a better bowl to add to the top as soon as the contracts come up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could care less if the system is getting saturated, too many bowls, minimum payout, bad weather, yada, yada, yada...

The reality is, MWC teams have been left out of bowl games two out of the last three years and we've had to work like hell to try to get our teams in bowl games outside of our bowl arrangement. Bowls are good for the teams attending them. They're good for the cities hosting them. They're good for recruiting. They give younger players a chance to develop. They give an additional month of practice time. They result in more exposure for the league.

I don't care how you look at it, the MWC needs to send all of it's bowl eligible teams to bowl games. SLC will support a bowl game in December. It's a no brainer, especially if they can get a decent pay-out.

Couldnot agree more.

I would be much more excited if they were working on our top end and not our bottom end. Sure it is good to send all of our eligible teams to bowls, but the real problem for us is quality not quantity. This only helps on the quantity front (I already commented on opponent in another thread).

We need to get our #1 (assuming no bcs) in a warm location on a good date, against a good opponent, and out from under espn. We need the same thing for our #2 and #3. After that, I'm all for filling voids with "toilet bowls". I'm not against this (just the opponent), but I'm also not that excited about it. Or at least not as excited as if they announced something to remedy the quality end of things.

That is where expansion come in. When the Big12 moves its BCS game to jerry world the fiesta will need a host. Our 9 doesnt deserve it but our 11 (boise & Fresno)would be perfect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Cowboy Junky

LAME!!!!!

We dont need any more "who cares" bowls. Thompson should be going after existing, and better bowls.

So many 6-6 vs. 6-6 is stupid.

How are you supposed to take a bowl that is currently under contract?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ragtimeJOE

You can't fix the top end bowls until their contracts expire, so we might as well fix the problems we can fix right now. I applaud the commissioner on the formation of the New Mexico bowl and the Rocky MTN bowl, with the caveat that he better get us a better bowl to add to the top as soon as the contracts come up.

That is true. My hope is that (assuming the Rocky Mtn Bowl comes about) is that the NM Bowl drops the wac in favor of an aq team. We also definitely need to get our #1 and #2 much closer to Jan. 1 (and in good locations).

It is quite possible this was our only option at this point, so Junky is right, let's wait and see what the next plans are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ragtimeJOE

That is where expansion come in. When the Big12 moves its BCS game to jerry world the fiesta will need a host. Our 9 doesnt deserve it but our 11 (boise & Fresno)would be perfect.

I might be in the minority on this one, but even if the Big 12 moves to the Cotton, I don't think the Fiesta will be looking. I think the Cotton will just fill the need of the +1 format. I don't think we have a shot of poaching the Fiesta--unless we add AZ and AZ state (that aint happening, so....).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this should be called the Wyoming Bowl, since its basically made for that 6-6 Wyoming team that always gets left out of a bowl...

Kidding aside, there's no reason to have bowl eligible teams sitting at home. This bowl doesn't preclude us from trying to improve our bowls for two years from now. But for the next two years our 5th team would have a guaranteed spot.

I do think it could have trouble getting approved, though. With three more bowls, it is getting awfully close to running out of bowl eligible teams....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How are you supposed to take a bowl that is currently under contract?

Rumor has it that the Big East may leave the Sun Bowl in a few years.

We need to snatch it up for our champion and push our other 4 back. Then we'll have 5 decent bowls.

I'm in favor of adding bowls, just not pre-christmas "who cares" bowls. They do little for the conference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Cowboy Junky

That is true. My hope is that (assuming the Rocky Mtn Bowl comes about) is that the NM Bowl drops the wac in favor of an aq team. We also definitely need to get our #1 and #2 much closer to Jan. 1 (and in good locations).

It is quite possible this was our only option at this point, so Junky is right, let's wait and see what the next plans are.

With CBS taking over the t.v. for the MWC and the Big East looking to get out of the Sun Bowl, I could see us landing that bowl if certain things fall into place. I don't know if that would require us to invite Utep as ten, but I could live with that.

Sun Bowl

Vegas Bowl

Poinsettia

Fort Worth

New Mexico

Rocky Mountain Bowl

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Cowboy Junky

I think this should be called the Wyoming Bowl, since its basically made for that 6-6 Wyoming team that always gets left out of a bowl...

Kidding aside, there's no reason to have bowl eligible teams sitting at home. This bowl doesn't preclude us from trying to improve our bowls for two years from now. But for the next two years our 5th team would have a guaranteed spot.

I do think it could have trouble getting approved, though. With three more bowls, it is getting awfully close to running out of bowl eligible teams....

Who gets left out? All 6-6 BCS teams get at-large slots. The teams that get bumped are the 6-6 non-bcs teams. With a new bowl, it makes it impossible for us to get bumped from a bowl game for a 6-6 North Carolina team.

I agree we need to get more attractive bowl games at the top, but having all of our second/third tier bowl games in MWC cities will ensure that all of our eligible teams get to go to bowls and that those bowls will survive. The regionalization of our bowls is a good thing.

Now we need to address the bowl for our champion. That's the next item we need to fix.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ragtimeJOE

I do think it could have trouble getting approved, though. With three more bowls, it is getting awfully close to running out of bowl eligible teams....

I wondered about this as well. It seems like there have been some years in the past where they were a little worried about enough bowl eligible teams for the current Bowls. I wonder what the odds are of them accepting all 3 (proposed) and what the order of priority will be if they only accept 1 or 2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...