ACC bowl tie-ins, 2010-2013

ACC bowl tie-ins, 2010-2013

Post by stephen » Sun, 08 Nov 2009 00:22:07


1) BCS (Orange)
2) Chick-Fil-A vs. SEC
3) Champs Sports vs. Big East/Notre Dame
4) Sun vs. PAC-10 <-- Loser of ACC title game cannot slide past this  bowl

5) Meineke vs. Big East
6) Music City vs. SEC
7) Independence vs. MWC
8) EagleBank vs. C-USA (2010), Navy (2011), Army (2012) and Big 12 (2013)

http://www.theacc.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/110509aaa.html

--
It is easier to win over people to pacifism than socialism.
We should work first for pacifism, and only later for socialism.

- Albert Einstein

 
 
 

ACC bowl tie-ins, 2010-2013

Post by JGibso » Sun, 08 Nov 2009 00:26:26


Quote:
> 1) BCS (Orange)
> 2) Chick-Fil-A vs. SEC
> 3) Champs Sports vs. Big East/Notre Dame
> 4) Sun vs. PAC-10 <-- Loser of ACC title game cannot slide past this ?bowl

> 5) Meineke vs. Big East
> 6) Music City vs. SEC
> 7) Independence vs. MWC
> 8) EagleBank vs. C-USA (2010), Navy (2011), Army (2012) and Big 12 (2013)

Navy and Army already made separate deals with the Eagle Bank Bowlin
2011 and 2012?  What if Navy is not bowl eligible in 2011, but Army
is?  Will Army slide in instead?

 
 
 

ACC bowl tie-ins, 2010-2013

Post by Cyclone Range » Sun, 08 Nov 2009 00:40:34


Quote:
> 1) BCS (Orange)
> 2) Chick-Fil-A vs. SEC
> 3) Champs Sports vs. Big East/Notre Dame
> 4) Sun vs. PAC-10 <-- Loser of ACC title game cannot slide past this ?bowl

> 5) Meineke vs. Big East
> 6) Music City vs. SEC
> 7) Independence vs. MWC
> 8) EagleBank vs. C-USA (2010), Navy (2011), Army (2012) and Big 12 (2013)

> http://www.theacc.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/110509aaa.html

Tie-ins suck.

 
 
 

ACC bowl tie-ins, 2010-2013

Post by Kyle T. Jone » Sun, 08 Nov 2009 00:46:00

Quote:

> 1) BCS (Orange)
> 2) Chick-Fil-A vs. SEC
> 3) Champs Sports vs. Big East/Notre Dame
> 4) Sun vs. PAC-10 <-- Loser of ACC title game cannot slide past this  bowl

> 5) Meineke vs. Big East
> 6) Music City vs. SEC
> 7) Independence vs. MWC
> 8) EagleBank vs. C-USA (2010), Navy (2011), Army (2012) and Big 12 (2013)

> http://www.theacc.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/110509aaa.html

I wish the Big Ten would pick up some tie-ins with the ACC and Big East...

I guess we have the every-other-year CUSA thing now...

Cheers.

 
 
 

ACC bowl tie-ins, 2010-2013

Post by J.C. Watts Ensli » Sun, 08 Nov 2009 01:33:49


Quote:

> > 1) BCS (Orange)
> > 2) Chick-Fil-A vs. SEC
> > 3) Champs Sports vs. Big East/Notre Dame
> > 4) Sun vs. PAC-10 <-- Loser of ACC title game cannot slide past this ?bowl

> > 5) Meineke vs. Big East
> > 6) Music City vs. SEC
> > 7) Independence vs. MWC
> > 8) EagleBank vs. C-USA (2010), Navy (2011), Army (2012) and Big 12 (2013)

> >http://www.theacc.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/110509aaa.html

> Tie-ins suck.

Yeah, but they are better than the previous free-for-all.

Jon

 
 
 

ACC bowl tie-ins, 2010-2013

Post by JGibso » Sun, 08 Nov 2009 02:03:38


Quote:


> > > 1) BCS (Orange)
> > > 2) Chick-Fil-A vs. SEC
> > > 3) Champs Sports vs. Big East/Notre Dame
> > > 4) Sun vs. PAC-10 <-- Loser of ACC title game cannot slide past this ?bowl

> > > 5) Meineke vs. Big East
> > > 6) Music City vs. SEC
> > > 7) Independence vs. MWC
> > > 8) EagleBank vs. C-USA (2010), Navy (2011), Army (2012) and Big 12 (2013)

> > >http://www.theacc.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/110509aaa.html

> > Tie-ins suck.

> Yeah, but they are better than the previous free-for-all.

Those days were ridiculous mostly because of the fact that individual
teams would make deals with bowl games with 3 or 4 games left in the
season.  However, these tie-ins are causing too many repeat matchups
in bowl games.  I think rotating tie-ins might be the way to go.
 
 
 

ACC bowl tie-ins, 2010-2013

Post by Cyclone Range » Sun, 08 Nov 2009 02:23:06


Quote:



> > > > 1) BCS (Orange)
> > > > 2) Chick-Fil-A vs. SEC
> > > > 3) Champs Sports vs. Big East/Notre Dame
> > > > 4) Sun vs. PAC-10 <-- Loser of ACC title game cannot slide past this ?bowl

> > > > 5) Meineke vs. Big East
> > > > 6) Music City vs. SEC
> > > > 7) Independence vs. MWC
> > > > 8) EagleBank vs. C-USA (2010), Navy (2011), Army (2012) and Big 12 (2013)

> > > >http://www.theacc.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/110509aaa.html

> > > Tie-ins suck.

> > Yeah, but they are better than the previous free-for-all.

> Those days were ridiculous mostly because of the fact that individual
> teams would make deals with bowl games with 3 or 4 games left in the
> season. ?However, these tie-ins are causing too many repeat matchups
> in bowl games. ?I think rotating tie-ins might be the way to go.- Hide quoted text -

> - Show quoted text -

NU played LSU 3 times within 5 years in the 1980s--on merit.
Nowadays, it's like musical chairs and the same Purdues and Wakes and
Boston Colleges are left standing at the end.
 
 
 

ACC bowl tie-ins, 2010-2013

Post by stephen » Sun, 08 Nov 2009 06:40:33

Quote:



>>> 1) BCS (Orange)
>>> 2) Chick-Fil-A vs. SEC
>>> 3) Champs Sports vs. Big East/Notre Dame
>>> 4) Sun vs. PAC-10 <-- Loser of ACC title game cannot slide past this  bowl
>>> 5) Meineke vs. Big East
>>> 6) Music City vs. SEC
>>> 7) Independence vs. MWC
>>> 8) EagleBank vs. C-USA (2010), Navy (2011), Army (2012) and Big 12 (2013)
>>> http://SportToday.org/
>> Tie-ins suck.

> Yeah, but they are better than the previous free-for-all.

i much prefer the free-for-all. added some e***ment to the process.
you could go ... anywhere.

--
"the purpose of the Russian campaign is to reduce the Slavic
population by 30 million".

- Heinrich Himmler, 1941

 
 
 

ACC bowl tie-ins, 2010-2013

Post by xyzz » Sun, 08 Nov 2009 06:48:08


Quote:



> >>> 1) BCS (Orange)
> >>> 2) Chick-Fil-A vs. SEC
> >>> 3) Champs Sports vs. Big East/Notre Dame
> >>> 4) Sun vs. PAC-10 <-- Loser of ACC title game cannot slide past this ?bowl
> >>> 5) Meineke vs. Big East
> >>> 6) Music City vs. SEC
> >>> 7) Independence vs. MWC
> >>> 8) EagleBank vs. C-USA (2010), Navy (2011), Army (2012) and Big 12 (2013)
> >>>http://SportToday.org/
> >> Tie-ins suck.

> > Yeah, but they are better than the previous free-for-all.

> i much prefer the free-for-all. added some e***ment to the process.
> you could go ... anywhere.

I agree with you but it's like an arms race.  There are plenty of
bowls for everyone and everyone would probably be better off, or just
as well off, with a free for all.  But who's going to be the first to
give up their tie-ins?
 
 
 

ACC bowl tie-ins, 2010-2013

Post by stephen » Sun, 08 Nov 2009 10:00:03

Quote:





>>>>> 1) BCS (Orange)
>>>>> 2) Chick-Fil-A vs. SEC
>>>>> 3) Champs Sports vs. Big East/Notre Dame
>>>>> 4) Sun vs. PAC-10 <-- Loser of ACC title game cannot slide past this  bowl
>>>>> 5) Meineke vs. Big East
>>>>> 6) Music City vs. SEC
>>>>> 7) Independence vs. MWC
>>>>> 8) EagleBank vs. C-USA (2010), Navy (2011), Army (2012) and Big 12 (2013)
>>>>> http://SportToday.org/
>>>> Tie-ins suck.
>>> Yeah, but they are better than the previous free-for-all.
>> i much prefer the free-for-all. added some e***ment to the process.
>> you could go ... anywhere.

> I agree with you but it's like an arms race.  There are plenty of
> bowls for everyone and everyone would probably be better off, or just
> as well off, with a free for all.  But who's going to be the first to
> give up their tie-ins?

obviously the SEC and Big 10 won't, because they have the best tie-ins.

And the conferences like tie-ins because what university presidents
crave is "revenue certainty". That makes budgeting and complying with
all the silly government regulations (title ix, ADA, etc.) much easier.

They can actually plan on building a stupid $10 million "women's
softball stadium" and such without having to worry that it depends on
their team or some other's in their conference having a good year on the
field.

--
10 years from now we'll still be on top.

- p. diddy, 1997