MAC Secures 3rd Bowl; 6-6 Teams Bowl Eligible

MACReport · Post by **MACReport** » Thu Apr 27, 2006 11:23 pm

News from today's NCAA board meetings. International Bowl gets licensed. 6-6 teams can go bowling:

http://www.macreportonline.com/International_Bowl.html

TG1996 · Post by **TG1996** » Thu Apr 27, 2006 11:35 pm

Good news!

Interesting how they set up the 6-6 requirement, I'm glad to see it. (At least the way I'm understanding it, I'm glad to see it, I guess. I'd rather see winning teams get in regardless of conference bowl affiliations, but at this point, I'll take it.)

Zom · Post by **Zom** » Fri Apr 28, 2006 4:42 am

The "international" slant on this gives the bowl a unique brand which I'm optimistic about. I can't remember who's "Big East" board I was looking at a couple of months ago - a couple of contributors were a little jaded about travelling north for a bowl game. Detroit managed to pull it off handsomely, I don't see why Toronto can't. I like it.

Schadenfreude · Post by **Schadenfreude** » Fri Apr 28, 2006 8:36 am

The kicker is that the game will be played on Jan. 6, after most of the BCS bowls and just before the so-called national title bowl.

That's huge.

1987alum · Post by **1987alum** » Fri Apr 28, 2006 8:40 am

Schadenfreude wrote:The kicker is that the game will be played on Jan. 6, after most of the BCS bowls and just before the so-called national title bowl.

That's huge.

And since it's not right before or after Christmas, it's much easier for those travelling with kids. Yes, that's an egocentric view.

transfer2BGSU · Post by **transfer2BGSU** » Fri Apr 28, 2006 10:12 am

If a conference cannot fulfill its bowl obligations with at least a 6-6 team, then the bowl is free to seek out a team from another conference with a winning record. If no such teams are available, then the bowl is free to invite any otherwise eligible 6-6 team.

But do you think some bowl would have picked Akron at 6-5 over a BcS .500 team a few years ago?

Free to seek out does not mean REQUIRED to seek out. Just another way for the big boys to get even more of the bowl money.

Schadenfreude · Post by **Schadenfreude** » Fri Apr 28, 2006 10:29 am

transfer2BGSU wrote:
If a conference cannot fulfill its bowl obligations with at least a 6-6 team, then the bowl is free to seek out a team from another conference with a winning record. If no such teams are available, then the bowl is free to invite any otherwise eligible 6-6 team.
But do you think some bowl would have picked Akron at 6-5 over a BcS .500 team a few years ago?

Free to seek out does not mean REQUIRED to seek out. Just another way for the big boys to get even more of the bowl money.

I would guess it is "free to seek out" as opposed to "free to decide not to play the game at all."

rocketfootball · Post by **rocketfootball** » Fri Apr 28, 2006 10:34 am

transfer2BGSU wrote:
If a conference cannot fulfill its bowl obligations with at least a 6-6 team, then the bowl is free to seek out a team from another conference with a winning record. If no such teams are available, then the bowl is free to invite any otherwise eligible 6-6 team.
But do you think some bowl would have picked Akron at 6-5 over a BcS .500 team a few years ago?

Free to seek out does not mean REQUIRED to seek out. Just another way for the big boys to get even more of the bowl money.

If a conference cannot fulfill their tie-in, then the bowl game must take an at-large that has a winning record if there is one available. If there isn't, then they can take an at-large with a 6-6 record.

BGSU33 · Post by **BGSU33** » Fri Apr 28, 2006 10:47 am

Any time the MAC gets more tie-ins, it's a great thing for all of us! Great news, great news!

Falconfreak90 · Post by **Falconfreak90** » Fri Apr 28, 2006 10:52 am

1987alum wrote:
Schadenfreude wrote:The kicker is that the game will be played on Jan. 6, after most of the BCS bowls and just before the so-called national title bowl.

That's huge.
And since it's not right before or after Christmas, it's much easier for those travelling with kids. Yes, that's an egocentric view.

And I like that view as well, '87.

Toronto is a 3 1/2 hr drive from Akron.

BGSUFootballFan · Post by **BGSUFootballFan** » Fri Apr 28, 2006 11:09 am

sweet, and we need the MONEY!!!!!!

1987alum · Post by **1987alum** » Fri Apr 28, 2006 11:59 am

So how will the MAC assign their teams? In other words, which is the "premiere" bowl for the MAC? Does the MAC champion go to the MCB, #2 to GMAC and "at large" to the International?

Salsa · Post by **Salsa** » Fri Apr 28, 2006 12:06 pm

In selecting which MAC teams go to which Bowls, the MCB and the GMAC Bowls appear to have established a good working relationship. Since some of the MCB officials, especially Director Ken Hoffman, will also be officials of the new International Bowl, I expect good working relationships among all three Bowls.

I expect an effort will be made to select MAC teams which will work best for all three Bowls. One thing that will help is the "other" Conference is different for each Bowl.

1987alum · Post by **1987alum** » Fri Apr 28, 2006 12:22 pm

Salsa wrote:In selecting which MAC teams go to which Bowls, the MCB and the GMAC Bowls appear to have established a good working relationship. Since some of the MCB officials, especially Director Ken Hoffman, will also be officials of the new International Bowl, I expect good working relationships among all three Bowls.

I expect an effort will be made to select MAC teams which will work best for all three Bowls. One thing that will help is the "other" Conference is different for each Bowl.

I just read elsewhere that the International Bowl would get MAC #3, although I'm sure there will be some wiggle room.

BGSUFootballFan · Post by **BGSUFootballFan** » Fri Apr 28, 2006 1:12 pm

yes. i think the international bowl has the potential to be the #1 bowl for the MAC. but right now they have it listed as the MAC #3 vs BigE #5 i think it was.