MAC v. Conference USA

kdog27 · Post by **kdog27** » Wed Jul 20, 2005 7:36 pm

http://dailymail.com/news/Frank+Giardina-20050720

If you don't mind reading about Marshall...

BGSU-Ph.D. · Post by **BGSU-Ph.D.** » Wed Jul 20, 2005 9:26 pm

C-USA certainly won't be better than the MAC this year, at least not at the top.

jacojdm · Post by **jacojdm** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 9:20 am

it's interesting to note that the only MAC loss was by marshall. i can't wait until the c-usa tailspin takes down marshall.

1987alum · Post by **1987alum** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 12:53 pm

jacojdm wrote:it's interesting to note that the only MAC loss was by marshall. i can't wait until the c-usa tailspin takes down marshall.

I don't think the c-doa tailspin will take down marshall; I think it's more accurate to say that marshall will be a contributor to the c-doa tailspin.

FalconKing · Post by **FalconKing** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 1:03 pm

jacojdm wrote:it's interesting to note that the only MAC loss was by marshall. i can't wait until the c-usa tailspin takes down marshall.

Yeah, Central Florida certainly didn't count for anything.

duckunder53 · Post by **duckunder53** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 3:54 pm

I'm sure they'll be losing some of their bowl bids in favor of other conferences. Then it will make Marshall look real stupid for going there.

1987alum · Post by **1987alum** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 3:58 pm

duckunder53 wrote:I'm sure they'll be losing some of their bowl bids in favor of other conferences. Then it will make Marshall look real stupid for going there.

Sure? How sure?

Although it seems obvious to those of us inside the MAC that our conference is superior and we should have more bowl bids, the tally remains C-DOA 5, MAC 2.

duckunder53 · Post by **duckunder53** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 4:04 pm

1987alum wrote:Sure? How sure?

Although it seems obvious to those of us inside the MAC that our conference is superior and we should have more bowl bids, the tally remains C-DOA 5, MAC 2.

You're right, it's an opinion. But I would bet that they lose one or two of those bowl bids, at least.

TG1996 · Post by **TG1996** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 4:04 pm

1987alum wrote: Sure? How sure?

Although it seems obvious to those of us inside the MAC that our conference is superior and we should have more bowl bids, the tally remains C-DOA 5, MAC 2.

These two conferences are completely different from when those bowl agreements were made. While Convict-USA might still end up with more bowl bids than the MAC in the future, I wouldn't expect it to be a much better difference than 4-3.

One thing CUSA has going for it is that it's so spread out that more bowl games are likely to see it as being in their backyard.

Jacobs4Heisman · Post by **Jacobs4Heisman** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 4:10 pm

duckunder53 wrote:I'm sure they'll be losing some of their bowl bids in favor of other conferences. Then it will make Marshall look real stupid for going there.

It doesn't really take a whole lot to make Marshall look stupid.

1987alum · Post by **1987alum** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 4:12 pm

TG:

I'm just playing devil's advocate.

However, the fact is, the bowls have known for some time what the current make up of the conference would be, yet C-DOA retains five bowl tie ins. Despite all of the MAC's claims that it has a better product, etc., there are still only two bowl tie ins for the MAC and hopes for a better Big TenEleven tie in to the MCB not only didn't materialize, it appears the conference may bail on the game completely.

TG1996 · Post by **TG1996** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 4:16 pm

1987alum wrote:TG:

I'm just playing devil's advocate.

well stop that!

does anyone have any documentation about when the bowl contracts were signed and how long the affiliations run through? Or isn't it done like that?

DevilGrad · Post by **DevilGrad** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 6:30 pm

CUSA has five bowl bids . . . in the short run.

The Fort Worth Bowl recently lost its title sponsor, which has not yet been replaced, and I've seen several national college football writers suggest that game is not long for this world. IIRC, the sponsor used the word "disaster" to describe the December 2004 edition of that game. Even if it stays alive, it's basically TCU's game and seems likely to migrate that bid west.

The Liberty Bowl has been the subject of several media stories this week and intense speculation on the CUSA board (if you can stand to read it) that the bowl committee wants to re-open both ends of its affiliation for negotiations, apparently with some preference for a matchup between two BCS teams. I think CUSA is tied in there for this year but hasn't secured an extension yet.

If you were asking me as a cold-hearted tax type, I'd tell you that the bowl market is over-supplied and that we're likely to see a net of two or three fewer games five years from now. Following that shake-out, the MAC is still likely to have two ties, but I'd expect CUSA's net number to drop.

MiamiBando · Post by **MiamiBando** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 7:31 pm

Those number's on the MAC vs. CUSA can't be right. Miami plays UC every year in the Battle for the Victory Bell. EVERY YEAR for the last like 115 or so years.

TG1996 · Post by **TG1996** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 7:41 pm

MiamiBando wrote:Those number's on the MAC vs. CUSA can't be right. Miami plays UC every year in the Battle for the Victory Bell. EVERY YEAR for the last like 115 or so years.

Go back and read it again. Slowly and with pictures, if you need to.... it says "IN BOWL GAMES".